marc_rochkind

<p>Charles Webster has it right. Most people get media and data mixed up.</p>

<p>If you use Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw, there really isn't any increased time to work with raw files, as the processing engine's controls are the same for both raw and JPEG. In fact, since there's so much more data to work with when you have raw, you might actually save time.</p>

<p>I think Chris is right -- I've read that the automatic, mandatory corrections are for m4/3 only.</p>

<p>Barry: I tried really hard to be precise in my post, but, despite my efforts, I have failed to be clear. I tried to distinguish between two categories of corrections: (1) non-user-controllable ones done during raw processing based on lens info embedded in the raw file, and (2) corrections from the lens profile and other slider settings, switchable via the Enable Profile Corrections checkbox.</p> <p>(It's very well known, and frequently mentioned in reviews, that corrections in the first category are often done in-camera for JPEGs.)</p> <p>My #3 was about whether these two are distinct, and isn't based on any assumptions about how secret the first category of corrections are.</p>

<p>My understanding, not from any Adobe documentation, but from reading various items on the web, is that all m4/3 lenses supply to the camera information that is embedded in raw files that Lightroom uses to effect corrections for distortion, vignetting, and chromatic aberration (or a subset of those), and that this occurs automatically, behind-the-scenes, is mandatory, and is not controllable by the LR user. (I don't care about JPEGs.)</p> <p>Question #1: Is this true? (If it matters, I'm asking about Lightroom Version 5.7.)</p> <p>#2: If true, is it also true that whether anything is actually done and what it is (e.g., chromatic aberration correction) is a trade secret, and neither Adobe nor the lens manufacturer will tell us what's going on? (The theory is that lens manufacturers don't want us to ever think that their lenses are less than perfect.)</p> <p>To continue: I'm guessing that the purpose of the "Enable Profile Corrections" checkbox has nothing whatsoever to do with the above, but rather controls whether corrections made by a loaded profile and/or the various sliders in the Lens Corrections area are enabled.</p> <p>#3: Is that true?</p> <p>#4: If so, then is it true that anything effected via the Enable Lens Corrections checkbox is IN ADDITION to the secret corrections made automatically for m4/3 lenses?</p> <p>Whoever answers authoritatively, I promise not reveal that you know any of these trade secrets. ;-)</p>

<p>There is a non-free upload plugin for Adorama last time I looked. However, I didn't want to pay the money so did it very efficiently using Robin's method.</p>

<p>Interesting that there have been no responses in a month, so perhaps the answer is "no?"</p> <p>For processing raw images (LR's Develop), I'm sure Mylio is no replacement. However, Mylio's ability to sync between platforms is a great advantage for those who shoot with multiple cameras (phone to D4 and everything in-between) and use lots of devices. It's ability to include Facebook and Flickr in the mix right out of the box is great, too.</p> <p>So, while Mylio maybe isn't right for pros and very serious amateurs (nor was it intended to be), I think it's a huge advance over what's out there for the majority of photographers. One thing I've thought aobut is how future generations will have no photos of their childhood to look at, because they're all on Facebook, and when Mommy's or Daddy's account goes away, so do those photos. Mylio seamlessly fixes this.</p> <p>So, the Mylio folks deserve praise and encouragement.</p> <p>As many reviewers have observed, the price will be an obstacle. I pay $120/year for LR + PS, and Mylio would cost $100. (The free account only holds 1000 images.)</p>

<p>From the advice here, it seems that your question was interpreted as one about your reproducing some of the scenes that anyone can find (hundreds of times over) on Flickr and other photo sites.</p> <p>Was that indeed what you meant?</p> <p>Aside from "photo ops", I have no idea what kind of photos you're trying for. There are mountain scenes, out-of-the-way mountain towns, wildlife, shopping malls, and most everything else except urban decay. (Not much of that even in Denver.)</p> <p>So, no useful advice is possible, except this: Hit the highlights if you want cliches, and get off the beaten track if you want to try for something out of the ordinary.</p> <p>(I've lived in Colorado for 30+ years.)</p>

