joe_le

<p>I downloaded the trial LR version 3 but did not get the hang of it. I am so used to ARC and I have not been very efficecient at mass processing. May be somebody can point out a better way with LR. Here is the way I do it with ARC:<br>

1. I grab let says fifty RAW files of the same shooting to PS. In ARC, I do the "select all"<br>

2. Make adjustment for unsharp mask, noise treatments, recovery, saturation, etc... this affects all fifty files selected.<br>

3. I go to each of fifty files and make final adjustment for exposure mostly and then other noise treatments if need to (most of the time don't have to because of same shooting settings).<br>

4. When I am done, I do the "select all" again and then do "save all"; sit back and do something else until all saving is completed.<br>

Does this sounds like it can be improve in LR? please advise...<br>

Joe</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4599061704/photos/257140/yellow-cosmos?inalbum=brenham-wildflower-shoot"></a></p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Have you look at the Micro 4/3 cameras? These have sensors almost as large as your XT and approximately 6 times of that of the G11 in area. The Panasonic GF1 is around $1,000 and the Olympus E-PL1 is around $600. Both are built with interchangeable lens and I think with an adapter, you can use your existing Canon lenses. High ISO noise on both are far exceeding the Rebel XT and the GF1 allow you to shoot at ISO-6400. The beauty is you can put one of these in your jacket pocket (not shirt's pocket though!). I think this may be just right to rejuvenate your passion/interests simply because you can take the camera with you without being obstrusive or intimidating. These can take HD video as well...<br>

Joe</p>

<div></div>

<p >Pornography requires no interpretation. You may stare at the sky one day and discover that the cloud formation looks like figures you have seen in Playboy magazines. But this would not necessarily generate arousing thought or blood rushing reaction as an erotic scenes from a XXX movie or pages from Hustler magazine.</p>

<p >Joe</p>

<div></div>

<p>The cost comparison with the professional video cameras is irrelavent. It should be based on the quality that is acceptable to the corresponding industries, not based on one or the public opinion. I am very sure the Nikon D3000, Canon Rebel SXi or Olympus E-P1 are fine cameras for what it does; but neither one will go on a resume of, say a Sport Illustrate or Rolling Stone phototgrapher.</p>

<p>The E-P1 has a built in IS so there is no need for IS lens. The maximum 1080P movie times are 8 minutes for Olympus and 12 minutes for Panasonic. I would not clasified this as professional video category.</p>

<p>Jordan,<br>

Have you download RAW converter for you specific camera from Adobe web site? I have the feeling that you don't have the latest and Adobe updates RAW converter almost every other months.</p>

<p>I skimmed through the thread but have not seen any mention about the still image capture feature on camcorder. So here is my ten cent. I never used my camcorder to take pictures because I knew it would be so crappy and unworthy. I think video in DSLR might be the same thing here; that is the video will probably will have some limitations and could never match the quality of HD camcorder. It does not bother me to have the video feature in DSLR though; as long as I don't pay extra for it and it does not short change the still picture portion. I had tried the Olympus E-P1 in local store and recorded small footages on my own SD memory card and was impressed with it; I now can shoot still pictures and then a short movie footage of something special, an UFO sighting for example, where any quality would be acceptable.</p>

<p>Black plastic or rubber are considered black bodies which absorb lights and often give just about any camera hard time to focus. Try this again with a wooden chair instead.</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>images that're too big to send by e-mail without producing a HUGE image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you considered using file splitter? There are many file splitter utilities to split Jpeg or mpeg files into manageable sizes for emailing and rejoin back together at the other end. I have done this for 30MB panoramas that I wanted to send to a friend who would like to view them in detail. Just do a Google search or go to Cnet.com; there are a bunch of utilities to split and join large files.<br>

Joe</p>

<p>Matt, John,<br>

Thanks for the comments. John, everything goes man! Don't hold back and I know your critiques will be helfull; and yes, the white-winged doves eyes are beautifully blue; and the mouring doves eyes are dull.<br>

Joe</p>

<p>John,<br />There you go brother! I have just uploaded a few for now. More to come...</p>

<p>Matt,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Really? You think that if an amateur photographer and a professional photographer each sit down and look at a third person's photograph and express their opinions about it, that they are not being, and cannot be truthful about it... because they're doing it at the same time? How about if they do it an hour apart from each other, or from a thousand kilometers away from each other?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I am an amatuer and if you ask my opion about Vincent Van Goat, the crazy Dutch's works, I would not give ten cents for the painting. I might buy the painting as an investment for profit and I would praise Van Goat's works as the the best "abstract" paintings in the world (do you see how much I know about painting?); but I am not telling the truth, my truthful "opinion"!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want the truth about my pictures, but I suppose the biggest weakness of the rating system is that you cannot legislate for someone being a ****.<br />I must admit that I do get frustrated at times with unexplained low ratings, but have equally been confused with higher rated photos.<br>

Nonsense! Referring back to the OP here, we're talking about whether or not to honestly provide a low rating when someone's work strikes you as unoriginal or aesthetically poor. I may have different - compared to someone else's - standards as to originality and aesthetics, but <em>I have standards</em>. Do you? If you do, and actually express an opinion based on those standards, then you're <em>telling the truth</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is the "Gong Show" or "American Idol" rating system that you are talking about. There is no real truth or honest "opinion" when several amateur and professional are put together to rate someone or something that anyone has ever seen; and you are asking for the hosnest truthful opinion? That is an oxymoron mouthful! And we are just talking about three or four judges! How many professional and amateur have visitted this website daily? I don't even want to guess. Mona Lisa, Vincent Van Goat, and Picasso works of arts; want to know my honest "opinion"? I don't see what in there that worths the values! or may be that I am not a billionaire that I have not acquired that snobbish taste. It is lucky for the poor kids that I am not an Amarican Idol judge because I will gong the heck out of the poor kid. In my case, I just move on to the next photo or flip the channel let the idiot make a fool out of himself or herself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your philosophy rewards people who merely upload a photograph with a "passing grade"...my philosophy flunks them for merely uploading a photograph</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I neither reward or punish anyone with rating as we are grown adults, and quite frankly, the idea of "passing grade" are quite silly. Anyone who does not know that his or her work is bad does not get the idea any way. I don't have any philosophy in a place like this by the way. The length of this thread proves that nothing I said is going to change anyone's mind. I just don't give rating. I give comments to photos that are worth commenting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Truth may hurt.<br /><br /></em>You cannot be hurt by the truth about your photographs unless you have set yourself up for that pain by sustaining and investing in an <em>untruth</em> about your own work, and use that untruth as a foundation for your self esteem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no such thing as the truth in works of art! The truth is a relative term in this case.<br>

Joe</p>