|
dakana posted:Can you add the parent folder, then just tell Lightroom where the new parent folder is? This is what I tried in LR 3.6 - no dice. Lightroom (at least, version 3) doesn't really play nice with my file/folder structure. If you import the files originally in their nested-folder structure by importing from as close to the root as possible, it seems to improve the LR catalogue's ability to know where the gently caress anything is.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
Dren posted:I played with it some last night. It was a huge pita and I got three different results, all unsatisfactory. Messed with it some more and I found that hugin will take the 32 bit tiffs from PS and stitch a 32 bit pano. However, the end result totally sucked. There were some really messed up colors I couldn't explain and PS couldn't tonemap the image in any way that made it not look like poo poo. I looked at the tonemapped 8-bit image that hugin produced and it was pretty solid, especially after running it through ACR. Moving forward I think I will use that unless I can figure out something superior. I didn't have any problems with frames being exposed incorrectly. Dren fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Ok this is driving me loving nuts. In lightroom it used to be that if I hit the "B" key, the photo on the screen would go to the quick collection. Now when I hit it it goes to mobile uploads. I can't find how I can quick add photos the quick collection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
ScooterMcTiny posted:The food thread in the Dorkroom is a bizarre one, so I'll bring my question here I guess. I'm just getting into taking some pictures of food (how original!), and wanted to get some advise on my post that I'm doing in Lightroom. Basically some exposure, white balance, and light curves adjustments in Lightroom. Nothing too major. Any thoughts/advice? I'm going to say ditch the second shot since the first provides better context, and I definitely agree with the "get it on a plate" idea to replace it. I do think your chosen depth of field works well with the first shot although it seems like the whites could benefit from a little brightening. Browse Tastespotting and all you see is a bunch of grey-rear end plates that should be white.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Ok this is driving me loving nuts. In lightroom it used to be that if I hit the "B" key, the photo on the screen would go to the quick collection. Now when I hit it it goes to mobile uploads. I can't find how I can quick add photos the quick collection. 'B' still works for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Ok this is driving me loving nuts. In lightroom it used to be that if I hit the "B" key, the photo on the screen would go to the quick collection. Now when I hit it it goes to mobile uploads. I can't find how I can quick add photos the quick collection. Did you do the recent update that came in over the last few days ? I skipped it because Lightroom currently works and I don't have any new cameras 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Is it adding to the "target collection", and the target has defaulted to mobile uploads? I actually was wondering where quick collection has disappeared to... But if you have one, maybe you can set it to be the target?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
So I'm thinking about jumping on the VSCO Film pack train. Which one do I get first?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Xabi posted:So I'm thinking about jumping on the VSCO Film pack train. Which one do I get first? 4 and 1 are my favourites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
1 and 5 were my favorites, but there's a few in 6 that look amazing under the right conditions. One of these days, I need to just make a new folder for the VSCO presets that I use most often, because truth be told, most of the time it's probably just like 9 of them total, and I have all the packs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
I end up using some from 1, 4 and 6 mostly. I don't like the look of a lot of the emulations in 2 (I think I have only ended up the Superia ones in that set), 3 is instagram, and 5 I just have not clicked with. I think if I tried more with 5 I might enjoy it more, but I haven't for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
A lightroom question for any of you "power users"... I do 100% of my editing on a PC desktop currently. My catalog is on a drive on my desktop for expediency and my raw photos sit on a NAS in another room of the house. I recently purchased a laptop and would like to figure out the best workflow to use with it. I know Lightroom has a Mobile version if you pay for the subscription but as someone who bought the original Lightroom and has purchased every upgrade since then I don't feel like shelling out again or buying into Adobe CC. My question is: Is there a way I can possibly share or sync my catalog with my laptop so I can review/edit photos remotely? I know I'd have to figure out how to point it to my NAS if I'm not on the network at my house but I'm just wondering if this is possible or if I should even bother trying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
put your cat on a syncing media (dropbox or whatevs), don't open it in more than one location at once, voila. If your NAS has a cloud-like function you could use that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Okay awesome, I have a synology 1513+ and I believe it has that capability but I'll have to look into it more. It definitely has a web interface. I should probably put it on a UPS if I end up doing that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
I took a bunch of photos of my kid, one per month, sitting in the same chair since birth to his first birthday. They all have slightly different exposure settings, because I was using available light and some days were cloudier than others, so not every photo looks the same. Is there a smart way to match the color and contrast of each photo so I can get them all in the same general ballpark? Using Lightroom? Or do I just have to do this by eye?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
If the framing is the same and you have a neutral color patch in there you can use the WB dropper
