Forum Replies Created
October 10, 2012 at 6:35 am #1263
I’ve been meaning to put an example of what we might have in mind. How about this…
Bill Brandt: Coal Searcher Returning Home, Jarrow, 1936-1937October 8, 2012 at 9:44 pm #1242
Here’s the Microsoft lifecycle support page. See ‘End Of Support’ about half way down the page:October 8, 2012 at 4:00 pm #1237
Haven’t Microsoft stopped supporting XP with security updates, etc? If so, it’s probably not really wise to carry on using it. Time to upgrade? Or get a Mac? 😉October 7, 2012 at 10:19 pm #1219
Peter >>> Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I’m very happy you found that the image worked in the way I’d hoped it would. I put a lot of work into getting the effects you describe so well, so it’s good to get confirmation that the effort was worth it!
Ken >>> Thanks very much. But if you start wanting me to print stuff at 20 x 16, you’re going to have to lend me your Hasselblad!October 7, 2012 at 11:32 am #1208
Sounds like Crewe Photo Soc may soon have a thriving ‘Analogue’ section! 🙂October 7, 2012 at 10:54 am #1207
Thanks for your suggestions, Meg. BTW, did you mean the Open Eye Gallery in Liverpool???
‘Fraid I can’t say I was very wow-ed by Ducan Caratacus Clark, sorry. (A bit unrelentingly low contrast for my taste in BW, I fear.) Art Review looked interesting, but I couldn’t work out how to view articles; it seemed you have to subscribe and take the magazine, but I may have misunderstood how the site works.
Galerie W seemed mostly to be about art other than photography, as you said. A search on the site showed up work mainly limited to two photographers: Jérôme Pigeon and Georges Poncet (who seems to specialise in sfumato images on aluminium – seriously soft focus! Right up your street?! 😉 )
The RGI gallery looks like it’ll be useful for my Art History course, but maybe less so in my search for photography blogs.
Thanks for your time and trouble, though. As I say, your suggestions may help with my other art interests!October 7, 2012 at 10:05 am #1206
Ken >>> Would if I could, but sadly not allowed! But perhaps the chairman will read your post here and count you among the ‘Ayes’!October 6, 2012 at 10:43 pm #1198
I think that Costco have a cheap-ish service for development and scanning, too.October 6, 2012 at 5:51 pm #1193
Meg >>> Would you remind me again who the Dane Bank tutor is that runs the lighting course?October 5, 2012 at 4:52 pm #1175
No problem, Wallace. Let’s arrange it next Thursday.October 5, 2012 at 4:20 pm #1173
I’ve used Lightroom for a couple of years now. I also have CS5, which I hardly use for basic processing any more.
Lightroom is designed for photographers. It provides a complete workflow, starting with importing, cataloguing, tagging and organising image files in ways that you can tailor to how you work. It then provides a Library of your images that you can arrange, label, rate, sort and view as you require for particular purposes.
Most importantly for me, it has powerful tools for ‘developing’ RAW files that comprise a ‘digital darkroom’ with all the specific facilities that a photographer would recognise and need. The tools in this part of the program are arranged intuitively and naturally for a photographer, and give direct control over colour temperature, exposure, tonality, contrast, sharpness and more, by means of simple scales with sliders and other equally intuitive means of adjustment. There are facilities for applying every sort of correction and adjustment very simply to specific parts of the image (for example, by ‘painting’ them on), as well as making adjustments globally. It is the power and sophistication of this digital darkroom that has resulted in my not needing to use CS5 for image development at all.
Lightroom also provides powerful facilities for ‘outputting’ images in various ways: printing them; creating slide shows; creating web output; etc.
Photoshop, on the other hand, is fundamentally a compositing program with extensive and powerful facilities for graphic artists, many of which a photographer rarely needs. I now only use it when I need its ‘Spot Healing Brush Tool’ to remove complex elements like telegraph poles and wires, which Lightroom’s simpler Clone / Heal brush is not so good for. I rarely if ever do any compositing; but if you like to do things like replacing the sky in a landscape photograph, then you’ll still need CS5 – Lightroom does not use a Layering system, which is essentially for that sort of compositing.
Adobe has just updated the Ver 4 software, so we’re now on Lightroom 4.2, which has a range of ‘behind the scenes’ refinements that make it faster, smoother and more efficient. It’s a joy to use.
I’m very happy for you to come and have a look at what it can do, if you want a demo and a play. Or you can download a 30 day free trial from Adobe here:October 5, 2012 at 1:08 pm #1164
I don’t do competition prints, but I did mount prints (up to 18″ x 12″) on A1 mount board for college, using 3M SprayMount, which is re-positionable, as Meg says, rather than PhotoMount, which isn’t. And I used it all the time for mounting prints in work portfolios. It’s great if you need to adjust things, and it mounts stuff flat and without ripples or surface marks. (Graphic artists and designers use it routinely for doing layouts.)
I’ve no idea what experienced club members think of it for mounting images, though! (I bet they use bits of masking tape, as Meg does.)October 3, 2012 at 11:08 pm #1142
Ah, yes! I can do that! The cross is behind the white ‘tower’. Great stuff, Ken!October 3, 2012 at 11:02 pm #1141
Ken >>> Thanks for your kind words. If you want to make ripples now, you’ll need to do it in Photoshop, I fear! 😉
Med >>> Thank you. And thanks for confirming the view that the mark will have to go! (Perhaps we should have a day out to Top Withens to see if we can better Bill Brandt and Fay Godwin?!)October 3, 2012 at 7:36 pm #1128
Yes, I see what you mean about the dark spot below the reflected chimney. I think it’s actually one of those peculiar effects you get in water reflections where a barely-discernible ripple causes a reflection – here of a dark bit of chimney – that’s separated from the main body of the object. But since it’s puzzling enough to be too attention-getting, I think you’re right about cloning it out.
Not sure I entirely approve of interfering with the scene to make ripples! 😉 What attracted me was the uncanny stillness of the mill pond, which evoked the atmosphere on this very still afternoon beautifully.
I should add that I had to do a bit of work on developing the out-of-camera RAW file to retrieve what detail you see here in the clouds and the reflected sky. (I also warmed up the colour a bit, from a rather drab and washed-out original.)
Thanks for your helpful (and flattering!) comments and suggestions.