|
taste posted:I think this is as good as it'll get. I don't know how well this will work, but try masking off the top with a gradient so the effect isn't so pronounced on top as it is on the bottom, where the distortion lies. It might look dumb, but it's worth a try, especially if you can balance the contrast so it doesn't look obviously gradient masked.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
brad industry posted:Well it's not like you can't do that kind of stuff now, it just takes The last example with the panorama would take enough effort for it to be effectively impossible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 05:47
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:At this point it would be the worlds biggest PR blunder to have done that as an April fools joke. They've generated so much momentum and positive buzz over LR3 with this, that to turn around and go "lol psych" would be ridiculously damaging. I think only the last part of the video is the "april fools" prank part. http://o3.tumblr.com/post/470608946/photoshops-caf-content-aware-fill-unbelievable This gimp plugin can do a similar (but terrible in comparison) job, so I don't think the content aware heal brush is the fools, the "backspace and create a mountain" junk probably is
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
What kind of PP do people give stupidly red photos (thanks low budget gig lighting!) a bit of a tidying up? Most I can do is back the saturation and red channel off a bit, and hope for the best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 07:26
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:What kind of PP do people give stupidly red photos (thanks low budget gig lighting!) a bit of a tidying up? White Balance for a red image = decrease yellow/increase blue which is decreasing red and green/increasing blue and decease magenta/increase green which is decreasing red and blue/increasing green this will result in a net decrease of red and also do some other things that might be nice. when done, play with saturation/vibrancy/exposure/brightness/curves/whatever to fix the butchering
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 07:46
|
|
|
Look at the individual channels and see which has the most information, then copy that over into the other channels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 21:28
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:The last example with the panorama would take enough effort for it to be effectively impossible. Hah, no. I have done exactly that before on multiple panoramas. You just have to have a bit of painting knowledge more than just the tools. I roughly paint in on a layer underneath with colors picked from the image, plus a bit of cloning and healing and it's totally possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Hah, no. I have done exactly that before on multiple panoramas. You just have to have a bit of painting knowledge more than just the tools. I roughly paint in on a layer underneath with colors picked from the image, plus a bit of cloning and healing and it's totally possible. You don't even really need to paint it in -- just grabbing chunks from other parts of the image, adjusting them a little bit so it's not an obvious copy, and blending them in smoothly will go a really long way. Which incidentally I know you are perfectly familiar with, just pointing it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Hah, no. Yeah I do this stuff all the time. It's not impossible or hard, it's just tedious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Look at the individual channels and see which has the most information, then copy that over into the other channels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 05:54
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yeah I do this stuff all the time. It's not impossible or hard, it's just tedious. Key word right there. People who need to push an image out quickly will love this tech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2010 14:57
|
|
|
Does anyone have any experience processing raw files in Linux? I don't expect to find something as nice as Photoshop or Lightroom, but it would be nice to have a free program that will let me do some basic work on my laptop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2010 15:17
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:Does anyone have any experience processing raw files in Linux? I don't expect to find something as nice as Photoshop or Lightroom, but it would be nice to have a free program that will let me do some basic work on my laptop. http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
I use light room, but use picasa to view photos when I don't feel like opening lightroom. When I open an image in picasa, it appears with what seem like different white balance settings, and then it switches to another in about 2 seconds. I'm wondering, is this the cr2 image being displayed first, without any white balance being applied, and then in the last second it puts the adjustments that were set at the camera? Or is it picasa doing it's own thing to the image? I can't find a setting, and I really hope picasa isn't just rolling the dice on every image I view.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
ease posted:I use light room, but use picasa to view photos when I don't feel like opening lightroom. When I open an image in picasa, it appears with what seem like different white balance settings, and then it switches to another in about 2 seconds. My computer does this too, but with lightroom. It appears to apply a +25 contrast +50 sharpness filter to everything I take. It always looks better. I think it's just the way the computer handles .CR2 files.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 03:11
|
|
|
In LR at least it'll show you the low res preview while it generates the high quality one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 09:44
|
|
|
How do I prevent Photoshop from stripping Exif data? My usual workflow is Look at pictures in Digital Photo Professional (Canon RAW editor), make some adjustments, then "Send to Photoshop", gently caress around in PS, then "Save for Web". "Save as..." doesn't offer JPG as an option, so I'm not sure what to do here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 08:21
|
|
|
unleash the unicorn posted:How do I prevent Photoshop from stripping Exif data? In the Save For Web dialog box, you can select whether or not to strip EXIF. Also, Save As won't work with JPEG until you reduce to 8-bit color.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 08:23
|
|
|
orange lime posted:In the Save For Web dialog box, you can select whether or not to strip EXIF. I must be blind because I don't see it... Is this available in CS3? Thanks for the hint on the Save as... dialog
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 08:29
|
|
|
