|
This might not be the best place to ask, but if anyone knows Photoshop best, it'd be you guys. I was working on a photo in CS6, and I bumped my laptop. All of a sudden the whole screen started flashing rainbow colours like crazy, and I had to force restart before I had a seizure. Everything works fine on the machine except Photoshop. Half of the attribute tools are ghosted now, and any picture I open up looks like it lost a bunch of resolution, even though the properties say it hasn't. Has anyone ever had this happen, and what did you do to fix it? Do I have to reinstall, or is there an easier way?
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:http://www.davidburdeny.com/ I agree with a few of rangerscum's guesses, and would add: - he's probably using a Neutral Density (ND) filter on a solid/stable surface... IE, not a boat. The ND filter lets him use lower shutter speed than he might otherwise use in bright light. - I'm going to hazard a guess here and say he's probably using a Red filter for the B+W shots. Not that this site is any good but it has a good image showing the effect of a red filter on the sky in B+W. You can do it in post with a RAW file, but an actual filter will give much better results. - where there is subtle color (like 03 or 04), he's probably creating a masked duotone/tritone shot rather than a color shot Also... don't be shy - from time to time I have a found a photographer whose work I really dig, and I'll straight up email them and say "Hey, what equipment are you using and how did you do that?" Sometimes I don't get a response, but when I do they're always helpful and more than willing to talk gear+technique (and sometimes even a "before" shot). That's how I learned about Red filters... emailed a guy (this was in the mid '90's) because he had these amazing dark skies in snowy landscapes. Guitarchitect fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but what are people's opinions on Aperture vs Lightroom? I have been using Aperture forever, but after reading some blog posts I decided to pick up a copy of Lightroom to try out. I tried to process some photos in it but ended up being frustrated with how non-intuitive it is. For example, I seem to always hold the camera slightly off-level, so I am a straighten tool power user. In Aperture it's easy to get to and the interface for using it is super easy. In Lightroom it just seems like the adjustment isn't as sensitive (I felt like I had to move my mouse only a micron and the tool would jump) whereas in Aperture it's not so sensitive. I'm also not so clear on how to best organize photos in LR. In Aperture they all get stored in the database blob. In LR it looks like they sit in a folder structure on the disk (sounds good) but then there's collections and stuff to organize things? How do you best organize large libraries? The three things that made me want to check out LR is the questionable future of Aperture, the lens correction presets, and the ability to tilt shift photos to fix perspective issues. (Like taking a pic of a tall building at ground level.) Otherwise I'm happy with Aperture. What do folks think? I know it's kind of a heated topic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Rotation: Are you using the crop tool (shortcut 'r'), not the lens correction tool? The edges and corners change crop, clicking and dragging outside the boundaries gives you fine rotation with an overlay grid.  Organisation: By default the photos get dumped into folders by year and then subfolders by day. That reflects their location in your OS's file system. Everything else then is a matter of convenience and preference (and hell, you can customise the physical locations too to your heart's content). I personally like to marry directories of photos together if there's only one or two in a directory and they're similar enough in time/topic, and then append a short description to the folder name. As for collections, I tend to make one per event I'm working on. Ideally you would tag your photos too, and you can create impromptu collections by searching/filtering tags. At the very least, you can automatically set tags on import. It's a really powerful system, if not immediately intuitive. If you're serious about it, I recommend checking out Martin Evening's Lightroom book. It's very good at explaining the cataloging. teethgrinder fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
 Click the Angle icon under Crop & Straighten, draw a line on your image representing true horizontal or vertical, and it will adjust to match.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:
You can also just hold the ctrl key (I think it's ctrl) instead of clicking the angle icon
