|
brad industry posted:How can you duplicate a group of layers from one file to another using an action? Can you set your layers to be a PSD file and then do a "place" with that file? When I edit my concert photos for a website I do some shooting for I have an action that I run that re-sizes, places a layer and saves the file for me.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Yeah I tried that, but you can't set a smart object to "pass through" blend mode which is what I need.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 04:33
|
|
|
Can you load it as a stack? Or maybe work backwards; copy paste the batch files into the layered file then save as new?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
Bought the Color Efex 4 upgrade in anticipation of getting back into post-processing. Googling for 15% off coupons still works. I was worried when I completed the order but got a notification that it did not complete and would be "reviewed." But ten minutes later it was done anyway. Seems totally worth the $85 to upgrade from 3 just for being able to layer the effects.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 19:54
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Does anyone have a good place to start learning compositing techniques? Kloskowski's Compositing Secrets is very good. Every chapter is basically a tutorial on how to achieve a certain composite for various situations (business portraits, family, movie poster, high school senior pics). It's aimed at beginner-intermediate level so you can safely skip some of the steps and go straight for the good stuff. His workflow mostly relies on Quick Selection + Refine Edge + Layer Mask patching by the way. http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-Compositing-Secrets-Selections-Composites/dp/0321808231/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319833003&sr=8-1
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
 Love ColorEfex. Step 1. Add graduated filter Step 2. Add control point to prevent filter from affecting the building strongly Done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
I'm kinda new to digital post-processing and whatnot, and still playing around with my new camera. Anyway, I liked this shot generally but it needs some cleaning up. I also may/may not have auto focused on her arm? What can I say beyond it was Halloween and I was drinking? Pentax K-5/smc Pentax FA 35mm F2 AL/ISO 800/f3.2 / 1/15 Thoughts/comments/suggestions? I've got the RAW file sitting on my computer. Incredulous Red fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Oct 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 17:05
|
|
|
Toss it, she's out of focus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:I'm planning to buy a fast, 100MB/s NAS so that the performance will be decent (probably a Synology DS411+ii). Does anyone have experience with lightroom running with photos stored on a network share? I have used symbolic links to 'trick' lightroom into working with a library on a network share. It works fine. I don't think that you and your wife will be able to work on the same library at the same time though. I believe that Lightroom locks the database to keep this from happening. There may be a workaround, but I suspect it would cause problems. You could both edit the same catalog from different computers at different times or different catalogs at the same time that were then merged into one catalog.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Toss it, she's out of focus. yeah that's what I was afraid of
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
There's a problem some people get with Lightroom, where pure black and white (ie saturation is -100) looks sepia instead of grey. It's just Lightroom, too - if I choose "edit in photoshop" the photo goes from sepia to actual black and white. Also, if I export the photo, that's black and white. It's just that inside Lightroom, it's sepia. And I can't remember if it's a windows setting, or a bad color profile, or something else, but I found the solution once and it was literally a five-second fix. And I can't remember what that fix is. Anybody know what I'm talking about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
I'm having an issue with lightroom, if I do a Profile Lens Correction, edit in Photoshop, and go back to Lightroom it loses the lens correction, and if I try to re-apply it I only have like 5 lenses to choose from, and my Nikkor 35mm F/2 isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:I'm kinda new to digital post-processing and whatnot, and still playing around with my new camera. Anyway, I liked this shot generally but it needs some cleaning up. I also may/may not have auto focused on her arm? What can I say beyond it was Halloween and I was drinking? I dunno about "tossing it" , I mean it's certainly out of focus and it's not an image you'd put in your portfolio, but it's still a fun moment and I'd print it for an album of "that party" I think people are obsessed with perfect sharp images that they think they cant use some that are off for their own memories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I dunno about "tossing it" , I mean it's certainly out of focus and it's not an image you'd put in your portfolio, but it's still a fun moment and I'd print it for an album of "that party" Yeah, I just gotta practice with the new equipment more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I think people are obsessed with perfect sharp images that they think they cant use some that are off for their own memories. I am super ridiculously guilty of this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
How do I make my landscapes look slightly more like this; http://500px.com/photo/2992907?from=popular And less hazy like this one I just took (I know the subject is kind of boring, but I'm asking about technique/editing not composition);  With some minor changes to exposure & slight bump of saturation it looks a little better;  I feel like everyone on 500px has ridiculous lighting & magic lord of the rings poo poo going on, look at this one; http://500px.com/photo/2992777?from=popular While I don't want to directly imitate these styles, especially because seeing them over and over has made them kind of common or cliche, I do feel that knowing how to achieve these styles would help me improve as a photographer. The more you know the better, right? Are they doing HDR/Tonemap stuff and toning it down instead of cranking the sliders? Are they just getting lucky with light?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
It isn't getting lucky with light, it's planning well to use it. Your shot looks like it was taken near mid-day, which is just pointless. It's a landscape, it isn't going anywhere, so come back when the light is right. This is probably going to mean a lot of early mornings for you, so it helps to make sure the spot is worth it, which could mean a few scouting trips ahead of time. And check out The Photographer's Ephemeris--will show you exactly which direction the sun will be pointing. Free desktop app and definitely worth the $8 or so for the iOS app if you have an iPhone. Also look into a polarizer if you aren't using an ultra-wide lens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
Yea, that was mid-day and was pretty spontaneous, we were at a music festival and nothing was happening during the day. That was shot with a Nikon D80, 35mm F/2 with a polarizer on it, I'm not sure if a 35mm needed the polarizer or not. I'll definitely check out that app as I think I might start getting into landscape photography a little bit. RizieN fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Nov 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
