Nikon and lightroom making life easy

A

AliB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,762
Edit My Images
No
I've noticed a huge difference in my workflow this year. :)

Since the big switch to Nikon and having installed LR I now find that I spend an awful lot less time having to PP images.

I now import with a self written preset that takes care of sharpening and a few other slight tweaks. A little bit of cropping, some batch WB depending on the location and I'm pretty much done.

If I need to do any specific work on individual images I can fire up CS to do it but I'm finding that I'm shooting a lot better in camera, any tidying is taken care of in LR and the batch processing takes care of all the web output.

I also have automatic backups running to external HD's that run every night at a certain time so even backing up is automatic now.

Now I seem to have it pretty sorted I'm just hoping nothing breaks! :eek:
 
I installed a copy of lightroom about a year ago, had a play with it a few times and never really got to grips with how to get the best out of it. I keep hearing how much of a great tool it is so I need to get back to it and really learn how i can make it work for me.
 
I had to buy a book Rob, it's not really intuitive!

I really need to work through all 10 episodes of Mark Cleghorn's training. It's one series I've not even watched yet and I'm thinking I should!
 
Out of interest, what is it about the Nikon change that has helped your workflow? Or was the move to Nikon tied up with the Lightroom move?
 
A bit of both Mark. I'm finding that I am shooting much cleaner with the Nikons, the exposures very rarely need to be touched. As soon as I change location in a venue I'll do a quick test shot using the ISO capabilities to give me 1/125 or above and then I just concentrate on shooting. I'm finding my images are sharper with less blur and better exposed because I'm not working around the limits of my kit as I was last year. (I used to try to get my previous kit to 1/60 but still had some softness at times so 1/125 is sheer blooming luxury)

Then I added LR and it really speeded it all up. Less processing required on the individual images and it really opened up LR as a batch processor for me.
 
Last edited:
-Rob- said:
I'd imagine moving to a couple of D700's and quality glass would improve most people's photography, especially if they knew how to use it properly.
Click to expand...

lol it took three months of shooting some rubbish and reading manuals Rob and I'm still no expert on them! Now I find that I'm sticking to roughly the same settings most of the time and I know how to shift things quickly in changing conditions. Still have to peek now and again :suspect::whistling:
 
I shot a wedding a couple of weeks ago where I spent a couple of hours moving from indoors to outdoors on a regular basis and the constant changing of settings was hard work. It was the first time I shot an entire 12 hour wedding day in manual mode only but I'm so glad I did. I was shooting with a pair of D300's so indoors I have to work within the limitations of the ISO and I was using flash a lot more than I'd like to.

It's days like that when I'd love to have a pair of D700's with a 24-70mm and 70-200mm and some primes in the bag.

When I got back to the computer I found I had a much higher keeper rate than normal but I still spent a good 20 to 30 seconds per shot doing minor tweeks to get them right to put on the website. If I learnt to do all that as a batch process in LR I could probably save myself hours of work in the future.

What was that book you recommended? :shrug:
 
I agree about Lightroom. It saves me hours of my time, and gives excellent results. It was intuitive enough, so no books needed.

Nikon vs Canon already makes me sick. I refuse to believe that one brand is superior to another. Canon pro bodies are just as good or better, and Nikon didn't even have a usable pro body 4 years ago. Exposure comes down to knowing your gear and experience. It is not something I leave to auto whatever.
 
Lightroom 1,2,3 is the best thing, along with -

Fresh Bread.

Women in high heels.

Glee.

I love it. Nothing else comes close.
 
Lightroom is great - I've been without it for a few weeks and really missed it. using a trial of Aperture at the moment and it's just nowhere near as good or as fast imo.

I found LR pretty intuitive to pick up.

BTW sorry for the hijack but does anyone know if it's easy enough to switch authorisation of Lightroom from one computer to another? Gonna use it on my work laptop for now but getting a new iMac soon hopefully.
 
Add another one to the Lightroom fan club. Been using since V1 - One of my favourite bits of software ever I reckon.

I found it pretty intuitive too. Once you get the hang of the library and develop modules, and learn a few keyboard shortcuts, you're away. Watch some of the online tutorials to get warmed up.
 
daugirdas said:
I agree about Lightroom. It saves me hours of my time, and gives excellent results. It was intuitive enough, so no books needed.

Nikon vs Canon already makes me sick. I refuse to believe that one brand is superior to another. Canon pro bodies are just as good or better, and Nikon didn't even have a usable pro body 4 years ago. Exposure comes down to knowing your gear and experience. It is not something I leave to auto whatever.
Click to expand...

It's actually not so much a case of Canon vs Nikon so hold on to your sick bag! It's a case of getting the right tool for the job I do.

And I'm not the only one who is thinking along these exact lines either. http://www.allisterfreemanphotographyblog.com/category/kit-reviews/

I found that my older cameras underexposed horribly in some situations and because of the ISO headroom not being there I was struggling in some (albeit few) situations and was also having to run a lot of files through noise reduction software.

Now, with my newer cameras I don't have any of those "problems" and because I'm not having these "problems" I have growing confidence in them to deliver what I want and need. So I'm a lot more relaxed and getting much better results.

