Lightroom Classic 2023 To Replace Lightroom 6

Ltdave wrote in post #19515891
Masking sounds a lot like having to learn about layers.

Thank you

Masking with lightroom classic is stupidly simple. Just click on mask and it asks what you want to mask. It also ost always gets it right

kf095 wrote in post #19515867
My Leica M-E 220 came with free LR6. I still have this camera and no plans to add anything new for now. If I would, it is going to be a camera with DNG. Any new Leica camera comes with DNG files.

And even if not DNG, I bet Adobe Bridge is using exactly the same coding to deal with newer cameras new RAW files. And it is free.

One thing I'm going to be ashamed for asking ...

Why do I need to heavy process well exposed image with new functions?

I buy capable cameras and quality lenses. Why do I need to heavy process it?

My Canon 5D with 50L was so good, I switched to JPEG1 only, it was so good.

Are new camera so bad, they can't take decent SOOC picture?

If so, it sucks and paying subscription to get it fixed sucks even more. Sounds like wasting money for been hosed.

Maybe your are just cheap

Ltdave wrote in post #19515891
Masking sounds a lot like having to learn about layers.

Thank you

The word "mask" is a bit misused in LR. I think they are just harking back to darkroom days when it was necessary to make "silver masks" (images on film made by contact printing) to alter contrast, do color separations, and so on. In LR, dodging/burning and gradients are simple operations and are masking in name only. There are no layers in LR. Yet .

Archibald wrote in post #19515907
The word "mask" is a bit misused in LR. I think they are just harking back to darkroom days when it was necessary to make "silver masks" (images on film made by contact printing) to alter contrast, do color separations, and so on. In LR, dodging/burning and gradients are simple operations and are masking in name only. There are no layers in LR. Yet .

Yes more suited in PS where you create 4 layers. I lived in the world of colour separations. That pre press crew was always masking something. I just the name just carried over.

kf095 wrote in post #19515867
One thing I'm going to be ashamed for asking ...

Why do I need to heavy process well exposed image with new functions?

I buy capable cameras and quality lenses. Why do I need to heavy process it?

My Canon 5D with 50L was so good, I switched to JPEG1 only, it was so good.

Are new camera so bad, they can't take decent SOOC picture?

If so, it sucks and paying subscription to get it fixed sucks even more. Sounds like wasting money for been hosed.

Ah, the Kodachrome ideal. Set the camera right and Kodak will figure out the rest. And the results were amazing if you could pull it off. Practically, though, getting it exactly right in the camera seemed like more work than doing negatives and prints.

Fast forward to the digital age and I still count on doing post; shoot for it even. It feels like I have more control, more ownership. That's probably the biggest reason, that feeling. But I also have a healthy skepticism of software. Every processor has its own jpg algorithms, and they're very good, and you can tweak them in the camera settings to taste. But to me that feels constraining, trying to guess what the algorithm will think and shoot with that in mind. Kinda like Kodachrome. A jpg from a digital negative seems like less work.

drsilver wrote in post #19515935
Ah, the Kodachrome ideal. Set the camera right and Kodak will figure out the rest. And the results were amazing if you could pull it off. Practically, though, getting it exactly right in the camera seemed like more work than doing negatives and prints.

Fast forward to the digital age and I still count on doing post; shoot for it even. It feels like I have more control, more ownership. That's probably the biggest reason, that feeling. But I also have a healthy skepticism of software. Every processor has its own jpg algorithms, and they're very good, and you can tweak them in the camera settings to taste. But to me that feels constraining, trying to guess what the algorithm will think and shoot with that in mind. Kinda like Kodachrome. A jpg from a digital negative seems like less work.

It's about control and ownership but also dynamic range. In one shot camera sensors do not have the same dynamic range as our eyes. Our eyes are more like video cameras, continually adjusting to the scene. Excluding in camera or software that automatically adds to the file it will likely not have the same punch as what our eyes saw.

In the film days I read all of Ansel Adams books and applied the Zone System. It was supposed to produce the prefect print but he wound up spending half of his time dodging and burning under the enlarger. We went to see his show in Toronto about 10 years ago. I walked up to a very large poster sized print of Moonrise Over Hernandez and asked if they would take a check. They said it was priceless. If you look at the original negative it is no where near the final product.

The general public didn't know or realize that back in the day when you took your Kodak film in they colour corrected it, etc. Sometimes quite a bit because it happened to us. So it is a matter of perspective. If HDR or moderate processing is your thing then that is your art. I consider PP an important part of my hobby, which I enjoy doing.

I don't do sky replacements or use 3rd party B&W plugins/software. I still have a thing for doing my own. This took about 45 edits. It's a little faster than old darkroom

I have a confession to make and I hope it won't get me drummed out of the Corp of Real Photographers. I love cameras, I love clambering around with one in my hand looking for the right angle and focal length, but most of all by a long measure I love processing. Been that way since the day seventy years ago when I first saw the image appear on a sheet of paper in a tray of developer, but today, with modern Raw converters, I am madly in love with my computer.

It could be. I started with slides, it was nothing to edit. It was ORWO film and colors were great.

I even used Kodakchrome, after it was discontinued and liked it.
I also did ECN2 and c41 at home.
I liked Kodak and never FujiFilm.