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If the framing is the same and you have a neutral color patch in there you can use the WB dropper This and don't really worry about the exposure so much just make sure they're all properly exposed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
How many people convert all of their images to DNG when importing into Lightroom/else? I haven't done it for any of my photos and I'm curious what the benefits are, and what are the drawbacks? I personally like being able to pull the .xmp file away and have my original unedited image back, but is that something that is still possible with DNG? Seeing posts like this one make me consider the option, but just how realistic is it that a DNG file will be supported longer than a Canon .CR2 file?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Superdawg posted:How many people convert all of their images to DNG when importing into Lightroom/else? I haven't done it for any of my photos and I'm curious what the benefits are, and what are the drawbacks? I do it for no real reason at all. I can't imagine .cr2 files ever going away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Never really understood people's issues with color until it's now happening to me. I have a Dell U2410 monitor, which to my understanding, came calibrated. So I didn't bother calibrating for a while and recently I decided to pick up a Spyder Pro. I ran it, and it drastically cooled my monitor, which sucks because if it's correct, it means most of my skin tones the past year look terrible. But anyway, I have an issue with what windows explorer shows me and what the photo looks like in photoshop or lightroom and I don't understand color spaces at all. Can someone clarify? This is what the two images look like.   The first is what it looks like in explorer, and what I was assuming they looked like after I edited them. The 2nd one is what it looks like in Photoshop after I've calibrated my monitor. He looks sickly and gross and now I don't know how to proceed. I assume my "calibrated" monitor is not, in fact accurately calibrated, and that I should go with the Spyder calibration going forward, but why then why difference between explorer and photoshop?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Never really understood people's issues with color until it's now happening to me. I have a Dell U2410 monitor, which to my understanding, came calibrated. So I didn't bother calibrating for a while and recently I decided to pick up a Spyder Pro. I ran it, and it drastically cooled my monitor, which sucks because if it's correct, it means most of my skin tones the past year look terrible. I know it's a stupid question, but are you embedding the right color profile?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:I know it's a stupid question, but are you embedding the right color profile? Stupid answer: what does that mean? So...probably not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Windows can assign different, seemingly random color profiles to everything. (I assume you are running Windows since dude you got a Dell!) My Lightroom was running some crazy profile that made my shots look purple in anything else. I changed everything to the same profile and it's all better. Try here for starters. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/change-color-management-settings
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask, but what is got format/settings/tools I should use to bulk convert my personal photo gallery so that they don't become crappier (than what they are now, taken off various phones and cheap digital cameras) but take up less space?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask, but what is got format/settings/tools I should use to bulk convert my personal photo gallery so that they don't become crappier (than what they are now, taken off various phones and cheap digital cameras) but take up less space? If they're all jpegs already, and they should be if they come from various phones and cheap digital cameras, there isn't much you can do to reduce their size with also reducing their quality. Jpegs are a compressed image format. You'll find that attempting to further compress them (e.g. by putting them in a zipfile) will perhaps compress them an additional 1-2% but that's it. That leaves your only options for further compression as resizing the files to be smaller (e.g. take a 1600x1200 image and make it 800x600) or save them again with lower JPEG quality settings (this will cause problems like banding in areas of solid color like skies but may be acceptable to you. Facebook, for example, does this to everything that is uploaded there). This has been my experience so it's possible someone knows a compression technique that can result in meaningful gains for JPEG. If so hopefully they will show up and tell us all about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Alright, I will think about resizing, though that wouldn't be great. Quality of photos on Facebook seems to be fine with me. If that helps, here is information from some sample photos:        That's basically a sample photo from every second folder with photos I have, which total at 12.5 GB (2580 files) (though there might be some videos too). On my own, my best guess is, perhaps, to lower quality to 80 for every photo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Just buy a larger hard drive. 12 GB is nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Just buy a larger hard drive. 12 GB is nothing. Yeah you can get 1 TB externals for $60
