TechByter Worldwide

If you enjoy today's article, please share it!

Program Date: 27 Apr 2014

Lightroom 5.4 Reveals the Future of Photography

Lightroom, Adobe's profoundly useful photography work-flow manager and editor has gone mobile. Unfortunately for me, it's available only for Apple's Ipad. The next device Adobe has targeted is the Iphone. Only then will the portable version of Lightroom be ported to Android devices. This gives me something to look forward to.

And although I don't have an Ipad, I've seen what can be done on an Ipad and I feel qualified to make a couple of observations: First, Adobe's developers knew better than to attempt to port all of the many features of the desktop version to a portable version. And second, the developers made excellent choices in deciding which features should be included.

As a result, Lightroom on an Ipad gives the photographer flexibility to do things that were previously impossible or all but impossible in the field. In other words, this is a surprisingly rich, complete, and functional portable application. Although I wish that Adobe had put Android devices first, I have to agree that picking just one platform and getting the interface right is better than trying to develop for 3 platforms on 2 operating systems and ending up with a muddle.

This serves to further cement Lightroom as the premiere application used by professional photographers and serious amateurs. Photoshop, even with the add-on Bridge application, just doesn't work very well when photographers are trying to deal with dozens or hundreds of images from an event, something that Lightroom handles with aplomb. What Photoshop does that Lightroom doesn't is pixel-level editing.

Lightroom can be loaded on a tablet that runs a full version of Windows, but even tablets can be cumbersome in the field. Creating a more portable version of the application that will allow initial image review on a screen that's large enough for detail to be visible will be welcome and the addition of touch-sensitive controls makes it even better. The mobile edition of Lightroom allows viewing and limited editing of existing Lightroom collections on the Ipad and makes it possible to create new collections on the Ipad that will then be synced back to your desktop.

The sync process is easy, but it does require that you upgrade to version 5.4 of Lightroom. The upgrade is free registered Lightroom 5 owners. Once the new version is installed, you can send a collection of photos to your Ipad by right-clicking and selecting the option to Sync the pictures. If you shoot raw images that are stored on your desktop (10 to 30 MB per image, sometimes more), lower-resolution JPG files will be uploaded to the Ipad. Changes made on the Ipad are non-destructive and information about the edits will be sent back to the desktop system so that they can be applied to the full-resolution raw files.

There is one sticking point that might stop some people and that is this: To use the portable version of Lightroom you'll need to be a Creative Cloud subscriber. Adobe has created a version of CC that's designed for photographers and costs less than the full CC subscription.

Adobe Product Manager Tom Hogarty explains why the company has decided to provide new highly mobile tools ...

Direct link to audio if Flash isn't enabled: http://www.techbyter.com/2014/audio/TomHogarty-Apr2014.mp3

Not Much New for Desktop Users This Time Around

The 5.4 update for desktop systems includes support for a lot of new cameras and lenses, along with bug fixes and addition of the mobile capabilities, but not much in the way of new features. That's OK because Lightroom is already the fastest and easiest way to organize and enhance images and to prepare them, as needed, for the full version of Photoshop.

Adobe provides a relatively long list of bugs fixed in this version, but most of the bugs are so obscure that most people have probably never seen them. Camera and lens support added to Lightroom is also automatically included in the current version of Adobe Camera Raw, too (version 8.4). Here's the list of new items supported:

New Cameras Supported

Adobe also added color profiles for various Fujifilm cameras:

New Lenses Supported

Photography Wasn't Portable 50 Years Ago

Here's a reminder of how much photography has changed in the past 50 years or so: http://gizmodo.com/this-huge-camera-rig-was-the-howitzer-of-early-action-p-1565650523. I have a (non-working) Crown Graphic on my desk.

Improving a Not-So-Good Photograph

In the old days, when photography involved film, I would sometimes look at a print and see an opportunity for improvement. I did my own black-and-white darkroom work, but most color work went to a lab in suburban Chicago. So generally the next step involved writing the instructions, sending the film to the lab, and waiting a week or two for the print to be returned. Digital photography has changed all that. On a Sunday morning in March, I was looking through some old pictures and found one with my favorite cat of all time, but it exhibited one serious problem. The color was lousy.

Click for a larger view.The metadata told me that I took this image on 11 November 2006 with a Fuji FinePix S9100 camera. I used this camera as a backup for the Nikon D100 I had at the time. The image was a JPG instead of raw and it's obvious that Fuji's 2006 automatic white balance technology was nothing to brag about.

