Comments on: Alaska Vacation Photos: Landscapes http://aliciaweller.com/2009/08/26/alaska-landscape-photos/ the blog of alicia weller Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:48:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: dave http://aliciaweller.com/2009/08/26/alaska-landscape-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-122 dave Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:20:51 +0000 http://aliciaweller.com/?p=142#comment-122 I think volume matters a lot with Lightroom. If you shoot a hundred photos (or less) a month, Photoshop can do all the processing and your management isn't so difficult. But when it's a thousand a month, management becomes a much bigger issue. And like I said, Picasa is in many ways Lightroom Lite. It'll give you much the same feel, without some of the power but also with a simpler learning curve. I think volume matters a lot with Lightroom. If you shoot a hundred photos (or less) a month, Photoshop can do all the processing and your management isn’t so difficult. But when it’s a thousand a month, management becomes a much bigger issue. And like I said, Picasa is in many ways Lightroom Lite. It’ll give you much the same feel, without some of the power but also with a simpler learning curve.

]]> By: Alicia http://aliciaweller.com/2009/08/26/alaska-landscape-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-121 Alicia Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:03:12 +0000 http://aliciaweller.com/?p=142#comment-121 Dave, Based on that I think I would probably start with the 35mm. I do have to manual focus now and then, but I like the option to auto focus too. I don't do a ton of portraits or indoor, but I think one prime lens is good to have around. I could probably work with 35 or 50, but the lower price is enticing. It's funny, I read all kinds of info before I bought my d60 from both nikon and cannon about how sophisticated their autofocus systems are. Now I will grant that it is a true and impressive feat...but I swear they make it sound like the camera can read your mind. Definitely not the case. At times it's slower and more error prone than manual. I might give Picasa a test to start out and see how it goes. Sounds like it could be useful to have Photoshop and Lightroom. For now, the price on Picasa is right. : ) Thanks again. Dave,
Based on that I think I would probably start with the 35mm. I do have to manual focus now and then, but I like the option to auto focus too. I don’t do a ton of portraits or indoor, but I think one prime lens is good to have around. I could probably work with 35 or 50, but the lower price is enticing.
It’s funny, I read all kinds of info before I bought my d60 from both nikon and cannon about how sophisticated their autofocus systems are. Now I will grant that it is a true and impressive feat…but I swear they make it sound like the camera can read your mind. Definitely not the case. At times it’s slower and more error prone than manual.
I might give Picasa a test to start out and see how it goes. Sounds like it could be useful to have Photoshop and Lightroom. For now, the price on Picasa is right. : )
Thanks again.

]]> By: dave http://aliciaweller.com/2009/08/26/alaska-landscape-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-120 dave Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:42:14 +0000 http://aliciaweller.com/?p=142#comment-120 Oh, I should also add that THE reason to use fast primes like the 35/1.8 and 50/1.x is portraits (or still lifes, I suppose), and shooting indoors in poor light (where the subject is usually people anyway). The large aperture creates a shallow depth of field and throws the background out of focus, creating that "portrait" look and reducing clutter. For outdoor shooting in good light, when you want depth of field, the kit 18-55 is every bit as good - that's a great lens, in fact. Oh, I should also add that THE reason to use fast primes like the 35/1.8 and 50/1.x is portraits (or still lifes, I suppose), and shooting indoors in poor light (where the subject is usually people anyway). The large aperture creates a shallow depth of field and throws the background out of focus, creating that “portrait” look and reducing clutter. For outdoor shooting in good light, when you want depth of field, the kit 18-55 is every bit as good – that’s a great lens, in fact.

