Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
snowman
Aug 20, 2004
due it
I took this picture and didn't realize until too late that there is a very distracting dark icicle in the foreground, blocking the front part of the ring of light. Is this something that is possible to remove in photoshop, and if so what tool and process would you use to do so? I only have lightroom2 and the clone and heal tools aren't cutting it. I can get photoshop at a good price (student) and am really considering it now that I am consistently running into limitations of lightroom.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

snowman
Aug 20, 2004
due it

Splinter posted:

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.

The profiles are alright but they don't do much for realistic skin tones, at least on the nikon side of things. The only one I've ever bothered using is d2x mode 1.

snowman
Aug 20, 2004
due it

Loinworm posted:

I was just about to add that I don't think a single one of these champions of industry has ever actually made a traditional color print in their lives. You can easily spend days going through hundreds of dollars worth of chemistry trying to get the result you thought you should have had when you clicked that shutter release. Whining about five seconds worth of knob twiddling with immediate, non-temperature dependent feedback is just flat out stupid.

Now if you want to argue that Nikon's own software performs better overall conversions and start citing examples like moire patterns or that bizarre "maze" artifacting that was popping up in Aperture or other similar issues inherent to blind de-mosaicing, OK--many of these file formats are proprietary and there's no way that Adobe can ever be expected to reverse engineer them all perfectly without the vendor's cooperation--but this particular argument about it not matching the overly contrasty LCD display they used as a camera back boils down to little more than laziness and inexperience. If you don't know how to get from point A to point B then you don't know what you're doing.

Well to be fair, an inaccurate lcd display on the back of the camera really can screw you when you thought you had the correct exposure, and it turns out it is underexposed, or your flash isn't set right when you look at it on a computer. It would be nice if you could set the lcd display to show a more true representation of the raw image.



Now for a completely unrelated question:

I just picked up photoshop cs4 and I am having trouble figuring something out. I have a folder of 7 images I want to make in to a panorama. Is there a way to open them all as layers in photoshop in one go? If I try opening them it opens them as 7 seperate files, instead of one file with 7 layers. In lightroom I can right click and open all as layers in photoshop, but that doesn't help when I am trying to export the files as smaller jpgs out of lightroom, then open up those jpgs, not the original raws, in photoshop. When I tried searching photoshop help and google it came up with a whole bunch of layer masking tutorials. Anyone have an idea?

Similarly is there any way to open just one image as a layer in a composition you are already working on?

snowman fucked around with this message at 00:13 on May 2, 2009

snowman
Aug 20, 2004
due it
I'm having trouble post processing this image.


It just feels kind of flat to me, no matter what I do to it. That is with a curve already applied and a few exposures blended. I'm starting to think maybe it's just a boring photo. Anyone got an idea?

snowman
Aug 20, 2004
due it
Yeah that is pretty unlikely, and most definitely sucks, but I've noticed a much more common situation where lightroom is a disadvantage. On my d90 any picture above iso 800 looks like poo poo when I get it into lightroom. The original pictures look great, the camera actually has a pretty good high iso noise reduction built in, but lightroom doesn't get that info, so you have to use the luminance noise reduction slider in light room, which looks like total rear end compared to what comes out of the camera. If I used nikon's software the images would look great, but because of proprietary raw formats I get shafted.

One thing I'm not sure about, does long exposure noise reduction work the same way? This is where the camera takes a dark frame of the same exposure length to reduce noise in long exposure images. But I'd assume since the other noise reduction isn't applied when using lightroom/camera raw, that this is the same scenario.

It's really a bummer. I couldn't give a poo poo about the different camera profiles like camera standard, vivid, acr etc, but the noise reduction is a pretty big deal if you are shooting in low light.

snowman
Aug 20, 2004
due it
I use a wacom intuos 3 and it's the only thing I use when in photoshop. But for lightroom I think it sucks. The sliders are what really kills it, not only are sliders something that for me is easier to operate with a mouse, when I'm using the tablet for some reason they have more lag. That and with lightroom's setup I just find a mouse easier to use for the most part.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

snowman
Aug 20, 2004
due it

Gazmachine posted:


What painfully basic thing am I doing wrong? I want to save this "as is", as one layer, in a jpeg, without it changing when I hit "flatten image".

One other thing you could try is hitting Alt+ctrl+shift+E , which should merge everything visible onto a new layer while leaving your other layers intact below it. You then delete the other layers and save for web or save as to get your jpg. Don't ever delete the original with all layers unless you are sure you'll never use it again and don't have the hard drive space.

I agree with Kazy on save for web, it works great, and may work by itself without the merging step I talked about.

A quick tip for you, it looks like you are making your changes to a specific area by erasing that part of the layer. Look up some tutorials on layer masks. It is a much less destructive way of working; it makes it very easy to go back and change the area you want to adjust.

  • Locked thread