Scott Brady
Founder
The new Panasonics are nice, but when looking for a compact EVIL-style camera, I would suggest looking at the Sony. I am quite impressed with the NEX6
Buying a new camera: Advice?
- Thread starter Dave Bennett
- Start date
The new Panasonics are nice, but when looking for a compact EVIL-style camera, I would suggest looking at the Sony. I am quite impressed with the NEX6
MCObray
Explorer
I am using Lightroom 4, version 4.3. I could've gone with Aperture, but really it comes down to how much I wanted to spend, and at the time LR4 was cheaper.
Another tidbit, if you are a college student take advantage of the school discount adobe offers. I only payed $40 for LR4 when Newegg was offering a deal. Best of luck!
seanpistol
Explorer
you better be shooting video with that t3i 
Would not recommend anyone to start using aperture if lightroom is also an option..
Apple's not focusing on these consumer/prosumer software products.. they've their hands full getting their consumer facing web services working...aperture 4 is waay overdue...
They've lost significant ground on the media production front to rivals.. the signs are there...
Apple's not focusing on these consumer/prosumer software products.. they've their hands full getting their consumer facing web services working...aperture 4 is waay overdue...
They've lost significant ground on the media production front to rivals.. the signs are there...
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
I agree with ywen. Apple isn't investing the time or effort to keep pace with the current offerings like Lightroom 4 and Capture One Pro 7, arguably the two best programs currently available IMO.
mvbeggs
Adventurer
Lightroom- capabilities?
For years, I've used Photoshop Elements as my photo organizer in conjunction with Photoshop C2 for more robust editing. I remember looking at Lightroom about a year ago when upgrading my organizer software. Lightroom didn't look as capable as Elements, from a photo organizer standpoint. What is the main function of Lightroom?
For years, I've used Photoshop Elements as my photo organizer in conjunction with Photoshop C2 for more robust editing. I remember looking at Lightroom about a year ago when upgrading my organizer software. Lightroom didn't look as capable as Elements, from a photo organizer standpoint. What is the main function of Lightroom?
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
Lightroom is a complete professional DAM (digital asset management) program and editor. Although similar in some ways, LR is more powerful and much more flexible than elements with respects to both organization and as a raw editor.
DiploStrat
Expedition Leader
In the old daze ...
We all shot JPEG or TIFF and there was generally a one-image-to-one-file relationship. Most people simply organized by date and all was well.
The some started using Photoshop (or Elements, GIMP, or any other pixel editor) to really tear up their images - think layers, etc. As Photoshop is a destructive editor, it became desirable to make two files for each image - a master that you did not edit and a copy (or version) that you did. Now things are getting complicated. Not only do you have to track the masters (say by date) but now you have all of these versions running around.
Then came RAW. Now you had one file, out of the camera, that you could not edit. Perhaps a few in Photoshop, and, in some cases, your "final" JPEG. (Bad idea IMO, but that is another story.) And you had to use a RAW Converter to get your images to the point that you could even "see" them.
So you used a workflow that went something like: Camera>Photo ingester/super browser>RAW converter>pixel editor>folders full of files.
The someone said, "Hey, I have got a LOT of photos, like two decades worth. I need all of the images of Sally in a blue dress at the red rocks that I took last year, but not this year." Arrrgh! A simple date system won't handle that. And did you want the RAW, the PSD/TIFF or perhaps the final web compressed JPEG?
This is were Aperture simply gets up and flys away from the competition. Although, to be fair, Lightroom isn't that bad. But in simplest terms, either one is light years ahead of Bridge or the Elements Organizer. And most photographers, as opposed to graphic artists, don't need anything more than Lightroom or Aperture. Especially as they allow you to do your heavy editing in the RAW decode step where you have the greatest possible control.
The biggest advantage of these products is that they allow you to manage IMAGES while they manage FILES. You can generally ignore file formats, etc. and simply produce (and delete after use) as many copies as you need in whatever format you may desire.
Given the current prices of Aperture, Lightroom, and don't forget iPhoto, most photographers would be silly, nay masochistic, not to use one of them. Especially if you would rather be taking photos than editing them.
Free advice, worth what you paid for it.
We all shot JPEG or TIFF and there was generally a one-image-to-one-file relationship. Most people simply organized by date and all was well.
The some started using Photoshop (or Elements, GIMP, or any other pixel editor) to really tear up their images - think layers, etc. As Photoshop is a destructive editor, it became desirable to make two files for each image - a master that you did not edit and a copy (or version) that you did. Now things are getting complicated. Not only do you have to track the masters (say by date) but now you have all of these versions running around.
Then came RAW. Now you had one file, out of the camera, that you could not edit. Perhaps a few in Photoshop, and, in some cases, your "final" JPEG. (Bad idea IMO, but that is another story.) And you had to use a RAW Converter to get your images to the point that you could even "see" them.
So you used a workflow that went something like: Camera>Photo ingester/super browser>RAW converter>pixel editor>folders full of files.
The someone said, "Hey, I have got a LOT of photos, like two decades worth. I need all of the images of Sally in a blue dress at the red rocks that I took last year, but not this year." Arrrgh! A simple date system won't handle that. And did you want the RAW, the PSD/TIFF or perhaps the final web compressed JPEG?
This is were Aperture simply gets up and flys away from the competition. Although, to be fair, Lightroom isn't that bad. But in simplest terms, either one is light years ahead of Bridge or the Elements Organizer. And most photographers, as opposed to graphic artists, don't need anything more than Lightroom or Aperture. Especially as they allow you to do your heavy editing in the RAW decode step where you have the greatest possible control.
The biggest advantage of these products is that they allow you to manage IMAGES while they manage FILES. You can generally ignore file formats, etc. and simply produce (and delete after use) as many copies as you need in whatever format you may desire.
Given the current prices of Aperture, Lightroom, and don't forget iPhoto, most photographers would be silly, nay masochistic, not to use one of them. Especially if you would rather be taking photos than editing them.
Free advice, worth what you paid for it.
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
Yep, you can search/organize by any tag given or any combination of tags, flags, colours, ratings, metadata, camera, date, groups, file types etc.
DiploStrat
Expedition Leader
I can't speak to the details of Lightroom, but with Aperture and the least bit of care with key wording you can basically ignore the physical arrangement of your images. I simply load them in folders (called "projects" in Aperture) as they are unloaded from the camera. Everything else, starting with date, is done by keywords. You can also use "Albums" which store copies (actually just database pointers) of images. Dumb Albums are drag and drop and Smart Albums work off of metadata and key words.
As long you know the criteria you will want - activity, location, etc., the sky is the limit. And that includes retrieval by face recognition or GPS tagging.
All intended to get you back out shooting.
rickashay
Explorer
I'm also running Lightroom 4.3 and have come to love it. I switched from Aperture last year and havent looked back.
I am sure you will find the T3i to be a great camera and a great place to build some photography skills. Another sweet lens to have in your bag is the 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. It's VERY sharp considering the price tag and I love having the ability to shoot f/1.8 for bokeh and low light purposes.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-GREY/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html
I am sure you will find the T3i to be a great camera and a great place to build some photography skills. Another sweet lens to have in your bag is the 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. It's VERY sharp considering the price tag and I love having the ability to shoot f/1.8 for bokeh and low light purposes.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-GREY/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html
jim65wagon
Well-known member
This statement just struck me as funny, I thought the old daze were 35mm and a home built darkroom. Beyond that I have nothing to add, just reading and learning, since I really miss my G9 and the Olympus Tough just doesn't work as well as I had hoped.