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Oh, I managed to *find* the straighten tool. I just found that the sensitivity with my mouse wasn't so good. I will probably post process in both for a while and see which one works out best for me. I'm very comfortable with Aperture, but it just seems to be lacking some of the features in Lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:You can also just hold the ctrl key (I think it's ctrl) instead of clicking the angle icon Even better! Thanks for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:Click the Angle icon under Crop & Straighten, draw a line on your image representing true horizontal or vertical, and it will adjust to match.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Wait, you can do that with vertical too? Totally can!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Probably a silly question, but can anyone tell me what the jpeg preview in a 7D is processed with settings wise? I shoot raw so I can fiddle with the best shots I like easily, but for the rest I'd like to just whack on a rough preset similar to the preview. The raws just looks so lifeless and dull usually. Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Not a silly question, it's frustrating having the final images of a shoot come out noticeably less glamorous than the JPEG previews. It's based on the Picture Style you select (Landscape, Portrait, Standard, Faithful, Monochrome, etc). The RAW processor that you use on your computer is what decides just how to form a picture from all of the bits of light the sensor caught.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:Probably a silly question, but can anyone tell me what the jpeg preview in a 7D is processed with settings wise? I shoot raw so I can fiddle with the best shots I like easily, but for the rest I'd like to just whack on a rough preset similar to the preview. The raws just looks so lifeless and dull usually. Thanks RAW files are supposed to look lifeless and well, Raw. You would need to select a default option at Import. In LF3/4 you can set a preset to take effect while importing images. Which preset should you use? Make one. You probably could google a Canon JPEG setting/preset for Lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:Probably a silly question, but can anyone tell me what the jpeg preview in a 7D is processed with settings wise? I shoot raw so I can fiddle with the best shots I like easily, but for the rest I'd like to just whack on a rough preset similar to the preview. If you haven't touched the camera settings, changing Lightroom/ACR to default to the "Camera Standard" profile will get you in the right ballpark. If you're using a different Picture Style on the camera, choose the appropriate "Camera xxx" profile instead. If you've dialed in custom settings on the camera, futz around in Lightroom or ACR until what's on your monitor's close to the camera rendition and save that as a preset.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
I was always fond of setting the JPEG to Neutral and doing +2 or +3 sharpening. It's folly to evaluate color, and often even contrast from the back LCD anyway, but at least the above lets me know that I hit focus on the photo I just took.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
If you like the way the in camera jpg looks you can use the Canon software as well. It will make your raw files look like the in camera jpg. I set my picture style to black and white with the contrast turned down. It changes the way the histogram is rendered as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
I'm looking for some way to mark a photo as "finished" or "final" in LR4. Doesn't have to lock for further editing. I just find myself going back and forth over a full vacation's pictures, and sorta forgetting which ones I'm done with, which ones could use more work, and which ones are unprocessed. Right now I use quick collection, but, yeah... Any ideas? Additionally, is there an easy way to clone/heal out something linear, like a hair? I find I have to do a million little circles, and there must be a better way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
bolind posted:I'm looking for some way to mark a photo as "finished" or "final" in LR4. Doesn't have to lock for further editing. I just find myself going back and forth over a full vacation's pictures, and sorta forgetting which ones I'm done with, which ones could use more work, and which ones are unprocessed. Right now I use quick collection, but, yeah... Any ideas? There are many ways to flag a photo in LR. The easiest is just to press "P" for a pick or in your case, a finished photo. Alternatively there are 5 stars and 5 colours for you to sort/rank your photos as well. Then you can just filter your photos accordingly. As for the hair problem, I usually just bring it into Photoshop to fix in an instant. Trying to use LR to do it is an exercise in frustration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
bolind posted:I'm looking for some way to mark a photo as "finished" or "final" in LR4. Doesn't have to lock for further editing. I just find myself going back and forth over a full vacation's pictures, and sorta forgetting which ones I'm done with, which ones could use more work, and which ones are unprocessed. Right now I use quick collection, but, yeah... Any ideas? I do a first run through pick (for ones I want)/reject (for missed focus/junk). Favourites get a five star, but that's all I use those for. Then do basic exposure/color/contrast/sharpening/NR/etc on the picks. After that, I mark em yellow for needs proper (ie, PS) post, blue for done, green for uploaded to Flickr. quote:Additionally, is there an easy way to clone/heal out something linear, like a hair? I find I have to do a million little circles, and there must be a better way. I just use PS. The LR spotting tool is a pain for anything that isnt, er, spots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