This seemed like a good image to use as an example of what can be done even if the original image is a relatively low quality JPG with poor color balance.

Click any of the smaller images for a full-size view. Press Esc to dismiss the large image.

It's not particularly obvious in the small image here (or even in the larger image that you can view), but there's a lot of noise in this image, too. The Fuji's noise even at a relatively low ISO 800 was unacceptable.

Click for a larger view.I loaded the image in Adobe Lightroom 5 and used the automatic white balance tool to get the settings within the normal range.

Automatic white balance depends on selecting something in the photograph that had a neutral color; not black or white, but anything that's gray. The sock at the lower edge of the picture is black but still has some detail, so it's not photographically "black".

Telling Lightroom to use the sock improved the color a lot.

Click for a larger view.The next image shows several modifications:

Then it was time to start playing with the image.

Click for a larger view.After opening the modified image in Photoshop CC, I applied a black-and-white adjustment layer and then used a mask to apply the black-and-white effect only to the background.

Because I had already darkened the background, this effect is subtle, but it further places emphasis on the subject of the image, the cat.

This would be a fine stopping point, but it was Sunday morning and I was looking fro something a bit different.

Click for a larger view.Here I've applied a painting-like effect to the image using AlienSkin's SnapArt 4. The current versions of AlienSkin's applications work as free-standing applications or in conjunction with Photoshop CC or Lightroom.

Click for a larger view.If, instead of a painterly effect, I would like to make the image look like a photograph from the 1920s, I could use AlienSkin's Exposure 5 to dial back the overall color and add a frame that replicates the look of damage that might have occurred during the past 9 decades.

 

The point of all this is simply to explain that even photos that are less than perfect can be converted to an image you'll enjoy. Learning how to use the tools takes time, but there's no shortage of online tutorials.

About Tangerine: We brought Tangerine home from Citizens for Humane Action in December 1999. He wasn't my first choice, but my wife and younger daughter liked him. Once home, his first order of business was to become my cat. He met me at the door every day, howled when I went away, and clearly considered me to be his favorite person. He died on 26 April 2010. I still miss him.
If you want to adopt a cat, a dog, a puppy, or a kitten, I recommend working with a shelter such as CHA.

Short Circuits

The Second Nail in Net Neutrality's Coffin

To save net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission will apparently have to kill it. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposes that the agency allow Internet service providers to offer a fast track to those companies that are willing to pay extra to deliver video and other streaming content to consumers.

The new rule would at least force cable companies not to block content from other companies, but it would effectively stifle new companies that wouldn't be able to afford premium fees at startup.

This may not represent a complete reversal in the FCC's policies, but Wheeler is portraying it as no change at all. The principle of net neutrality holds that Internet users should have equal ability to receive any content they choose and that content providers should not be forced to pay for premium to deliver their service.

That was once the FCC's rule, but a federal judge said the rules treated Internet service providers (ISP) as public utilities in violation of the FCC's previous decision that ISPs would not to be governed by the same rules as telephone or electric service. Instead of modifying its previous decision to bring it in line with the principles of net neutrality, the agency has all but abandoned the principle.

So a company such as Comcast (which will be by far the largest ISP following its acquisition of Time Warner) will be able to force providers such as Netflix, Google (YouTube), or Amazon to pay a ransom if they want their media streams to be usable. What the FCC doesn't seem to realize is that ISP customers are already paying the ISP for the access and they're already paying, either directly or via advertisements, the content providers.

The ISPs will have a new income stream, so this means that they will be able to reduce prices to their customers, right? What do you think! And the content providers will have new expenses, so they'll just be nice guys and keep their prices where they are, won't they? Again, what do you think!

Wheeler's proposal is currently being reviewed by other commissioners and it is expected to come up for a vote at the commission's May 15th meeting.

Netflix Streaming Prices Rise

Netflix CEO Reed Hasting says that the cost of the company's streaming video plan will increase by a dollar or two per month soon for new subscribers and eventually for all subscribers. The increase is being attributed to improvements in content selection and not to the company's agreement to pay for better service from Comcast.

Current customers will be able to continue paying $8 per month "for a generous time period" Hastings said without bothering to define what "generous" means -- 1 month? 6 months? A year? And he was equally imprecise on the amount of the increase, characterizing it as $1 to $2 per month "depending on the country" and the timing ("later this quarter").

