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:)

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

Nanohahn posted:

I'm not quite sure this is what you're looking for, and it may have been covered in the online tutorials you've seen, but you can open the Camera Raw window as a Smart Object in Photoshop by holding Shift when you click Open Image. This should allow you to edit the Camera Raw settings "after the fact".

Similarly, if you go to Preferences > File Handling > Camera RAW, you can set the Camera RAW window to open when you import JPGs and TIFFs.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2009 06:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 13:39

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

gib posted:

I shot a concert with some extremely green lighting:

There's gotta be a better way of dealing with it. Any ideas?

Did you try playing with white balance at all? That's usually my first step when I don't like the lighting in a club/rave shot.

# ¿ Feb 21, 2009 04:39

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

blake_sw posted:

My tutorial would read like this:

- Dodge her face a little, not too much.
- Move that slider up +15. If it looks stupid don't do it.

You need to post this.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2009 04:53

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

the posted:

Hello, i'm hoping one of you may have an easy fix for this issue. When I view my pictures in Adobe Bridge the colors look great, but when I open the same picture in Photoshop CS3 the pictures lose some saturation. If I save the file and re-open in bridge, it looks great again. (i'm going through this since I just got a new PC and monitor)

Here is a screenshot to illustrate:

Click here for the full 1032x799 image.

Bridge and photoshop both seem to be set to "North America General Purpose 2" color settings. Any help will be GREATLY appreciated!

Pretty much guessing here: What you're seeing in Bridge might be the JPEG preview that's embedded into the RAW file (so you can view the picture in your camera's viewfinder). The embedded JPEG is generated using your camera's RAW processing profile. Photoshop is probably using an Adobe Camera RAW preset for your camera.

Do you shoot Nikon by chance? Until recently, all the ACR presets for Nikon DSLRs were significantly different (and to many, subjectively worse) than the modes that could be selected in camera. That's because ACR can't decode the in camera settings from Nikon's proprietary NEF file format. This was what caused the thumbnails generated by Lightroom as I imported pictures to look great until I opened the image for editing, which caused the in camera preview to be replaced with an ACR rendition of the NEF file. I think this was done to encourage people to buy Nikon's image processing software that can decode the in camera settings. The latest version of ACR added a lot of new presets for Nikon cameras that produce results that are much closer to the in camera settings. I think the new presets were added in ACR 5.2 (around when CS4 was released).

I don't think ACR ever had as much of a problem with other camera brands (at least not as recently as CS3), so if you aren't using Nikon it's probably something else. It could be the JPEG previews in Bridge are generated using the in camera settings while the Photoshop RAW importer is set to use different settings, but that seems unlikely since both programs are set to "North America General Purpose 2". If you zoom in to 100% in Bridge, do you get an image that looks like the smaller previews in Bridge, or does it look like what you get in Photoshop?

# ¿ Apr 27, 2009 09:25

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

Loinworm posted:

It starts from a base of "don't clip anything anywhere unless it cannot be avoided." Your subjective impressions of what this looks like are far less important than the technical necessities of the process of maximizing the amount of capture data you pull into your final product, and quite frankly the ability to apply any arbitrary collection of settings to as many images as you want with a single click makes this a complete non-argument.

The camera manufacturer's converter still preserves all the RAW data like ACR, they just give you a different base image to start from after the file has been imported. ACR's profiles are no more 'true' or accurate than the camera manufacturer's RAW converter. They are different interpretations of the same data. If you are going to be spending a lot of time editing an image, where you start doesn't matter too much. On the other hand, if you have a lot of images to go through that don't need absolutely perfect post, starting at a point that is much closer to your desired image can save a lot of time in the long run.

What frustrated a lot of Lightroom users in the past was there was no OPTION to start with an image that resembled what was shown on the LCD or in the embedded JPEG preview, while Nikon Capture's NEF converter could. I came close to purchasing Nikon Capture to use as a converter because of this, even though I greatly prefer Lightroom in every other aspect. ACR's interpretation often produced significantly 'duller' images than Nikon's interpretation. At the time I was shooting nightlife events and being able to start with Nikon's interpretation in Lightroom would have saved me a lot of time and stress trying to get the pictures turned around quickly. The difference in conversion algorithms is more complex than just applying a preset saturation or vibrance boost to images rendered with ACR's profiles.

The point isn't that one converter is better than another, just that they are different. They all have their pros and cons and excel in different situations. I (and many others) are much happier with Lightroom now that it can approximate the Nikon look.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2009 04:17

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

Loinworm posted:

If there were any way to preserve all the raw data in a non-linear image then there wouldn't be any need for raw converters at all.

What's on the LCD is meant to look impressive on the trade show floor, not serve as an accurate representation of the capture data, and once again, that's exactly why they gave you a menu and a calibration panel to define your own custom starting points.

Let me rephrase then: What frustrated a lot of Lightroom users in the past was there was no OPTION to start with an image that had color resembling what you would get if you shot JPEG, while Nikon Capture's NEF converter could. Put another way: many people thought that, more often than not, Nikon Capture produced a subjectively more desirable starting point for NEF files than Lightroom when using the ACR camera calibration profile. In particular, the ACR profile generally produced images with flatter color. In some cases, this isn't a problem and may even be desirable, but when processing a large number of images that need to look good but not necessarily just exactly perfect, a lot of time can be saved by starting with a profile gives you a starting point that is somewhat close to the look you're going for. Even for images that are going to get a lot of post, it can be helpful to start with an image that is closer to your goal.

