|
diarrhea for girls posted:Topaz Adjust, probably. Dear god, that is an awful POS. It is like every lovely, overblown HDR made by a 14yo TO THE MAXXX
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2009 08:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
flyingbathtubpirate posted:Don't know if this is of any use to the OP but if you want to add a goon-written tutorial for beginners that introduces proper D&B work for skin; I just want to say this is an awesome tutorial, and thanks. No more 40%blur-layer-with-mask-and-fade for me!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2010 09:29
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It takes maybe a day or two to get used to it. I do a lot of retouching on set, and am at least twice as fast with a tablet for things like clone stamping and and mask making. Using a mouse feels clumsy to me, everything takes 2-3 passes and you often have to backtrack to get things right where it would take 1 with a tablet. It's like scalpel vs. crappy paintbrush. I just got an Intuos4, and I was kind of worried that I was just too naturally uncoordinated to use it. After a couple of hours, it felt alot more natural. The radial menu is pretty kickass.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Haggins posted:1. Darken/Lighten Center. It's kind of like a vignette Haggins posted:4. Graduated ND. Haggins posted:3. Film Grain. Half a second in lightroom Haggins posted: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. Clarity slider. Haggins posted: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. Clarity+contrast sliders, sharpness panel, desat. (Personally, I think these filters look pretty terrible on their own, and I'd much rather spend the time with some selective sharpening/dodging/burning if that's a look I want.) Haggins posted: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). For this kind of thing, I can definitely see the value in third party filters. Sure, you could duplicate in with a PS action or whatever, but that seems like a bunch of work for not much gain. The results some of the guys in here have gotten with the Nik presets are stunning.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Anyone have experience using Aperture on one of the new MacBook Airs? I've got an 11" (mac air...) and, while I use LR and PS CS5, I did give aperture a trial to see if I liked it. It ran smooth as hell for cataloguing and processing raws - I think I had a catalogue of about 4200ish raw files, and a couple hundred jpegs. Just didnt like it enough to learn a new package.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2011 12:28
|
|
|
quazi posted:
am I missing something? You could do this in 3.x
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I just tried VSCO out, and on my test shots, I liked maybe 1 preset out of the lot. Although, I've seen some great shots with VSCO on top, so maybe my test shots are poo poo. I agree that I wish I had more fine grained control. And guess what - all VSCO presets are text files that you can edit if you know what the numbers mean. I was under the impression that there were also customised profiles for each camera that go with the presets, rather than the presets simply being a bunch of LR sliders (like most of the BS sold to momtographers).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 07:43
|
|
|
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? I do a first run through pick (for ones I want)/reject (for missed focus/junk). Favourites get a five star, but that's all I use those for. Then do basic exposure/color/contrast/sharpening/NR/etc on the picks. After that, I mark em yellow for needs proper (ie, PS) post, blue for done, green for uploaded to Flickr. quote:Additionally, is there an easy way to clone/heal out something linear, like a hair? I find I have to do a million little circles, and there must be a better way. I just use PS. The LR spotting tool is a pain for anything that isnt, er, spots.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:What's folks opinion on plugins like Film Stocks that mimic the look of various films? I inherited VSCO, DXO Filmpack, SilverFX/ColorFX and Alien Skin Exposure when I bought a NAS from a Professional Internet Portrait/Wedding/Landscape/Animal/Car Photographer©. (also, his entire image library, because formatting = hard) VSCO is probably the best implementation of all (but doesn't have Kodachrome), DXO filmpack is a close second (and covers Kodachrome 25 and 64). Alien Skin is pretty lovely. Silver FX is excellent for b&w conversions. Most of the others I have seen pushed on the internets have just been PS actions to overlay a curves layer and maybe a grain layer. Both of which you can do yourself for $0. As Reichstag said, though, they generally don't really mimic the film stocks all that well, especially in the highlights; as an 'instagrammy' type set of curves that you use for a bit of screwing around, though, they are pretty decent. And, despite what SERIOUS PHOTOGRAPHERS claim, fun. Ever since a couple of really