Perhaps I would have had similar results had I upgraded within the Canon family but they did not have what I wanted in one body so I changed.

That change also meant a LOT of work on my part getting used to the new gear and it's still a bit of a work in progress. It would have been easier to stay put and just get a 5DII but I'd have had good fast AF in one body (1DsII) and good high ISO and tons of MP in both. In the end I chose to sacrifice the MP for the high ISO and got exactly what I needed in one body.

If Canon had made it, believe me, I'd have bought it as it would have been a whole heap easier! So FOR ME the D700 is the ideal tool for the job. Less MP than the Canon but much better AF in dim light.

And if it is giving me the confidence to shoot in just about any light then that will do me nicely.
 
Last edited:
-Rob- said:
What was that book you recommended? :shrug:
Click to expand...

I got Scott Kelby's Lightroom 2 for digital photographers Rob. Staying on my desk for now because there are still things like printing doing my head in! :cuckoo:
 
Darn it! Does that mean I'm left with the fresh bread.....again. My hips won't take it you know! ;)
 
AliB, have to agree totally.

I used to find shooting with my old canon gear that there was always a lot more PP to be done, although back then I didn't really pay too much attention to my photography (I was in robot mode for several years), so it's unfair to say that it was the kit's fault. Just a combination of things left me with lacklustre images that never looked like I envisiged.

However, I do feel I get overall better files from my Nikon kit now, probably because I feel the kit is more intuitive and I'm faffing less with camera to make sure things are going right and concentrating more on fluid shooting, knowing that the D2x will come up with the goods every time I ask it to.

As for Lightroom.... I can't speak highly enough of it. I'm not sure if it's just too many things to play with in LR, or just an unfamiliar interface when you're moving from the likes of CS1/2/3/4, but at first, yes, it does take some working out to get workflow anywhere near what you want. But given a few days of intense use I really got into it, much better than when using Aperture, which I found a little like wading through treacle at times.

I have to admit that I'm using Photoshop so little these days that in all honesty, I probably wouldn't miss it that much for anything other than the layers, masking and cloning tools, which I love. LR (I'm on version 2) is just so easy to use I can import, catalogue, sort the wheat from the chaff, and do quite substantial edits very quickly. The editing tools are great too; I shoot JPEG and never for one minute feel that I'm not going to be able to edit the image to get the most from it. The Flickr uploader tool (Jeffrey's I think it's called) makes uploading to my site well easy and in general, it's just a fantastic piece of kit. Might even move up to LR3 soon, I love it that much.

I'll tell you the one (well two) things that helped me no end with regard to LR was www.thelightroomlabs.com - a really good online resource - and the tutorials held at this year's Focus 2010 on the adobe stand. The tutor really out into perspective just how powerful a cataloguing tool LR is and he made it fun and memorable.
 
Last edited:
It is always good when you have equipment and software that can help ease the load off you.

I am still stuck in the dark ages on Canon DPP only, so nothing is automated. Instead I have notes on what steps to follow for different kinds of images :lol: I don't even think my computer would run lightroom or photoshop (it's a netbook with a screen and keyboard attached... go on laugh...).
 
Last edited:
trencheel303 said:
It is always good when you have equipment and software that can help ease the load off you.

I am still stuck in the dark ages on Canon DPP only, so nothing is automated. Instead I have notes on what steps to follow for different kinds of images :lol: I don't even think my computer would run lightroom or photoshop (it's a netbook with a screen and keyboard attached... go on laugh...).
Click to expand...

Completely unrelated; I see you crossed over your 50mm - did you finally have enough of it? What did you get instead ... Related - OK, I'm laughing a bit.

Personally I don't think it's the systems themselves (Nikon, Canon, whichever) that makes you take better pictures, at least not more that as placebos. Rather it's the capabilities of the camera. It's too easy to get technical, "Oooh, Nikons 3rd AF point diagonally from the right is better than Canons"; but in real-life given similar cameras there'd be little difference in the end result.

Can of worms, anyone?
 
Try telling that to my mate who had to get me to shoot a ceremony for him two weeks ago because his kit could not hack it. He could not get anything like a fast enough shutter speed. All he could manage was 1/15 sec, not enough with moving people.

Simple really, I didn't spend the money for fun ;)
 
AliB said:
Try telling that to my mate who had to get me to shoot a ceremony for him two weeks ago because his kit could not hack it. He could not get anything like a fast enough shutter speed. All he could manage was 1/15 sec, not enough with moving people.

Simple really, I didn't spend the money for fun ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to interpret that; so I will interpret it in favor for my own arguments! ;)

So let's say his current camera where he could only get 1/15 is a Canon. I'm saying that a move to Nikon wont automatically solve his problems; it depends on which Nikon camera he get. And a safe bet is that any given Nikon he get, there's a corresponding Canon which performs equally well.

Thus, moving systems and claim you take better pictures because of it is probably a bit placebo.

Of course there's nothing wrong with that. If you get the images you want, well, that's all that matters!
 