Digital cameras are same. I like Canon, Leica, Olympus colors Don't like Sony, Nikon.

On webinar with senior newspaper photog he told us how he uses jpeg1 only and minimal edits.
I use raw files from cameras where raw size is reasonable. But I don't over process. I even frame it on the spot. Not to mention of understanding exposure on the spot.

So, if I take reality and not adding, removing anything and if I like camera, lens rendering ... I simply don't need to be paying subscription for something I don't need.

tzalman wrote in post #19515985
I have a confession to make and I hope it won't get me drummed out of the Corp of Real Photographers. I love cameras, I love clambering around with one in my hand looking for the right angle and focal length, but most of all by a long measure I love processing. Been that way since the day seventy years ago when I first saw the image appear on a sheet of paper in a tray of developer, but today, with modern Raw converters, I am madly in love with my computer.

I can relate.

kf095 wrote in post #19515991
It could be. I started with slides, it was nothing to edit. It was ORWO film and colors were great.

I even used Kodakchrome, after it was discontinued and liked it.
I also did ECN2 and c41 at home.
I liked Kodak and never FujiFilm.

Digital cameras are same. I like Canon, Leica, Olympus colors Don't like Sony, Nikon.

On webinar with senior newspaper photog he told us how he uses jpeg1 only and minimal edits.
I use raw files from cameras where raw size is reasonable. But I don't over process. I even frame it on the spot. Not to mention of understanding exposure on the spot.

So, if I take reality and not adding, removing anything and if I like camera, lens rendering ... I simply don't need to be paying subscription for something I don't need.

I've re-read this thread and I don't see anyone trying to force you or anyone else into upgrading to the Photo Plan. Apparently I and many others are being hosed because we don't know any better

ON1, DXO, C1pro and several other companies that are on an annual upgrade program. You don't have to upgrade every year but many do. I kind of enjoy early fall as people start to get excited and can hardly wait to see what the new features will. Not so much here but on other sites. Then there are 3rd party plugins like Topaz, PureRaw, ON1 NN, portrait dedicated, etc that are on annual maintenance plans and the thousands of presets for sale. Kind of curios about your opinion. Are are these people being hosed as well?

Seems like this started turning into another and subscription - anti subscription thread and these have been going on for 7 years now. I have no issues with someone disliking subscription and saying so. It's not for everyone and you should edit how your senior photog suggested. Nothing wrong with that. When you used the word hosed it felt like you hinted that the rest of us are not too bright to have signed up. Sorry that was how I interpreted it. My apologies if I errored on that one.

I love it. Upgrades all year around and it comes with a personal website that is integrated with Lightroom. The personal website was part of the financial decision to go with the plan. I was paying more per year for Zenfolio alone. Now with Adobe Denosie AI I'll be saving a few hundred a year on 3rd party NR apps.

As for using the latest software does not mean I don't know about exposure. When I shot film, particularly B&W I exposed for shadows and developed for highlights. Now I expose for highlight and process the shadows. Not always possible if the subject is a black bird. Sometimes you have to blow out the background. For stills and static wildlife I always try to frame for the final result. Much easier with the new eye detect these days. It's faster. BIF is impossible to frame, for me anyway.

When we were in Portugal this year I found a few more bird blinds. These birds are very hard to get close to. If you do they don't stick around for very long. I was set up for BIF over a pond and I heard it land to the right of me. It was deep shadow and I was in a hurry to get to get it so I cranked up the exposure and got a single shot before it bolted. I was lucky to get a decent exposure of the black area on the head. ISO 8000 so I used the new Adobe Denoise and did a PP.

Opinions may vary but this does not look over processed to me. There is the other side that would say if you couldn't get it out of the camera then it doesn't count. That is fine. For me this is years of honing my PP which is an integral part of my hobby. I like it as much as I going out to shoot.

Nice! I'm with you and Elie, as I started out with shooting Ilford black and white films, FP4 and HP5 when I was just starting secondary school. So 74/75. Also had to learn all the darkroom stuff. When I saw that fist print developing in the tray I was 100% hooked.

I went on to shoot Kodachrome, which I loved. Also shot a lot of E6 process film, and developed that at home too. Did some colour printing from slides too. Never really got into doing C41 stuff though. Was usually happy to just use that for casual stuff. All the serious photography was black and white or slide film.

All of which means that I've also considered the post processing as something that is necessary to the art. So why would I do anything different when shooting digitally?

Alan

digital paradise wrote in post #19515948
In the film days I read all of Ansel Adams books and applied the Zone System. It was supposed to produce the prefect print but he wound up spending half of his time dodging and burning under the enlarger.

Careful now. You're messing with one of my heroes. But I take your point.

After dabbling in the zone system I came away with 2 observations that became foundations of my craft. (1) There's no such thing as a perfect negative and, (2) a better negative is always better.

In practice, that meant understanding the light and making the best negative I could under the circumstances. Even when the best negative I could was awful, it gave me a chance in post. And when I made a great negative, I had a great chance in post.

Same with digital. A better raw file is always better, but there's no such thing as a perfect raw file out of the camera. Know that and figure out how to make the best one you can. At least one good enough to give you a chance in post.