popular wedding guys started using/pushing VSCO (Jonas Peterson and Sean Flanigan), it seems every second person (over)uses them though, to the point that it's practically a cliche in itself. You aren't a momtographer unless you have a faux-Portra shot of a couple sitting in a field on a vintage couch. Normally, I'd say you should just go shoot some film if you want your photos to look like film... but there really isn't a close replacement for Kodachrome. Maybe Rollei Digibase 200 Pro (http://www.flickr.com/groups/digibase/) BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Apr 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Uh yeah so I've been reading a bit into infrared filters as well, wondering what kind of interesting affect that would have when I'm down there with long exposures. I have a hard time believing that he managed to get some of those iceberg shots from something that was not moving, as they look like they would be big enough to be very deep underwater, he would have had some sorcery or some other unknown method to be so close and get a long exposure, unless he was using some super badass megatelephoto lens. (apologies if I misinterpreted and you meant an IR filter *in addition* to a red filter) Red filter != infrared filter. One is mostly transparent, but will darken the sky in a b&w... the other cuts off all the visible light (ie, everything below a certain wavelength - 700-800nm usually) and thereby need super long exposures to get an image. That's for unmodified digital, anyways; with a modified digital sensor, you can shoot short exposure IR. Similarly, some IR films are only sensitive from the near-IR spectrum on, and so you avoid those kind of long exposure issues. Your best bet if you wanted to shoot IR, would be a cheap DSLR with the IR filter removed (Life Pixels). Whether it would be worth the effort over and above a simple red filter, on the other hand, is up for debate... ----- Looking at the ocean surface and the clouds, most of those don't look to be long exposure shots. Some of the b&w ones are. IIRC, he mainly shoots a walker titan 8x10 and a Fotoman 617, but all the color shots were done on an Mamiya/Phase digital combo and stitched. He shot most of it from Zodiacs, with the occasional shore trip (which would encompass most of the tripod+ND+long exposure stuff I assume). The other thing he mentioned in the interview was some kind of badass gyro stabilisation thing, something like a steadicam for stills. Pretty sure that's mostly for the digital panos, since stitching five frames shot from a boat on the ocean would be a real bitch. Sludge Tank posted:Might try a different approach this coming season. I'm looking into ordering a set of coloured/ND/GND filters to fit my cokin p series bracket, to see what kind of results I can get out of it. But I would love to know how to make some of those shots as interesting as the guy above with necessary post You can get most of the dark sky effect using color channels in PS (and, to a lesser extent, LR). A red/orange filter, a polariser and a set of GNDs and a Big Stopper would be pretty comprehensive. ... if you want to smuggle me on board, I'll totally carry your tripod or something. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Apr 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I'm having a tough time figuring out where Lightroom fits into this.. will LR continue to be a separate product, or is one of LR4/LR5 the last one to be available standalone? Different markets, imo. Lightroom is different from the rest of CS in that the audience is roughly split between pro/non pro (where 'pro'='makes money from photography'), possibly even more heavily weighted towards amateurs... whereas something like PS is probably more 90/10 pro/nonpro (for those that pay, anyways). For SMEs/momtographers, giving a option to avoid the large upfront capital cost of PS and LR and instead match expenses to their revenue stream makes sense to prevent piracy (or worse, Gimp usage). But for people who arent making money, being able to own it 'forever' makes more sense. I wouldn't expect to see that option disappear. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 05:51 on May 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Gimp is fine in some areas, and pretty sucky in other areas. Unfortunately, if you want to HDR your catsphotos, the sucky areas are the ones that will frustrate the hell out of you. It doesn't have proper raw support, smart objects, built in HDR blending, 16b adjustment layers (this may have changed, it's been coming 'soon' for a long time) or a usable healing brush/content aware fill. All those things will make life easier. But more importantly, there are three main ways of doing 'manual' HDR in PS - doing the whole thing manually with masking (for masochists/perfectionists/guys who get paid a bunch), using blend-if to combine and blend layers, or using apply image to build luminosity masks. Gimp lacks the latter two. Bob Mundon posted:Even without multiple layer manipulation like in Photoshop, is