|
Speaking of white balance in LR, is there a way to swap it so it goes the "proper" way? As in higher-colder lower-hotter? It really tweaks me out as I have to keep mentally adjusting my WB calculations for uni or LR.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
Any help on the top left corner of this background? Its noticeably darker blue than the rest but I cant figure out how to get it matching the rest. Tried hue/saturation layer then masking it in, tried clone stamping, tried making a selection then masking that in. Annoying. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
What problems did you have with the clone tool? I did this in about a minute and while it's a bit sloppy it shows that you can fix it if you spend just a little bit of time. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 16:46
|
|
|
Hmm maybe I was just rushing it to much. Will give it another try, Cheers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
So I just got a new android phone, and I've been messing with some of the camera apps. I found one that offers retro camera effects, and I'm wondering if there's anyway I can get these looks (minus the tacky frames) out of photoshop and some high-res shots off my real camera. The two I like are: The 1950s Leica  and A DIY Pinhole camera:  (my hosting) I know I need to work in a grunge layer to simulate the scratches, but past that I really don't know what I'm doing. I've got a shoot coming up next week were the band wants to take some pictures that have an older feeling to them, so I'd like to get some kind of skill in getting some retro-looking pictures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 09:57
|
|
|
I took this photo yesterday and I love it, but is there a way to lessen the intensity of the sun hitting the right side of the pigeon? Click here for the full 744x1322 image.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 11:38
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Hmm maybe I was just rushing it to much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 12:09
|
|
|
Turd Nelson posted:I took this photo yesterday and I love it, but is there a way to lessen the intensity of the sun hitting the right side of the pigeon?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 13:05
|
|
|
I'd select the blue background, duplicate it as its own layer, and fill it with the same color at like 80% opacity. Maybe play with a gradient to give it some texture. fronkpies posted:Any help on the top left corner of this background? Its noticeably darker blue than the rest but I cant figure out how to get it matching the rest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 16:19
|
|
|
Turd Nelson posted:I took this photo yesterday and I love it, but is there a way to lessen the intensity of the sun hitting the right side of the pigeon? Were you shooting RAW or JPG?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 17:07
|
|
|
In Photoshop (CS4) on Mac, is there a way to maximize the window with one click instead of having to drag it every time? I'm too tired to think of how to say it in correct English so here's a screenshot (on a PC!) to explain what I mean. Above: how all files open Below: how I would like files to open On Photoshop for PC the window is always maximized. Edit: The reason I want it maximized is because painting, transforming etc outside of the artwork is not possible otherwise. Ringo R fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 12:54
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:In Photoshop (CS4) on Mac, is there a way to maximize the window with one click instead of having to drag it every time? I'm too tired to think of how to say it in correct English so here's a screenshot (on a PC!) to explain what I mean. Hitting F once does the trick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 13:49
|
|
|
Can you bind an action to opening new documents? e: like this
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 13:54
|
|
|
What's the best tutorial out there for photoshop. I feel like I have a good command of what I use mostly, but I'm always finding random new things like "what I can add a border just by using the stroke command instead of loving around with creating a big white square that's slightly bigger than my image?" So I guess what I'm looking for is a list of "hey neat!" things you can do in PS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 14:08
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:What's the best tutorial out there for photoshop. I feel like I have a good command of what I use mostly, but I'm always finding random new things like "what I can add a border just by using the stroke command instead of loving around with creating a big white square that's slightly bigger than my image?" Why wouldn't you just 'increase canvas' with the dialogue set to 'relative' so you just need to key in how big you want your border to be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Why wouldn't you just 'increase canvas' with the dialogue set to 'relative' so you just need to key in how big you want your border to be? It was a while ago and very late. I've figured out how to do it easily now though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Hitting F once does the trick. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 05:36
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Why wouldn't you just 'increase canvas' with the dialogue set to 'relative' so you just need to key in how big you want your border to be? This is how I would do it too. As far as good tips and tricks, just try and pick up a few DVDs on photography, especially Joey L's ones, he's got one on all of his little tips for doing post in photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 05:46
|
|
|
I've tried to do a bit of research on Lightroom 3 vs. Aperture 3, and it seems like a tossup in my mind. I've downloaded trials of both and haven't been blown away by either. I'm leaning toward Aperture just because it saves a decent amount of money, and then possibly picking up Photoshop down the line for any real nitty-gritty editing I need to do. Am I going to regret this combination? Most post-processing books and how-tos seem to focus more on Adobe's products, probably because Aperture really wasn't that great until version 3, and Lightroom is available on Windows and Mac. Can anyone offer their two cents?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 07:42
|
|
|
Ask brad how he feels about Aperture  What it boils down to is that I'd rather have DNG's than Apple's proprietary database.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 08:22
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Can anyone offer their two cents? I should use it a lot more and explore the other features because they really upgraded the hell out of it and added a lot of editing features, but my image management is independent of any software, and the only thing I really use Bibble for (and probably the same for LR or Aperture if I had those) is I pop in and do AutoLevel, "Perfectly Clear" and Noise Ninja on my digital images. When I scan old negatives, after I hit 100-200, I use Bibble to generate JPEGs of the TIFF files for safekeeping since it's fast as hell on batch operations. It will use as much CPU as available and is a good test to see if all of your fans are working. There are a few other things I do in batch processing. With the 5.1 release, it would probably do 95% of what I do in Photoshop, I just haven't gotten around to really learning it like I should. You can download a demo: Bibble