I took a series of photos of a friend's father's model train, and I'm trying to give them all a similar look. I've always just done one-by-one post and never worried about making a coherent series, and I'm not sure if I succeeded. I'm thinking about finding one more that I like, processing it similarly, and creating a calendar for his train barn, but I'm worried about them being all over the place. Here are a few of them, and you can see all 11 on my Flickr if you choose. Also, do you have any advice for better post? It's all done in LR4. Trains by prismaticglasses, on Flickr  Trains-3 by prismaticglasses, on Flickr  Trains-6 by prismaticglasses, on Flickr There's also a tiny whore house, but I have no idea to what extent naked plastic ladies are NWS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
bolind posted:Additionally, is there an easy way to clone/heal out something linear, like a hair? I find I have to do a million little circles, and there must be a better way. There will be, in LR5. http://terrywhite.com/lightroom-5-a-1st-look-and-my-top-5-favorite-features/ The radial lighting tool is also way interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Claw Massage posted:There will be, in LR5. That dude talks way too much. Coulda been a 5 minute video. The radial tool and the ability to heal not just spots anymore is the most intriguing to me. Kinda wish I had stayed with LR3 so I could justify upgrading to 5.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
What's folks opinion on plugins like Film Stocks that mimic the look of various films? I suppose that it could be a little Instagrammy, but as I never really had a chance to shoot with Kodachrome film, it'd be nice to be able to achieve that look easily. I'm wondering if it's heresy to use a tool like this, though...
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
They generally do not mimic filmstocks accurately at all, and I think they look pretty ugly to boot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:What's folks opinion on plugins like Film Stocks that mimic the look of various films? I inherited VSCO, DXO Filmpack, SilverFX/ColorFX and Alien Skin Exposure when I bought a NAS from a Professional Internet Portrait/Wedding/Landscape/Animal/Car Photographer©. (also, his entire image library, because formatting = hard) VSCO is probably the best implementation of all (but doesn't have Kodachrome), DXO filmpack is a close second (and covers Kodachrome 25 and 64). Alien Skin is pretty lovely. Silver FX is excellent for b&w conversions. Most of the others I have seen pushed on the internets have just been PS actions to overlay a curves layer and maybe a grain layer. Both of which you can do yourself for $0. As Reichstag said, though, they generally don't really mimic the film stocks all that well, especially in the highlights; as an 'instagrammy' type set of curves that you use for a bit of screwing around, though, they are pretty decent. And, despite what SERIOUS PHOTOGRAPHERS claim, fun. Ever since a couple of really popular wedding guys started using/pushing VSCO (Jonas Peterson and Sean Flanigan), it seems every second person (over)uses them though, to the point that it's practically a cliche in itself. You aren't a momtographer unless you have a faux-Portra shot of a couple sitting in a field on a vintage couch. Normally, I'd say you should just go shoot some film if you want your photos to look like film... but there really isn't a close replacement for Kodachrome. Maybe Rollei Digibase 200 Pro (http://www.flickr.com/groups/digibase/) BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Apr 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:Normally, I'd say you should just go shoot some film if you want your photos to look like film... but there really isn't a close replacement for Kodachrome. Thank God.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
420 shoot kodachrome everyday kodachrome024.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  kodachrome038.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
Valdara posted:I took a series of photos of a friend's father's model train, and I'm trying to give them all a similar look. I've always just done one-by-one post and never worried about making a coherent series, and I'm not sure if I succeeded. I'm thinking about finding one more that I like, processing it similarly, and creating a calendar for his train barn, but I'm worried about them being all over the place. Here are a few of them, and you can see all 11 on my Flickr if you choose. Also, do you have any advice for better post? It's all done in LR4. What a cool idea. I wouldn't worry too much about the consistency - as long as your blue sky is consistent!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:What's folks opinion on plugins like Film Stocks that mimic the look of various films? I would say don't use them if you want your digital photos to look like film. Do use them if you like that washed out, unusual colorization look and would make use of a plug-in that provides a bunch of good starting points for tweaking that look, then they're a lot of fun. I've only used VSCO, but I like it a lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
