Photography Post-Processing: Questions and How-Tos (HDR :getin:)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Photography Post-Processing: Questions and How-Tos (HDR :getin:)

«‹›2 »

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Instrumedley posted:

Original:

I think it's an improvement and I like it =) It is a bit far into the green, but it definitely brings out the eyes a lot and neutralizes the fur. The original looks really magenta to me.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2010 05:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 14:40

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

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

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

poopinmymouth posted:

Finally did that compositing video. I'm always waffling between making my tutorials (normally I do them on 3d stuff) in depth or surface level. I think I might have made this one too quick, but it's my first photography related one.
http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2010/09/bandpromocovervideotutorial.html

The pdf file that is linked in that post doesn't seem to be working, but that video was worth the watch.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2010 22:16

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

TequilaJesus posted:

This isn't quite a post-processing question, but I wasn't sure which thread to ask in:

What's the resolution generally considered necessary for prints of a certain size? In particular, I'm concerned with 8x10s and 11x14s.

Like MutantBlue said above, it really depends on whose printing. Generally from what I've seen 300dpi is considered the general standard and 150 the min. Those numbers float around a bit though as larger prints (like canvas) generally have smaller numbers as they are viewed at a further distance. Conversely, small prints might need a higher number. If you're getting your pictures printed at a lab just call and ask them what they print at.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2010 21:48

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Irfanview only recognizes sRGB so it's probably a color space issue.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2010 03:21

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

SirRobin posted:

If you're uploading to the internet for anyone to browse you might as well just forget about colour profiles.

Even if you are posting to the net you should still deal with your color profile. I'd rather have my colors wonky for most people than for everyone.

A5H posted:

So if I resize individually in Photoshop then upload to the Internet will all my colors be screwed up? I really don't understand colour profiles

Using photoshops 'save for web' feature is the best way to deal with it. When converting from raw you can set your colorspace. Unless I plan to print something then I'll always work in sRGB.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2010 08:13

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

ExecuDork posted:

Given a photo like this, how would you process it for a 8 x 10 print?

I wouldn't. It's an odd crop and there isn't much to look at. Do you have any more photos to choose from?

# ¿ Dec 4, 2010 23:05

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

What do you need it for? The first thing that popped into my head was a high pass (much like the people above thought). Technically it isn't a contrast map but it acts in a similar manner. Another way to go about it is to duplicate everything twice, apply a low/medium gaussian blur to the first dup layer and set the top layer as a difference. The bright spots will be your high contrast and the dark you low contrast.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2011 02:45

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

TomR posted:

That's getting closer. What I want to do is mask off the high contrast areas and desaturate the low contrast areas a little. I'll need to touch up the mask by hand, but I was hoping this would get me close to a mask of in-focus vs. out-of-focus. I'm just playing around really.

I had the idea that I could use a contrast detect focus style algorithm to tell how in focus each part of the image was and get a map from that. I'm not sure it will work out that way though.

For something like that you'll always have to touch it up by hand. Since photos are only two dimensional focus is subjective. Out of focus areas will always be low contrast, but smooth areas that were in focus will also be low contrast. You also have the problem of possible high contrast areas bordering your subject which leads to the haloing artifacts that are apparent in many hdr photos. If you want the computer to help define the edge of the mask so that you can quickly block in the rest it's better to use curves.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2011 03:36

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

TomR posted:

I was hoping I could get a kind of foggy forest effect if I desaturated the stuff farther away (thus more out of focus and lower contrast) but it just looked like selective colour.

If you are trying to mimic atmospheric perspective then you should have taken the second half of your advice and considered blur and contrast rather than saturation. Apply the mask on top of a contrast adjustment layer rather than a saturation layer. Saturation will decrease naturally with contrast. It will probably look pretty bland as first since it will tend toward gray, but you could probably add a bit of color with either a 5% hue layer or gradient map.

Also you could post the picture so we know what you're trying to work with.

