|
I started a new library from just my vacation shots (2,500~) and oh boy is the people detection mode a complete and utter nightmare. I feel bad for anyone going in with a large library because you won't be seen from for days. I especially like how every so often, for no reason at all, it'll decide to highlight a few peoples names (from the top section) while I'm editing which means it'll then set those previously done people over to whatever name I type in then without realising. It's absolute dog poo poo, and slow as all hell. The only reason I'm doing it is to help people find photos of themselves to buy prints of.
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:with Lightroom? Sorry I forgot to bookmark thread. Yeah, LR6. Found a thread on Adobe's forums with other people complaining about it too. I've given up for now to be honest, because I know there's about 60 photos coming up that have 20 people in them and I can't bare to do it right now.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Hopefully this is the right thread for this kind of post work... I took some rapid fire photos of my friends doing some dives off a boat, and found using LR6's inbuilt composite tool that selecting a few of them and building a panorama actually gave me a pretty good looking output in one shot... however, no matter what combination I use I keep losing the rail at the bottom -  I've got Photoshop CC as well as Lightroom so am happy to take it into there... what would generally be the best kind of approach? Removing the rail sounds harder than trying to extend it a bit... liquify tool perhaps? Or alternatively, as I have the photos it's build from, would a cut-n-paste job look best?  I'm not really used to this kind of editing so never sure what approach most people would use. Either way, it doesn't look like a fix should be too bad?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
Thanks, I'll take that approach and see if I can get similar results with the full res file. 
EL BROMANCE fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:That's still a really impressive use of the auto-panorama tool. Pure fluke really, v6 had just come out and I knew it had HDR and pano tools, and in my mind I decided to go for the skateboard mag style strip like in the 2nd photo, so I used the comp tool to see if it would maybe do that automatically rather than using the Print view and doing it by hand. Turns out it gave me a really fun pic that only had one issue. None of the other dives gave me anything as good, so I was lucky I tried that one first.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
I always read a lot of places try to push loads of overpriced extras on you, and if you don't take them up your camera goes magically out of stock. Not sure if that's just brick and mortar places in nyc tho.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
I will never understand why any consumer will jump to the defence of Adobe. They're the goddamned worst, and I really like Lightroom. But as a company, they suck.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Moving to the subscription model was a really smart move for them and it makes more sense for the consumer. For the first time in 10 years I actually own a valid copy of photoshop. I know I'm not the only one. They made their product more accessible and that's good for everyone. I'm a cloud user and legit for the first time too. It's made a product that was too expensive for me to buy (in Photoshop) to one I kinda feel like I'm getting free because I like Lightroom enough to pay for it. But as a company they've still done enough things in the past to annoy me, and I don't think cc is the best route for all users. At least they seem to be on board with Metal and the demos they showed at WWDC were impressive, it's good to see them on the forefront of a tech, because it usually feels like the OSX side to their development is an afterwards thought.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Two hopefully basic LR questions, but things that are bugging me - * Is there a common reason why LR might decide one day to take an absolute age to import all of a sudden? Has done it with my last two batches. I'm 10 minutes into an import and it's still not moved anything (but it probably will eventually). Once it's done I'll give it a speed test in my Mac, and I'll also do a full format of the card in my camera. It's quite annoying though, this time it didn't even generate previews in the import pane. * Sometimes on import, it'll bring the pictures in in the wrong order (and I have it set to rename to Shoot Name-Sequence Number), which is a bit irritating. Have I flagged something I"m not even sure *what* order its working in, it just seems random.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
Here's the import sidebar, as you said - there's not much really to change which is why i'm confused as to why it happens. There's a dropdown at the bottom as well, and I've had that on Order by Filename, and now changed it to Capture Time in case it makes a difference - but it shouldn't. It doesn't happen on every import, that's the strange thing about it. It's not a massive headache as I can reorder again once in Library view, but it's just a bit odd. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
It's just a standard USB3 external Samsung hooked up via USB2 so nothing amazingly quick, and I think it's the backup process that's slowing it down too. I might do the backups manually because it's taking way, way too long. Otherwise there's something up with my machine and it's just showing up in LR more than other processes. It's showing it's age a bit now, so looking to trade up next year anyway. I'll just deal with it until then!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
There's no easy way to get all my photos *and all the star/color ratings, facebook/flickr sets, collections etc* from my travel laptop to my desktop in LR is there? I've seen some guides about the easiest ways about moving images from one to the other, but I'm editing my stuff during any downtime and it'd be a pain if I can't get that across to my other machine easily enough. I'm guessing it's no though...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
