|
evil_bunnY posted:Does someone make a Lightroom plugin that repairs known lens distortions, so you could for example correct a whole bunch of pictures shot at different apertures and lengths? I'd really like to know of a good way of doing this as well. For a bunch of shots at the same focal length it's easy to do a group CA fix, but that's far from ideal when using zooms or switching lenses a lot. I guess DxO is supposed to do this stuff, but it's not at all convenient for a RAW->LR workflow.
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2009 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
I shot a concert with some extremely green lighting: and I tried to tone down the icky green by shifting the green and aqua tones way to the left and slightly lowering their saturation too. I ended up with a yellow-ish look that I'm not sure if I like:  There's gotta be a better way of dealing with it. Any ideas?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2009 20:45
|
|
|
Yeah this was in LR with RAW and that's what I did. I was just wondering if there were some other way. The first picture is actually pretty close to reality, but the color is so harsh that I didn't really like it. It's also amazing how big of a difference the new camera profiles make in LR.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2009 22:00
|
|
|
That guy's LR presets are some of the better ones out there. It's easy to let the preset panel get really crowded tho, because apparently won't let you use sub-folders within folders. I don't copy over his "auto" versions of the presets because you could just run the preset and then click auto tone to get the same effect.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2009 22:52
|
|
|
In the ones where the sky would have been blown out, he wisely got up on top of something and excluded the sky from the shot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 01:53
|
|
|
More time in Lightroom/PS/etc. means less time in TF2. Some people don't care that much about their photos being just right, and that's totally fine. The odd part is why they'd want to be in a post-processing thread.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2009 21:02
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure DNG is lossless... but why bother? Canon's raw files will continue to be supported as long as DNG, and DNG files aren't much smaller than CR2s.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2009 18:59
|
|
|
Make sure you always export from lightroom as sRGB if you want your images to look right on the web. Some browsers (Chrome) still assume everything is sRGB / untagged. Also, if you're shooting JPEG, make sure your camera is set to sRGB and not AdobeRGB. gib fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Nov 20, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
Lightroom should be under $100 if you're a student. Even at the regular price it's totally worth it. Aperture just got much cheaper too if you get it through the App Store. If you shoot a lot, try PhotoMechanic. Also, stop shooting raw+jpeg. There's a jpeg already embedded in your raw file. Do you keep your raw files? I do a folder for each set of photos like "2011-01-22 Description of Shoot". gib fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jan 22, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
I do the camera-scanning thing and it works about as well as a V500 flatbed. It's MUCH faster than my dedicated Scan Dual, though probably slightly lower quality. I've found that Photoshop actions work better than Lightroom for working with negatives. Also, I just use a lightbox and a macro lens on a tripod mounted vertically. It's a little more wonky than the bellows systems but it works pretty well. You can go through negatives VERY quickly once you have it set up right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 08:41
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:What do you use to hold the negatives? I'm sure there are simple, obvious devices for this, but I'm having no luck with my google-fu today. I've got 135 and 120 B&W sitting at home waiting to be shot, I've got pretty much everything sorted out in my mind except scanning the 120 negatives. I have an old film scanner, so I typically use the holders from that. Homemade cardboard contraptions also work quite well as long as you make sure nothing sharp is getting inside and scratching your film. A third option is to buy a slide copier for a dead MF mount on eBay and use that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
I like to leave a little bit of yellow/warm cast in a photo shot under tungsten. If you're dealing with sodium vapor lights often found outdoors it's almost impossible to get truly good colors. The lights don't give off a full spectrum, so no amount of white balance fiddling will ever really fix it.Ak Gara posted:I was actually thinking of placing a pair of polarized sunglasses in front of the lense and see what would happen. Maybe even stand a neutral density gradient filter up in front... I've done that with polarized sunglasses and graduated sunglasses and my old SD880. It works... sorta. With point and shoot cameras that meter through the sensor you don't need to worry about circular vs linear polarizers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 11:11
|
|
|
If you're using PS CS5 you can use the "Lens Blur" tool: Select everything but the car, then create a new channel. On the new channel, put a black to white gradient from the bottom of the car to where the buildings are (keeping the car black) Now the sky should be all white and the car and the ground under it should be black (on the channel). Now you can run Filter -> Lens Blur and set the source to the channel you created. You can tweak the settings from there to control how blurred your background gets.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2011 10:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
GWBBQ posted:eidt: looked at the exif, 1/15, f/11, ISO1600. ISO1600 isn't a good place to start if you want sharp, clear images. Exactly. Learn the basics of exposure and general best practices before getting into post-processing too much. You typically don't shoot people (or anything if you can help it) at 1/15th unless you want motion blur. Also, try to stay away from CFL bulbs. When shooting a tight-ish portrait like that you usually want to go with a longer focal length than 40mm (60mm equiv.). Getting too close to the subject can make their nose look too big and distort their face. Try shooting the photo again at ISO400 or so with window light and at f5.6 or something. Keep your shutter speed shorter than 1/100th if you can and bump up the ISO if you can't. Use a longer focal length if possible. gib fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jun 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2011 19:37
|
|