martin-s

<p>Is there a universal timer remote that can be used with Canon AND Nikon cameras?</p>

<p>You use what gives you the better default rendering. I switch between profiles depending on subject. Adobe Standard is usually less punchy than Camera Standard, which can make it a better choice. I prefer Camera Neutral over Camera Standard for the same reason.</p>

<p>One thing though I have noticed on our workshops is that it also depends on the camera: Adobe Standard for Nikon generally appears too contrasty, Camera Neutral often reveals much more shadow detail.</p>

<p>Adobe Standard is also slightly more reddish and often leads to muted greens. Therefore I use Camera Neutral for images with lots of greenery.</p>

<p>I have found the tools in LR – especially the brush – so versatile, that I can pretty much achieve everything I want. A few moths ago I demonstrated LR to a long-time NIK user and he immediately ordered LR.</p>

<p>For the reason Andrew mentioned, I don't consider these misleadingly labelled 'plugins' a worthwhile option.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Is there a way to change the Lightroom default settings so the two images would match before I start post-processing?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Start with an image that had no adjustments applied yet. Then carefully tweak its appearance using few sliders in the basic panel, such as contrast, vibrance, saturation until you're pleased. (I would leave exposure, highlights and whites alone, because they should only be applied to images individually.)</p>

<p>Then scroll to the bottom, hold down the ALT key and press the button that now reads "Set as default…" – from now on all newly imported images will use these altered defaults. You can at any time return to the Adobe defaults.</p>

<p>What Mark said. LR's default rendering is not as punchy as most camera's standard setting hence the difference. In general the camera's default often looks 'better' because it's more contrasty and more saturated than LR's default.</p>

<p>If your images are taken in RAW format you might want to scroll down to the Calibration panel in the Develop module. There you can choose from various rendering presets. LR's default is Adobe Standard, but there are others that are designed to resemble your Canon camera's picture styles e.g. standard, neutral, landscape. Try some of those before making any adjustments to an image and see if you prefer any of those alternatives.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Going full-frame makes sense to me as I can use all my old film lenses via adapters. Sure these aren't going to be as nice as modern lenses, but I'm not interested in super laser sharp images."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're referring to old Canon FD lenses you need to be aware that all the FD/EOS adapters contain optical elements that will reduce the angle of view and degrade the image quality. I doubt you'll be happy with that.</p>

<p>Sebastian,<br>

just to be sure, I did exactly what you described, applied a develop preset at import and rendered 1:1 previews. However here the switch to the next image in Library 100% view is still instant, no delay.</p>

<p>This is what I would expect since a develop preset applied at the import stage should be taken into account when rendering 1:1 previews.</p>

<p>I'm on LR4.1, but I remember it to work that way in previous versions.</p>

 

<p>I don't render 1:1 previews at import because it takes much longer. I do my first sort with standard-sized previews fit-to-screen in the Library by rejecting - 'x' key - and then deleting the obvious misses.</p>

<p>Then I might select few images at a time where sharpness could be an issue and generate 1:1 previews. Once that's done, I can quickly flick trough them at 100% and mark the ones to keep.</p>

<p>I wouldn't get too hung up on the colour. I'd stay away from anything overly saturated but something with a slight hue as shown would be fine as long as you make sure the actual spot where you view prints has consistent, controlled lighting and no near coloured surfaces that could reflect light introducing a cast.</p>

<p>After all only few would enjoy working in a windowless dungeon with neutral grey walls ;)</p>

<p>I can't confirm this. When I render a number of 1:1 previews the switch is instant, no wait not even a delay. It's always worked that way here on several Macs.</p>

<p>Note that if you've made even the slightest change in Develop <strong>after</strong> rendering your previews, they will need to be re-rendered and that will take a few seconds. In my experience this is the most common cause for this complaint from users: they don't realise that the 1:1 previews "expire" the moment you make any adjustments.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"This is the point of my workflow that really slows me down since I have to wait several seconds for every photo to load which is a huge amount of time when dealing with 2000 photos."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't quite understand this. You say you let LR render 1:1 previews. In that case they should display <strong>instantly</strong>. If they don't, then I can only speculate, that for instance you might have made some global adjustments to the images, which would require the 1:1 previews to be rendered again from scratch.</p>

