Ever since starting out in photography I have pretty well used the same program (Nikon's CNX2) to edit the majority of my images , i use Photoshop a fair bit now and Lightroom even more, but given the fact that Nikon CNX has gone the way of the dodo I have been trying to ween myself off it, sadly, the more I do, the more I realise the few simple functions that CNX (and the Nik Plugins) can simply not be replaced (with the same ease) in either lightroom of Photoshop, now photoshop smashes all over CNX2 but the key point here is the ease and speed of use, for which CNX kills them (for me anyways).
So, in another step towards removing myself from the addiction with CNX2 I am trying to edit a fewlandscape/seascape image solely in Lightrrom and achieve a result that I am happy with. Now I typically use Lightroom for most of my family shots but these typically only have global adjustments and a few control points so its all good, however my landscape stuff can often have a few more complex steps involved. This image is from LIttle Austinmer which I have solely edited in LR – i now note that this has a few benefits, one of which is the reduction overall noise in the final image, I guess going from one program to the next does increase noise…
Exif love:
D750 coupled with Nikkor 16-35mm f4 @ 24mm Aperture: f14 and Shutter Speed: 8s
ISO 100
Out front – Hoya CPL and LEE Graduated filter 0.9x
+Gerard Blacklock I've been applying myself to LR over the last few months, and while there's a long way to go, I find I can usually get what I want quickly. Whenever I spend too long on an image it usually ruins it completely. However, looking at the work others post, yours included, it seems to me that Lightroom certainly isn't the complete answer.
At first I used the Ps's "Camera Raw", but recently I mainly use Lightroom because I like the concept of non-distractive editing. All the editing steps are only virtual, I really like it. But I don't like spot cleaning function of Lr, and I often need the layer editing, so I often use the Ps too so far.
But in my case, my cameras produce a lot of noises in the shots when lights are poor, while sometimes the noise reducing functions of Lr are not good enough for me so far.
Anyway I totally love and admire this your awesome photo!! And I bet nobody counts the degree of noise more seriously than you or almost at all. All the people are too busy to do it. People just love the beautiful images like yours, that's all!!
(^ v ^)
+Gerard Blacklock It's my pleasure to share your beautiful work with the #artistphotographeramateurorprofessional theme +Artist , photographer , amateur or professional (selected by Krzysztof Felczak)
I switched over from Capture NX 2.0 to Lightroom 3 as NX was too slow & cumbersome to use. I admit that NX had the edge on working with NEF Raw files but Lightroom made it easier to work with catalogues plus it Raw processing engine improved. It's not perfect plus I'm just a little wary of Adobe's forcing us on the CC route…
My apologies; your image is beautiful! Looks like you had no problems making the transition…
Thanks +Chris Sutton , yeah I find the same thing – a quick edit is usually a better one, I also find I get to the end of a long edit then chuck it out and start again..
+mari m
Thanks , i also like the non-destructive editing. I also agree about the spot heal/clone in LR, its really crap 🙁
Thanks for the comment and sharing your thoughts.
+Krzysztof Felczak
Thanks mate
+Phillip Conroy
yeah CNX has had a history of being bog slow, however I have found the recent releases coupled with good hardware really makes it sing. I also agree that CNX really had/has an advantage when processing raws, LR is pretty good, but I always feel its just missing a bit.
What i really liek about CNX is the step processing, where each edit is a definable ietm which you can go back and edit. I really struggled with LR where its like a global adjustment / configuration to a image.