Moose wrote:
> I guess my intuition isn't the same as yours. I've struggled a
> bit with it.
This is a huge problem I see with the program. It's crazy in
today's world of well-defined software interfaces to create a
program that is so non-standard in the layout and control panels
as to require VIDEOS so people can figure it out! As a former
software developer, things like this drive me nuts.
> I think that's the point. For someone working with consistent
> subject matter, and especially studio work, like the examples
> they provide, it looks wonderful. For someone like me, who
> comes in with a mishmash of subjects, lighting, etc., it is
> less perfect.
Let me describe my workflow with RawShooter. Maybe this might
make some sense. I open the directory up and identify a "key
picture" of each setting and manipulate the WB, basic contrast,
color and any exposure compensation for those specific photos.
Then I copy those same settings to all of the like photos.
Within just a few minutes I've got the entire shoot consistant.
In the case of bracket shots, I'll adjust those seperately to
match my "key photos". Now I'll pop it into slide-show mode and
do a quick passthrough to identify the different grades of
photos. Eye blinks, poor focus and other unfixable errors
immediately result in a poor grade or even the delete bin, but I
tend to not delete things on the fly like that because sometimes
I may utilize an outtake for rescue purposes.
It this point I turn the sort-filter to show only my A-grade
photos. Again, I identify my "key pictures" and very carefully
adjust the photos to get them as close to final (if not final)
as possible. Then I match the surrounding images to the key
pictures so I'm not chasing my tail on each photo.
If this is a portrait, event or wedding project, I'll output to
medium-quality JPEGs for uploading over the internet for the
printing of the proofs. Once the client has selected images for
reprint I select those specific images in RawShooter and output
them to TIFF files, open them up in Photoshop or Gimp for
editing (zit removal, etc), same them as a high-quality JPEG and
upload them to the lab.
I'm not sure yet how much of an advantage or change in workflow
Lightroom will give me over this methodology. But like you, my
personal work is usually a hodgepodge of images in which no two
have much in common with each other. Even for those Rawshooter
has been a massive time saver because I can adjust so much and
get the images so close before converting.
For the wedding, event and portrait photographer--even the
studio photographer, Lightroom is going to be HUGE.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|