Braineack

iTrader: (62)

would snuggle!



https://flic.kr/p/DA5Wvn by https://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/, on Flickr

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

test

https://flic.kr/p/DA5Wvnhttps://flic.kr/p/DA5Wvn by https://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/, on Flickr

Mazdaspeeder

Cutie!

What's everyone using for editors here? I was ready to pay for lightoom until I realized I would still have to pay 10 a month anyway to get any future updates. I am using a Mac and have tried Raw Therapee but did not like the layout. I really don't want to go subscription based.

skidude

iTrader: (3)

I have the Lightroom subscription, but it seems like every update it gets slower and I don't like being locked into the subscription model. I haven't tried anything else yet though.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

be a pirate.

skidude

iTrader: (3)

I did that for a while, but it gets harder and harder to even find a recent version capable of stand-alone operation. I also keep hoping they'll release an update that makes it work better on my Surface.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

you update it, then replace the .dll

but with the new change to classic cc vs cc, I think everything is different going forward -- need to find a version 7.


I know a lot of people who like capture one pro, but there's an initial cost to it, but I think free upgrades for life.

Mazdaspeeder

Slow editing is not what i want by any means. The Canon native software is bad enough where if I make an adjustment it can take up to 15-20 seconds for it to show up making editing tricky. I'd like to be able to for example move constant and have it change immediately, not having to sit there and wait and try to spot the differences. Its not so much an issue with contrast which makes noticeable changes, but more so for highlights which don't always change a lot.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I had to upgrade my rig for LR to work decent. adobe still programs for single core operations.

Mazdaspeeder

I'm using a "late 2015" iMac 3.2ghz quad core i5 with 8GB of DDR3 and and an AMD Radeon M9. I think in this case its a software issue with the Canon suite, not the computer. I edit random videos for youtube using iMovie and it never lags

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

must be. you should really get on a more competent raw editor/workflow app.

other alternative to LR:

https://www.acdsee.com/en/index
https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/ (more of a photographers better version of PS)
https://www.on1.com/

since youre on mac, there was some editing software I cant remember that was mac only, stated with an M, like mclearn or something.

macphun! https://macphun.com/luminar

Mazdaspeeder

Yea I'll most likely end up using the LR subscription service, as with anything I say I won't get and then do..

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

the price of luminar is good, and I like a lot of the processing tools -- a lot more modern. I just wish it had a better perspective tool like LR, I used the guided rules in almost every shot I take.

Gee Emm

I got LR6 as a download off the Adobe website, shortly after release - it took some looking though. Currently upgraded to 6.7, so that is working.

Performance (on an old I5 desktop) is good, got a whole lot better when I upgraded to 16gb, my next upgrade will be to an SSD.

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

I pay $10/mo for the Adobe Creative Suite thingy. Figure access to the programs and always up to date is worth the money to me.

Mazdaspeeder

https://flic.kr/p/JrnnM8
This Samyang 14mm is REALLY sharp. At 2.8 I plan on shooting stars with it, but yesterday I stopped it down to 5.6, 8, and 11, and on a tripod it delivers some INSANELY sharp results for a $280 piece of glass

Mazdaspeeder

Lorimer Park by Alex Proektor, on Flickr

cw_mx5

for developing RAW files on OSX;
Try DCRAW - it's command line and does a decent job.
Also Darktable is a good choice for a free one.
You can do basic file conversions with OSX Preview, believe it or not.
GIMP is also free - some don't like it and some swear by it - it's free and does do many things.


I took this photo on a super cheap digital camera with super low quality and resolution.
For some reason I always smile when I see this pic, I think the low technical quality of the image fits the motif of the crappy car.
There is a story here too, and irony.
Images don't need to be super pretty and technically exact to get the point across.
Unless the point is to be super pretty and/or technically exact.

cw_mx5

Silver Falls, Or.
2 images shot at some long exposure, composited together to make the tall format.
Time is real close to twilight just before dark.

slug_dub

Kangaroo Island trip this weekend just gone.
Rocks, ocean, first attempt at photographing stars, and gratuitous Subi Outback.

I've got this vintage long lens that I like but its variable in the results, and a bit tricky to focus well (mostly its just a bit too heavy!). Photos with that lens are missing a bit of Exif due to manual and old.

P8380269 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380256 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380214 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380305 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380321 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380200 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380180 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380319 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380172 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380340 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380359 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380372 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380194 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr

P8380189 by Andrew Thomson, on Flickr