unleash the unicorn posted:I must be blind because I don't see it... Is this available in CS3? This is CS4 but I'm positive that I used to do this in CS3 before I upgraded. In fact, I thought that CS3 removed it all by default when you use Save For Web. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 05:14
|
|
|
No, I don't think it's there in CS3. Yes, CS3 does remove the exif data by default, but I wanted to prevent that (keep it).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 08:21
|
|
|
unleash the unicorn posted:No, I don't think it's there in CS3. Yes, CS3 does remove the exif data by default, but I wanted to prevent that (keep it). You need to reduce the image to 8 bit in order to save as a jpeg using the Save As command.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 20:06
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:You need to reduce the image to 8 bit in order to save as a jpeg using the Save As command. Yeah, I know. I just wanted to know whether there was any way to do it from Save for Web.. which is the superior JPG saving dialog imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
unleash the unicorn posted:Yeah, I know. I just wanted to know whether there was any way to do it from Save for Web.. which is the superior JPG saving dialog imo In what way is save-for-web superior if you're saving jpegs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:In what way is save-for-web superior if you're saving jpegs? Well, it lets you quickly see the effects of different levels of compression, at the size you're planning to output. You can have multiple views up of the original and up to three different compression levels, so you can see what the best balance is for your particular image. Just generally useful stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
unleash the unicorn posted:No, I don't think it's there in CS3. Yes, CS3 does remove the exif data by default, but I wanted to prevent that (keep it). After the 10.0.1 patch, you can easily keep XMP and/or copyright data. It's in one of the fly-out menus in the Save For Web dialog (I believe the one directly above the image preview). Most EXIF tags are duplicated in XMP and you'll achieve roughly the same end result. If it's absolutely positively got to be EXIF, then yeah, I don't think that was ever offered in CS3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 02:37
|
|
|
Is there a way I can have Aperture 3 scan for photos with missing masters in a referenced library? I figure more Aperture users would read here rather than the OS X software thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 06:52
|
|
|
Can someone give me a hint as to what's going on with the red channel all making GBS threads itself in this shot? It has almost no image detail (particularly in the shadows) and kind of looks like I cranked the saturation up x 10000  This is straight from the RAW, nothing adjusted except for a very slight white balance tweak.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
Looks fine to me maybe you need to calibrate
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
Looking at it in Firefox on an uncalibrated monitor and I don't see anything particularly wrong with that image either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Looks fine to me maybe you need to calibrate Hm. It appears so. Edit: Oh, yep. That did it. Thanks! dreggory fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Apr 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2010 21:24
|
|
|
CS5 magically adds new objects to your scene! Watch the cursor, a wild bird appears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyxDBRnuL3s#t=4m40s edit: this is also rly funny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ScWu7pG7r0 edit2: Just found this great tutorial for compositing poo poo in, i guess its rather basic for most people but i learnt from it. Nice for compositing and keeping a decent mask without lovely halos. http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials/masking-and-montage/photoshop-masks.html fenner fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Apr 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
I really need some help here, i've been playing around in photoshops for hours trying to get close to this style and i've asked this before here but really need some "deeper" help. Basically I am very fond of this editing style here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsleep/4481076983/ What I see going on is, that is looks like a very high contrast image yet the shadows arent contrasty at all. When I try to recreate this my image just looks completely flat. For example:  Not the best shot ever, but good for practising on as it is somewhat similar. Looks terrible, shadows are nice though, If I drop the shadow much then they just end up being too dark. If i try increase contrast in mids/highs via luminance masks then it just burns my eyes. I also have a terrible problem with editing, thinking it looks good then coming back 5 minutes later and thinking jesus christ what have I done. If someone way more experienced could write up a tutorial or make a video that helps me i'd probably even consider giving a donation if it helps me. edit: getting close maybe? pushed the darks very slightly 
fenner fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Apr 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2010 11:22
|
|
|
fenner posted:
I think this is actually quite an attractive shot. VVV that is the original orange lime fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Apr 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I think this is actually quite an attractive shot. I agree. The original was nice too.. Great shot!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
So - Colour Management. What rgb space do people use in Photoshop? I have been using prophoto RGB (it ties in nicely with Lightroom) however I am thinking to changing my PS workspace to sRGB, since most of my photos go on flickr or the web and most browsers default to sRGB nowadays. That way I can avoid any nasty surprises when converting to a jpg. What do you guys think?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
I use sRGB on my camera and in lightroom/PS, since, as you said, most browsers default to it, and all of my pictures go on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 20:31
|
|
|
I have a Canon sRGB profile from somewhere. I would imagine other manufacturers offer profiles as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 21:10
|
|
|
Shoot/store/process in Adobe RGB since it is wider than sRGB, you can always convert down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
I seem to remember that there were some links in the OP suggesting that you lose precision by working in Adobe RGB. Basically you are buying a larger color space and pay for it with reduced color resolution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 01:37
|
|