If you have Lightroom 2.2 (or ACR5.2/PS CS4) and a Nikon DSLR (I think the same applies with Canon, but I'm not sure), load up Lightroom and go to Develop view. Reset all the development settings on a NEF file and go to the Camera Calibration tab. Go to the Profile pull down menu and observe how the image changes when using ACR X.X, Adobe Standard, Camera Landscape, Camera Neutral, Camera Portrait, Camera Standard and Camera Vivid. Prior to Lightroom 2.2, the only options in the Profile pull down for most Nikon cameras were ACR X.X. I don't have my photo library with me right now, so I can't post examples, but if you google "Lightroom 2.2 camera profiles" there should be some results that compare the different profiles.

Having all these profiles available is better than only having the ACR profiles. They give the user many more starting points for each photo and can approximate in camera modes while still giving the user full control over white balance, color space and all the other adjustments available at the RAW processing stage. This lack of flexibility and inability to start with something close to the embedded JPEG preview is what frustrated many Lightroom users, including TsarAleksi and myself, prior to version 2.2. It was a legitimate complaint compared to what other software was capable of at the time.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2009 09:51

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

Loinworm posted:

For what must be at least the sixth time by now, the ability to define custom color profiles (though not ICC based) has been in the ACR plugin for as long as I can remember:

Yet Adobe still added profiles based on the in camera modes of the camera. I wonder why?

Following a camera calibration guide will correct the problems with the ACR profile, however, it will not get you much closer to to being able to use the in camera color modes as a starting point (think of them like different film types). Being able to approximate the in camera modes prior to LR 2.2 would require a separate calibration for each color mode. The problem with that, besides the extra time spent calibrating, is: what do you use as a reference when calibrating these modes? There are no reference images for Nikon's Landscape mode or Canon's Standard mode, for example. Being able to apply these color mode settings to a picture as it is shot is a feature of the camera, and being able to change modes after the fact is a feature of shooting RAW. Both of these features were not available when using the camera with Lightroom prior to 2.2.

I would like to emphasize how horrible the ACR profile is for some cameras. Here are some examples that compare the Lightroom with the ACR profile, Lightroom with one of the new profiles added in 2.2, and Nikon Capture:
http://yanikphotoschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dng1.jpg
http://yanikphotoschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dng2.jpg

These are consistent with what I've experienced. I'd say there is a staggering difference between Lightroom using ACR and the other 2 results. These are not subtle differences that only matter to photo professionals; this is something your average Joe will easily notice. Virtually every photo that was going to be shared required some editing just to make it look decent. Camera calibration was the only way to start with images that compared to what Nikon Capture could do straight out of the box. This is NOT what people expect from DSLRs or RAW editing/workflow software. If Adobe expected everyone to calibrate their camera in order to produce the results expected from the product straight out of the box, then Lightroom should have shipped with a color card.

Custom calibration does not make up for the performance of the ACR profile with some cameras. Many feel the profiles added in 2.2 are a significant improvement to the software.

I also, don't believe calibrating your camera is quite the quick and easy task you make it out to be for many. Not everyone has a color card or the means to reliably produce their own, so the process will cost some money. Not everyone has a monitor without significant color shifting.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2009 12:35

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

Does 64-bit Photoshop have any advantages over 32-bit for photography related work? I've read that 64-bit is significantly faster when working with very large files, but I don't think a typical photograph gets anywhere near that large, even with many layers.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2009 01:48

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

Just got an SSD for my OS drive. Will I get better Lightroom performance by having a relatively small CameraRaw cache on my SSD (a few GB max) or a large cache on a fast mechanical drive (10-50GB)? My apologies if this is the wrong thread for this sort of question.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2011 02:21

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

Miso Beno posted:

What I don't like is their licensing policy. They 3 total installations across 3 total computers. I'm 100% cool with restricting something from being installed on multiple computers. What I don't like is being limited on the amount of times I can install a piece of software.

What happens if I have to nuke and pave a hard drive, upgrade computers, or make a platform change? Do I need to buy the software again?

Am I misinterpreting their licensing incorrectly?

I don't think that's what they mean. I think they mean you may have 3 concurrent installations, provided they are all on computers that you are the primary user of. For instance, you could have it on your home desktop, personal laptop, and work laptop. If you reformat your home desktop or get a new home desktop (and wipe your old one), you can install it again since you're still within the 3 installation limit. I believe this sort of license is fairly common for software these days. MS Office, for example, is licensed for installation on both a desktop and a portable device.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2012 19:17

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

Pukestain Pal posted:

Moving to the subscription model was a really smart move for them and it makes more sense for the consumer. For the first time in 10 years I actually own a valid copy of photoshop. I know I'm not the only one. They made their product more accessible and that's good for everyone.

Unless you only use LR and not PS. For LR-only users, CC is more expensive than the version model (especially considering LR occasionally goes on sale for much less than the $150 sticker price) and removes the consumer's ability to skip (not pay for) an update that they decide isn't worthwhile. E.g., I'm still using LR5 because it works well for me and I don't care too much about any of the new features in LR6. Once Adobe improves Fuji RAW processing, I'll consider paying for an update.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2015 22:36

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

Pukestain Pal posted:

Then pay for the box copy of LR and don't complain when you don't get the latest updates.

Did and don't. Don't act like Adobe is doing everyone a favor by pushing CC.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2015 23:07

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

hi liter posted:

This was in the most recent patch notes for LR CC, and with a note that they are actively working with Fuji to address it.

I saw that. I'm not getting excited until I see the actual comparisons that show LR is finally on par with other RAW converters wrt Fuji RAWs.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2015 00:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 13:39

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

Does this mean there won't be any more standalone versions of LR?

# ¿ Oct 19, 2017 03:22

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