TheLastManStanding fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Jan 14, 2011

# ¿ Jan 14, 2011 04:37

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

poopinmymouth posted:

*edit* it can't really be as easy as photoshop's difference blending mode, can it? Anyone tried this?

I'm sure someone has made a plug in to do it somewhere, but I've never looked. You can use the difference blending, copy merged to a new layer, desaturate, run curves or layers, apply as mask. Check the mask to make sure there weren't any stray pixels that matched when they shouldn't have.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2011 21:16

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Evilkiksass posted:

Hey how bout them photoshops...

Seriously though, is there any way to set some default values for Save for Web & Devices so it doesn't sit there for 5 mins trying to render everything at 100%? Ideally it would just default to 1% or so and then just let me enter some values from there.

Not quite sure what you mean by the percents, but you should be resizing to whatever output size you want before going to the Save for Web prompt. Photoshop will actually complain if you try and use it on a image that is too big. Doing it this way I've never had the Save for Web feature lag at all and my machine is pretty weak.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2011 00:03

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

You can also set the crop tool in terms of print dimensions, such as 15in x 10in. That way you can crop to a specific aspect ratio without resizing the image pixels.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2011 20:58

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Evilkiksass posted:

Seriously? So I have to take my entire high res project file, resize it to my output size, output it, then put it back every single time I want to export a jpeg? This is even worse then my method.

How is that worse? Saving for web is generally the last thing you do and resizing only takes a second. Not only that but the save for web will have to resize your photo anyway which will take just as long (if not longer). The whole point of having the render is to see how much you can compress the image without it being noticeable. If you aren't watching the render then how do you know you've chosen the optimum amount to compression? By resizing before going in you can actually see the final result and it renders instantly.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2011 21:03

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

RizieN posted:

Definitely, let me know if this link works

Link doesn't work. Shouldn't be hard with the raw though. Her shoulder looks like it was supposed to be white so you can use that as a reference point. This is a 2 minute attempt in photoshop using a photo filter layer to neutralize the green and a warming filter to try and bring back some skin tone. It's a bit flat and the shadows are a pretty strong magenta, but that's preferable to a giant green light. If you want to get rid of the magenta you could paint over it with a hue layer with a low opacity.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2011 07:31

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

InternetJunky posted:

Well, that sure was easy. 'Save selection', then at some later point load it again and invert it. Thanks, you just saved me 10 mins from each photo I process.

Or you could do it properly like Brad suggested and use masks. Masks really are one of the most fundamental tools of photoshop and you need to know how to use them. Not only are they vastly more adaptable and easier to use than selections, but you can ctrl+click them it creates a selection from them.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2011 02:00

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Martytoof posted:

Is there a way to re-adjust your ACR options once you've opened up a file in Photoshop? Part of the reason I don't do the bulk of my work in Photoshop is that I can't (or at least I don't think I can) fiddle with the settings once I've opened the file, as opposed to Lightroom where I can doodle all day and only commit once I need something opened in Photoshop.

I'm pretty sure that's what smart objects are for, but I've never really used them. Lightroom is just photoshop laid out in a way that makes things easy. By keeping the file in 16-bit form and using adjustment layers you can do anything lightroom does and still have the changes be non destructive.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2011 22:20

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Greybone posted:

How important is using standard crop aspect ratios? I've barely printed anything, and most of my stuff is digital only.

I didn't think the sky added anything and it's brightness and position leads out of the frame. The black areas are fine; it's bold, but I like it.

2:1 crop to get rid of the sky. It's weighted a bit low, but you could take a bit more off the top to even that out.

3:1 crop-rotated. I kind of wish there was a bit more to work with, but it works. The rotation adds vertical lines to the picture so it doesn't feel off level, though it sort of loses some abstraction. Again the sky is gone moving the brightest area to a place that roughly falls into one of the thirds. Plus I like 3:1 ratios.

