Welcome to Motorhomefacts, we are a thriving motorhome community (Largest in Europe). Why Not JOIN NOW and get instant access to more of the website. It costs nothing to join and only takes a few minutes. We have 200,000 different people visiting our site monthly and this amount of motorhomers in one place guarantees a fast response to any questions you may have. We also have unique facilities not found elsewhere such as our Online Logbook, stopover tracker, Motorhome directory with Ebay type feedback and the largest repository of motorhome campsites reviews found anywhere
Okay, I processed my raw image twice. Firstly for the bright sky, and secondly for the darker section of sky. I therefore had two exposures of the same scene. I blended said exposures, and then cropped the image to suit.
After processing:
This is quite a lot of processing, but when you consider what the CAMERA does to a JPEG, its is less than you think. I will post another shortly. Total edit time, 6 min.
You can process JPEG files using a RAW processor. This was done in Lightroom on the first image (original) - 45seconds. A little more time could refine it even more.
You can process JPEG files using a RAW processor. This was done in Lightroom on the first image (original) - 45seconds. A little more time could refine it even more.
Colin
Thats a close match, granted, however - there are many areas a raw processer will do Diddly Squat with a JPEG, recovering blown areas for example.
This is a much more extreme edit, and whilst I am happy with the final image, its not a photo any more, it definately crosses the line into "digital art", the art part being subjective
Before any editing, raw:
And after tweaking into several exposures, blending, and hammering the contrast - before finally, cropping in. Photo taken as an example only.
Totally blown highlights can't even be pulled back in RAW but its suprising how much highlight detail that appears to be blown in a JPEG can still be recovered. Not as much granted but some.
Sorry to be a bit late getting back to this thread but I have been playing with Lightroom 2.1 free trial.
I don't really get the point of having say Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom. From my point of view, Photoshop seems to be the more user friendly. Of the 2, I prefer Photoshop.
Am I missing the point of Lightroom?
Thanks for the before and afters Garry, I can get close but obviously I need to watch more tutorials
Well it depends on what you want to do. There is an overlap but essentially Lightroom is a Pixel Processor while Photoshop CS is essentially a Pixel Editor.
The overlap comes about in the ACR module of Photoshop which allows you to process RAW images.
In my opinion the Digital Asset Management and RAW processing power of Lightroom is better than PS. For instance the ability to have presets that can apply develop settings and metadata to images at the time of import; the ability to apply the same processing adjustments to all or a selection of images; the ability to filter on a wide variety of items for image retrieval; export presets and many more.
However, if you want to get really creative you need PS.
Since my main interest is in Photography I can manage 99% of the time with just Lightroom. For those occassions when I need a little creativity I'll send and image to PS.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Page 3 of 3Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
France
