|
Kin posted:comedy club photo I like this, but I think your first order of business is to crop it well. I especially like the green light at top, so maybe a portrait orientation rather than landscape would be a better way to work on it. That would cut out a lot of the unnecessary bit on the left side. The problem is: what is your subject? I mean, when I look at it, I barely notice the guy standing there. The green light seems like the subject. edit: Actually, looking again, maybe a square crop of the right side would be best. snowman posted:icicle picture Best practice is just to fix the situation before taking the picture, but in the case that you have a picture that can't be re-shot, you can use the clone stamp. My best advice for major cloning like this is to work on it until you think you are done. Save the file, then go to sleep. Look at it the next day and amaze yourself with how crappy it looks. Then work on it some more or redo from scratch. Go to sleep and repeat the process. On the fourth day or so it should be okay. If you can point out to your friends any problems you have with it, and they say "What the gently caress? I don't see what you are talking about", then you've reached a suitable level of editing. plaguedoctor fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Jan 20, 2009 |
#
¿
Jan 20, 2009 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I use a Curves adjustment layer. You can do it with Levels or Color Balance. Really there are a lot of ways to correct color in PS.. pick one you like and figure out how to get good at it. You do get a lot more control in PS over LR. I personally like selective color adjustments. It allows me to get a good skin tone, though it really can be a pain in the rear end if you have a complicated image. As for the question about what color profiles and printing do: In November, my sister sent me some photos that she wanted to have fixed/edited. She wanted them for her Christmas cards. Among the numerous problems with the pictures was that the skin tone was an unnatural shade of white. I'm not sure what the photographer did (I only got jpegs to work with), but almost everything that could be wrong was wrong. I had to crop the photo beyond the megapixel boundary (you can see some slight pixelation in the print), try to get the people into focus (unsharp mask can only do so much), as well as try to get the people not to look like corpses. I was able to do the third part satisfactorily, but then my sister just ended up sending the photos out to be printed at Walmart. When the prints came back, it looked almost like a sepia print. The print is actually kind of cool looking -- it almost feels like an antique photo -- but it really isn't what I was wanting to do with it. In this instance, it doesn't really matter, since it's only a Christmas card photo, but in a more professional context that color issue wouldn't fly. It may seem really anal to be focused on color accuracy to such a minute level, but if you ever work in fashion photography, you need to get colors to be extremely accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2009 02:57
|
|
|
Not to get back on the whole "print profile" argument thing, but for work everything is always for offset printing, so I really have no idea how RGB printing works. If I get an RGB printer profile from my printer, what am I supposed to do with it? Is there a good tutorial explaining in a step-by-step manner what I'm supposed to do to correct photos for an RGB printer? I'm wanting to do some printing, but I really don't want to have to order thousands of copies like you would with an offset printer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2009 02:03
|
|
|
brad industry posted:In the PS print dialog you basically just select "Let Photoshop Manage Color", pick the appropriate ICC profile from the drop down list, and hit "Print". The driver dialog comes up, you select the correct media type (luster/glossy/matte), turn off all color management, then send it to the printer. Okay. And are you using "printer" as meaning the device? Or as a place? In my case, I don't have a printer (machine), so I'd need to send it off to a print shop. Granted, it's not going to be Walmart or anything, but I'm not sure if they handle color profiling at the shop, or if I need to do it myself. In which case, I'm wondering about proofing before I send my data off (if I can get a profile from the shop).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2009 02:24
|
|
|
spog posted:Of course, for this cunning plan to work, you have to hope that they are consistent with their colours and the operator doesn't decide to tweak the colours on each run to what he thinks looks best (guess who got bitten in the rear end, in the past) Woah, thanks both for the info. That's pretty much what I figured the situation was -- like soft proofing CMYK. And yeah, I've been bitten in the rear end by operators who do their own cropping and color correction, rather than my instructions of "as is". I'm hoping to find a better printer so I can rectify the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2009 02:44
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, this thread has taken a depressing turn. Or should I say, more like "as expected". So, are there any print places that aren't lovely?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2009 04:31
|
|
|