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 08:25
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I've tried to do a bit of research on Lightroom 3 vs. Aperture 3, and it seems like a tossup in my mind. I've downloaded trials of both and haven't been blown away by either. I'm leaning toward Aperture just because it saves a decent amount of money, and then possibly picking up Photoshop down the line for any real nitty-gritty editing I need to do. Aperture's closed database is a serious concern. Perhaps they'll open it later, but if your photos and their longevity are at all important, you have to take it into account. I hear it's p. decent otherwise, but I've never used it. LR3's noise reduction is pretty great, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 02:37
|
|
|
scottch posted:Aperture's closed database is a serious concern. Perhaps they'll open it later, but if your photos and their longevity are at all important, you have to take it into account. I hear it's p. decent otherwise, but I've never used it. Also won't I get LR3's noise reduction and other whiz-bang features like lens-database correction with Photoshop CS5 anyway?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 02:59
|
|
|
Yeah, metadata. That's a significant amount of time invested I would hate to lose. Again, not saying it should completely rule out Aperture for you, but certainly something to consider. I've never actually used Photoshop's noise reduction, but LR3 is quick and produces great results. Lens correction is in PS, yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 03:06
|
|
|
scottch posted:LR3's noise reduction is pretty great, too. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3092090&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=49#post380715109 (warning: Lady Gaga) There was some other stuff done too (mostly just raising blacks), but you get the idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 03:25
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I posted a bunch of before & after's here if anyone's curious: Thanks for the feedback all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 03:28
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Is there any way to salvage some of these photos in post processing? I had to bump up the ISO cause I was shooting at night. Most of your photos should be salvageable in photoshop by adding anywhere from one to three layers: - Levels: Use the black/white/gray picker to select black, white, and optionally gray in your photo and it will already look 100% better. - Brightness/Contrast: Crank up the brightness a little if you want to, bring up the contrast a little maybe. - Hue/Saturation: Dial down the saturation to get rid of that ridiculously orange tint. Also you can play with individual hues and saturations so you can try bringing oranges or yellows down by themselves, though that'll affect most of the scene in this scenario. Just adding these three and playing with the values for a minute or two got me in the ballpark of what I think is a resonable photo. Keep in mind that I prefer my photos desaturated a little, and my colours muted, so while I think this looks pretty good you might have the opposite idea:
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 07:35
|
|
|
Here are your other two. Same set of layers, just played with the values a little for each one:  That last one isn't that great because I didn't really play with it for too long. You can probably do better if you put in more than the ten seconds I did. Also, as for the graininess, I kind of like it. I think it adds a little grit and film quality to a shot. Not too little, not too much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 07:45
|
|
|
I'm looking for a better way to streamline adding a copyright to photos for web-use. For a long time I had it set as two different actions, one for horizontal images and one for vertical images. My question is, is there a way to make it know to put it in the lower right corner for any image regardless of orientation and crop? I had to make the two different ones because it seems to do the placing and positioning by coordinates. I'd like to be able to make it automatable so that I can edit all my images and then set it to add them all at one time afterward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
rockcity posted:I'm looking for a better way to streamline adding a copyright to photos for web-use. For a long time I had it set as two different actions, one for horizontal images and one for vertical images. My question is, is there a way to make it know to put it in the lower right corner for any image regardless of orientation and crop? I had to make the two different ones because it seems to do the placing and positioning by coordinates. I'd like to be able to make it automatable so that I can edit all my images and then set it to add them all at one time afterward. I still do it be hand, how can I set-up actions to do this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I still do it be hand, how can I set-up actions to do this? If you want to do it the way I've been doing it and always crop to the same size, what you can do is set up a new action to record how you place it, size it, and position it. I make one for vertical photos and one for horizontal. I usually put in a sharpening step in there too to save some time. I just wish there were a way to tell it, put it in the lower right corner of any image so I don't need two different actions. If I could do that I could automate it for an infinite amount of images at once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
rockcity posted:If you want to do it the way I've been doing it and always crop to the same size, what you can do is set up a new action to record how you place it, size it, and position it. I make one for vertical photos and one for horizontal. I usually put in a sharpening step in there too to save some time. A friend of mine (who runs 1320video.com) uses: http://k-lab-watermark.software.informer.com/ It costs money ($16) but when you consider the amount of time it would save you, it could be worth it, depending on what your time is worth I suppose. And yea I always resize to 5inch on the short edge, 250DPI.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 23:08
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:A friend of mine (who runs 1320video.com) uses: http://k-lab-watermark.software.informer.com/ It costs money ($16) but when you consider the amount of time it would save you, it could be worth it, depending on what your time is worth I suppose. ORRR you could just not watermark every photo because it is almost completely pointless in every way other than ruining the way the photo looks. A reputable magazine, newspaper or even a blog wouldn't use a photo with a big ugly watermark on it. I'm sorry but putting a watermark on every photo looks amateur. Nobody is going to steal your photo and use it somewhere that would make any difference to your "career."