<p>LR will always create its own previews. What you want is an application that can be set to display the RAW images <strong>embedded</strong> JPEG preview instead of rendering its own. Photo Mechanic seems to do that.</p>

<p>Although like I said, once LR has finished doing its 1:1 previews they should display without any delay.</p>

<p>It's not a limitation. The native resolution of RAW files produced by your camera is just that. You edit at full size and export to any smaller size if needed <strong>afterwards</strong>.</p>

<p>Why does that bother you?</p>

<p>I don't know if this helps in your case. My problems with content aware fill were solved once I learned how to define the areas it should consider as sampling areas as a separate layer.<br>

See <a href="http://forums.adobe.com/message/4228655">this thread</a></p>

<p>Sea arch at low tide, Snæfellsnes, West Iceland.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"Also, a few years ago, it was revealed that Lightroom shouldn't be running at all if you are depending on Time Machine to back it up."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't say whether that issue has been addressed by now.</p>

<p>However using both LR's backup function <strong>and</strong> Time Machine you would always have a 'healthy' backup of LR's backed up catalogs since they're never open when TM runs.</p>

<p>In that case it isn't actually frozen and would eventually finish the job. I would strongly recommend against force-quitting. It might lead to incomplete or corrupt catalog backups, which defeats the purpose – just be patient for a little longer.</p>

<p>I have set LR to do a catalog backup once a day while everything is backed up by Time Machine over the network every hour.</p>

<p>I haven't encountered this problem, but I use LR permanently in fullscreen mode. That would avoid the issue quite easily.</p>

<p>Just press 'F' on your keyboar twice and the window- and menu bar will be hidden – the menu shows up on hover. This key command cycles through three window modes, so pressing it once more brings everything back.</p>

<p>Quit the application using Command + 'Q'.</p>

<p>I find myself using the main menu bar surprisingly little in LR. Most of what I need can be achieved in the palettes, via a keybord shortcut or the context menu.</p>

<p><img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3357725/photonet/lupina.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Lupina – taken on a midnight stroll, Snæfellsnes, Iceland</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I own a 7D so speed and focus I have and I'm looking to shoot raw ony landscapes and portraits."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd say the 5D II is a much better fit for your intended use. I can't see the point in acquiring a much bigger and heavier body with lower pixel count and inferior noise characteristic.</p>

<p>One thing to keep in mind is that any NAS has its own operating system (usually Linux) thus creating extra overhead. On the other hand an external disk is directly controlled by your computer and should therefore always be more responsive given a speedy interface.</p>

<p>As Peter said, export your images for web use in the sRGB colour space *including* the colour profile. That will give you the best cross-browser and cross-platform compatibility.<br /> IE8 is not colour managed. In Chrome you need to enable colour management up until v13, which is no good. Safari and Firefox have it enabled by default. These browsers will honour embedded colour profiles and render your images accordingly.</p>

<p>However thios s all purely academic since there is no way to ensure consistent display of images even with colour-managed browsers unless the users' screens are properly calibrated.</p>

<p>What Mike said. Also see <a href="http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-748aa.html">Adobe Photoshop – Memory and performance</a>:</p>

<p>The following guidelines can help you assign scratch disks:</p>

<ul>

<li>For best performance, scratch disks should be on a different drive than any large files you are editing.</li>

<li>Scratch disks should be on a different drive than the one your operating system uses for virtual memory.</li>

<li>RAID disks/disk arrays are good choices for dedicated scratch disk volumes.</li>

<li>Drives with scratch disks should be defragmented regularly.</li>

</ul>

<p>A separate scratch disk only makes sense when used as scratch space <strong>exclusively</strong>. Any other activity that accesses the disk will reduce its performance as scratch space.</p>

<p>Partitioning it doesn't help since it's still the same <strong>physical</strong> volume.</p>

<p>I don't have any experience with the consumer-grade EF 70-300mm, but we have the Tamron in Nikon mount and the superb Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 <strong>L</strong> lens. The Tamron is almost as good as the <strong>L</strong> lens. Build quality is significantly higher in the Canon L zoom, but as far as IQ goes, I don't think anyone could tell the images apart except in direct comparision at 100%.</p>

<p>I'd get the Tamron.</p>