MyFourThirds.com
The Photographic Community for the Four Thirds Photographer

steel building

steel building
Copyright ©2012, c. stirling bartholomew ¤

Vivitar 135mm f 3.5 @ f5.6 m42 mount.

this is a redux of "dog day" http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=61993 I was testing LR4 beta with this image and after much frustration went back and developed it in LR2.7 which is my preferred version.

Photographer: c. stirling bartholomew ¤
Folder: seattle images
Uploaded: 2012-Feb-07 23:29 EST
Current Rating: 0.00/0 (Weighted rating: 8.00)
View all ratings
Delete my rating
Copying allowed: No
Camera: Panasonic G2
Lens: Other (please specify in image description)
Lens Adapter: None
ISO: 200
Aperture: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/800
Focal Length: 135mm
Flash: No
Tripod/Monopod: No
Critique Level: Dead Honest Critique

Comment/Rate Critique Guideline Share this Image

NO SUBJECT

I truly enjoy these motifs, it's my kind of subject ...we do have very similar warehouses here in San Francisco and I 've visited them many times over .... sorry to hear about LR 4 snafus ...I'm still at 3 and happy since I only use LR as a base to start with , most of my main workflow is in CS5 ...cheers ;-) (here 's a sample from SF http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=61930 )

dee vee HoF Win ¤ $1 at 13:33 EST on 2012-Feb-08 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

thanks DeeVee,

I suspect that most people will like the changes in LR4. None of my presets work. The dev module basic panel has been radically restructured. A learning curve, I wasn't able to reproduce some of my favorite recipes.

c. stirling bartholomew ¤1 at 22:10 EST on 2012-Feb-08 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

I can't decide if 4 is enough of an improvement. The book module is a waste of time, like the web and slideshow models and I haven't spotted anything else that is worth the upgrade price. And I prefer the sliders to show what ACR has done.

Mike Leadbetter ¤1 at 02:50 EST on 2012-Feb-09 [Reply]

LR4

Mike,

I agree. LR in my world is a raw developer, I would prefer not to have all the other DAMn|n] features. Long term, having my images connected to a changing LR[2,3,4 ...x is a major hassle. A some point I need to export everything I intend to preserve into an archival format, Tiff or whatever.

c. stirling bartholomew ¤1 at 15:00 EST on 2012-Feb-09 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Mike,

I should add, LR3 and LR4 allow you to choose the old processes. So you can make a virtual clone(s) on an image and develop it using two or more process frameworks and compare the results.

c. stirling bartholomew ¤1 at 15:12 EST on 2012-Feb-09 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Good capture... I had the opportunity to visit many industries across North America and other parts of the world that looked just like this.. brings back many memories.

Robert Melnyk HoF ¤ $1 at 18:56 EST on 2012-Feb-09 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Thank you Robert. Glad you like it.

Another update on LR4 testing.

I see a very slight sharpening improvement between LR2.7 and LR3/4. The down side is increased luminance noise, so you need to crank in about 15-20 Lum noise reduction. The overall effect is a net gain in sharpness at 100% magnifications. For anything less than that you wouldn't see the difference. If already have LR3 then there isn't any improvement in LR4.

When I tested LR3 in 2010 (actually tested it three times about 20 days each time) I was put off by the increased luminance noise in my pseudo-HDR images. For normal development a luminance reduction of 15-20 at 400ISO works reasonably well with sharpening set at A50R1D40MO Clr15 Lum 15-20. But since I rarely do "normal" development, the golfball size grain in my pseudo-HDR images was enough to keep my from making the upgrade to LR3.

c. stirling bartholomew ¤1 at 19:09 EST on 2012-Feb-09 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Very cool, alway love corrugated aluminum.

Charles Bonham ¤ $1 at 00:24 EST on 2013-Nov-26 [Reply]