4 replies to this topic

[Sandy]

Hi, curious to know if anyone has used Light Zone and if so what you thought about it? I am just beginning to use the trial version and I am considering it as a replacement for PS CS2, which offers a lot more capabilities than I need to made b&w digital images. It's still too early for me to make anything but a cursory evaluation, but if any there has some experience with the software I would like to read it, as would others.

[adiallo]

Sandy,
I haven't tried LightZone but Uwe over at digital outback has benn using it for awhile. You can read his thoughts about it here and here.

There are aspects of it that seem interesting. The issue for me, and likely other PS users, is the daunting task of learning a whole new way of working with images--even if it's intuitive, it's still different. Now if LightZone allowed you to do something PS cannot do, and I don't think even the developer is making that claim, that's one thing. But their great challenge is that millions of users have invested time and money in learning PS. And for those looking for a streamlined toolset aimed strictly at photographic needs, Adobe now offers Lightroom. Granted, LR requires a new way of working as well, but it is tightly intergrated with PS.

Having said all of that, it would be great if someone who's used LightZone can share their experiences.

[Al Benas]

OK, here goes. I routinely use Nikon Capture NX, Lightzone 3.0 and PS CS for image editing (I own Lightroom because of previous ownership of Rawshooter Premium). I find that I trust the RAW conversions in NX the most. I even "shoot" in B&W mode, change filtration in NX and then change to a tiff file. At this point, I start considering serious editing. 90% of the time it's more along the lines of contrast and tonal separation, rarely some manipulation. That's where I'm coming from. Two additional caveats - I have a personal issue with Adobe for not supporting new camera formats in older versions of ACR and I do have a little more time on my hands than some other photographers (I'm retired from my day job ).

"Now if LightZone allowed you to do something PS cannot do, and I don't think even the developer is making that claim ..."

I agree. Before LZ came along, I lived with PS CS. I used levels, curves, blending modes, layers, and Dan Margulis' Lab methods for contrast and tonal modifications, and B&W conversion (really liked SilverOxide plugins). However, with LZ, all of that is MUCH easier, MUCH more visual and intuitive. The RAW conversion, if you want to use it, is quite good and getting better, but the programs strong suit is its tonal mapping and isolation. It's B&W conversion is first class, allowing full filtration and toning without having to buy additional plugins. I use it for more complex subjects that require color remapping before conversion, or for remapping my gray tones. You can also sharpen, intensify and soft proof. I rarely use PS CS any more except to resize since I like Genuine Fractals best for uprezing. You probably can't do what I call "photo-illustration" with LZ (but I won't swear to that) and I wouldn't think that it would do for a commercial photographer in the advertizing arena or for someone who processes huge quantities of files at one time, like an event photographer. I will always own some version of PS, will probably buy PS CS3 - I want to use the new Genuine Fractals and SilverOxide plugins when required - afterall, the print's the thing, isn't it? But I use LZ for 80 % of my work. In some way, it usually touches every photo file that I produce.

"... those looking for a streamlined toolset aimed strictly at photographic needs, Adobe now offers Lightroom."

I've tried LR. IMHO, for editing it's very limited. It's OK for B&W conversion, but inconvenient in the tool layout. It can't hold a candle to LZ, which is a full-blown editor.

I think learning LZ is well worth the effort, and they have an excellent forum at http://www.lightcraf...support/forums/

I have no relationship with LZ; I've even had some issues with the program in its earlier stages but I've owned it from v.1, ever since I saw it mentioned on Uwe's site and tried it. I really like it and I think that it's a tool worth owning. I realize that I got long-winded here. If you have any more specific questions, I'll try to respond.

Edited by Al Benas, 30 June 2007 - 09:02 AM.

[Popescu Cezar]

the only problem with lz is that it doesn't run on every pc. no, the processor have to know how to "process" ssl2 instructions. that means no amd athlon xp. i find it quite curious how lightcraft choose to artificially limit their market.

[Lash LaRue]

I suppose that it is a sign of my bad character, but I use three different applications to edit photos: Adobe Photoshop, Nikon Capture NX, and Light Zone.

Photoshop is a true pixel editor, so it beats the competition at removing dust and defects, at resizing, at sharpening, and such tasks. I use if for the final stage of my work, including printing.

But I prefer to edit in Light Zone or Capture NX. They are more fun to use, and more intuitive.

The best two features of NX are the Color Control Points (which provide an intuitive way to select areas of the image by their color and then modify brightness, saturation, etc) and the LCH editor (which lets one adjust luminosity without affect color, plus offering three different color editing features -- color brightness, saturation, and hue).

The best two features of LZ are the Zone Mapper and the Tone Mapper. These two tools provide a convenient and intuitive way of adjusting the brightness and the contrast of an image.

They both do a fine job of converting raw files into a pleasing image.

To be sure, it is irrational to install both LZ & NX, but as noted above, my character is defective.