|
Speaking of Photoshop and Lightroom, has anyone encountered a weird bug where the lens distortion correction from Lightroom doesn't carry over to Photoshop?
|
#
¿
May 24, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:most of the tutorials here are for photoshop.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2011 01:14
|
|
|
Medpak posted:For shoots that I know will only ever exist as JPGs I just shoot as JPGs. If I thought there was a reason to shoot in RAW, that's what I keep.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
tijag posted:Everything I do in Lightroom looks substantially different when I look at it in Chrome later. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
I'm using a Macbook Pro as well
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Is the charcoal user interface colour a few feature or is this something I can do in CS5/5.1?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:Anyway, I switched from my Samsung Syncmaster 2494 to a 20" Apple Cinema Display and I could see how much darker the photos were.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2012 11:27
|
|
|
Gravitom posted:Monitor bragging is the new lens bragging. Actually I could totally see Canon coming out with L glass monitors and people buying them in droves. Untapped market here. Sorry I only buy monitors with the Zeiss T* coating on the screen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Through stupidity and lack of foresight, I've once again screwed up and worked myself into a corner. Help me get out of it, Dorkroom. Perhaps try resizing a copy of the image with masks to the original size, then copy over the mask layers to the original photo?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
bung posted:I have a question about my workflow. I typically only use LR with very infrequent edits in PS. Since I have gotten the MB Air I want to upgrade all of my apps (currently running LR2, CS3). Considering that I use PS so infrequently, could I get get by with the latest version of PS Elements? Or is it too much of a "lite" version to be practical? I just ordered the student edition of LR4 for $33 and can't wait to see how much better it is than LR2. From this article, it would seem that all you need is Elements: http://www.mattk.com/2012/09/26/why-photoshop-elements-11-is-the-best-version-of-elements-yet/
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
rio posted:I wonder if great film photographers burn through a ton of film with only a few keepers or if they just shoot more discriminately. It takes me a while to go through a roll of film but I am ridiculously shutter happy with my digital. Yesterday was a good example - I knew the shot I wanted and I'm sure if I had my film camera I would have taken maybe five different shots, but instead I come home with 95 pictures of four or five different ideas shot at slightly different angles, or panned slightly differently etc. I would love to keep that film mindset all the time but it is just too easy to mash that shutter button and say to myself "I know I will get something useable even if it is luck durr". Don't wonder anymore, just get the Magnum Contact Sheets and you'll see that the editing begins once you lift the viewfinder to your eye. The more you shoot and edit, the less you'll just shoot and the more you'll think before pressing the trigger, whether you're using film or digital. The discipline doesn't change with the medium. But as you'll see in the Magnum Contact Sheets, once you've identified a great/potential scene or subject, feel free to shoot as many frames or shots as you think it will capture what you want. Elliot Erwitt once shot a whole roll of film just to get the 1 shot he wanted. But of course, besides that, like aliencowboy said, even if you have like 36 separate decent shots, you will probably only pick the best 1-2 photos to showcase.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
nubdestoryer posted:I'm going to have to get photoshop. I miss being able to customise my view. Lightroom wouldn't even let me zoom while cropping, or darken the cropped area. I don't get how such useful options can be in photoshop yet left out of lightroom. Probably so that you'll buy Photoshop, or even both.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Yeah if LR just doesn't work for you, then stick to Bridge. If the stuff in the quote below doesn't matter to you, there might be no reason to switch. Taking a quote from here: quote:The advantages of one over the other do depend on how you want to do your tagging and your personal preferences about how you work the fastest.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Subjunctivitis posted:What does this mean? Is the poster saying Lightroom automatically picks up the location of images when, say, I plug in an external drive containing the images but in Bridge I'll have to sort through the drive to pick it out? I've not used Bridge but you can store most of your library on external hard drives with Lightroom and you can even shift the data all around as long as you maintain the file structure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:I always copied the original image into another layer and then applied the unsharp mask, then played around with the opacity until it looked right, and masked out any out of focus areas so they didn't look all weird. This okay or am I doing something drastically wrong? It's about the same thing, except the high pass method is less work to do since you won't really have to do the masking.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
