Thanks thijs gerhardus for your detailed comment. As I mentioned a couple of days ago, when I started publishing my "on the run" series, I was using an inexpensive Lumix point-n-shot camera in the automatic mode to take this pictures literally "on the run" - walking downtown on my lunch breaks - therefore my controls were really limited. I did process the pictures in LR 5 and actually reduced the highlights to the minimum while doing it. Nevertheless many pictures are still overexposed - I totally agree. I do not have a PS and do most of my processing in LR, rarely using GIMP as PS alternative but I'm not familiar with this tool too well and each operation takes significant time (which is not an excuse of course). You are I should have dedicate more time to post processing and correcting all these artifacts. Thanks again!
thijs gerhardus I probably did not make it clear. Normally I shot with my Canon 550D camera in manual or semi manual mode (like aperture-priority mode for instance). For this series though I used purposely a smaller and lighter camera I could put into my pocket. This camera does not have a manual mode at all as you can guess. I totally missed the control I used, using this lumix camera (I actually bought it some time ago for shooting under water, it is waterproof).
Teresa Prater I'm yet to discover what paint.net is? Can it process the raw files? I used Gimp on a couple of occasions, it is a really versatile tool, comparable to PS but I find the controls too complex. I do love LR though, I have been using it for last two years and I have not yet discovered all its advantages.
Teresa Prater in my opinion LR is designed for converting, processing and cataloging of the raw files. I heard that it processes the raw files faster than PS. I'm not sure whether or not it uses the same engine, likely so - I think.
If your intent is global adjustments, than LightRoom, is a sound choice, It also has work flow options that Photoshop does not. But in Photoshop, you can do area effects, even painting, which are impossible or nearly so in Lightroom. They both work with RAW files.
I only shoot with RAW files now. And both are fine for them. I use LightRoom for perhaps 90% or more of my image processing. I only use Photoshop for things I cannot do in LightRoom, such as serious retouching, masking and painting. I imagine the software has some crossover, in design, but they are best used for different intents. LightRoom has very nice work flow features that are essentially absent in Photoshop, for instance.
The contrast of the trees make the cathedral more stunning. Great work Michael Mossiagin
ReplyDeleteThanks Nayika Kool ! I appreciate your comment very much!
ReplyDeleteThanks thijs gerhardus for your detailed comment. As I mentioned a couple of days ago, when I started publishing my "on the run" series, I was using an inexpensive Lumix point-n-shot camera in the automatic mode to take this pictures literally "on the run" - walking downtown on my lunch breaks - therefore my controls were really limited. I did process the pictures in LR 5 and actually reduced the highlights to the minimum while doing it. Nevertheless many pictures are still overexposed - I totally agree. I do not have a PS and do most of my processing in LR, rarely using GIMP as PS alternative but I'm not familiar with this tool too well and each operation takes significant time (which is not an excuse of course). You are I should have dedicate more time to post processing and correcting all these artifacts. Thanks again!
ReplyDeletethijs gerhardus I probably did not make it clear. Normally I shot with my Canon 550D camera in manual or semi manual mode (like aperture-priority mode for instance). For this series though I used purposely a smaller and lighter camera I could put into my pocket. This camera does not have a manual mode at all as you can guess. I totally missed the control I used, using this lumix camera (I actually bought it some time ago for shooting under water, it is waterproof).
ReplyDeleteTeresa Prater I'm yet to discover what paint.net is? Can it process the raw files? I used Gimp on a couple of occasions, it is a really versatile tool, comparable to PS but I find the controls too complex. I do love LR though, I have been using it for last two years and I have not yet discovered all its advantages.
ReplyDeleteTeresa Prater in my opinion LR is designed for converting, processing and cataloging of the raw files. I heard that it processes the raw files faster than PS. I'm not sure whether or not it uses the same engine, likely so - I think.
ReplyDeleteIf your intent is global adjustments, than LightRoom, is a sound choice, It also has work flow options that Photoshop does not. But in Photoshop, you can do area effects, even painting, which are impossible or nearly so in Lightroom. They both work with RAW files.
ReplyDeleteI only shoot with RAW files now. And both are fine for them. I use LightRoom for perhaps 90% or more of my image processing. I only use Photoshop for things I cannot do in LightRoom, such as serious retouching, masking and painting. I imagine the software has some crossover, in design, but they are best used for different intents. LightRoom has very nice work flow features that are essentially absent in Photoshop, for instance.