]]> By: dave http://aliciaweller.com/2009/08/26/alaska-landscape-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-119 dave Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:37:45 +0000 http://aliciaweller.com/?p=142#comment-119 35 or 50mm? It depends on which Nikon you have, and possibly how comfortable you are with manual focus. The modern lower-end bodies don't have internal focusing motors, so they can only focus AF-S lenses. That rules out the 50/1.8, unless you're okay with manual focus. The new 50/1.4 AFS works, but it's like $400, a fairly big investment. Personally, I prefer manual focus (and manual operation), so I use all sorts of funky manual-only lenses with the D40. I've also replaced the stock clear-glass viewscreen with an aftermarket one that has a ground glass surface and a split prism focusing aid, like an old 35mm film camera. Beyond the focus issue, it's a matter of perspective. The 35/1.8 (on a DX sensor body) is "normal" perspective, roughly the field of vision we see out of our eyes naturally. It's great for many things, but not so great for coming in tight on people's faces or specific points of interest. 50mm is a short telephoto, and about my favorite perspective for people, but it can be a little too tight for groups indoors or a lot of landscape work. I'm assuming you have a body that can only autofocus AFS lenses, so unless you're willing to manual focus full time, I'd say either 35/1.8 at $200, or 50/1.4 at $400. If you can manual focus or have a body that can autofocus a regular AF lens, the 50/1.8 is a no-brainer at $125. Everyone should have one. I have both 35 and 50 and use them both a lot. As for Lightroom vs Photoshop... I'm not a very experienced Photoshop user, but here's my observation. There's very little overlap between them. Lightroom is all about workflow and management, and making exposure adjustments and corrections. It's great for quickly sorting the good from the bad from the mediocre, deleting the bad shots, filing the mediocre, working on the good. Very fast. I've shot over 7000 photos this summer and it's been a lifesaver. Picasa is okay, but at my volume, Lightroom is noticably better. The other big thing Lightroom (and Picasa) does is non-destructive edits. The changes you make to a photo aren't saved as modifications to the original file, but rather as a script of instructions. JPGs, print jobs, uploading, and other export duties are handled by export modules. This is a huge difference from Photoshop and greatly simplifies management. OTOH, there are a lot of things Photoshop can do that Lightroom can't. Depends on how important they are to you. I don't do much editing or weird stuff, so Lightroom does everything I want 99% of the time. Other people could never live with the restrictions and want the full power of Photoshop. Use whatever makes your life work. 35 or 50mm? It depends on which Nikon you have, and possibly how comfortable you are with manual focus. The modern lower-end bodies don’t have internal focusing motors, so they can only focus AF-S lenses. That rules out the 50/1.8, unless you’re okay with manual focus. The new 50/1.4 AFS works, but it’s like $400, a fairly big investment. Personally, I prefer manual focus (and manual operation), so I use all sorts of funky manual-only lenses with the D40. I’ve also replaced the stock clear-glass viewscreen with an aftermarket one that has a ground glass surface and a split prism focusing aid, like an old 35mm film camera.

Beyond the focus issue, it’s a matter of perspective. The 35/1.8 (on a DX sensor body) is “normal” perspective, roughly the field of vision we see out of our eyes naturally. It’s great for many things, but not so great for coming in tight on people’s faces or specific points of interest. 50mm is a short telephoto, and about my favorite perspective for people, but it can be a little too tight for groups indoors or a lot of landscape work.

I’m assuming you have a body that can only autofocus AFS lenses, so unless you’re willing to manual focus full time, I’d say either 35/1.8 at $200, or 50/1.4 at $400. If you can manual focus or have a body that can autofocus a regular AF lens, the 50/1.8 is a no-brainer at $125. Everyone should have one. I have both 35 and 50 and use them both a lot.

As for Lightroom vs Photoshop… I’m not a very experienced Photoshop user, but here’s my observation. There’s very little overlap between them. Lightroom is all about workflow and management, and making exposure adjustments and corrections. It’s great for quickly sorting the good from the bad from the mediocre, deleting the bad shots, filing the mediocre, working on the good. Very fast. I’ve shot over 7000 photos this summer and it’s been a lifesaver. Picasa is okay, but at my volume, Lightroom is noticably better. The other big thing Lightroom (and Picasa) does is non-destructive edits. The changes you make to a photo aren’t saved as modifications to the original file, but rather as a script of instructions. JPGs, print jobs, uploading, and other export duties are handled by export modules. This is a huge difference from Photoshop and greatly simplifies management.

