t_n1

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

<br /> It's been awhile since I've posted here. I have been using Adobe Lightroom for a few years now but I've decided that it currently does not meet my particular needs. Since I am going deeper into photo manipulation and digital art, I am relying more and more on the tools in Photoshop rather than Lightroom. I currently do not like to jump between Lightroom and Photoshop simply to edit and manage my RAW, TIF, and JPEG files in my current workflow.<br /> <br /> I've decided to let go of Lightroom for now and use strictly Adobe Bridge CS5 to manage my files while leaving the photo manipulations strictly to Photoshop CS5. I have worked out a pretty good workflow between Bridge and Photoshop.<br /> <br /> I currently have over 150,000 images in my database/catalog with each having appropriately assigned keywords in Lightroom. As of now when viewing these images in Bridge, it does not recognize the keywords that I've assigned through Lightroom. Is there a way for me to transfer these assigned keywords from Lightroom to Bridge? I do not wish to manually re-keyword 150,000 images in Bridge. As of now things are getting pretty awkward with all three programs being opened on my desktop.<br /> <br /> Any advice is appreciated. I look forward to your responses and help.</p>

<p>Scott's well written explanation of him not being biased because of sponsorship is exactly why I trust Galbraith's reviews. He was ready to call out on Canon even when he was sponsored by them. I have no doubt he would do the same with Nikon products.<br>

I personally do not think Galbraith has a chip on his shoulder regarding the mk3. I also personally do not think that his disappointment with the mk3 would carry over to his review of the mk4. I say this because here's a guy who used these cameras day in and day out, with a baseline of expectations set by the mk2, not by Nikon or any other product. If anything I would feel that his reviews are appropriate since he has extensively used other Canon products to know what would be expected from their AF performance. Just my opinion though.</p>

<p>I certainly don't think Galbraith is biased. All because of one flashing advertisement that anyone can sign up and place on his site? Jeez. I know of others who confirmed Galbraith's findings on the mk3. Regarding the mk4, we'll have to wait for that camera model to saturate the market before we'll find confirmations or objections.<br>

Anyway I'm still chugging along with my Canon 1D mk2 just happily.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, not according to Rob Galbraith. I've never trusted DPreview's assessment of autofocus.</p>

<p>I switched from Canon to Nikon because none of the Canon bodies I owned (consumer to pro) had very accurate AF. They nailed the shot about 70% of the time. Ever since I switched to Nikon bodies, I've had AF success about 95% of my shots. I used Canon bodies all my life btw. On one instance when I picked up my Canon system (lenses and bodies) from Canon's service, the printed receipt/invoice said, "The 5D occasionally misfocused and cannot find the reason despite recalibration. All other items cleaned and recalibrated." I paid a considerable amount of money to get my entire system checked and serviced.<br>

I'm sure you'll have better luck.</p>

<p>I completely agree with Ellis. Your main source of income is not wedding photography. And by not returning the deposit, that may or may not affect your main source of income (whatever that line of work may be).</p>

<p>You ask about the difference between a PC tower versus iMac. Aside from the operating system that everyone has already mentioned, nobody seems to address the main hardware difference. PC tower uses Intel's desktop processor. iMac uses Intel laptop processor (slower, not as powerful). Just open the iMac yourself and examine the processor if you don't believe me (I have). If I were to purchase an apple computer, I'd get the Mac Pro or their wonderful notebooks. I would skip the iMac unless you need to save space (but if that's the case, might as well get a MacBook).<br>

PC's provide more processing power per dollar but you'll have to deal with Vista or XP, but I won't get into OS wars.</p>

I'm having problems opening up old raw files from my Canon G5 in the develop window. It crashes LR2 consistently. Works fine with all my Nikon files (D200, D300, D2X) and Canon dSLR files (10D, 20D, 5D).

Hi there,

 

I tried using the search, but couldn't find exactly what I'm looking for. Within LR's

curve adjustment tool, there are 'anchors' at the bottom to divide the curve into 4

segments. Is there a way to remove these anchors completely, so that adjusting

the curve would be similar to Photoshop CS3's curve adjustment tool? I've used

photoshop for so long to the point that LR's curve adjustment is very counter-

intuitive for me. It slows down my workflow (for me).

 

Any help is appreciated.

I only use two lenses on two bodies for weddings. When I used two crop cameras, I'd have the 17-55mm and the 50mm 1.4 on each. When I migrated to full frame cameras, 24-105mm and 85mm on each. I used to carry every lens I owned to weddings, but I always end up using only those two lenses mentioned above. I'd always bring along a 70-200 (full frame) just in case, but I hardly touched it.

