|
It's definitely a time saver and I wish I knew you could line things up like this years ago. After we get our logo set up, make sure you have it sized how you want it on your photo, I'm sure this will be determined at some point. Set yourself up an action and press record. From there you'll want to go to File>Place and then select your logo. This will load the logo as a separate layer into photoshop. Go to your layers palette and select both of the layers. Then go to Layer>Align then select bottom. Then go back into the align option and select right. This will put the logo in the bottom right corner no matter what the crop or orientation is on the image. Then flatten the image and stop your recording. Now to automate it on your edited for web images you'll go to File>Scripts>Image Processor. Then you select the folder you have your images in and go to the bottom and select your logo action and you're done. I just ran it on over 200 Warped Tour photos and it saved me a ton of time.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
This is my first ever attempt at processing some photos that I took last night in horrible lighting. I already know I did one thing wrong (shot in JPG instead of RAW), but tell me if there are any other glaring problems present that I need to address. Please. Before.  Click here for the full 685x1024 image. After.  Click here for the full 685x1024 image. Thoughts? Edit: Guess I should say what I did. Used Photoshop to desaturate the harsh red going on, masked off and sharpened the guitarist, denoised/ despeckled, 25% blue filter Black Betty fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Aug 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 00:04
|
|
|
Black Betty posted:This is my first ever attempt at processing some photos that I took last night in horrible lighting. I already know I did one thing wrong (shot in JPG instead of RAW), but tell me if there are any other glaring problems present that I need to address. Please. I don't think shooting raw is really going to help much with concert photos. You did a pretty good job cleaning it up, my only real recommendation would be to get the bands permission to use flash, then you can shoot with ISO 100 and knock down the lights to make your own lighting. Alternatively, get faster glass/full frame camera or convert to black and white.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I don't think shooting raw is really going to help much with concert photos. You did a pretty good job cleaning it up, my only real recommendation would be to get the bands permission to use flash, then you can shoot with ISO 100 and knock down the lights to make your own lighting. Alternatively, get faster glass/full frame camera or convert to black and white. A few thoughts on your comments. Shooting raw will absolutely help. I can't tell you how often I play with the white balance on concert photos and that's just the simple benefit of shooting raw. The number of shots I've been able to "save" because I shot raw is uncountable. You should always be shooting raw at shows. You should always be shooting raw period. Second. I'd wager it's not a band decision if flash is ok since I see a huge House of Blues banner in the background. Every House of Blues in existence has insane guidelines and will ask you to leave if you violate them, I've seen it happen. They make you sign their own photography waiver every single time you shoot. On top of that, their lighting blows at every one of them. I've shot at 4 now and they always suck. Back to the photos. I for the life of me do not understand why people try to take photos shot under a red light and make them not look like they were shot under a red light. If you were at a show and watched it, that guy would like much closer to your unedited photo than he would your edited photo. I see the benefits of cleaning up over saturated light color, but I will never see the point in people trying to make someone's skin color back to normal when it didn't look that way live. Your unedited photo has way more contrast and is more appealing to the eye.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
rockcity posted:A few thoughts on your comments. Fair enough, however I don't think I've ever had a shot that couldn't be fixed by converting to black and white, and if you're shooting on a Rebel like me, you'd rather have 32 frames instead of the 4 or whatever before the buffer needs to clear. I shot raw one time, and while the buffer cleared I missed the bass player jumping off a drum kit. Never again, It just doesn't make sense to me when black and white is more than fine. As for the House of Blues, I caught that too, it was more of a "general advice" when shooting concerts. Obviously there's exceptions, but more often then not you can get away with shooting flash on local/regional and lesser known national bands. As for the "Keep him red", I agree with this, if you really don't like the way it looks try it in black and white.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
Thanks guys, that really does help! I was intending on originally keeping them red but played around with taking it off so I could see the difference. He does look more 'normal' after the blue filter, but I can just as easily lose that and I'll still have the wash from the lighting, just not as harsh. I just can't get over how he looks so...jaundiced. I shot with a 50mm f1.8, for reference. And next time: RAW!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Fair enough, however I don't think I've ever had a shot that couldn't be fixed by converting to black and white, and if you're shooting on a Rebel like me, you'd rather have 32 frames instead of the 4 or whatever before the buffer needs to clear. I shot raw one time, and while the buffer cleared I missed the bass player jumping off a drum kit. Never again, It just doesn't make sense to me when black and white is more than fine. Converting to black and white doesn't fix it, it masks it. Anyone who has ever opened Photoshop is going to know the exact reason why that photo is black and white. Edit: Also, RAW always. I haven't shot in jpeg in five years. I take it that you are using the pray and spray "method," not exactly what I would expect from the master of advice giving.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 04:09
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I don't think shooting raw is really going to help much with concert photos. You did a pretty good job cleaning it up, my only real recommendation would be to get the bands permission to use flash, then you can shoot with ISO 100 and knock down the lights to make your own lighting. Alternatively, get faster glass/full frame camera or convert to black and white. You should probably lurk and not offer advice on stuff like this till you know better, as both of these points are completely wrong. Jpeg will not have enough data to shift WB to where it needs to be without a shitload of pixels clipping and losing color fidelity. If you are shooting in crappy or mixed colored lighting, always always always shoot raw. Flash photography for live bands is almost always a no-no as it looks better with the stage lighting and the musicians are already greasy and sweaty which on camera flash will exaggerate. The first and easiest way to improve post work on live event photography is to shoot raw so you have more data to work with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 12:43
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I don't think shooting raw is really going to help much with concert photos. AtomicManiac posted:If you're shooting on a Rebel like me, you'd rather have 32 frames instead of the 4 or whatever before the buffer needs to clear. I shot raw one time, and while the buffer cleared I missed the bass player jumping off a drum kit. Never again, It just doesn't make sense to me when black and white is more than fine. psylent fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Aug 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 12:58