I too find VSCO an awful lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Maybe this is a dumb question, but is there a site where "professional Photoshop people" buy brushes and stuff? Or do they just use the same free brushes and textures that everyone else uses?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but what are people's opinions on Aperture vs Lightroom? I have been using Aperture forever, but after reading some blog posts I decided to pick up a copy of Lightroom to try out. I tried to process some photos in it but ended up being frustrated with how non-intuitive it is. I know this is an old post but... When I first started shooting seriously in 2007, I had a PC and used Lightroom v1. I used it for awhile and decided to switch to Aperture 2 when I bought my first mac in early 2009. At the time, I thought Aperture was way ahead of Lightroom. In 2010 Aperture 3 came out and it was a nice improvement and still had some features Lightroom didn't have. Since then, Apple has only had made minor updates to Aperture. Meanwhile, Lightroom has gone through two versions and is now beta testing a third (5). They've added a lot of cool features in each version. IMO it's kicking Aperture's rear end. I just switch to Lightroom 4 a month ago and it's going good so far. Haven't had any problems editing, though I'm still trying to figure out how I'm going to organize everything. So far I'm just letting Lightroom do what it does and organize things by date. I might just stick with that since I was kinda doing same thing in Aperture with projects. As for rating/tagging, the keyword tool in LR is a lot better and is making my life easier. I'm debating if I want to keep using the star rating system or just flag the photos I like. Also, I really like the quick collection which is a feature I loved in v1 and missed in my Aperture days (I put all my to-edit photos in it). Overall, LR seems to have way more tools than Aperture and I can't think of anything Aperture has that LR doesn't. Now add that fact that no one knows when/if there will be an Aperture update (or if Apple will just abandon Aperture), I'd say get the hell out while you still can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Photoshop used to be, well... Photoshop. For a while it's been more a general purpose computer-based graphics/image manipulation thing. With everything that Adobe has been adding to Lightroom with each iteration, I feel like they're sort of going back to roots and making Lightroom "Photoshop." If that makes any sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
It'll always feel super limited until you can use multiple images as layers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Lightroom's a wonderful tool for importing, organizing, and medium-level editing your photos. I use it about 85% of the time. Photoshop is still far and away the more powerful editing tool, and much more suited to portraits or anything that you want to devote serious processing time to. If you're serious about your processing you need both in your arsenal, and I doubt that will ever change. If you have to pick, take PS and learn to work with bridge. If you can afford both, bite the bullet and get both. I don't think I'd ever advocate taking Lightroom over Photoshop unless you really don't want to learn photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:Lightroom's a wonderful tool for importing, organizing, and medium-level editing your photos. I use it about 85% of the time. Photoshop is still far and away the more powerful editing tool, and much more suited to portraits or anything that you want to devote serious processing time to. And if you can afford Photoshop, Lightroom isn't much extra.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
I just wish I could add Lightroom onto my Photoshop subscription for an extra $5 a month or whatever. Adobe's subscription pricing is kind of stupid if you just want to use a couple of programs. But Lightroom 4 is $20 off right now so I guess I'll just buy it. Bridge is annoying and LR5 doesn't seem to have anything I can't already do in Photoshop in 10 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
This is one of my favorite shots and I'm planning to get it printed on either canvas or foam. If anyone can give me some C&C on how I might improve the colors I'd greatly appreciate it.  Walking through the Streets - Retouched by ashex, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:Lightroom's a wonderful tool for importing, organizing, and medium-level editing your photos. I use it about 85% of the time. Photoshop is still far and away the more powerful editing tool, and much more suited to portraits or anything that you want to devote serious processing time to. I use Lightroom for cropping images, easily adjusting brightness, contrast, as well as taking advantage of the ease of use of adjusting highlights, shadows, etc. Split toning and using the grain reduction tools as needed as well. It's just so much easier to use for those elements. After that is done, however, for all the finer tuning I'll import into Photoshop and go from there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Question: When do you guys do your sharpening? After resizing to output size?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 07:03
|
|