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:ORRR you could just not watermark every photo because it is almost completely pointless in every way other than ruining the way the photo looks. A reputable magazine, newspaper or even a blog wouldn't use a photo with a big ugly watermark on it. It's not a water mark, it's small logo, and it's the blog's logo, and it's their requirement. It takes up about 1% of the image and is in the lower corner. Here's an example. It's also so you know which photographer took it since we have more than one contributor. http://www.metalinjection.net/gallery?g2_itemId=26882
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 01:34
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:ORRR you could just not watermark every photo because it is almost completely pointless in every way other than ruining the way the photo looks. A reputable magazine, newspaper or even a blog wouldn't use a photo with a big ugly watermark on it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't watermark it for "protection" most of my shots can be cropped minus the watermark and still look fine. I watermark them for the marketing (and I keep a copy sans the watermark usually). A lot of people won't put "Photo by: X" on a facebook page, but they will leave the watermark in the shot (even if they crop it out in the thumbnail). It's the easiest way to make sure you get credit, and when people see it over and over and over again it builds recognition in their head. For the record: I don't watermark shots delivered to clients, nor do I watermark shots for portfolio purposes. On the other hand, if I go to a show and shoot the bands (and they didn't pay for me to be there), I'm going to watermark the shots. I'd rather look amateur now while I AM an amateur and build recognition then fail by trying to live up to some imaginary standard set by people who have no vested interest in my professional success.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 01:35
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't watermark it for "protection" most of my shots can be cropped minus the watermark and still look fine. I watermark them for the marketing (and I keep a copy sans the watermark usually). A lot of people won't put "Photo by: X" on a facebook page, but they will leave the watermark in the shot (even if they crop it out in the thumbnail). It's the easiest way to make sure you get credit, and when people see it over and over and over again it builds recognition in their head. Getting a paid job from someone seeing your photo on facebook is going to happen almost never.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 01:43
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:Getting a paid job from someone seeing your photo on facebook is going to happen almost never. It already has several times over, in the last 2 months I've picked up 2 promo shoots, an engagement shoot and a senior portrait session based almost entirely off posting my work (with watermarks) and tagging the shots. I've also gotten 2 inquiries about head shots, and 2 girls that want me to shoot suicide-girl-esque pictures of them. It's a lot of work, uploading the shots then befriending the people and tagging them in thousands of shots, but it does build up and it does pay off. You'd be surprised how many people take notice. VVVV Don't worry about it. I know my ideas on marketing and building a photography business aren't exactly viewed "positively" around here. Just remember if you only do the same things everyone else does, you'll only ever be as good as them. Business isn't an A->B->C thing, just like photography you can take chances and be creative, see what works, see what almost worked and correct as you go. AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Aug 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 01:48
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:It already has several times over, in the last 2 months I've picked up 2 promo shoots, an engagement shoot and a senior portrait session based almost entirely off posting my work (with watermarks) and tagging the shots. I've also gotten 2 inquiries about head shots, and 2 girls that want me to shoot suicide-girl-esque pictures of them. Edit: dickhead thing to say. New content: Oh, cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
Found what I was looking for, there is an align function that should do what I need it to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
Care to make a quick write-up on it? It would probably come in handy for the Sound Surveillance guys, even if we're only doing a few pics at a time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 19:35
|
|