|
This is probably pretty easy to do but I'm dumb and can't figure it out. How do I create this look: 
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
HPL posted:Threshold, median? I don't understand... I pretty much only do basic stuff right now as far as post processing goes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2009 21:54
|
|
|
Cool thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2009 10:22
|
|
|
SnowWolf posted:I feel like I have a basic grasp of Lightroom and can more or less improve my photos to my amateur standards. All my editing is with default Lightroom functions however. Post processing walkthroughs like this really blow me away I'd say the Nik collection really is the professional standard now a days, and if you have it, there isn't too much of a reason to even use photoshop anymore. And yes, you could do what he did using Nik and lightroom. The thing that makes Nik software better and faster than photoshop is their U-point technology. U-point is basically this thing allows you to select parts of your photos by dropping control points on what you want to adjust. It's much faster and more organic than masking in PS. Their software suite is very intuitive and easy to learn. You could install it and get good results using presets in minutes, or if you spend a couple days watching their webinars, you'll master it in no time. I know I sound like an advertisement, but Nik really is awesome and it's all I use with Aperture.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 08:47
|
|
|
No idea who that coastal photographer is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2011 16:18
|
|
|
delicious beef posted:In other news, I'm going to have a play with Aperture and see how it compares with Lightroom, since it seems a nicer application in lots of ways (slideshows, books, etc). It'll be interesting to see if the more limited editing software pushes me back into Lightroom or forces me to learn Photoshop properly. Aperture 3 isn't limited version of Lightroom. You have all the same adjustment power you get with LR3. I think LR3 might have a little bit better noise reduction and sharpening, but personally I use the Nik Dfine and Nik Sharpener Pro because they have better local control. One thing I really like about Aperture, and it sounds like you will too based on the problems you posted, is that your library consists of a single file. I have about 5 libraries which are very easy to keep track of. I think LR has a lot more potential for misplacement mistakes. With that said, what it all comes down to is personal preference. One isn't all around better than the other. I suggest that anyone on a Mac should give both a try and stick with the one that feels right to them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
delicious beef posted:It doesn't look like Aperture has graduated filters, nor can I see a way to click a pixel and then change the curve around the exposure value for that pixel (does that make sense? I'm not sure how to describe it better or what the correct term is), both of which I use a lot. Yeah I think graduated filters is another thing LR has over Aperture. But once again, I use ColorEFx and Viveza for that kind of stuff. As for curves, did you find out how to turn on curves? It's not on by default.  Just click on adjustments and select curves and it'll show up like it does at the bottom. As for clicking on a pixel, I'm not sure what you mean. If you look past Channel RGB, you'll see three droppers and a target. The droppers are for setting the Black, Gray, and White points and the target is for "setting a point in the curve". I don't know if that helps, I'm a novice when it comes to curves. quote:Kinda related, does anyone have a good workflow for doing a cloud based back up? I don't have anything set up, but I'd like to start using Amazon S3 or similar, I just don't know what the best way of doing it. Is there a good app that can automate things? I'm mac based if anyone has any suggestions. Aside from a local time machine backup, I use the services of a company called Backblaze. For $5 a month/$50 a year they back up all your data to the cloud, which includes all external drives. The software starts by uploading a base file then only uploads the changes when you're connected to the internet. The base file can take a few weeks to upload, but the daily changes move pretty quick. Best thing about it is that it works in the background and you never have to think about it. If you ever do lose some data you can either download that backup off their website (the whole backup or individual files) or give them some money and they'll Fedex you a harddrive with all your data. With that said, I wouldn't mind an extra place in the cloud to just back up my Aperture libraries. I just haven't seen a cheap solution for 200gb+ of data. teethgrinder posted:Am I understanding you correctly? All your images go into a single database file? And it's reliable? I'm not a computer scientist but I've been told it's just as safe as Lightroom's file system. The absolute worst case scenario is that your library will get corrupted and you'll lose all your meta data and most adjustments. The original files will still be in place. The exact same thing could happen in LR. Regardless of what you use, you have to back up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Having used both systems I can say I'm really not a fan of apple's tendency for monolithic libraries. I'd personally stick with Lightroom but that's because I like personal control over my files, rather than having them all mashed into one giant pile. You can set Aperture to do that too if you want. Having all the files being managed by the software is "the mac way" of doing things. Back when I used windows I used to hate how itunes