bolind posted:I'm looking for some way to mark a photo as "finished" or "final" in LR4. Doesn't have to lock for further editing. I just find myself going back and forth over a full vacation's pictures, and sorta forgetting which ones I'm done with, which ones could use more work, and which ones are unprocessed. Right now I use quick collection, but, yeah... Any ideas? There are many ways to flag a photo in LR. The easiest is just to press "P" for a pick or in your case, a finished photo. Alternatively there are 5 stars and 5 colours for you to sort/rank your photos as well. Then you can just filter your photos accordingly. As for the hair problem, I usually just bring it into Photoshop to fix in an instant. Trying to use LR to do it is an exercise in frustration.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
Question: When do you guys do your sharpening? After resizing to output size?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Always sharpen at output resolution. Hmm ok, that is what I'm doing now so that's good to know.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
Wyeth posted:I find my digital images look less 'digital' if I sharpen using a really high quality method at full resolution BEFORE resizing, it's just a preference thing. There's no fast rule, whatever look you like best. I guess indeed it's something to try and see which method give the final output I like the most.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Most of my work is landscape with clouds and empty fields in sometimes difficult lightning, and I also have a photojournalistic constraint on time allowed due to the subject nature (my avatar). I'm constantly fighting underexposed ground and shadow noise. Yeah that's what I thought too until I discovered the Auto Mask function in the Adjustment Brush tool - it really helps to make your masking in LR more precise. Each brush pin can also be considered as a "layer" but the implementation is not as good as Photoshop.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:A thousand thank yous. Now to only be able to have it do this for everything from the get go. It can be done, you just have to make the setting as the default profile for your camera in the LR Develop settings. You can google for the steps.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
dukeku posted:I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison of the actual films vs. VSCO'd shots. I did just that, to satisfy my curiosity. Provia 100F vs RX1 with VSCO filter for Provia 100F.  Test Test by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
404notfound posted:drat, what's with that weird outline on the chairs and the bike frame? Was it like that before applying VSCO? Also, are you using the Sony-specific set of filters? Ok I investigated and it seems to be the result of some overly aggressive CA removal which was removing the red edges. Here's the version without that CA removal:
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
East Lake posted:Not bad. RX1 looks a bit too saturated and the green foliage looks a bit more blue with Provia? Looking at this through wacky f.lux colors so I might be off a bit. Sort of, the VSCO one makes the colours darker and more saturated, the foliage and the shadows are more warmer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
At this point I only really need Photoshop for curves and layers, something that LR still can't really handle. But the need to use such tools has dropped a lot as I learned more about what LR can do. What I do commonly use PS for is resizing and sharpening, but that can actually be done in LR as well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Chroisman posted:I just started processing photos for the first time in my life two days ago, and I got Lightroom 5 to do it. My main question right now is that it seems like a lot of you use both Photoshop and Lightroom together to fix up your photos, so is it worth getting Photoshop as well at this point in time, for me? One big advantage Photoshop has over Lightroom is that ability to use adjustment layers and masks. I do most of the adjustments in LR too but once in a while you need to bring the photo into PS for fine-grain adjustments. Also, the content aware healing tool is way better than LR. But anyway, if you're asking whether you need Photoshop or not, then you probably don't need it...yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
The VSCO 04 slide film pack is decently close to real slide film but still the difference is obvious. I'd say the colours are fairly accurate but the luminosity is not the same, probably for the reasons given about the response curve. I actually shot the same scenes on digital and slide film to compare for myself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Yeah I don't really bother about matching digital to slide but it is an interesting exercise to try out. Here are the 2 photos, one on slide and the other digital. I tweaked the slide one first to my liking then applied the VSCO preset on the digital one then tweaked a bit as well. (Image hosted by SA isn't showing for me so I hosted it on Imgur) Baron Dirigible posted:I don't know if this falls under the scope of this thread or if the film / scanner thread would be better, but do you mind sharing your workflow for processing slide film? I get that it has naturally dark shadows and it's very temperamental in terms of exposure, but there's such a massive difference between how the slide looks against the light, and how the scanned version looks on my monitor, that I wonder if I'm not missing something. I think that's some of the magic of slides, what you see on a lightbox can't really be captured by a scanner, though a good scanner like the Nikon CS9000 or even a drum scanner will really deliver on the dynamic range, the look is still different. And there's not even much workflow to processing slide film, it's just some minor tweaking of shadows and contrast to taste. alkanphel fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Huxley posted:I would say only buy Photoshop if you have a very clear idea of what you want to accomplish with it. Photoshop is not really great for little touches. It's very good for cloning out ugly or empty spots or photo merging. Actually I find Photoshop better for the little touches and fine-tuning of the image that Lightroom can't do, especially when using curves and layer masks. Or other complex things like color correction or proper content-aware healing. That said, for the digital images I work on, 80% of them can be pretty much finished in LR and only 20% need to be fixed in PS. LR5 is really quite a powerful, compared to like LR2 or 3.