<p>I would take the opportunity to get away from apps that run only on one platform, and apps that are captive of a computer company with an agenda other than to provide first class graphics tools. That eliminates Apple. While I'm not a Capture One user, from what I know of it, it is a raw-processing app, not a comprehensive photo app like Aperture and Lightroom. Therefore, it isn't an Aperture replacement.</p> <p>In other words, your answer is Lightroom.</p>

<p>I can very highly recommend the videos produced by The Luminous Landscape. Informative, practical, and fun to watch. Both Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe are photographers. Guest appearances by members of Adobe's Lightroom developer team.</p>

<p>Adobe provides a list of what it imports and what it doesn't but, amazingly, they say nothing that I saw about the image itself. It does import full-size previews, which I assume are JPEG quality. It presumably imports the original raw. It doesn't import any adjustments.</p> <p>But, does it import the image AFTER adjustments? Not as a JPEG, but as something lossless, such as a TIFF.</p> <p>Looking at the page linked to, my guess it that it does not. So, none of the image work done in Aperture is retained other than as a JPEG. To retain this work, it seems that you have to export a TIFF out of Aperture from within Aperture, and then import that into LR. Probably then no way to associate it with what was imported by the plugin.</p> <p>Can anyone confirm or correct any of the above?</p>

<p>Wins the prize for the worst photo.net subject line ever.</p>

<p>I wouldn't use RAID for backup. Instead, I would take the money and use part of it for a non-RAID drive, and the rest for additional non-RAID clones of your main disk, using SuperDuper! or Carbon Copy or some such utility. The purpose of RAID is to allow very speedy recovery from the failure of a drive. It provides no redundancy for the drive electronics, power supply, or other shared components, nor does it protect from user error, electrical surges, flood, fire, theft, or other hazards. Spending all that money for protection from one of the less common failure modes is inefficient.</p>

<p>The purpose of the printer's profile is so that an app can show you a so-called "soft proof" on your monitor of what the print will look like printed, so you can make appropriate adjustments prior to sending the file off to be printed. (Make sure you indicate to the printing service that the print is to be made with no color correction, as you've already done it.)</p> <p>Calibrating the display and having a profile for it allows the app to control the rendering on the display. Without calibrating it, the app is sending RGB numbers to the display, but those numbers don't correlate with anything. (E.g., 50% of full red, but what is full red?)</p> <p>Serious photo apps, such as Photoshop and Lightroom provide for soft proofing. Most amateur-level apps don't. Without soft proofing, there is no reason to have the printer profile. (The printing service needs it, but there's nothing you can do with it.)</p> <p>If you don't make use of the printer profile, it's still important to calibrate your monitor, as you'll then most likely be working in the sRGB color space. If the printing service handles that correctly, it's definitely better than nothing, as you still have a (suboptimal) color-managed workflow.</p>

<p>Regarding 4x4: It's not the traction of 4-wheel-drive you need, but the ground clearance. The two might be paired, of course. Last time we were in some sort of small SUV (a Suzuki or something like that) that I think was 2WD, but it had high ground clearance.</p> <p>However, on a vacation, you should prioritize enjoyment, so go ahead with 4x4, to have one less thing to worry about. Also, to make it even more worry-free, we paid for full-blown damage insurance.</p>

<p>Been there twice, last time just a few years ago. The roads are generally paved, but with lots of potholes and rough spots, and usually no shoulders. Washouts and resulting long delays are common, so carry water and snacks, as you may be delayed for hours. Very detailed maps are useful, as you'll probably have to navigate your own detours. I bought a map for my Garmin GPS at the time, but it wasn't accurate. Perhaps now Google maps is more accurate, but I don't know about cell-phone coverage. Maybe rent a GPS with your car.</p> <p>We were warned not to try to drive from the airport to the Pacific coast at night (unsafe), but we did it anyway because a washout caused a long delay. At no point did I feel unsafe--it was well populated, and the towns looked liked they were pretty nice. Make what you wish of that warning.</p> <p>Had a great time at Rincón de la Vieja Volcano National Park, but the trail is very hard to follow and at one point involved fording a river, which we didn't believe until we'd exhausted all other possibilities. Fortunately, we met a high-school student hiking with his nephews, and he served as our ad hoc guide (we tipped him $20 or so).</p> <p>If you go to the Caribbean side, it's much more primitive, and perhaps dangerous, than the central and Pacific areas.</p> <p>You'll have a great adventure!</p>