controlled everything because I already had a system for organizing my MP3s. I eventually realized that it was a pain in the rear end to keep track of everything and a big waste of time on my part when the software was perfectly capable of doing this. Once I switched to mac, I gave in to "the mac way" and let the programs keep track of the files. Once I did I haven't looked back. It's part of the whole "less time spent maintaining your computer" philosophy that I like about using macs. Aside from that, I personally don't have any reason to browse for files in the finder. It's always going to be much faster to search for files in Aperture than it is going through a directory structure (same goes for Lightroom). The real advantage is when I have to backup or otherwise move my photos. I only have 5 files to keep track of instead potentially 1000's of files that are scattered across my drive. I've used Lightroom extensively before and I know I'm not the only one who has imported a card to the wrong place then spent time searching for lost photos. Once again it all comes down to personal preference and Aperture isn't the right solution for everyone. Just wanted to add my 2 cents on why I like it over Lightroom.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 06:13
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:Since there's talk of backing up, I want to do backing up that every time I backup, only new files are added to my external drive, and not 2 Terabytes of data every loving time. I've tried setting it to "daily" but it still backs everything up. It took 24 hours last time. What backup program are you talking about and is this Mac or PC?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 06:14
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:The software is amazing, but Color Efex and Silver Efex seem to encourage people making gimmicky poo poo heh. Very easy to abuse tools. In ColorEfx there is some gimmicky poo poo but there are some real gems too. Darken/lighten Center, Film Grain, Grad Filters, Grad ND, Pro Contrast, and Vignette Blur are all pretty useful and not at all cheesy looking. Some of the others like Bleach Bypass, Midnight, and Ink can be real campy if used poorly, however, I've had them work well for certain photos. Like you I kinda wrote it off as gimmicky, but after watching some of Nik's webinars and seeing how other people use the program, I changed mind. One key to using it is to remember that the presets are only a starting point and you really need to tweak the settings before you apply anything. Same goes for HDR Efx and Silver Efx. As for SilverEfx, I think it's a lot easier to make a respectable image and avoid anything gimmicky. I feel like it's helped me become a much better B&W photographer. If I could only own one piece of Nik software, it'd be SilverEfx no question.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
moron posted:I use an app called Arq to back up my poo poo to S3. I've found it to be extremely useful and cost effective. Whilst I probably have a lot less data than most of you guys (maybe ~100gb currently), it only costs me $2-3 a month in S3 fees at the moment. This looks pretty cool, I'll give it a try. I'm gonna see if it'll fit for my idea of a "safety deposit box" for my Aperture libraries and other very important files. I'm going to hang on to Backblaze because I'm still pretty happy with it and like the way it works. This will just be a compliment to it. Edit: meh, it costs too much. Ideally I'd like 300 gigs for my photos by I could be happy with 200. That'd cost me $30 per month and $20 respectively. Haggins fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Apr 14, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Speaking of Color Efex, is there any way to apply more than one treatment at a time without saving and re-running the filter? I've got the Lightroom version so I am guessing no. I think there is a way to do it if you have the Photoshop plug in, but not for Lightroom/Aperture.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Hate to be the resident fanboy here, but give SilverEfx 2 a try if you're serious about B&W. It's easier, faster, and better than photoshop (or even a wet darkroom).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I generally thought people mostly do it on this sort of shot just for the skies. You should have left it up, I would like to see it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Is there a way to make Aperture put a grid overlay on your pictures? Specifically something that divides the picture into 9 square things. AFAIK the only way to do it is to hold down command while using the crop tool.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
I've had this photo sitting on my hard drive for a few months and now I'm finally trying to fix it.  It's a stitch I took at Chichen Itza. When i took it, I thought I shot enough sky but obviously I'm missing a couple big patches on the left and right sides. Also, the could on the upper left center next to the black area didn't stitch right. What would be the best way to fix this? I'm guessing that I should drop a whole new sky in, but I don't have any on tap. Is there a free place to get skies or should I just try to shoot my own? Is there a good way to fix it with what's already there?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:There seems to be a fair amount of separation between the clouds and sky, so it would probably not be a nightmare to get rid of the uppermost clouds on either side and just try to blend a blue up there somewhere. It seems like it would be more of a pain to mask out the one small clump of trees to add a whole new sky. How would I do the blending? With a gradient?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