there really nothing out there that just combines them when it's something that's handled in camera on some models? It couldn't be that crazy if it's something that can be automatic (granted, might be terrible in camera, haven't tried it). If you just want to autocombine exposures, any of the HDR packages will do it. Photomatix is a popular one that can produce anything from subtle to Ratcliffetarded. But it's like a hundred bucks, and no one should pay a hundred bucks to HDR stuff. A free alternative is Picturenaut, which I only used once but it seemed okay. Since you have Lightroom, LR/Enfuse does a great job imho (though it can be a bit sucky with ghosting). It produces nicely blended photos with the full DR of the scene and none of the silly clown vomit. And it's practically free. http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php For people who don't have LR, it's essentially just 'Enfuse for dummies', so you can go find Enfuse and use that for free. http://fusion.ns-point.com/ Along the 'free' line, there is also FDRTools and LuminanceHDR. Both of which are free/opensource products - and, as expected, have free/opensource interfaces. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Claw Massage posted:I guess I still don't get it. Basically I'm staring at my background image with another image as a layer over top it and I have no idea which shiny button to push to make only part of the layer show through. I can't even think of how to describe it to find a tutorial on youtube to figure it out. I'm on a phone, so this is going to be annoyingly text-y, but: 1. Make a background layer. This goes on the bottom of the stack. 2. Put the layer with your people, a cat or Obama (whatever you want to composite into the background) on top of that. 3. Put a mask on the top layer. The job of the mask is to let you choose what to show and what to hide on the layer. To do that, select the top layer, then press the add mask button (at the bottom of the layer palette, looks like a rectangle with a circle in the middle) 4. Select the mask - it should already be selected, but if not it's going to be a solid white box next to the little picture of the layer. Where the mask is white, the layer is visible. Where it's black, the layer is concealed. So, as a starting point, we want it entirely black. If it's entirely white, the quickest way to achieve that is to invert it (ctrl-i), but you can use the paint bucket or a brush if you prefer. This makes the mask solid, so none of that layer will be visible. 5. Select a brush (b), make your color white (x, if it isn't already white), and then paint in what you want to be visible. Repeat ad infinitum.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
deaders posted:drat... how does Lightroom save the information about the edited photos though? All the files and the old lightroom install are still intact on the old hard drive so there must be some way to recover it all. The LR catalogue (effectively) runs like a relational database. For each photo, it stores a record with the file name, where it hangs out, EXIF/other metajunk and what processing dickery you have applied to it (like, white_point=3500, global_contrast=6, clarity=PLUS NINE THOUSAND, etc). As long as you have the original raw file and the catalogue (.lrcat), and you haven't been renaming stuff or otherwise messing with it, you should be able to sort it out. 1. copy to catalogue to where you want 2. import it to LR 3. point LR to where the files are stored. If your new drive paths are the same as the old one, you might not even have to do this. But if, at this point, you see a question mark in the folders sidebar, right click->missing folder->point LR to where your raws are stored. That should go through, match up files to records and you should be sweet. Given you have the original file structure, you shouldn't have any problems at all. Just make sure you make a safe copy of your catalogue first, because you don't want to gently caress that up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Public Service Announcement: back up your LR catalogue to a second drive, or preferably, another machine. I got some random file system corruption issue last Thursday that just couldn't be solved, so spent Friday night reinstalling windows and then everything else. Even though I could retrieve my LR catalogue from the drive (and the cat backups), they were all corrupted and LR couldn't repair them. All photos were backed up to my fileserver, plus a 3.5" HD sitting in my safe dep box, but the only external backup of my catalogue was ancient (since I don't really use /users for anything, I never bothered archiving it). Does anyone just use xmp sidecars? Because that would have totally saved me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Alternative option, don't ignore that weekly backup dialog that LR harasses you with.. it writes a duplicate of your catalog file to the hard drive. That's the problem - I was doing those, but (by default) they were to the same drive (the main system SSD) and the primary catalogue, so when everything went bad the ~10gb of backup catalogues were all useless. Hence the warning to not be bad at things like me  evil_bunnY posted:We do complete backups? That's what smart people do. Dumb people look at the time it would take to reprocess everything without a final TIFF and get depressed. On the bright side, it's an excuse to go back and fix some of the terrible edits you did 5 years ago when you first started shooting RAW. SLIDERS TO THE RIGHT and tinted grad filters just doesn't seem as cool anymore. