|
Reviewing that guy's site, he seems to do a lot of "experimental" wedding shots. They're all very good, but many seem more like part of an art project than documenting a wedding. I certainly wouldn't want a picture of the couple bathed in the warm glow of a nuclear explosion on my mantle among the family photos, but if I saw it in an art gallery, it wouldn't bug me. The processing certainly catches the eye, and it would be interesting to know what his process was. I know when I point the camera towards the sun, either the sky gets blown out or the foreground is a shadow. Maybe he combined multiple exposures?
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
I like the sky in the original better, but the beach and buildings are more interesting in the retouched version. I think if I had never seen the two images together, I'd say they hold up well on their own.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2010 16:10
|
|
|
Ashex posted:No idea where to post this so it's going here. ExifTool is a command line thing I've used in the past for batch edits: http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/ But I'm one of those nerds that enjoy writing scripts, so this may not do it for you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
A5H posted:Can anyone tell me what these photos have had done to them in post? Do you have an example of your images? Photos under that link don't seem to be abnormally saturated. They just look like they're perfectly focused under good light.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
A5H posted:http://www.driftworks.com/2010/09/jdm-allstars-silverstone/ You were shooting on an overcast day.. the guy you linked was shooting under clear skies. Your later shots with the sun out are much more vibrant. So you didn't do anything wrong, other than not being born with the ability to control the weather.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
A5H posted:I dunno. Even when it was sunny like here: http://cdn.driftworks.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0363.jpg it still doesn't look as good. Background does help on panning shots, even if it's blurry it helps fill in the picture. It adds color too. Tracks aren't designed to be scenery however, so it's rarely something you can control. Cropping the picture down so the vehicle fills the frame can help this. Also note how his shots in the sun lack specular highlights.. so not only did he have great lighting, he had a great angle where he could get the vehicle fully lit without a bunch of reflections. But again, with the way race tracks are designed, getting those angles is very difficult. Especially at Silverstone.. which has spectators approximately a thousand miles from the track surface. You'll need special access to get to the sweet spots.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
A5H posted:Ah okay! Yes, there's a reason you see guys at tracks with lenses the size of whale dicks. 200mm can technically be sufficient, especially on a crop sensor and some judicious cropping, but you gotta get into the 400mm range to really hug up to the cars. Safety regulations at most tracks make photography a pain. I'm glad a flying tire won't decapitate me, but I wanna be closer! 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 22:18
|
|
|
scottch posted:The initial image you're seeing is the embedded JPEG in the RAW file, AFAIK. When you select an image, LR will generate a higher resolution JPEG, which is where the discrepancy comes in. In the develop module, at the bottom under Camera Calibration, you can set the profile to Camera Neutral, which should get you pretty close to the original image. Not sure if there's a way to have all this adjusted on import, though. Do all raw images have an embedded jpeg, or is it only when shooting "RAW+L"? I've always thought it was the latter. I shoot raw only and LR3 still does the auto-adjusting. My assumption has been that the first view is the actual raw file, and when LR3 changes it, it's applying the camera's white balance settings or exposure compensation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
The problem with Adobe software is they normally don't display the hotkeys anywhere in the main interface window. You have to hover over a gadget with the mouse for several seconds for the program to reveal it. If the information isn't readily available, people ain't gonna learn it. Some of it does show up in menus, but that still requires hunting around for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
The SSD drive would actually probably help LR3 a lot. Yeah you'd have to cycle pictures off pretty fast because you will run out of space, but the editing itself might not be too painful. HDD based macbooks have horribly slow hard drives, which is why editing on them is so painful. I'm not all sure how CPU reliant LR3 is.. I wouldn't buy a macbook air just for LR, but if I had one already, I'd certainly give it a try.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I found this to be somewhat humorous. I'm sure he'd prefer to edit his photos using a command prompt. I actually think a command prompt would be an interesting addition to something like LR or photoshop. Instead of clicking a slider to fidget with an image, I could type "clarity +5" or "gaussian -radius 5". But I'm a unix nerd so maybe I'm biased.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 15:29
|
|
|
anabatica posted:I know this isn't really what these comments were about, but you guys do know that if you find the slider too fiddly you can click on the number and type something specific in, yea? That's still kind of annoying, because you have to lift your hand off the mouse to use the keypad (assuming one is right handed with the mouse on the right side). For a mouse driven program, moving the hand off the mouse is a big interruption. I've never been good at using the number row with just my left hand (1-5 is easy, 6-0 feels unwieldy).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
scottch posted:You don't use two hands? What is wrong with you people? Right hand on mouse, left hand dances about the keyboard. This is a strange conversation. Yes, I get this. But I'm a touch typist.. having my left hand on the right side of the keyboard feels alien and weird. I constantly press the wrong buttons when doing this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:Yeah that's what I was worried about. Knowing when to say "oops, let's back off a tad, there" is so hard The rule of thumb is never push a slider in Lightroom as far as it'll go. 50% seems to be about the useful limit. Pretend that +100 doesn't even exist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
I shoot car races in jpeg but my camera does raw. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:Windows Backup. It's a steaming pile of poo poo. I had to stop using it because, somehow, a 250GB drive wasn't big enough to protect 50GB of data, ~45GB of which never gets edited. It was constantly bitching at me about running out of space, so I told it to piss off and disabled it. I mounted the disks on my linux machine and use a script to back stuff up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
I like the sky in the 'balanced' on the best, but the contrast of the ground in the 'original' is the winner. It looks too washed out in the hdr images. Which seems to be typical for HDR images.. skies look really amazing, clouds pop like crazy, but everything else looks flat and dead.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
You could probably do it on the cheap with something like ImageMagick. But this assumes you have any kind of scripting capability.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 17:04
|
|
|
