# Tired of HDR? How about "the Dave Hill Effect" in Lightroom?



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

Some simple adjustments in lightroom and you can get an animated look out of your pictures. This is prolly almost as annoying to some as HDR...


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

Nice pics, love the dog :rofl:

Is that your kid? The only one smiling?

He looks happy.

Edit: This effect is good because the pics are good, what I'm tired of wrt HDR is all the marginal shots that are HDR'd to death

Ed


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

EdCT said:


> Nice pics, love the dog :rofl:
> 
> Is that your kid? The only one smiling?
> 
> ...


Thanks Ed.

Yes, that's son #3 of 4. I like that picture because he's the only one smiling. It's special for me because that's kinda been his approach to life since he was a newborn.

Alex


----------



## AndyDe (Jul 9, 2004)

I love them.. great job.

I am about to pick up Lightroom, looks promising.


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

AndyDe said:


> I am about to pick up Lightroom, looks promising.


I am really enjoying Lightroom. The real win for me is its ability to process and organize large numbers of pics.

Alex


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

Right now, I'm using I Photo 8, it's got a lot of good post tools and excellent organizational stuff, but I'm tempted to try either Elements or Lightroom from the Adobe side.

Then there's Apple's own Aperture tugging at me too........

I've got the full-zoot Pshop (CS7) on my work computer (was bundled), I've used it but don't relish the idea of spending even _more_ time in my office/studio........I'd like something efficient I can throw on my Powerbook laptop.

Ed


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

EdCT said:


> Right now, I'm using I Photo 8, it's got a lot of good post tools and excellent organizational stuff, but I'm tempted to try either Elements or Lightroom from the Adobe side.
> 
> Then there's Apple's own Aperture tugging at me too........
> 
> ...


iPhoto is weak. I will second the Lightroom recommendation. I haven't tried Aperture, partly because (based on anecdotal evidence) my 2.33Ghz Core 2 Duo 3GB RAM MBP doesn't have enough horsepower to handle it, and partly because LR does what I need and I am happy. I should probably install the trial copy of Aperture and replace the anecdotal evidence with personal experience.. If you're running a G4 PB, then forget Aperture.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Cliff said:


> iPhoto is weak. I will second the Lightroom recommendation. I haven't tried Aperture, partly because (based on anecdotal evidence) my 2.33Ghz Core 2 Duo 3GB RAM MBP doesn't have enough horsepower to handle it, and partly because LR does what I need and I am happy. I should probably install the trial copy of Aperture and replace the anecdotal evidence with personal experience.. If you're running a G4 PB, then forget Aperture.


Is the anecdotal evidence based on Aperture 1.x or 2.x? 2.0 made a big difference in terms of speed on pretty much all machines. If you haven't played with v2, I'd highly recommend downloading it and giving it a whirl.

Don't think that you can really go wrong with either right now, though. The core functionality of both is fast, robust and very similar. The big difference in how they treat workflow with LR being very structured in comparison to Aperture's very non-linear methods. I don't think one is better than the other, but I do think that most people will be much more comfortable with one than the other depending on how their brains are wired. Each has its own relative strengths and weaknesses. Kinda like Canon v. Nikon, Windows v. Mac, etc.

Of course, if you're on a Windows box, you don't have a choice.


----------



## brandon5069 (Mar 26, 2006)

Fill light, recovery, black, brightness?


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

·clyde· said:


> Is the anecdotal evidence based on Aperture 1.x or 2.x? 2.0 made a big difference in terms of speed on pretty much all machines. If you haven't played with v2, I'd highly recommend downloading it and giving it a whirl.
> 
> Of course, if you're on a Windows box, you don't have a choice.


Good to know. I'll try it out, although I recently shot my wad on a 14-24 and tonight ordered a 24-70, so there's not much room in the budget for software right now. It will soon be time to Ebay the 17-55, I guess..

(edit: Aperture 2.1 makes the fans on my MB C2D 2.2 4GB machine spin up to high RPM's...)


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

brandon5069 said:


> Fill light, recovery, black, brightness?


+ contrast, clarity and vibrance...

Alex


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

·clyde· said:


> ...


:eeps:

Alex


----------



## AndyDe (Jul 9, 2004)

The main reason for me to even look at Lighroom is to be able to download my RAW files quick and organize files better. I have a Powerbook and have been using iPhoto but like some have already stated; it is weak or perhaps I have outgrown it by now.


----------



## dicor (Dec 5, 2007)

What effect did you use for the third photo down? They all look great but I especially like the effect you got on the third pix.


----------

