robert goldstein

<p>Ever since I installed Snow Leopard on my MacPro Dual, CS3 has been doing weird things that I would describe as a "semi-stall." For instance, if I make a duplicate of a multi-layered image, the new image cannot be flattened, i.e. the "Flatten Image" command is grayed-out. Also, I cannot quit Photoshop without force quitting, which I have to do frequently in order to re-start it, so that it will work properly until the next semi-stall.</p>

<p>Has anyone else encountered similar problems with CS3 and Snow Leopard? Are there any simple solutions? I am reluctant to upgrade to CS4 at this time with CS5 just around the corner, because I am leery of Adobe charging me for two upgrades.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Rob</p>

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>Your method worked. Thanks.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>I recently upgraded my Mac OS to Snow Leopard, and this seems to have caused Bridge to default the opening of images to Preview, which is not what I want. I'm referring to TIFFS, not RAW. I have gone through the preferences, but I have been unable to find how I can set Photoshop (CS3) as the default program for opening images.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>With the previous version of the iMac, the monitors were so bright that some calibrating software could not dim them enough to be used for serious photographic purposes (e.g 100 cd/m2.) One program that could was ColorEyes. I don't know if this situation pertains to the latest iMacs or to newer calibrators, but I would check it out.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>I have a Minolta 5400 scanner. It is one of the best ever produced in its class. However, I have not used it even once since I got my first digital camera, and I have doubts that the driver would work on my current computer (Mac OS 10.6) If I ever have the need to scan film, I may have to purchase a new scanner just to get a usable driver.</p>

<p>So, before you make such a purchase, be certain that the software will run on your computer.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>Capture One 5 Pro vs. Lightroom 3 Beta update:</p>

<p>For those who may be interested, I have continued to work towards honing my skills in both programs. For some weird reason, I enjoy doing things like that. C1-5 Pro still consistently produces better results in my hands. Images have a greater sense of depth and presence. The Clarity tool is an absolute revelation, once you learn how to apply the right strength for any given image.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Use Capture One to convert your RAW files into TIFs and then process in Lightroom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure what is meant by this. I would recommend making all adjustments in C1-5 and then outputting as TIFF or DNG to be imported to LR for cataloging. C1-5 Pro has some great tools, as well as superior sharpening c/w LR 3 Beta. The Clarity tool, in particular, is much better than LR's, almost in a different universe altogether. LR does have the advantage of local editing, but that can be done just as easily in Photoshop, as long as you are working with TIFFS.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>DxO's great strengths are its specific camera/lens correction modules, geometry correction tools, and excellent noise reduction all done in RAW. Its workflow is based upon Presets that allow one to edit multiple images quickly. Its weaknesses are a quirky user interface and, for some users, unsatisfactory color handling. It lacks serious file management capabilities.</p>

<p>I do not believe that DxO can serve as a complete substitute for Photoshop, especially when it comes to localized, pixel level editing. RAW conversion programs are adding features all the time, but not one of them can fully replace PS, IMO.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photoshop is the favorite of most non-technical, creative types because it does what you need it to do. Start simple - turn on, turn off, don't forget to breath.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Edward,</p>

<p>If Photoshop is the favorite of non-technical types, what, pray tell, do techies prefer?</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>Patrick,</p>

<p>I agree that Lightroom's user interface is more straightforward and intuitive. It also performs operations, such as loading sessions/folders, more quickly. But once one has figured out C1-5's organization, the actual adjusting of the image is extremely simple, and, at least for me, it gives consistently better results with less effort. So, I see it as one of life's many trade-offs. </p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>Patrick and Jeff,</p>

<p>I am an amateur enthusiast with above average artistic and technical skills. (Please don't judge my work by the samples that I have posted in this thread.) I have been published in well-known photo journals and have won several competitions. I have routinely used Lightroom since early v.1 as well as DxO and Photoshop with a variety of plug-ins. But I am not a world class expert in digital editing. How many photographers, even serious ones, are?</p>

<p>I tell you this just so that you will understand that I am not some snapshooter who stumbled into this forum by accident. Yet if a person with my skills cannot readily get excellent detail and rendering from a one piece of software but can from another, which is the better program? If it takes the knowledge and experience of a professional re-toucher to equal or surpass with the first program what a reasonably competent person such as myself can produce with the second, then I would say that the second program is the one that will yield the best IQ for the vast majority of users. In Patrick's or Jeff's hands, LR may be as good as C1-5, but I do not think that would be the case for all but a few who read this forum.</p>

<p>Believe me, I have learned a great deal from this thread, especially about my own weaknesses with LR. But the more I use C1-5 Pro, the more I like it and am convinced that it will give me better results than LR (and with much less effort.) What I will miss, however, is LR's local editing. I do plan on upgrading to LR 3 when it becomes available, and I am sure that I will use it occasionally. Who knows, in its final release form, I might even prefer it. C1-5 still has some bugs that need fixing, but I expect that Phase One will be on the case.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>My advice is to try the Pro version. Amongst other things, it has the Clarity tool, which I find so wonderful. (At least I think it is not in the Standard version, but I may be wrong.) The organization and workflow are quite different, so be prepared for a fairly steep learning curve.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Robert, what camera are you using? That's a very important fact when comparing RAW converters. So far I've found that the camera manufacturer's software is superior, at least with CCD Nikons. Mileage probably varies depending on the camera brand.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alex,</p>

<p>These photos were shot with a Pentax K10D. I despise the Pentax software, which was designed by SilkyPix. Some people swear by SilkyPix, but I am not one of them.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Quick question: Was Lightroom's output sharpening used in any of these examples? Sharpening in LR2 is a multi-step process. Is it the same in LR3? Thanks!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>Yes, Sharpening and Clarity were applied in LR. I did it as a single step, meaning that I did not apply sharpening to the re-sized final output image, but the same was true of the Capture One version. All images were exported to Photoshop and from there to the Web. I have never been pleased with the sharpening in LR 2.5 and rarely use it. LR 3 Beta may do a better job, but I was not testing for this. I prefer Nik Sharpener Pro's RAW pre-sharpener. C1-5's sharpening, however, is <em><strong>very</strong> </em> good--really crisp with minimal artifacts.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>I owe you an apology. After working some more on the photo of the potter, I was able to bring out detail in the beard by cranking up Fill Light. This, of course, changed overall contrast and brightness, so I went ahead an re-edited the image both in LR and C1. Here are the results. It's hard to tell in these smallish JPEGS, but IMO, the C1 version is definitely more natural and three dimensional. The curvature of the man's body and the sense of space behind him seem more realistic.</p>

<p>Rob</p><div></div>