spog posted:You work in the print industry: have you considered buy a six pack for the prepress guys at your printers and getting them to run them out on their inkjet proofing machine? That would be a good idea, except I don't work with the printers anymore. It used to be that I'd send the data to a cheapy press place that basically just fed it into a machine and mailed the prints back a week later. So, any kind of proofing and correction had to be done by me before it was sent off -- the press guys were third-party and couldn't be asked to deal with it. Plus, they are on the other side of the country, so I've never dealt with them personally. My work now is all done in RGB, after which we send the data to the design/publishing company, and THEY deal with any CMYK issues as well as anything that happens with the printers, so now I'm even more disconnected from the actual roughnecks who run the machines. Oh well, I'll figure something out. I know a few of the designers, and they might be able to get me introductions with the printers. It'll just take a bit longer to develop a rapport with them. No worries.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2009 05:31
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:To be positive side/offer some productive input to the thread, did you try IQ Lab? Is that for me? If so, from a quick google of them, it looks like they are in Thailand, which is probably out of the question. Anyways, it seems like the point is moot now, since I just found out there are some issues with me and La Migra here, so I'll probably end up back in the US soon. Oh boy. In which case, what are peoples' recommendations for US based print labs?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2009 06:06
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I'm going to give that $2 poster place a go pretty soon, will report results when I get them. link I'd like a trip report, please. Though judging by the "posterization" (hurf durf!) on the image on their front page, I'm not going to hold my breath.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2009 06:36
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Does Photoshop let you play with raw files in a similar way to Lightroom? Is that even possible? Also, regarding brad's post; They're pretty much two different things. If you take a badass picture and have a really good set overall, lightroom will help you do the rest of it. Simple editing, as well as file-management. If, on the other hand, you have a bunch of poo poo pictures that you need to edit together to make one good photo, Photoshop is what you need. Basically, Lightroom will help you do the necessary curves and such adjustments. Photoshop is there when you need to take someone's head from a different picture and put it on another one. e: Also, Photoshop has Adobe Camera Raw (ACR): it can do simple processing, like Lightroom, but it's not going to be as good as the native program you have for your RAW format. In my case, that is Canon's Digital Photo Professional. I'm not sure what the other companies' software is called.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2009 08:20
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:I think your understanding of post processing software is a bit... lacking. poo poo... from a LONG while back, but basically re: RAW converters: The manufacturer has access to the actual logarithms used to make whatever RAW file you are working with. Since those are "supposedly" classified or secret or IP or whatever, they supply Adobe with an approximation of it. Adobe then puts it into ACR to make a best guess as to how the colors should come out and all that. Usually, it's okay. But, see the rest of this post for times when it's *NOT* okay. In terms of PS vs LR: Lightroom, at least what I have done with it, seems great. You can process photos and do a bunch of cool poo poo with it. *As long as your original photo is of a certain quality*. But, in my situation, for instance, say, your boss thinks he's a photographer. So, he sends you a bunch of cellphone pics that he took using generic office-style flourescent lighting. And he wants you to make them useable for advertising. On one hand, you could just say "gently caress that" and quit. On the other hand, if you are concerned about how the economy is working fuckall for everyone, you have to figure out some way to make these poo poo-rear end photos work. That's where the whole workflow situation comes into play. First, you need to have the manufacturer's program so that you can keep as much information as possible. Then, in lightroom, you can do some effects and processing -- great! But, keep in mind that your boss doesn't know how to use autofocus, nor how to compose a shot. In that case, you end up having to find a semi- in-focus body and make a montage of that with a decent looking face. Then put those together in a believable way, then fix the lighting, then go ahead and do your normal post work, and see if you can maintain any kind of data integrity. In that case, for Canon, DPP is only the starting point. ACR is fine for pictures that are good from the start, but for poo poo pictures it cuts out too much information. And, yes, I understand and realize that my boss is a horrible piece of poo poo and doesn't know what the gently caress he's doing, but for the timebeing, he's paying my salary. Edit: Before I get any technical comments -- yes, I'm aware that cellphone photos are not the way to go with DPP. I was making a hyperbole. In my case, it is with Ixus photos... 
plaguedoctor fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Dec 13, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2009 11:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
Fbi2thegrave posted:hahahaha what the gently caress? Seriously? How many people are going to find themselves in that situation? You'd be surprised. Again ---
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2009 08:46
|
|