How does this look? http://cl.ly/103m2w1Y3T0s1D260F2s I used content aware file then went to down on the healing brush.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2011 16:36
|
|
|
Thanks for the help. It's not perfect, but it passed the girlfriend test when I had her take a look at it. http://flic.kr/p/9FKmj2 brad industry posted:I always shoot clouds/skies for dropping into images. Always useful to have a folder of them for stuff like this. Good idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
Thanks, glad you guys like it.A5H posted:I think you should carry the right top cloud out over the edge. The other side looks pretty good though. Well done haggins. Good idea. The right side if the cloud still doesn't sit right with me and I was having a hard time getting the edges to look good. Sounds like an easy way to fix that problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
AzCoug posted:What's everyone's recommendation for storage and backup? I just got my D7000 and plan on taking more and more pictures as I learn what the gently caress I'm doing, but I don't want to store them all on my computer and eat up my HD. The old saying is if there aren't 3 copies of it, it doesn't exist. I think a solid solution would be to have 2 different back ups on external drives, keep one at home and one in an offsite location (whether that be your office or a friends house). Switch them out periodically, maybe every week or month. In addition to that, I'd recommend an online backup service such as Backblaze or Mozy or Carbonite. This protects on the road and if something major happens like a big earthquake, hurricane, or nuclear bomb. Haggins fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jun 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2011 02:39
|
|
|
Auditore posted:classic americans. That's just silly. All you have to do is be a real jerk and you'll remain behind with plenty of access to your files.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2011 09:30
|
|
|
^^^ To me there is nothing interesting about the light. LargeHadron posted:So, in short, I'm wondering why the heck there is such a gap in quality between my photos and random-flickr-guy's photos with the same camera and a comparable lens. Do you think it's a processing technique, or am I really that bad at pressing the shutter button on my camera? (I know it's more than pressing a button, I'm being facetious) This is all my opinion, but as far as technical quality goes, the first and most important component is the photographer's skill. A good photographer can make a great photo with just about any type of camera. It's all about knowing the equipment's limitations. It's possible to take really awesome photos with something as simple as an iphone if you know what you're doing. Second to that is light. If you have good/interesting light, it's easier to make a good photo. This can be either natural, ambient, or the flashes you bring with you. If you've got really good light, any camera is a great camera. Third is glass. Not counting strobes, glass has the biggest direct impact on image quality. However, in this day and age, there aren't really many really bad pieces of glass out there aside from the very cheapest kit lenses (at least that's true for Canon, I don't know anything about Sony). Piggybacking on what INTJ said, with cheaper glass you're going to have a smaller sweet spot than more expensive glass. There are other advantages to high end glass, but since this isn't a gear thread, I'll leave it at that. Last and least important is the camera.The truth is that most modern DSLRs aren't that much different from each other when it comes to quality. I bet you that if I shot a set of photos on a low end Canon Rebel one day, then on my 50D the next, and the last day on top end 1dmark4, you wouldn't be able to tell which photos where shot on which camera. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying high end cameras aren't worth the money. It's just that they're not going to make you a better photographer. HIgh end cameras do make a lot of things easier on you, but as far as image quality goes, in general, the only thing that they offer is better high ISO performance (and to a lesser extent, a few more MP). As far as post processing goes, you can't turn a bad image into a good image by working on it in post. Post processing should really only be used to make great images sing. Yeah you can use it to fix a few small problems, but IMO you should always try to get things right in camera and not use it as a crutch.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2011 07:25
|
|
|
AzCoug posted:What about just using something like Smugmug ONLY? I personally don't use SM, but from my understanding they'll let you back up unlimited JPGs (and other compressed formats) included with the cost of service. It also looks like for an additional fee based on how much space you need, they'll let you upload RAWs or any other type of file format for back up. The main problems that I see is that the backups are neither complete nor automatic. It seems to me that you have to choose exactly what you want backed up and to back it up, you have to upload it yourself. There is way too much room for error in this method. You need something that is automatic and backups up everything without you having to do anything. I'm not saying SM is a bad thing, I just wouldn't consider it a primary backup. I think if you had a local external drive backup and used a cloud service like Blackblaze, Carbonite, etc..., you'd be in pretty good shape. If you switched out that local drive periodically, you wouldn't have much to worry about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Just a heads up guys, onOne software Standard Edition Phototools 2.5 is free