Crop ratios don't matter much when printing. If your file doesn't match the ratio of the paper they (a good lab) will ask whether you want it cropped or full. To avoid this I will always use the canvas tool in photoshop to make sure it matches the paper ratio and will print exactly how I want it. Since a lot of my photos are wide I will generally stick two or more together in photoshop and have them printed on a single sheet (eg: two 1:3 photos fit on a 2:3 print).

# ¿ Apr 26, 2011 02:40

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

William T. Hornaday posted:

Is there a way, having edited it in Photoshop and having brought it back to Lightroom, to take it back to Photoshop yet again and still have all the layers, masks, and adjustments from the previous session still available to play around with?

That's basically what a smart object does. You can't directly play with the smart object in Photoshop, but you can put layers and adjustments on top of it. Then if you want to change the smart layer you open it back up in lightroom, edit it, and it will update in photoshop.

# ¿ May 22, 2011 21:35

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Never used their photo software, but I started out using Paint Shop Pro back in the late late 90's when they used to be great. Jasc was bought out by Corel a few years back and since then everything went to poo poo. Stick with with Lightroom.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2011 20:18

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

AIIAZNSK8ER posted:

Does anyone have a good place to start learning compositing techniques?

Layer masks - learn the short cuts - |, ctrl+i, ctrl+shift+i, x, ctrl+d, shift+click, [ ] ,learn to paint
Adjustment layers - learn to match layers - hue/sat + curves,
Difference layers, Channels, Levels - Combine and Apply Image for an instant mask.

Light on dark is always more noticeable than dark on light. Err on the dark side.
Saturated objects always command attention; if shot on a sat background use the hue/sat layer desaturate and feather the edges.
Always always always watch your lighting direction.
Practice. Practice. Practice.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2011 23:49

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

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

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

CarrotFlowers posted:

How do I get multiple layers with masks to show up properly?

By 'gently caress up' do you mean the edges are harsher? If you have a masked object the edges are (probably) partially transparent. If you duplicate that layer then the edges add up and seem less transparent giving you a harder edge. You really shouldn't be having any masked edges that are overlapping though; Most changes can be made with masked adjustment layers and even those can be isolated to masked raster layers by clicking the overlapping circles in the adjustment layer toolbox.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2011 00:19

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Tyorik posted:

How can I go about accenting the roof with what little I have to go on?

You imported the cr2 in 8 bit mode. If you import it in 16 bit you'll have way more information to work with.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2011 20:39

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Use hue layers, not color layers. Vary the hue based on lighting (highlights vs shadows). Use gradient maps to make that part easier. Use real pictures as samples; use the marque tool to select small areas, average the selection, and use the color picker to write down the value (you can save multiple values which get stored in the info box or just copy them to a swatch). Adjust your luminance to match.

Also,

# ¿ Jan 7, 2012 01:36

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Definitely an interesting way of going about it and I guess your only option if you only have lightroom, though if you have photoshop then the lens blur tool is much easier and more realistic. Lens blur can do depth mapping based on masks, can imitate aperture blades, and can preserve specular highlights and noise; the lack of which in other photos make them stand out as quick photoshops rather than actual tilt shift photos.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2012 03:37

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

It's just a split tone: Purple shadows, yellow highlights, weigh it towards the shadows, then desat. Probably want to lower the output contrast too. Don't forget the hot girl, that always helps.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2012 19:54

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

No. 9 posted:

Any reason to get LR4 if I primarily use Photoshop CS5? Always tempted to us new software but is there anything it can do better than Photoshop?

Lightroom doesn't do things better, it does things easier: It's set up so that instead of managing a million adjustment layers you have a panel of grouped sliders which makes things such as adjusting color temperature and adding split tones much much easier. You can download it from adobe and demo it to see if you like it.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2012 01:56

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

If it's like LR3, the aspect ratio always starts out matching the orientation of the photo. If you set your ratio, then take a corner of the crop box, make it tiny, then enlarge it in the other direction it should snap into the other orientation. I don't know why they did it like that; it's not intuitive and took me forever to figure out.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2012 22:12

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

You want to know how to underexpose a photo?