OTOH, there are a lot of things Photoshop can do that Lightroom can’t. Depends on how important they are to you. I don’t do much editing or weird stuff, so Lightroom does everything I want 99% of the time. Other people could never live with the restrictions and want the full power of Photoshop. Use whatever makes your life work.

]]> By: Alicia http://aliciaweller.com/2009/08/26/alaska-landscape-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-118 Alicia Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:51:42 +0000 http://aliciaweller.com/?p=142#comment-118 Dave, So far I have been using iPhoto to organize and Photoshop to edit. I did look at Picasa after you mentioned it on facebook a while ago. It looks neat, but sometimes it's hard to invest the time to find out of something else is more desirable than what you've been using! I have been going back and forth about what photos to keep. I only love 10% or less, but sometimes I keep most just because I don't know what I will want later. Of course that is an easy way to become overwhelmed by files. Are you familiar with Photoshop? If so, what is the difference with what Lightroom can do? I've never even seen the interface but have been considering downloading the trial to find out. Actually, that lens or the 50mm/f1.8 is on my xmas wish list for this year. Do you advise the 35mm over the 50mm? And if so, why? Thanks for the advice. : ) Dave,
So far I have been using iPhoto to organize and Photoshop to edit. I did look at Picasa after you mentioned it on facebook a while ago. It looks neat, but sometimes it’s hard to invest the time to find out of something else is more desirable than what you’ve been using!

I have been going back and forth about what photos to keep. I only love 10% or less, but sometimes I keep most just because I don’t know what I will want later. Of course that is an easy way to become overwhelmed by files.

Are you familiar with Photoshop? If so, what is the difference with what Lightroom can do? I’ve never even seen the interface but have been considering downloading the trial to find out.

Actually, that lens or the 50mm/f1.8 is on my xmas wish list for this year. Do you advise the 35mm over the 50mm? And if so, why?

Thanks for the advice. : )

]]> By: dave http://aliciaweller.com/2009/08/26/alaska-landscape-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-117 dave Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:57:06 +0000 http://aliciaweller.com/?p=142#comment-117 If you don't have a larger commitment, I highly recommend Picasa for photo editing and management. It'll handle the raw files for you, does non-destructive edits, and helps a lot with sorting, organization, and uploading as well as basic editing. I often say the #1 thing for being a better photographer is to throw away most of your photos, keeping only the ones you utterly love. And you already have the graphic design background, so you can tell a good photo from a mediocre one and why. If you want more editing/management power than Picasa, the next step up is Adobe Lightroom. It's $300 and a significantly steeper learning curve, and Picasa does 90% of Lightroom's functionality 90% as well. But if you need that last 10%, it's well worth it. And finally, a good investment for a low-end Nikon DSLR is the 35mm/f1.8 AFS lens, which is just now becoming widely available. It's only $200, autofocuses on any Nikon body, and opens up the world of indoor/low-light no flash photography that can't be reached with the kit lens and other slow lenses. Same perspective as the 50mm lens on a film camera, which is very useful. If you don’t have a larger commitment, I highly recommend Picasa for photo editing and management. It’ll handle the raw files for you, does non-destructive edits, and helps a lot with sorting, organization, and uploading as well as basic editing. I often say the #1 thing for being a better photographer is to throw away most of your photos, keeping only the ones you utterly love. And you already have the graphic design background, so you can tell a good photo from a mediocre one and why.

If you want more editing/management power than Picasa, the next step up is Adobe Lightroom. It’s $300 and a significantly steeper learning curve, and Picasa does 90% of Lightroom’s functionality 90% as well. But if you need that last 10%, it’s well worth it.

And finally, a good investment for a low-end Nikon DSLR is the 35mm/f1.8 AFS lens, which is just now becoming widely available. It’s only $200, autofocuses on any Nikon body, and opens up the world of indoor/low-light no flash photography that can’t be reached with the kit lens and other slow lenses. Same perspective as the 50mm lens on a film camera, which is very useful.

]]>