Well I did say that the improvement may have been equal had I upgraded within Canon so to an extent I do agree with you, just that they did not have the upgrade I wanted.:)
 
gnom said:
And a safe bet is that any given Nikon he get, there's a corresponding Canon which performs equally well.

Thus, moving systems and claim you take better pictures because of it is probably a bit placebo.
Click to expand...
Canon will probably agree with you there but Nikonians would generally agree that the D700 has better ISO performance than the 5DMkII. If you are talking about the D3s Vs the 1DMkIV then the ability to shoot at high ISO is so amazing on both of them that in a realisic scenario you'd never struggle with light.

If you were to move from a Canon 40D to a Nikon D700 then I'd say the move was definately more than just a placebo.
 
AliB said:
Well I did say that the improvement may have been equal had I upgraded within Canon so to an extent I do agree with you, just that they did not have the upgrade I wanted.:)
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. I subtly hinted my views on that with the: "Oooh, Nikons 3rd AF point diagonally from the right is better than Canons" thing! ;)

But I'm glad you've found something that works well for you. When I first moved to DSLR I was considering a Nikon D70 and a Canon 20D, and I was convinced beforehand that I would get the D70. But when I held in my hand it just felt awkward. I do like the ruggedness of the Nikons though, but both are great systems.
 
-Rob- said:
Canon will probably agree with you there but Nikonians would generally agree that the D700 has better ISO performance than the 5DMkII. If you are talking about the D3s Vs the 1DMkIV then the ability to shoot at high ISO is so amazing on both of them that in a realisic scenario you'd never struggle with light.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's the age old "mine is bigger than yours" for even the minor details. From the ISO comparisons I've seen between them I can honestly don't see a difference. Maybe if I pixel peep insanely at them, but I have no interest in that since that's not how I generally view a photograph.

-Rob- said:
If you were to move from a Canon 40D to a Nikon D700 then I'd say the move was definately more than just a placebo.
Click to expand...

Of course, but that's because of the capabilities of the camera - not the system. A move to the equivalent within the Canon range would probably yield equal results.

Anyway, I will end my contribution to this discussion by saying they are both great systems and cameras. Use whatever works for you!

:)

(AliB - sorry for almost hijacking your thread in a negative way)
 
just wish nikon would dish out some raw conversion gubbins to adobe so the images look sharpysharp :(
 
I think LR is superb and have been using it since version 1 despite having bought aperture. I import all my digital image into LR by date then I tag each and every image even if this is just with the overall outing and some names etc.

Having everything tagged means that you can click on a name, location etc in the tags list and see every picture with that person in. Images are also automatically tagged with the lens, camera etc so again I can see all 50mm images taken with the D700.

The actual workflow etc hasn't changed from version 1 they have just added more features.

Oh and if you have a mac I have worked out how to store the library files and images on the network so you can use the same library with several computers.

{cheaky plug - I'm selling a new unused book on LR for a fiver in the for sale section :)}
 
daugirdas said:
Nikon vs Canon already makes me sick. I refuse to believe that one brand is superior to another. Canon pro bodies are just as good or better, and Nikon didn't even have a usable pro body 4 years ago. Exposure comes down to knowing your gear and experience. It is not something I leave to auto whatever.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find they did and it was called the D2x...

I used them in Afghanistan in 2005-2006 at the same time all those Canon bodies I tell people about were falling apart in the heat there (60C down there during the summer of '06 while covering 3 Para's 'Battle of Helmand')...

Canon may have had the edge back then with IQ and good noise reduction, but that's all moot if the bloody cameras keep falling apart...:lol:

We still have two D2x bodies in the cupboard as back-up/spares and I used them again last year before deploying to Afghanistan while waiting for my D3 bodies to arrive when I was with 11 Brigade in Aldershot.
 
gnom said:
Completely unrelated; I see you crossed over your 50mm - did you finally have enough of it? What did you get instead ... Related - OK, I'm laughing a bit.

Personally I don't think it's the systems themselves (Nikon, Canon, whichever) that makes you take better pictures, at least not more that as placebos. Rather it's the capabilities of the camera. It's too easy to get technical, "Oooh, Nikons 3rd AF point diagonally from the right is better than Canons"; but in real-life given similar cameras there'd be little difference in the end result.

Can of worms, anyone?
Click to expand...

The 50mm is sold pending payment to fund a 17-40/85 combo.

SZMZM42.jpg


Well you did ask...



Arkady said:
I think you'll find they did and it was called the D2x.
Click to expand...

I think what he meant was, Nikon didn't have a full frame DSLR until the D3, where as Canon had for years before.
 
Last edited:
trencheel303 said:
...
I think what he meant was, Nikon didn't have a full frame DSLR until the D3, where as Canon had for years before....
Click to expand...

Not what he said though, was it...:nono:

FX isn't the be-all and end-all...Only when Nikon realised they couldn't reduce noise to an acceptable level by today's standards using DX sensors did they invest in FX after years of demurring when quizzed on the subject...

DX on the D2x was fine as long as you knew how to get the best from it...

If people are going to make sweeping (and uninformed) statements like that, it's best to be clear about what they mean...saves lots of time and effort in the long run...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top