Ligtroom revised

Ligtroom revised

Hi All,

Adobe has put out a 1.1 release of Lightroom:
* w w w .dimagemaker . com /article.php?articleID=1036

Cheers,

Wayne

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, * w w w .dimagemaker . com /
Blog * w w w .digitalimagemakerworld . com /
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
* w w w .experimentaldigitalphotography . com
Personal art site * w w w .cosshall . com /

Re: Ligtroom revised

And lo, Wayne J. Cosshall <wayne@dimagemaker . com > emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
> Hi All,
>
> Adobe has put out a 1.1 release of Lightroom:
> * w w w .dimagemaker . com /article.php?articleID=1036
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>

I can't even explain how happy I am that they have implemented the
ability to import photos from other catalogs. The library spray can is
a hot new tool, too.

* w w w .singleservingphoto . com /2007/06/27/finally-photoshop-lightroom-11/

--
Aaron
* w w w .fisheyegallery . com
* w w w .singleservingphoto . com

Re: Ligtroom revised


"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker . com > a écrit dans le message de news:
4683468c$0$32587$afc38c87@news.optusnet . com .au...
> Hi All,
>
> Adobe has put out a 1.1 release of Lightroom:
> * w w w .dimagemaker . com /article.php?articleID=1036
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> --
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, * w w w .dimagemaker . com /
> Blog * w w w .digitalimagemakerworld . com /
> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
> * w w w .experimentaldigitalphotography . com
> Personal art site * w w w .cosshall . com /

What do you guys think about the supposed newly recoded noise reduction
(according to dpreview only)?
Seems to me that the Colour noise is unchanged: works well at 25, then, no
more usefull between 25 and 100, no difference, so what?
Luminance : **seems** to me that it works better on the whole range than in
LightRoom 1.0, but **seems** to me that it has acquired the same drawback
that existed in RawShooter: sort of a "watercolor"-isation. Pretty ygly. I
think I'll continue tu use Noiseware instead.

Curious to read and learn about your opinions!
m.b.

Re: Ligtroom revised

Saguenay wrote:
>
> What do you guys think about the supposed newly recoded noise reduction
> (according to dpreview only)?
> Seems to me that the Colour noise is unchanged: works well at 25, then, no
> more usefull between 25 and 100, no difference, so what?
> Luminance : **seems** to me that it works better on the whole range than in
> LightRoom 1.0, but **seems** to me that it has acquired the same drawback
> that existed in RawShooter: sort of a "watercolor"-isation. Pretty ygly. I
> think I'll continue tu use Noiseware instead.
>
> Curious to read and learn about your opinions!

Pages and pages have been written on this. It's important to remember
that what you see on the screen isn't exactly what you'll get in print.

--
john mcwilliams

Re: Ligtroom revised


"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast . net > a écrit dans le message de news:
MNKdnWBeIayZnhjbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast . com ...
> Saguenay wrote:
>>
>> What do you guys think about the supposed newly recoded noise reduction
>> (according to dpreview only)?
>> Seems to me that the Colour noise is unchanged: works well at 25, then,
>> no more usefull between 25 and 100, no difference, so what?
>> Luminance : **seems** to me that it works better on the whole range than
>> in LightRoom 1.0, but **seems** to me that it has acquired the same
>> drawback that existed in RawShooter: sort of a "watercolor"-isation.
>> Pretty ygly. I think I'll continue tu use Noiseware instead.
>>
>> Curious to read and learn about your opinions!
>
> Pages and pages have been written on this. It's important to remember that
> what you see on the screen isn't exactly what you'll get in print.
>
> --
> john mcwilliams

Discussing about difference between what does v. 1.0 and v. 1.1 about noise
reduction.
I doubt that "pages and pages" have been written here about this 2 or 3 days
old v. 1.1


Not dicussing about printing.

mb

Re: Ligtroom revised

Saguenay wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast . net > a écrit dans le message de news=
: 
> MNKdnWBeIayZnhjbnZ2dnUVZ o7inZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> Saguenay wrote:
>>> What do you guys think about the supposed newly recoded noise reducti=
on 
>>> (according to dpreview only)?
>>> Seems to me that the Colour noise is unchanged: works well at 25, the=
n, 
>>> no more usefull between 25 and 100, no difference, so what?
>>> Luminance : **seems** to me that it works better on the whole range t=
han 
>>> in LightRoom 1.0, but **seems** to me that it has acquired the same 
>>> drawback that existed in RawShooter: sort of a "watercolor"-isation. =

>>> Pretty ygly. I think I'll continue tu use Noiseware instead.
>>>
>>> Curious to read and learn about your opinions!
>> Pages and pages have been written on this. It's important to remember =
that 
>> what you see on the screen isn't exactly what you'll get in print.
>>

> Discussing about difference between what does v. 1.0 and v. 1.1 about n=
oise 
> reduction.
> I doubt that "pages and pages" have been written here about this 2 or 3=
days 
> old v. 1.1

Didn't mean right here, and I see I should have been clearer. It's still =

being actively debated, but some folks jump to conclusions that what 
appears to be a problem at one level of viewing will necessarily 
translate into a problem with the final print.

-- 
john mcwilliams