BTW I can't seem to find an online store that has the Nikon 50mm 1.4 in stock anywhere!

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2008/03/important_lightroom_14_and_cam.html

Thus my original question... how can the final display output be standardized across all monitors if the user can choose the resulting white point? Shouldn't there be just one universal white point?

I guess what I don't understand is why my i1Match software lets me select the white point within the calibration software.

Hi folks,

 

Please excuse my ignorance, as I am still learning how to use my newly acquired

Eye One Display 2 on my computers.

 

What is the point of calibrating my screens if I can set my own white point? I

thought the purpose was to produce identical displays across screens/systems?

 

For example if I use various white point settings on my Dell screen (in i1Match

software along with monitor OSD settings), they all produce a visibly different

color cast (from warm to cool). How does this come anywhere close to

standardizing a similar final display?

 

Thanks for any enlightenment.

I've owned the Canon 5D for over a year. I've owned my D300 for the past two months. If I strictly shoot landscapes (which I did for a long while), I would have stayed with the Canon 5D. At low iso on a tripod, I found the larger sensor to produce more pleasing, slightly sharper results. I'm comparing RAW files being converted in Lightroom.

 

I switched to the D300 because it provided more accurate focusing (which wasn't critical with wide angle landscapes). I've been recently needing accurate focusing more and more.

 

Usability-wise, the D300 rocks. But on a tripod, with time, speed, and high iso not much of a concern, the larger sensor wins.

I have D300. I don't use 14 bit. The frame rate reduction doesn't bother me. However the noticeable shutter lag does interfere with my shooting.

 

When I use a tripod (esp for landscapes), I usually use 14 bit.

 

I don't shoot with D3, so I cannot comment on that.

Ben, wouldn't he run into problems with Customs?

 

I'd recommend getting a wide zoom, something along the lines of 12-24mm or 10-22mm. I was in New York pretty much most of last year. I think you can leave the 24mm 2.8 at home. I think you should definitely take along the 18-135mm and 50mm 1.8. And depending how much room you have, the 70-300, but this would be last priority.

 

The best onion rings I've had on both coasts (west & east coast) were from New York Burger Co, a small fast food chain only in NY area.

 

http://www.newyorkburgerco.com/

Hi there,

 

I'm trying to find this package but google shows me that it's owned by Pantone,

X-Rite, and Gretag Macbeth. Can someone give pointers on who owns it and where

would be the best place to purchase it? Many thanks.

Capture One has separate profiles for each camera, so I don't know how fair it would be to compare raw files converted in that program.

 

My experience differs from yours. I've owned the Canon 5D for awhile before purchasing the D300. I've found that the Canon 5D, using Lightroom, had at least 2/3 stop advantage in regards to noise. The details in the D300 at higher iso are also slightly 'mushed' compared to the details from the 5D. I suppose this is fair since we're comparing crop sensors versus full frame. Between iso 200 to 640, the Canon 5D had at least a full stop advantage.

 

I have not owned the D3 to make any qualified assessment.

I am copying and pasting my post from another thread...

 

A number of users on dpreview and nikonians have reported similar discrepancies on the AF tuning at various distances (most notably at infinity versus ~10 ft), as well as discrepancies on the AF tuning at various focal lengths on a zoom lens.

 

This is particularly apparent on lenses such as the 18-200. On other zoom lenses, the difference isn't as apparent. This is a limitation of the current AF tuning tool.

 

A number of users have suggested allowing the user to set multi AF tuning settings at various focal lengths and/or at various subject distances. This presents another problem since focal length (on a zoom) and focus distance are continuous 'data' (and not discrete data).

"The chart on the Nikonians thread is interesting, as it shows at ISO 100 that 12 and 14 bit DR about the same, but I'm sure there will be 'real world' tests posted soon enough."

 

Were you looking at D3 or D300? For the D300, that's the only iso that showed any significant difference between 12 and 14 bit.

Check out this thread over at nikonians....<br/>

<br/>

<a href='http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=18129&forum=DCForumID71&omm=0&viewmode=threaded'>Thread at Nikonians.org</a>

A number of users on dpreview and nikonians have reported similar discrepancies on the AF tuning at various distances (most notably at infinity versus ~10 ft), as well as discrepancies on the AF tuning at various focal lengths on a zoom lens.

 

This is particularly apparent on lenses such as the 18-200. On other zoom lenses, the difference isn't as apparent. This is a limitation of the current AF tuning tool.

 

A number of users have suggested allowing the user to set multi AF tuning settings at various focal lengths and/or at various subject distances. This presents another problem since focal length (on a zoom) and focus distance are continuous 'data' (and not discrete data).

I think we are beginning to stray from helping Emre in his quest.