Canon 7D Mk II

[Emulator]

I am wondering whether to wait for LightRoom 6, is it really going to be better, is it ever going to be released?? 5 is £98, 6 will be £160ish.

 

[3dogs]

I am wondering whether to wait for LightRoom 6, is it really going to be better, is it ever going to be released?? 5 is £98, 6 will be £160ish.

The last couple of iterations have made very small progress but have contained improvements of sorts.
I looked at the subscription @ 9.99 mo. With the interval between I figured it was just less hassle to get both LR and PS as a PS CC bundle and have done with it. For me LR does 90% of my needs BUT tweeting images with layers and masks is frustrating fun creativity exploration.......I also have Topaz, Silver Efex and several sets of texture filters from Flypaper Tex.
I did not think I'd get the value, but on balance I'd say I have in the last years......
I don't have to make that decision any longer....
Cheers
Andrew

 

[Emulator]

 

[The Hat]

Nice one Ian, just lovely..

P.S. I would have dumped the Ugly Duckling...

 

[3dogs]

Nice and sharp front to back. For me the duck explains why the heron? is looking in that direction. So I like your composition choice.
Shot with? At what magnification?

Cheers

 

[Emulator]

7D Mk 1 at 400mm, plus cropping in LR.

I am enjoying the comments in the other thread re LR5 tutorial immensely. It is only intended to demonstrate how it is possible to use the LR controls not a submission to a photo gallery. At this the tutorials are good in my opinion. Clearly if you display an "after" do not display a "before" at the same time, some sensitive souls can't take it!!

The egret was thinking "if you come over here and frighten my fish away, you'll have a long beak ........................

 

[3dogs]

7D Mk 1 at 400mm, plus cropping in LR.


I am enjoying the comments in the other thread re LR5 tutorial immensely. It is only intended to demonstrate how it is possible to use the LR controls not a submission to a photo gallery. At this the tutorials are good in my opinion. Clearly if you display an "after" do not display a "before" at the same time, some sensitive souls can't take it!!

The egret was thinking "if you come over here and frighten my fish away, you'll have a long beak ........................

Thanks for the correction I called it an egret first up then incorrected myself.

Im over the whole debate. The in camera only photographers are (in my opinion photographic blowhards) and i am certain that opinion is returned in spades, so what is the point of further debate. I am not shifting off my dung heap....

 

[The Hat]

Thanks for the correction I called it an egret first up then incorrected myself.

Im over the whole debate. The in camera only photographers are (in my opinion photographic blowhards) and i am certain that opinion is returned in spades, so what is the point of further debate. I am not shifting off my dung heap....

A, still @3dogs, you got it right with the DUCK…

 

[3dogs]

A, still @3dogs, you got it right with the DUCK…

@The Hat

There was a long winded ....in the original post to @Emulator that got messed up and lost in the void.....to the effect that you were coming at processing from the perspective of a savvy printer whereas the tutorial is aimed at newbie photographers that need/ want to exhibit and want to put a bit of oomph! into their prints.

Folks that are short on photographic history and dont know how the greats of the past worked read reportage in magazines of how great these folks were at getting in camera results. Blissful ignorance and romantic bolony have them convinced that wet printing was a roll of film, over the counter Kodak developer and a bath solution and an enlarger with a stock lens and the latest twin reflex for the then modern shootist or as most Landscapers used a view camera. Studio Photography was another animal altogether.
Nothing could be further from fact. Professional printing from negs took AGES and was an Art, every bit as step intensive as photoshop is today. Consumer roll film cameras just did not cut it, restricted by lens quality mainly.
These same people today that fed on the trumped up myths now join local clubs, get 'Pd' off at the unfair chating competitions full of processed up images that show their in-camera efforts up as flat lifeless crap, and eventually (thank goodness) sneak off and join the Dipsticks Progress Association where they are in the company of many other blowhards and feel more at home and good about themselves again.
However, there are still a few, just a few that follow the old line and by putting in a LOT of waiting time for light and conditions manage to do ok. BUT they shoot RAW and that involves processing to get a print, but that is called minimal necessary.....and is ok.
Clearly you dont fit this profile. In addition you are a self confessed un-Photographer, so
post processing for digital Photography is not really your 'thing' is it? so I understand where your comment is coming from in that context I am in hopes that I am not wrong on this part.

 

[Emulator]