<p>What I would do as soon as I got a dry photo or negative is scan it, and then add the metadata to the digital file. Make sure these are backed up both locally and in the cloud. Then, if you want prints, make them from the digital file. (Actually, this is want I have done with my own precious family photos.)<br> The scanner you want is an Epson V700, or whatever the latest model that corresponds to that is.</p>

<p>Not disappointed, as I don't expect much in the way of smart marketing from Nikon. I'm a follower of Thom Hogan.</p>

<p>When weird stuff happens to one of my (software) customers, I always ask, "What changed?" In your case, an answer might be "I deleted iPhoto." So, if you have a backup, maybe you can get iPhoto back, or maybe it's still in the Trash, or maybe you can reinstall it.</p>

<p>Try creating a new DNG from a raw with DNG Converter running on the Mac, and see if you can see its thumbnail. If you copied the files from Windows, it's possible that some bit got flipped the wrong way. Also, check the permissions on the files and make sure you can read them.</p>

<p>@Edward: I've been thinking of a movie, instead of scrolling the large JPEG. Did you use some app to convert the pano to a movie? I think once I had a slideshow app that could do a "Ken Burns" effect like that... maybe that would work.</p>

<p>@steve: The scrolling speed and smoothness are determined by two parameters: number of pixels to scroll at a time, and how often to scroll. I played around to come up with something that would be smooth, as the panning easily overloads even a fast computer. With a very fast computer (faster than my 2009 iMac), it would be possible to adjust the speed. As is, I was happy to come up with something that works. On my Samsung Chromebook, scrolling is too slow. My Raspberry Pi was much too slow. That's with a big screen. On my iPhone or Google tablet, scrolling is very fast, even though those processors are relatively slow, because so many fewer pixels have to be moved.</p> <p>360-degree continuous scrolling isn't possible with pure HTML and JavaScript. For that, you need lower-level programming.</p>

<p>From time-to-time I take panos, and judging by what photographers were doing in some national (US) parks I visited recently, other photographers were using the built-in pano feature of their cameras quite a bit. (I think I have such a feature, but I always take discrete shots and then stitch them in Photoshop.)</p> <p>But, what do I do with the panos? The best thing is to print them very large and hang them on the wall. I'd love to have some 3- or 4-foot-wide panos like that, but (1) I don't have the wall space, and (2) that's too expensive for each pano that I'd like to view.</p> <p>My guess is that most photographers don't do anything special to view panos, resulting in a display like the photo shown here, taken on a recent trip to Colorado National Monument. Very unsatisfactory to me.</p> <p>Anyway, I've experimentally come up with another approach, which you can take a look at here:</p> <p>http://basepath.com/pano/</p> <p>This attempt scrolls automatically. I have another variation that allows the user to scroll with mouse or a finger (on a tablet or phone), but I like the automatic one better.</p> <p>I'd love some comments, both on how you prefer to show your panos, and on what you think of my experimental approach. (You can have the source for free. To get it, just display the source for the page in your browser.)</p><div></div>

<p>Not sure fired is what happened. My understanding is that Lange started hanging out with some guy in California named Adams, and started taking his advice to think of her photos as works of art, rather than government property. Thus, she and Stryker went their separate ways.</p> <p>I do agree that the FSA photographers certainly did their work with a level of integrity worthy of any good photojournalist.</p>

<p>Calling the FSA photography program under Roy Stryker (later moved to the Office of War Information) "photojournalism" is somewhat of a stretch. Its purpose was propaganda for the New Deal. Of course, the photography was first class.</p>