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Just buy a larger hard drive. 12 GB is nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Space is not an issue, this is more of an "optimization for the sake of optimization" thing for me just to learn something new that just came into my mind. If space or bandwidth are not issues then it's not really necessary. All JPEG compression is lossy so you don't want to compress more than you have to. (Technically the JPEG standard allows for lossless compression but I don't know of any implementations). Dren fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:Windows can assign different, seemingly random color profiles to everything. (I assume you are running Windows since dude you got a Dell!) So, this seems unrelated to monitor calibration? Did I just not notice this issue before, or why would it only come up now after I've calibrated? I thought once I calibrate, it applies that color profile to my monitor itself, not to specific programs? Don't I still want everything to have the same color profile (Adobe RGB), but now that my monitor is calibrated, I should be viewing what Adoble RGB actually looks like...across the board for all programs? Hmm...reading some more, so calibrating my monitor only ensures that color managed software behaves properly, which I assume means LR and PS are correct and the explorer preview is not color managed and therefore not reliable? CarrotFlowers fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Dren posted:If space or bandwidth are not issues then it's not really necessary. All JPEG compression is lossy so you don't want to compress more than you have to. (Technically the JPEG standard allows for lossless compression but I don't know of any implementations). I hope I didn't distract thread to much with my confused New Year Day idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:So, this seems unrelated to monitor calibration? Did I just not notice this issue before, or why would it only come up now after I've calibrated? I thought once I calibrate, it applies that color profile to my monitor itself, not to specific programs? Don't I still want everything to have the same color profile (Adobe RGB), but now that my monitor is calibrated, I should be viewing what Adoble RGB actually looks like...across the board for all programs? AFAIK, no browser uses AdobeRGB, they use sRGB.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Alright, I'll just drop it off then. You could try some different lossless compression methods and see how well they do. Might be interesting to see a bit of a report on it, for science. I believe 7zip allows for the creation of archives with various compression schemes. Try choosing the different compression and see what gives the best results. An interesting compression algorithm I've seen is called zopfli. It's a zlib implementation where they sacrifice speed of doing the compression for efficiency in the actual compression. It's useful for compressing the data section of PNGs since they usually use regular zlib.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Is there a good source for lens profiles for LR that aren't included natively?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
What do you guys think about Portraiture? The instructor in the workshop I was in likes it and it looks good to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Someone tried to tell me I just had to buy Nik last night (after also trying to convince me I should switch to Canon from Nikon and being completely wrong about the specs on the 7d Mark II, so I'm taking his recommendation with a very large salt crystal). "Sharpen" looks nice but does it work better than other similar/competing software that integrates (or brings in exports from) Lightroom, some of which I've already tried and determined to not be useful for me? Is Nik actually super great like this dude was raving about or is it just another piece of photo software that can be neat for some users?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Is there a good source for lens profiles for LR that aren't included natively? Sometimes you can google and find one someone has already made, if not it's not too hard to make them yourself, just time consuming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Someone tried to tell me I just had to buy Nik last night (after also trying to convince me I should switch to Canon from Nikon and being completely wrong about the specs on the 7d Mark II, so I'm taking his recommendation with a very large salt crystal). He's right, Nik is a great deal at 3x the price. Right now you get 7 programs for $150. They all have very different uses and excel at what they do. One thing they all have in common is the control point system. Control points are kinda like masking and allow for selective adjustments. For example, lets say I have a landscape photo and I want to darken the sky. I'd drop a control point on the sky, expand the circle to include all of the sky, then play with the adjustments. It only takes a second and it's pretty good at figuring out what you're selecting. If it selects too much, then all you do is drop in more control points. It's very quick and easy. So with that said, here is a quick run down of the tools: 1. Analog Efex Pro - haven't used this one much but it seems pretty legit. I know they have engineers in Germany analyzing various films to get the software as accurate as possible. 2. Color Efex Pro - It has some gimmicky stuff but it also has some pretty useful tools. Tonal contrast is good and I'm gonna try out Dynamic Skin Softener before I spend the $200 on Portraiture. 3. Silver Efex Pro - By far the best tool for black and white conversion (there are a couple newer tools from other companies I haven't checked out though). It's great because it gives you a bunch of starting points to work off so you can get to where you want with your photo quicker. It's simple to start with but it allows you to deep dive in too what seems like endless customization. Great looking film emulation (same German engineers). 4. Viveza - If you just want to do quick selective adjustments, that's what this tool is for. Great if you like the nik control point way of doing things. 5. Sharpener Pro - This is great because it makes selective sharpening easy (with the control point system) and it has presets for print size/paper type. Takes a lot of the mystery of sharpening out. 6. HDR Efex Pro - I don't really do HDR much but it seems pretty solid. I don't know what hardcore HDR people like to use but this program is plenty good for me. 7. Dfine - Reduces noise. Used to be the best but I know there are a bunch of other tools out there. Noise isn't a big problem for me now a days so I haven't really used it in a long time. Good to have in the collection though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
This might be useful for some, based on the recent talk here: http://petapixel.com/2015/02/09/affinity-photo-new-pro-photoshop-alternative-mac-users-get-free/
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 02:38
|
|