I was watching a talk recently, and even though the guy said this was a technique he used for fashion modelling I could see it working well in your last picture. He would photoshop the edge of the suit to take out the ruffles to make the line of the jacket completely smooth. Left them in on anything that wasn't the edge. Seeing the before and after, I could see why he did it. I thought it looked better anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
I pretty much so what you said to any photos of myself I have to process in LR. It's useful if I'm photographed next to someone with good teeth as I can use them as a guide, and usually process them a little bit too just to help match. British stereotypes exist for a reason. Growing up my face literally looked like 'The Big Book of British Dentistry' from The Simpsons with a tooth growing from a place it really shouldn't have.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Install them on each machine from my experience.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
That's a neat idea, might have to give that a shot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Because I'm finding that I'm bracketing like a motherfucker right now, just wondering : If I have, say, 6 photos in Lightroom is there a way of making a selection and telling it to stack them AND make a specific photo on top? Just because it auto collapses it just means having to open it, click the photo I actually want on top (the HDR processed one), then collapse it again. It's a case of a few seconds if you only do it once but it's one of those boring tasks to do if you've got 50+ stacks to do at once. Hell, I wish there was an action to tell it to HDR process all the selected photos and stack them with the HDR one on top in one button.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Even though I have and pay for Photoshop, I just don't like it (this has been the way since the 2000s where I'd even use goddamned Fireworks over it). I love Lightroom and will do everything I can to keep my workflow inside it unless I really need not. It's no big deal, it's just one of those boring tasks that nobody can really enjoy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Yeah that's not far off how I work... take 100-700 photos, catalog in LR then flag/rate/colourcode the ones I want to keep and edit, do all the necessary stuff like profile adjustments/cropping and colour fine tuning then export to Facebook/Flickr etc. If there's a pic or two I really like but is beyond the abilities of LR then I'll take it to PS and work on it some more there. I'm not particularly great at post work at the moment so I'm just happy with the amount of clear change you can make in LR, and I'll try get better bit by bit in PS, but I do prefer LR as an approach to software. I can fly through it pretty drat fast now (although whether I can do it 'well' is up to others...  )
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
Using the adjustment brush to counter it is the old method and it always sucked. If you have the new LR you should see there's a brush within the grad filter itself to specifically mask out areas you don't want it to affect. Definitely works better. If you look for list of new features in LR6/CC it's one of the main things so there'll be guides showing where it is and how it works. Wouldn't a touch of vignette be easier for this one? I usually put a varying amount on most of my pictures (never a massive amount, just a touch to emphasise the middle a bit more). Ps love the toucan. Been trying to find someone who has one for our wedding!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
Do you guys have super large SSDs in your laptops then? Or are just super ruthless with deleting photos you're not massively keen on? I'd like to do that, but I only have a 120gb Air so I do the export as catalog method and then clean the library out each time. I'm not working on laptop that much mind, just when travelling.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
It's a 12 month contract isn't it? But yes, Lightroom is going to be your easiest step forward. I much prefer working quickly in LR to trying to remember where everything is in PS.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Anthony Morganti's channel on YouTube has a full guide to the latest version. Definitely enough to get you started. Otherwise Lynda.com or CreativeLive if you want to spend money. I'd just stick to YT to start personally.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Do yourself a favor and learn how to set up the import / cataloging / archiving features of LR from the get-go. It'll save you the headache of reorganizing later if you do decide to stick with it. Yeah, definitely worth reading up on how people do this and work out what's best for you. I personally have folders separated by place as I've been travelling around a fair bit the last few years. Never move files once they're in the library using Finder/Explorer or you'll cause all kinds of headaches. It took me far to long to find the 'show one folder up' on the context menu after doing some re-org. I'm kind of happy the way my setup is now. Kind of.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
I have Lightroom set to convert all to DNG and also store my changes in DNG as they're done, which is useful as I sent a few pictures to a friend and he was able to import them into an (earlier) version of LR and see what I'd done rather than start with just the base image. Question is this - I backup to Amazon when I can be arsed, rather than at a set time pre/post editing so my pictures on their servers are in a different state to they are on my computer. As long as I have the DNGs up there, regardless of settings saved in them, and the latest copy of my library... I'm golden if I have a massive crash, right? Library overrides DNG local settings is essentially what I'm hoping for.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