right now if you are an Mpix member. I don't think I'm a member of Mpix but it worked for me. All I did was fill out of the form and I got an email with the serial number and download link. Thanks! Edit: made a thread in coupons Haggins fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jun 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Unless I'm shooting concerts or low light situations where chroma noise is just too disgusting, I am never happy with BW conversions. I just use desaturation in LR3 and adjust contrast and black levels. I love black and white photography, but I can't "see" it before I take the photo. What are some good resources for thinking in black and white, I've been pouring over tons of images trying to imagine scenes without color, but it's still really tough for me. I'm just drawn to bright vivid colors. I don't have much to point you to as far as pre-visualizing in black and white goes. I've heard good things about Ansel Adam's book trilogy (The Camera, The Negative, The Print). Also Michael Freeman has a couple books on Black and White. I haven't yet read them either but he's by far one of my favorite photography teachers. As for myself, a lot of times I shoot in black and white when I feel the colors are too distracting, there is some really cool textures, or I see some nice tonal contrast. As for post processing, you absolutely positively have to get Nik SilverEfx Pro a try. I know I post about it every other page, but it's really the best tool out there for black and white conversions. The thing I like the most/find the most useful is that it has a ton of presets. Don't think of them as cookie cutter "make my photo B&W" buttons but rather starting points to help you find your vision. Each preset gives you a preview of what your image will look it. It doesn't sound like a big deal but it makes finding your vision a lot easier. Once you pick your preset, there are a lot of tweaks you can do to your image. Mimic film types, burn edges, add grain, selectively adjust areas of the photo, etc... It's really helped me become a better black and white photographer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
scottch posted:The Practical Zone System for Film and Digital Photography. I'm reading this right now, and it's exactly what you want. Did you buy an MF setup recently? Awesome I'm gonna check this out. AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I'm reading The Negative right now. I just finished The Camera. Yes, I just bought a MF camera, waiting for my first roll to come back now. I shot it about as fast as humanly possible. I'm going to have to do home development just because I can't wait for processing. How dated are the books? I have no intention of ever shooting film again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
Is it bad that I just use evaluative and bracket 3 shots at -2, 0, and +2 for HDRs?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
Chim posted:I ran into this guy on flickr, and it looks like he's living the dream of taking pictures of cute scene girls. I was wondering, how do you get that vintage processing look that he uses for a lot of these photos? It looks like he's shooting directly into the light to blow out the image on purpose, but is there any split toning or action that I'm not seeing that he's using? Looks like some of the filters in ColorEfx Pro. Maybe Cross Processing or Bi-Color Filters. It's possible to do in Photoshop but ColorEfx is the easier/better way. Here is a preview of the effects: http://www.niksoftware.com/colorefexpro/usa/entry.php?view=intro/cep3_filters.shtml The effects are highly customizable so it may not look exactly like what that guy did until you do some tweaking.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
Chim posted:these look great. looks like a sale for the complete edition at 99 bucks, worth the money? I'd agree with teethgrinder in that it's best just to get the complete collection and like he said you can google around for a 20-25% coupon. Just to add a couple things Silver Efex is the absolute best way to do digital black and white and I think HDR Efx is the best HDR tool out there. Sharpener is cool too because it takes out the guess work of sharpening for viewing distance and allows you to selectively sharpen. Check out their website, they have a lot of great webinars that show you how to use them all and what you can do with them. Also, each plugin has a 30 day trial.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
Some of the filters in ColorEfx can be gimmicky if you over use them, but there are some that are very useful and not at all gimmicky. Some of the more useful ones are: 1. Darken/Lighten Center. It's kind of like a vignette (which I use in Aperture to some degree on almost every photo) but a lot stronger. Great to use when you want a lot of focus on a certain area of the photo. Doesn't have to be the actual center, you can place center anywhere. You could do the same thing in photoshop, but I heard it takes a long time. 2. Pro Contrast. You really have to play with this to see, but basically it's great for making textures pop. It does a lot more than the contrast slider in LR/PS. 3. Film Grain. This is one of those subtle effects that make a big difference. Sometimes digital is just too "clean" and you don't get that feeling you get with old film photos. With this you can add it back in. It's kinda like a vignette in that it's subtle but makes a big impact. 4. Graduated ND. Made to replicate the filter except more useful because you have more control. 5. Monday Morning/Classic Soft Focus/High Key - each a bit different but great for portraits when you want an "airy" "dreamy" look. Lowkey and Midnight are also there if you want to do the opposite. 6. Film Effects. I'm not the film expert but from my understanding, these are pretty accurate. These weren't made by a bunch of interns eyeballing photos and trying to match up the features. The were made by a team of engineers in Germany that processed hundreds, maybe thousands of rolls to develop the software (same goes for SilverEfx). Other than that, I still wouldn't go as far to say that the others are gimmicky and useless. The more I use ColorEfx, the more I understand what filters work with what photos. It's just a matter of learning how to use them correctly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 04:24