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Verman posted:Honestly I don't even mess with Lightroom. I already have the entire creative cloud as a designer so any photo work is done with Photoshop and everyone understands you can apply a camera raw adjustment layer to non raw images right? That essentially makes quick little adjustments super easy. Unfortunately it just takes a step or two in order to get there. The other main advantage of Lightroom is that it is a great photo management tool as well, with tagging and smart collections and filtering. I don't really have an issue with using Photoshop from LR since the process is relatively fuss-free both ways. Also, it's easier to manage and edit huge amounts of photos in LR than PS, at least in my experience.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Soulex posted:What's the overall consensus between lightroom and aperture? I currently use Aperture, and don't do a whole lot of processing to my photos (minor stuff like crop, balance, etc) and I really want to get the best out of my pictures. I think you'll find that most people use Lightroom over Aperture. Though if you don't do much processing, I'm not sure if there would be a significant difference between them for your needs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:At home I have a computer. It has Lightroom on it. I import stuff to it and edit it. Take a look here: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1356290
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
FistLips posted:Second I have a workflow question: You can transfer the photos to the external HDD, then (assuming you are using LR5) generate Smart Previews to work on your SSDs. They will sync the edits when you reconnect the external HDD. If the external HDD is always going to be connected, you can just edit off the external HDD cos most of the edits will be done to the catalog, not to the files.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
This might be useful for some, based on the recent talk here: http://petapixel.com/2015/02/09/affinity-photo-new-pro-photoshop-alternative-mac-users-get-free/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Yeah if it's just a couple of adjustments then the LR brushes are great for that but curve layers in PS just give so much more control and precision.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Picnic Princess posted:I'm really confused about something right now. I have Photoshop CS6, and for some reason it's been tinting all of my photos weird. The photos don't have that hue in any other program, and I can process it in such a way that it looks like how it does in other programs, but then if I try to upload it anywhere it looks terrible again. You might have set something to AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB when importing/exporting the photos.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
It's easier to imagine LR 6 and LR CC as 2 separate products, each getting their own line of updates. It's pretty obvious Adobe hopes to wean most people off LR 6 so that they can eventually kill it off and have everyone on LR CC, so it's no surprise that LR 6 only gets the critical updates like camera/lens support and a couple of new features.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Haggins posted:What's the best way to soften skin? I know people with higher volume will use things like frequency separation and portraiture, but I would like to do it by hand for now. Mostly to develop the skill before I rely on automation. I know high end retouchers will just use dodge and burn for like 2 days, but that's a little extreme for me. Use Photoshop, clean up skin first to the best of your ability, then create blur layers and brush them in with appropriate levels of opacity. There are probably better ways but this works for me. Dodge & burn is more for contouring the face though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
If you have Lightroom I don't even know why you would even think of using OSX Photos for anything.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:Well like I mentioned, my primary photo usage has shifted; I've moved closer to home so there are lots of family gatherings, quick social events and whatnot where speed is more important than drilling down to precise development tools. So as far as "anything" goes, there are plenty of uses for having my photos readily available on all of my devices, especially those that a pretty large segment of the public use! But when I do want to do something semi or real professionally, I'd like to be able to do that too which is where Lightroom comes in. All my friends who do this (for speed) just setup the camera to produce the JPGs they want and share direct from the camera to their phone for Instagram/FB. They don't even bother with LR or Photos even anymore. You could shoot both JPG and RAW, share the JPGs instantly and use the RAWs with LR for anything else that doesn't require instant sharing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 05:58
|
|