I submitted a photo to Tony & Chelsea yesterday, and the first thing they said was the colours are too pushed, which in reflection I understand and agree with. The shoot was in Mexico for my friends' wedding, and as Urban Brits we're not used to sunshine and colour in our surroundings, so it was real hard to fight the urge to push the sliders more than I usually would despite knowing it's a bad thing. So I'm curious as to where people think the cut off point is, and whether everyones taste match around the same area. Before I post, I'll just say I think stuff that looks like this:  is hideous, and I'm certainly not one of those Flickr people who obsess over this. While I think the picture I submitted wasn't realistic, I'd like to think I had some reasoning for wanting to push the colours further (and I did so while trying to keep the skin tones under control), and I think there are some outlets where a more saturated image can look correct. Maybe not wedding photography, but marketing and poo poo like that. The only differences between the five photos will be the setting of the Vibrance slider. There is a +20 clarity applied and a tiny nudge of saturation too. None of these match the photo I submitted because I realised in hindsight that the white balance I'd used was a bit low and not as pleasing as raising it to around 5500.  Vibrance 0  Vibrance 25  Vibrance 50  Vibrance 75  Vibrance 100 (imgur's compression not helping matters, but hope the effect comes across anyway) The image I submitted was closest to the 75, in retrospect I've pulled it down to just under 50. Also the rest of the series were not pushed as heavily as this particular one, I was lulled into it by the water. Stupid, colourful water. EL BROMANCE fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Yeah there's some Red/Orange saturation pull down (orange more than red) and a raise in the luminance of both those channels, while the purple saturation is pulled down completely because Vibrance seems to love to add purple into whites from nowhere. The yellows remain at 0 in HSL. I was trying to look after the skin tones, especially as a week in the heat meant the bride had some sunburn which I wanted to hide. RS: yeah, that's probably the best way to approach things, and I should do that for photos I want to spend more than a few minutes working on. With the above I tend to use Vibrance to see how it affects the photograph at each strength, find the one I like then adjust the HSL to remove the effects of it that I find unnecessary. My Clarity and Vibrance are usually at most in the 20-30 range, Saturation just has a touch up as I find it fucks up skin tones too much.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Ha, I think having a bad portfolio is one of the prerequisites of having a successful YT channel. I guess those who are truly great have no time nor care for such things, but I like watching stuff in bed from my subscriptions. I think DigitalRev are worse when it comes to their subscribers vs quality of work ratio, but that's a subject for another thread. I quite enjoy the critiques they do, and I agreed with what they said (the PhotoRec couple were there too), which was that the subject/background separation wasn't great and the couples head didn't break the horizon. Both of these I knew, and was a limitation of candid shooting and not being experienced enough to have seen that in the viewfinder when I took the photos. Having other people comment on that reinforces getting good shots in camera though, and it's always interesting to see your work critiqued against other people of varying quality in a given theme.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:Really? You think they don't have a good portfolio because they don't have time to make one, since they're so busy giving out criticism and making youtube videos? Ha, it took me a second to realise you read me completely opposite to what I meant. I meant truly good photographers have no need to set up YouTube channels, not that they don't have good portfolios.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
You're not alone, I've seen someone screenshot that in the last few days in one of the Facebook groups. It's enough to stop me updating for now if multiple people are getting that issue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Here's more info on that LR permissions issue and a fix: http://www.speedlighter.ca/2016/03/23/huge-adobe-bug/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
In other news: Nik Collection has become a free product https://www.google.com/nikcollection/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
It's tacky as poo poo and is rightfully looked down upon. Schindler's List is probably the only good use of it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
I use Lightroom for panoramic stitching and HDR on a 2011 MacBook Air. I call it 'Cocktail Time'. You probably have more cases to use this than me, however, and 'Cocktail Time' might prove to be fatal.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Gonna guess you're using the pirated versions based on the questions, they're horribly outdated.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
There's also Darktable, but I don't know if it's any good.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Especially when raw images are big, and the 10mbit upstream most people have at best is not the best way to move a 64gb card. I like the integration to online services, but not everyone needs their entire workflow based around "what if you decide to edit on a machine that isn't yours in the middle of the dessert" mindsets.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:According to that page, there are three packages (plus I guess the $60 'everything except Adobe Stock' package). Ah now it makes sense. They want $20 of our money, not $10. loving Adobe. It’s been 2 decades of being the absolute worst development company on the planet.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
Just make a collection and drag them in from the loupe, unless I’m misremembering something.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2018 21:39
|
|