|
Nothing to add here. Just wanted to say that this thread is awesome. I'm learning a ton.
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2009 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:There's little point to putting a digital painting on modelmayhem. They can be paintings that use photos of models as sources. Guys like Frank Frazetta do that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2009 22:49
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:How do you white balance properly in Photoshop? Levels?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2009 02:38
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Yep, said that in my post, I know it has more control, yet I'm proficient in photoshop, and find it far easier to WB in LR with the WB tools than photoshop. I guess that answers my question that there is no easy way to correct it within PS. I didn't think there was an easier way than levels?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2009 02:54
|
|
|
Cythrelo posted:Definitely go for the Windows computer and use the money you save (in both the short and long term) on more photography equipment. Or more storage, like an external multi-HD enclosure or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2009 01:52
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:I really enjoy David Hill, but I'm not sure what techniques he uses to gain the effect he goes for. Any pointers? I remember seeing a few Flickr thread on folks figuring out how to get the "David Hill" effect. Might want to start there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2009 23:20
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:What exactly is it about these photos you want to replicate? Quite a few of them are great news photos but I'm not really seeing any particularly standout about the processing- indeed, as news photos they are probably undergoing very limited editing. The skies seem to be very well exposed. Normally one would expect blown-out skies in sunny weather, but everything is under control, range-wise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 01:40
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Shoot in angular light (ie early morning, late afternoon) and keep the sun behind you. Blue skies all over the place. Ah, good call. Long shadows all over the place in those photos.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 01:46
|
|
|
Hot Cops posted:For portraits, just remove any glaring blemishes instead of nuking the entire face with the healing brush. Also, instead of desaturating the ENTIRE photo, use the Select > Colour Range tool with Colour Balance to reduce your reds (or your blues and magentas for extremities). This is actually a huge tip for concert photos. Often, you'll get a photo where the face is all blotchy and blown-out because there's a bright red light or purple light or whatever shining right on the performers face. Desaturate the colour a wee bit and suddenly you gain a ton of detail. I've saved many photos this way. This is fantastic for venues with strong red lighting or LED lighting which often blows out highlights in one colour or another. It's important to desaturate overly strong colours if you're posting a photo to somewhere like Facebook where the server recompresses the photo to poo poo because when you crank up the compression and resize the photo, it makes blown-out coloured highlights look even worse.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2009 19:04
|
|
|
Haggins posted:This is probably pretty easy to do but I'm dumb and can't figure it out. How do I create this look: Threshold, median?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2009 20:17
|
|
|
I use the "blinky highlight" feature in the camera for checking for blown highlights. I find that even if an area is blinking, there's still a wee bit of data left that it might be recoverable in Lightroom or whatever, so as long as I can keep things from blinking, I'm usually pretty good. Of course this isn't the most technical or proper way of doing things, but it works well for me on the fly and in a hurry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2009 19:52
|
|
|
spog posted:I think I have got myself covered okay in case of disaster. Obviously, I should close the time gaps up a little, but I think it's safe enough. But what about my negatives?!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2009 15:50
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:its a nice start, but theres a few things that bug me, for starters, feather the edge of the yellow/green box you put. Isn't it a before/after comparison?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2009 04:10
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:About how much would you say that you spend on S3? I am looking into backup and while a lot of it seems like it would be fairly inexpensive when you look at raw numbers, adding it up makes the costs seem to explode. Or do you only backup high value files, or what-have-you? Theoretically, couldn't you use something like SmugMug or Flickr as your backup? Upload everything and then make it private.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2009 20:38
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Smugmug offers RAW backup, and it's setup with...amazon. But it's cheaper at $40/year for unlimited storage, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2009 21:37
|
|
|
SirRobin posted:I was tossing up between Johnny Pixelseed and Johnny Histogram when my lunch break ended and I had to hit submit. There was going to be a more ranty ending. I've sort of lost the flow of it now. Johnny LCD