By ultra-wide I'm talking the ~10-15mm range on a crop body. You can use them with a polarizer, but it gets tricky. I use a polarizer on my 35/1.8 all the time. But, yes, it really is all about the light. If I'm hiking at "normal" hours, I'll take photos for the purposes of scouting. Take notes, check the lines to the sun, see what time of day (or year) might make for a good shot, and stuff the scouting shots into a folder so I have some ideas of where to go at the crack of dawn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
Besides light and photographic technique which will actually give you the great photo as explained, more blacks and contrast will help cut down on the hazy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
I'll have to actually plan a scene and go try it with the right light/time of day. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
RizieN posted:How do I make my landscapes look slightly more like this;  Different direction... I wish I'd removed the cyan cast on the horizon, but you get the idea. Also your lens is really really dirty. (Just messing around, I'm by no means an expert at this. But yeah, the author of Understanding Exposure calls midday his "pool hours," because he spends them at the side of the pool rather than taking shots. teethgrinder fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Nov 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
The lens actually was really dirty, well the polarizer on my lens was. I guess the mid-day time makes sense. What exactly did you do to the image?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
I started with Lightroom, by boosting the exposure and blacks until the histogram just clipped at opposite ends (0.6 & 39). Boosted contrast, clarity and saturation (33, 61 & 54). In light of what I ended up doing, I probably didn't need to use saturation, but I hadn't discovered what I was going to do with the image yet. It looked like this:  I switched over to Color Efex 4 at this point, but everything I did could have been done in Lightroom. I added a graduated filter to the sky and decided I liked the grey better. Then I used the "foliage" filter to make the ... well, foliage more autumny. Could have just changed hues/saturation of specific colours in Lightroom. I finally used Dfine to reduce noise in the sky without affecting the foliage. Here's a pair without the saturation boost:  
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
Are you editing the jpeg? Lightroom I've found does a terrible job editing jpegs.. I did a test earlier this year, took the same show in jpeg and raw, and fiddled with sliders. It seemed like the sliders had more effect on the raw. Point being, maybe the jpeg limits how far you can push the photo? Because the last picture you posted looks like total poo to me. Here's a very similar photo I took earlier this fall. Same time of day, same sort of boring scene. When I set the sliders identical to what you did (33 contrast, 61 clarity, 54 saturation), I get this:  It seems to work a little better (though the yellow is a little too neon for my tastes). Unedited raw is here: http://xzzy.org/files/me/photog/IMG_1471.CR2
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
Yea I didn't post the RAW, but I always shoot RAW. It's pretty boring (i actually tried to hand-hold a bunch of shots to make a long panoramic but they're all slightly off axis...didn't bring a tripod) but if anyone wants it I could upload it. Your scene is way more interesting, maybe its the branches in the foreground on either side. I'm kind of excited for landscapes & learning more about them, but maybe only because I can't really shoot the types of people-photos I'd like to be shooting. Either way thanks for all the input.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
I took a picture of this girl but did not get her bag fully out of view: Do you think it's possible to remove this in Photoshop? I want to basically keep this perspective, I don't want to do a close-in crop, and I want to maintain the square. Am I totally screwed or is this salvageable?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
You could always start with content aware fill and then meticulously clone stamp away until it's up to your standards. If you wanna provide the original I'll try it at work tomorrow (I like distractions at work, so I can pretend I'm living the dream and not selling out for this mortgage).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
Wow, I totally forgot about content aware fill. I fixed it in like 10 minutes!! It might need a bit of slight re-touching but this got me close. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
Keep in mind the vignette. Otherwise it'd be really straight forward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Are you editing the jpeg? Lightroom I've found does a terrible job editing jpegs.. I did a test earlier this year, took the same show in jpeg and raw, and fiddled with sliders. It seemed like the sliders had more effect on the raw.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
I like it with the bag in. It adds a nice secondary focal point and some balance. If anything, just move it over a little to the right to keep it away from the edge of frame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 13:01
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Wow, I totally forgot about content aware fill. I fixed it in like 10 minutes!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:I like it with the bag in. It adds a nice secondary focal point and some balance. If anything, just move it over a little to the right to keep it away from the edge of frame. I agree. I think it's better with the bag in the shot, but maybe not so close to the edge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
Random heads-up for folks. I know Lightroom is the industry standard, and it's a very good program, but it's not the only game on the block. I'm a big fan of DxO Optics. While the learning curve is higher than with Lightroom, I find that I get better results with fewer clicks in DxO. I also feel like it does a better job of pulling detail out of underexposed areas without adding a lot of noise or slop to the image. Finally, DxO's lens correction modules are really powerful, and do more than the Lightroom modules (though anyone can make a Lightroom module, unlike DxO who makes all of theirs in-house). Anyway, DxO Labs is running a 33% off sale through November 15th. Here is a link to the purchase page and the 33% coupon code. They also have a free trial so you're not jumping into anything blind. So, yeah. Try DxO. It's neat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
How is their stock noise removal? I am really happy with Lightroom's built in NR and have come to rely on it, shooting at high ISO on a D200. I've also got Nik Dfine which I can pull out in a pinch though, so I guess I'll give this a shot anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 06:25
|
|
|
It's much better than LR2's noise removal, and is supposed to be on-par with LR3. I say "supposed to be" because I rarely use Lightroom anymore and haven't done any side-by-side comparisons, but at a glance, they look pretty similar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 06:34
|
|
|
Did I do too much post on this photo: 
wizard sticks fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Nov 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 16:20
|
|
|
wizard sticks posted:Did I do too much post on this photo: I think the problem is that you have made the trees look so nice and colorful that they're now stealing attention from the elephant which is supposed to be the subject of the image. It's hard to get a grey elephant to "pop" infront of such saturated autumn colors. Maybe the image would be a good candidate for b&w?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Just desaturate the yellows a little.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 18:21
|
|