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Fair enough, however I don't think I've ever had a shot that couldn't be fixed by converting to black and white, and if you're shooting on a Rebel like me, you'd rather have 32 frames instead of the 4 or whatever before the buffer needs to clear. I shot raw one time, and while the buffer cleared I missed the bass player jumping off a drum kit. Never again, It just doesn't make sense to me when black and white is more than fine. I know reading can be difficult for you, so let me boil down what every one else is saying: You don't know what you're talking about, and you're probably a moron as well
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 14:10
|
|
|
Adobe has a release candidate for Lightroom 3.2 and ACR that seems to work well on my system. It adds support for some new cameras as well as new lenses and a few bug fixes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
So I did a promo shoot for a band a few days ago, they've got a Gaslight Anthem type of theme going on, with more of a lean towards a gangster motif (The band's name is "The Fixed Fight"). At any rate, I want to take some of the individuals of them, give them an old-school feel, and then put them on a cork board. Kind of like a cork-board in a police station. Am I going to get better results getting prints made myself and doing it in real life, or is there a good way to photo shop it without it looking cheesy and lovely?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 23:42
|
|
|
If you want it old school, I would go with the low-tech approach. It's most likely going to be faster than perfecting it in Photoshop too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
Make sure you get them printed on matte paper to reduce any chance of glare. It'll probably give it more of an old-school vibe anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
Anyone tried Bibble? Looks like a decent replacement for Lightroom if you're switching to linux from windows, which I am. So, anyone got some experience with this program? What did you make of it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 14:33
|
|
|
Adobe Camera RAW 6.2 and LightRoom 3.2 are out. edit: Release notes are here. edit 2: Some noteworthy changes from the Release Candidates that I quickly spotted: EOS 60D support and an iPhone 4 lens correction profile. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Aug 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 16:16
|
|
|
Does LR3 still suck?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
What's your beef with it? I run 3.2 RC and like it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 17:38
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:What's your beef with it? I run 3.2 RC and like it. Slow as gently caress. I also seem to have a bug where it will randomly apply noise reduction and it's frustrating as gently caress. (have not updated to 3.2 tho)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
LR3 runs faster for me than LR2 does. I didn't buy noise ninja and now I don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
LR3 runs great for me, but they did mention in the changelog...quote:Addressed performance issues that could occur while reviewing images in Loupe view
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 00:45
|
|
|
Upgraded my Late 2007 Macbook to 4GB ram from 1GB ram. CS5 no longer locks up my computer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 00:55
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:What's your beef with it? I run 3.2 RC and like it. I tried LR3, but I didn't like the way it imported pictures. I don't remember exactly what was bad with it, but it was enough for me to get really frustrated about the whole thing. Plus IIRC it crashed my POS laptop several times, so I gave up on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 05:25
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I tried LR3, but I didn't like the way it imported pictures. I don't remember exactly what was bad with it, but it was enough for me to get really frustrated about the whole thing. Plus IIRC it crashed my POS laptop several times, so I gave up on it. It puts it into folders the are for each date, So photos from different dates will end up in a different place even if they are from the same shoot/same import. Its annoying for sure. I dont know if there is a way to change it. It runs perfect on my machine though
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 05:34
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 05:38
|
|
|
I think it had more to do with the actual import menu. After booting it up again I'm not sure why I hated it, and it seems to run faster than LR2 does too, so I'm not sure why I hated it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:. Good to know, now if I do that does it just dump it literally into one folder for every import, or does each import get its own folder?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 07:42
|
|
|
You need to specify where you want each import. Or use tags.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 09:26
|
|
|
Sweeet they've added lens correction for the Nikkor 17-55!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 09:51
|
|
|
Is there a way to stitch together RAW files so that I can edit a panorama as a whole? My attempts at using the same image processing on the individual images before stitching didn't turn out so well. edit: Thanks for the tips, I figured things out. burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Sep 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
Can't you just export them as layers then align them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
Does Photomerge work on raw? If not convert them straight to jpegs and then use photomerge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
If you have a good idea of your end result it shouldn't be too hard to keep your settings consistent within layers. Generally I have everything grouped into either sky, land, shadows (or whatever separates your zones) and process each group of raws together that way since white balance and exposure shouldn't change too much between one highlight/shadow to the next. If you really need to you can process them as 16bit tiff files and stitch them like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 00:34
|
|
|
I am having a little problem here. I have deleted photos out of my lightroom library but they are still on my drive. How do I get rid of them for good?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:I am having a little problem here. I have deleted photos out of my lightroom library but they are still on my drive. How do I get rid of them for good? there should be a dialog box that pops up that says delete masters from disk too? when you delete
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 00:54
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:there should be a dialog box that pops up that says delete masters from disk too? when you delete Well, I deleted a whole folder at once from the 'catalog' so it didnt ask. It seems to have just removed it from the sidebar, not actually deleted it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 01:10
|
|
|
How are the files distributed on your drive?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 09:35
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:How are the files distributed on your drive? Im not sure. When I go to the actual location of the library there is just a Lightroom Library file. I can't go in and delete certain files.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 01:02
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:Well, I deleted a whole folder at once from the 'catalog' so it didnt ask. It seems to have just removed it from the sidebar, not actually deleted it. Did you delete a folder from the file tree view, or was it a collection?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:Im not sure. Bojanglesworth posted:When I go to the actual location of the library there is just a Lightroom Library file. I can't go in and delete certain files.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 10:26
|
|