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Nov 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:For someone new to Lightroom (and photography), what book(s) would be recommended to get started? Martin Evening's books are always the answer to the 'what book for the photoshops/lightrooms' http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photosh...=martin+evening http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photosh...=martin+evening Kelby's books are generally good, but really basic (like 'what's a mouse, grampa?!' level) and he constantly injects painful 'humour' which you have to wade through. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
404notfound posted:VSCO has released VSCO Film 05, titled "Archetype." It's meant to be a collection of consumer-grade films--I guess a sort of expansion of 02, which already had stuff like Superia. But weirdly includes Ektar and Neopan 400. So it's kind of 'consumer films plus a couple we forgot in pack 1'.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Claw Massage posted:What I don't understand is if it's just Lightroom slider manipulation then I don't see how someone hasn't "cracked the code"and released them for free. Btw I'm not asking for links/files if such a thing has happened, I've just never used vsco or any preset pack so I don't know how they actually interact with Lightroom. There are dozens of people offering preset packs for lightroom. They are almost universally rubbish. I've never seen anyone else use actual film stock to produce their magic buttan - most just add some highlight/shadow tinting, drop contrast, add random grain and whack on a vignette. You also have to remember that VSCO is more than just slider manipulation. Alongside the sliders, you have custom tone curves and camera profiles for each camera + film stock. There are standard profiles as well, but they don't look nearly as good. Could you largely replicate the effect yourself to save a small amount of money? With enough time and effort, sure. But that also goes for building a tripod out of soup tins and duct tape. I do think they are overpriced, FWIW; I only regularly use maybe 2 out of each pack - they give a nice jumping off point to get a look you want with a minimum of dicking around. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Cru Jones posted:Still waiting to hear from CPS about this. Babbytrolling is best trolling. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
-Anders posted:As for something that's entirely doable in Lightroom, just use the adjustment brush/radial filter and just drop or raise the expose a little bit. Remember to click "new" for each area you adjust and you should be good to go. It's really pretty easy to that way - I never use dodge or burn in Photoshop. You can drop the flow and it ends up working pretty okay. Still, it's like a Crayola to PS's Mont Blanc Francoise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Yeah, that's exactly the look I'm talking about, though that page doesn't say anything about how to apply dodge and burn to achieve it. Thanks, and I'll see if Phlearn has any instructions on how to do it. Craft & Vision have an ~*eBoOk*~ about dodge and burn called... Dodge and Burn. It's like four bucks, and pretty good for something that costs a cup of coffee. http://craftandvision.com/collections/all/products/dodge-and-burn-lite
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
Redleg posted:I just bought lightroom and slogged through about 3000 photos (deleting a large portion of them). The tutorials I am finding focus on lightroom features specific to the software, but are there tutorials or books that cover how to make use of the tools at a basic level? I am messing with sliders, being cautious to not overdo things, until I think things look "better" but I really have no idea the language of terms that are photography and post processing specific. As above, no book is going to tell you how to make your photos look, but for some idea about 'this slider does x and you might want to do it if you want to go for y', I'd recommend either David Duchemin - Vision and Voice: Refining Your Vision in Lightroom http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Voice-...duchemin+vision Martin Evening - The Adobe Lightroom 5 Book http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photosh...ening+lightroom The former is more 'why', the latter is heavier on the 'how'.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 01:25
|
|