# ¿ Apr 1, 2012 21:28

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

They are the same shot: That lighting, smoke and bloom is all fake. He also cloned out the windows in back. The lighting on the ground is really emulated, but the flare and dirt is over the top.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2012 05:46

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Seriously, for the amount of time you spent in post you could have done your lighting and setup correctly. Starting with a bad image and trying to fix it is just a waste of time and it shows. In a pinch backdrops can be made out of table cloths and soft boxes can be thrown together using a thin bed sheet and a rod. If you're going to use paper you can get large sheets of it at any art store. Your images lack any good contrast because of the blur layer and the group image has a seam showing both on the bottom right and underneath the product that is 3rd from the left. That random piece of herb needs to be cloned out, the mask work is sloppy in areas, and you should transform the photo so that the products aren't leaning over. You normally do really good work, so I'm a little surprised to see you cut corners on this one.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2012 23:33

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

slardel posted:

To me it looks like the saturation/contrast is bumped down a bit, and the darker tones are given a bit of a red/pink tint, but I'm sure there's probably more going on that I'm not seeing?

Nope that's it. It's a standard yellow/purplely split tone; saturation and contrast will be naturally lowered when you apply the split tone.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2012 00:34

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

To tell you the truth I wouldn't have noticed the vertical one if it wasn't for the horizontal one, so I guess the easy answer is either crop it out or just ignore it since it's not a big deal. Your other option is to fiddle with a curves layer and a gradient mask until it looks good, which, now that you've noticed the flaw, will be never.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2012 07:38

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Are you not using adjustment layers?

# ¿ Jan 1, 2013 06:03

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Rather than making permanent alterations to layers and then masking, you can make adjustment layers (the little black/white circle at the bottom of the layers palate) which are non destructive, can be changed at any point, and can each have individual masks: That way your image is only taking up one layer.

For this image, since you are already have everything set up like you do, you can select all (ctrl-a), then copy merged (crtl-shift-c), then paste: This makes a new layer that is basically a flattened version of your image, but without actually flattening it. That way you can clone however you want without losing your previous masks or layers. Also, if you hadn't found out already, you can merge selected layers (ctrl-e) rather than flatten: This can be useful if you want to merge your cloned edits back in at some point without losing other layers.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2013 07:25

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

The problem with bridge/preview is probably that the white balance is outside the limits of their converter (which wouldn't surprise me for preview, but seems odd for bridge). When I process my IR photos in lightroom the color temp slider is about two or three clicks from the left and it's extremely finicky; a click in either direction is pretty much full red or full blue. I generally have to type numbers in to get it where I really want it. But even then it doesn't matter two much since I end up using gradient maps to give the images false color, but the tiny color separation that I do get out of using a good color balance leads to a cleaner final image.

Are you not using a visible light filter?

# ¿ Jan 3, 2013 06:39

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

Zlatan Imhobitch posted:

Is it possible to stack my exposures in LR? I want to keep the brightest parts from each image as I had one light and moved it around between exposures. If not, is there a simple way to do it in PS?

You can't do it in LR, but in PS you would just put one layer on top of the other and set the top's blending mode to Lighten.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2013 02:18

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

According to photoshop, the bottom is off by barely a degree. The various levels of grass and the fact that it might not be level in person probably make it look off, but personally I think everything looks fine. If you really want to get in there and tweak it it's generally easiest to use guides and the transform tool.

# ¿ May 20, 2014 00:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 14:40

TheLastManStanding: Jan 14, 2008; Mash Buttons!

A hue adjustment layer. Or you can make a new layer, set it to hue, and paint on it.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 22:40

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Photography Post-Processing: Questions and How-Tos (HDR :getin:)

«‹›2 »