About all we know for sure is that Netflix really needs the money because net income that was $2.7 million last year is now only $53.1 million. Wait -- that's nearly 20 times last year's net income. Revenues were up too, 24% to $1.27 billion. Clearly Netflix needs a price increase right now.

Still Trying to Get You Mind around Aereo?

So am I. Aereo is the company that scoops up over-the-air television signals and delivers them to customers, but it does so in a unique way that seems to make it more like a TiVo and less like a cable company. The distinction is important and I wonder if the technologically challenged Supreme Court will be able to figure it out.

The trouble is that I see merit to both sides. But then I've never really had a problem considering light to be both waves and particles, either.

The 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act requires that cable systems negotiate for retransmission consent from local broadcasters. In other words, they're required to pay local stations for permission to carry their signals.

Actually, that's the part that I've never understood. Local stations make money by selling advertisements and when more people watch those advertisements, the stations can charge more for the ads. Why should cable companies that expand a local station's reach be required to pay when they give stations something that the stations can sell?

But to move on, individuals at home are allowed to receive and record over-the-air transmissions without running afoul of copyright law, not that the television industry hasn't tried to make it illegal to record programs. Courts have held that as long as one person receives and records the material for personal use, it's legal.

That's where Aereo comes in. Each subscriber has an individual antenna, which makes Aereo the equivalent of a home video recorder, the company says. But Aereo stores the video on its servers and delivers it on demand to viewers, which makes it more like a cable company, broadcasters say.

The money involved here is significant. Revenues from cable companies make up about 10% of stations' revenue according to some sources.

Currently this makes no difference to me because I don't live in an area that's served by Aereo or one that the company plans to offer service in, but it's a case that could have far-reaching effects on future technology.

Areas served by Aereo: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston (and bits of Vermont and New Hampshire), Cincinnati (and bits of Kentucky and Indiana), Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, and Miami. The following areas are in the planning stage: Austin, Birmingham, Chicago, Cleveland, Kansas City, Madison, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Providence, Raleigh-Durham, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Tampa, and Washington DC.

Unfortunately, the judges continue to be clueless when it comes to technology. Aereo works only with over-the-air signals and Justice Antonin Scalia asked if Aereo would be able to collect programs from HBO, apparently unaware that HBO is not on any broadcast channel anywhere.

ABC, the American Broadcasting Company, is the party named in the lawsuit, which claims that Aereo will hurt the networks and local stations by limiting their ability to charge retransmission fees to cable systems. A loss for Aereo would put it out of business, but even a win wouldn't assure the company's success. Depending on how the justices write whatever decision they arrive at, there could be lots of unintended consequences.

Microsoft Finalizes Nokia Acquisition

At midweek, Microsoft Executive Vice President Brad Smith announced that the company had completed the steps necessary to finalize its acquisition of the Nokia Devices and Services business. The transaction was completed on Friday.

The process began several months ago and easily won regulatory approval. Smith says that the acquisition will "help Microsoft accelerate innovation and market adoption for Windows Phones."

Last September, Microsoft announced plans to Acquire Nokia and about 32 thousand of its employees. That includes about 18 thousand who are involved in the manufacturing of devices. One small change in the plan affects 21 Nokia employees in China. They had been scheduled to stay with Nokia, but they're now included in the acquisition and will continue working on mobile phones. It's unclear why those 21 people were called out explicitly in Smith's announcement.

Nokia will also transfer some of its patents to Microsoft and former Nokia CEO Stephen Elop will be in charge of what is being called Microsoft's Devices unit.

Smith also noted other changes that have been made to the agreement in the past several months. Specifically, Microsoft will manage the nokia.com domain and social media sites and plans for Microsoft to acquire Nokia’s Korean manufacturing facility have been dropped.

Facebook Acquisition of Oculus VR Approved

US regulators have approved Facebook's plans to buy Oculus VR for $2 billion. Approval came about 30 days after the deal was announced. Oculus makes the Rift, a virtual-reality headset.

The deal wasn't expected to raise any objections and both the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice quickly approved the deal. Facebook is paying for most of the purchase with stock. This is the first hardware acquisition for Facebook, but it has purchased several software developers, including the recent $19 billion purchase of Whatsapp.