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:Half a second in lightroom I don't use Lightroom so i don't have a Clarity slider, Grad ND filters, or film grain built in. quote:Clarity+contrast sliders, sharpness panel, desat. One thing to note, and this holds true for SilverEfx and HDREfx too, is that what you see is only a starting point and shouldn't be your end product. It's never going to look perfect in the preview. You start with the preview then start tweaking the settings and applying the filter selectively throughout the frame. Either way, I do think ColorEfx is not their strongest product. It's nice to have and can be useful, but it's not a must have. Haggins fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jul 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 07:43
|
|
|
You'll get a better answer if you ask in the SHSC Mac Hardware thread
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
Everything feels kinda flat, which I find happens in most raw images straight out of the camera. I'd pull up the exposure up a tad and add a little bit more saturation. You could also desaturate if that's your thing, I just don't like where it is right now. Also, I think your photos could benefit from a vignette to smooth out the corners and define the frame a little bit more.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2011 05:24
|
|
|
I don't know much about PSP and I don't know anyone who uses it now a days. To be honest, I find that I can do almost everything I need in Aperture with the Nik Complete collection. The same would hold true if I were a LR user. The main things I use PS for are stitching, content aware fill, and once in awhile digital composting (ie. dropping a sky from one photo to another). On rare occasions I'll do some light graphic design work, but it's not my forte. Considering my uses, there is no reason I couldn't get by with Photoshop Elements. I don't know what the cost is on windows, but on the Mac app store it's only $80. If you ever decide that you've outgrown elements, it should qualify you for upgrade pricing on Photoshop CS5. Upgrade pricing from elements means $100 off the list price.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Lamb of Gun posted:I understand. I do use Lightroom 90% of the time, but occasionally I need to do some other work like highpass filters, layers, unsharp mask, etc. If I were you, I'd get a free 30 day trial of elements and see if it can do everything you need. After that get a CS5 trial and see if there is anything missing that you need.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Well, ended up with a 27" iMac, 3.1 GHz i5, 6970M graphics card, 12 gig ram, and it is AWESOME. Very nice. That's what I'm planning on getting to replace my aging MBP. Just need a job first or some serious gigs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
Tyorik posted:So I'm about to buy a tripod to take with me on my travels, and I plan to bracket most of my landscape shots, but something is confusing me: if I take 3 exposures of a shot, but something in the shot has moved somewhat, how do you combine the exposures even though the moving object will be in a different place in every shot (even if just a little off)? It seems like everyone does this, whether it's to get a properly exposed sky, or for cityscapes, etc but I can't see how (I suck at PP). Especially in a cityscape where people or cars are moving, how do you take/combine exposures for that? I have CS5 and I know about the Automate-->photomerge, and I also have Photomatix, but neither seem to do well with multiple exposures with any movement as far as I've tinkered around with it. You can only really fix very slight movements, like say the rustling of the tree leaves from a light breeze. This is called "ghosting". I don't really use Photoshop for HDR because it sucks, but I know HDR Efex Pro will fix the problem to a degree. I'm assuming Photomatix has a similar function. The best thing to do is to start off with the fastest shutter speed you can manage, use your in camera bracketing mode, and set your drive mode to high speed continuous shooting. That way you can just hold down the shutter and have the camera pop off 3 shots in a split second (I shoot Canon so the max I can bracket is 3 shots). That will greatly reduce the ghosting problems in your images. With some practice, it's possible to pull off HDR images without a tripod.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2011 14:52
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:Color Efex Pro 4 announced Awesome, that's one feature I really wanted. I'd preorder it right now if I had the money.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
teethgrinder posted:History browser is a nice-to-have for sure. I guess after buying the collection before, I have to upgrade them piecemeal now if I see something I need. I missed the free upgrade by about a month, poop. Yeah you do. There are some coupons floating around if you do some googling. You might be able to find a 20 or 25% off and knock the price down to $75-80. I did that when I upgraded SilverEfx.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2011 23:39
|
|