Toss it, she's out of focus.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Are you editing the jpeg? Lightroom I've found does a terrible job editing jpegs.. I did a test earlier this year, took the same show in jpeg and raw, and fiddled with sliders. It seemed like the sliders had more effect on the raw. Point being, maybe the jpeg limits how far you can push the photo? Because the last picture you posted looks like total poo to me. Here's a very similar photo I took earlier this fall. Same time of day, same sort of boring scene. When I set the sliders identical to what you did (33 contrast, 61 clarity, 54 saturation), I get this:  It seems to work a little better (though the yellow is a little too neon for my tastes). Unedited raw is here: http://xzzy.org/files/me/photog/IMG_1471.CR2
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
mattfl posted:So basically I can drag my Pictures folder which has everything in it onto my external, and then redrag that pictures folder back after the reinstall? Yep. If for some reason you don't want to do that (for example, merging two collections of photos from separate installs of Lightroom) the catalog import/export feature is the "supported" method of moving pictures around.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
mattfl posted:Ya that's mainly what I was concerned with loosing, all the edits/changes to my pics. I'll make sure to make an extra copy of the catalog file as well. The catalog files are actually the things Lightroom nags you to back up once every week, so you probably already have several copies of it sitting somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It'll happily let you "back" them "up" to the same physical device. Well, it's still technically a backup. But it's more a defense against file corruption or accidental deletion than hardware failure.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2011 16:35
|
|
|
dexter6 posted:1. Knowing what a typical "flow is"ie. "What are the basics that I should be able to in Lightroom and Photoshop" How I learned Lightroom: a) Load up photo I kind of like. b) gently caress around with sliders for 20 minutes to see what they do, eventually I get an interesting result and save it. Photoshop was a similar process, but I learned it in the bad old days on a Mac IIci as an intern at a newspaper, so my diddling around with sliders had specific goals rather than pure experimentation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I wonder if SA has a user named "HDR" who wandered into the dorkroom one day because he likes taking photos, saw this thread and wondered why we hate him even though he's never posted here. Sorry to kill your attempts at comedy, but no, he doesn't exist: http://forums.somethingawful.com/member.php?action=getinfo&username=HDR
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Hey SA, I'd like you guys to meet my friend, Buzz Killington. Sorry, he doesn't exist either. http://forums.somethingawful.com/member.php?action=getinfo&username=Buzz%20Killington 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:I thought this had to do with me not using a calibrated monitor... Interesting. Not necessarily, every single program can implement color in a completely unique way if it so chooses! It's far more complex a problem than is reasonable.. look up stories about how NASA processes their images for public consumption if you want to get a glimpse of that world.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
Your edit actually looks too grey to me. Though I guess it could be because you were editing a jpeg? It makes the subject look like a ghost, while the background keeps more of its contrast.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Everything I know about image processing (photography or otherwise) has come from hours wasted tinkering on an image, fiddling with options and sliders. I know that's not what you're looking for, but it worked for me. I've been using Adobe software with varying levels of "professional use" since the mid-90's and it's always felt like exploring their software at your own pace is a much better instructional tool than regurgitating a tutorial.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
You sharpened it wayyyyy too much. It looks like a video game still. Also, don't hold your camera at a 45 degree tilt.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
The lightroom export/import catalog works pretty great for that. I use a macbook on vacations to clear off my SD card, then when I get home I export the catalogs and import them on my windows machine. This process saves any edits you did to the images too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
Uh oh, I smell a duel coming on. Who gets to choose the weapon? Options are a D3 or 5D. Must shoot full manual.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
Another IT admin sporting a mac here, except I'm burnt out after 20 years of linux's bullshit. OSX is basically unix without a lovely window manager, which is really all I need out of a computer. A command prompt and a consistent UI, that's it. Are you listening, linux developers? Mr. Despair posted:There is an angry mob of physicists who use mac instead of linux marching towards your door RIGHT NOW. Where are you a physicist at?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Not really, they put a crop LCD behind it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Based on the fact that his edits are so overdone that the car looks like it was photoshopped into the scene, I'm going to guess any alignment problems are just artist error. Like he googled around for a bunch of photoshop tutorials so he knows how to produce effects, but hasn't quite figured out how to merge everything into a coherent image.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
There still doesn't seem to be much range in your processed version, but I think that's less a problem with your processing and more an issue with the scene. I think the colors look pretty good. I don't know what your end goal for the photo is, but I suspect the image is never going to "pop" if that's what you're trying to do. There's just not any highlights in the foreground to work with.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:If you are getting any better at all, you should be discarding *more* shots as you go. Being a good photographer means being a good editor, above all. But goddamn if it's not spirit crushing. 1000 exposures and I like 10 of them? What am I doing wrong? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Dalax posted:so.. er.. where would 'someone' go about finding some tutorials for this here lightroom? 'My friend' has just downloaded the trial, but wants to know if there is a Just dick around with it for a while.. a couple clicks can revert any image back to its original state so Lightroom really rewards screwing around for a few hours. Other than that, google words you see to get some advice on them or ask in this thread. The real challenge is whether you can remain critical of your own work as you edit things.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
While you're at it, can you clone that sandwich into my tummy? It looks tasty.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
Anyone in these parts use a dropbox-style "folder syncing" software with Lightroom? I'm in the process of setting up a home cloud storage type deal, and one thing that would be cool to do is sync my Lightroom catalogs across multiple computers so I can process photos on any computer I own, and those edits will show up all my other computers. I'm just not sure whether Lightroom will appreciate me doing this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2012 22:49
|
|