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2009 15:58
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:live band shots Live band shots are fairly easy to do since not everything has to be perfect in them. The key things to watch out for are noise (get a good noise reduction program like Noise Ninja or DxO Optics Pro), blown-out highlights and shadow detail. If there was a lot of stage fog, make sure to work on contrast and black level too since foggy photos can look flat otherwise. Cropping is important too for getting rid of distracting elements like microphones or guitar headstocks peeking into the frame. The key to live concert photography is to watch out for the little details in composition like microphone stands, cut off limbs, "microphone eating" shots, backlights and so on, but that's more of a matter of getting it right on the spot rather than post-processing. When you're at the venue, make note of the type of lighting the venue uses. LED stage lighting needs more care in post-processing because camera sensors don't react well to it for some reason and tend to blow out highlights with it way easier than with regular incandescent lights. Don't be bothered by anyone ragging on you because you didn't present your photos "straight out of the camera". People like that are full of crap because their camera did all the post-processing for them which is even lazier. Of course if they're saying that while showing off a perfectly exposed and composed slide, that's another matter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
miasma blues posted:Anyone? Get a noise reduction program like Noise Ninja.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
Select the sky then blur it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2010 01:38
|
|
|
Oh man, I'd buy CS5 if it could do that with microphone stands.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:no kidding! In the desert example I kept saying "theres no way that's going to come out that great" then I was all "...goddamn." I would love to see it pushed and see how it works with things blocking a persons face for example. It's not that bad for me, it's usually like an awesome photo of a guitarist throwing down but there's a microphone stand to the side that's in front of the guitar fretboard or whatever, loving up the photo, like this:  or this: 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Those of you who use DxO Optics Pro, do you use it mostly for batch editing entire sets or do you create custom "processes" for each shot? I've never liked doing batch edits, but it seems like DxO is designed around applying the same noise correction, lens correction, etc to all of the photos in the "project". I pick selects in Lightroom, export them to a separate directory then run them through DxO Optic, then finish them off in PSE for watermarking and final tweaks. I don't do too much monkeying around in DxO because it's actually pretty good at making decisions itself. When I shoot a set of photos, they tend to need largely the same tweaks, but I quickly go through each photo in DxO in case a little adjustment is needed here and there. Overall, DxO has cut down my post-processing time and improved my image quality because I can only devote so much time to each photo and I found that back when I did things more manually, I would get fatigued by the end of a set (the "gently caress this poo poo" factor) and stop caring about the little things so much, so to have DxO take care of the bulk of the work means more consistent photos. Plus DxO allows me to be more daring with my camera settings because it's good at cleaning things up so if I have to switch to ISO 3200 or whatever, it's not the end of the world.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
To be honest, I'm hoping the current wave of intentional over-processing in general passes quickly. I'm getting tired of band promo shots where someone took Topaz Adjust and cranked it to 11.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Dumb lightroom 2 question: when you import a folder it gives you the option of which size thumbnails you want to load (minimal, standard, 1:1). If I'm in a rush I'll just pick minimal - how do I go back later, when I'm leaving the computer alone for a while, and have them rendered in 1:1? And for that matter, how do I get Lightroom to stop loving around with the previews and show them the way they appear when I view the .CR2 file in Irfanview or whatever?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 15:36
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:Thats not Lightroom loving around with the previews, that's your camera loving around with the previews. Great. I'll try that next time around.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I think that a better method of doing the same thing would be to always embed the tag and just not read it when you didn't want to rotate, but I guess Canon isn't doing it that way. There should be three rotate options on a 40D: 1. Auto-rotate, the default setting. 2. No rotation, like what jackpot selected. 3. No rotation on camera, but rotation on PC, which is what you want. You'll get full-screen on the camera regardless of orientation like option 2, but when you open the images in Lightroom or whatever, it'll properly orient.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
Am I going crazy or does it seem like the photo is tilted to the right a bit?
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 00:48
|
|