|
Cross_ posted:When sharpening images I can easily see the impact of the Masking slider in LR, but Amount, Radius, and Detail are somewhat elusive. Typically I just drag them around until something looks kind of okay.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:30 |
|
|
Ashex posted:No idea where to post this so it's going here. ExifTool is a command line thing I've used in the past for batch edits: http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/ But I'm one of those nerds that enjoy writing scripts, so this may not do it for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Anyone got a nice shot that is a bit noisy they'd be willing to give me as a full resolution to demonstrate my noise reduction technique? b j m foto (at) g mail dot com I'll send you the full size of the picture I posted before if you like. You want JPEG or the RAW?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 15:39
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I'll send you the full size of the picture I posted before if you like. You want JPEG or the RAW? Raw
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me what these photos have had done to them in post? http://www.worlddriftseries.com/fd2010/so/part2_large/index.html The colours and everything seem to 'pop' much more than any of mine and I'm wondering how it's done. Just saturation increases or what? I can't seem to do it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
A5H posted:Can anyone tell me what these photos have had done to them in post? Do you have an example of your images? Photos under that link don't seem to be abnormally saturated. They just look like they're perfectly focused under good light.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
A5H posted:Can anyone tell me what these photos have had done to them in post? Looks to me like he is probably increasing his contrast a bit as well, which does have a tendency of making colors "pop" more under proper lighting conditions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 19:24
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Do you have an example of your images? Photos under that link don't seem to be abnormally saturated. They just look like they're perfectly focused under good light. http://www.driftworks.com/2010/09/jdm-allstars-silverstone/ There's mine. So did I do something wrong when shooting them?? They just don't pop at all in comparison and look boring as hell
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
A5H posted:http://www.driftworks.com/2010/09/jdm-allstars-silverstone/ Well I can see that this one is underexposed. Since the car is mostly white the camera underexposed it just like it does snow. Take it back into LR and push the exposure to just under clipping (hold the alt key) then see what it looks like. If it's too much then back it off until it looks natural. You can do the same in Photoshop's Raw editor dialog.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 19:30
|
|
|
A5H posted:http://www.driftworks.com/2010/09/jdm-allstars-silverstone/ You were shooting on an overcast day.. the guy you linked was shooting under clear skies. Your later shots with the sun out are much more vibrant. So you didn't do anything wrong, other than not being born with the ability to control the weather.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
A5H posted:http://www.driftworks.com/2010/09/jdm-allstars-silverstone/ Pretty sure they blurred the background. I can't see the EXIF, so I can't be sure, but I seriously doubt those were all shot with super low apertures and got everything perfectly in focus like that. It kind of seems like he had better angles (or position on the track) too - cars are one of the few subjects that harsh lighting/direct sun can actually be a benefit, as it really makes metallics look good. It almost looks like all of your photos are taken in shade, which doesn't really do much to enhance a cars colors. Like for instance: His  yours  Also all of his photos are taken at lower angles, which helps quite a bit I think. Just to say though, yours are pretty good, nice pan shots. subx fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Oct 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
I dunno. Even when it was sunny like here: http://cdn.driftworks.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0363.jpg it still doesn't look as good. So you guys reckon that dude's shots came straight from the camera almost then? I guess I should step up my shooting game rather than worrying about post. E: Also maybe a busier background helps? I notice he has more to pan against.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
A5H posted:I dunno. Even when it was sunny like here: http://cdn.driftworks.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0363.jpg it still doesn't look as good. I didn't notice that one, that one looks a lot better in my opinion though than the shaded ones. Blur the background to the extent his is in some shots and it would be closer to his. Unfortunately that angle isn't quite as good for drift shots as the "on the road" type thing, but it would still work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
Is he doing that in post though or like shooting wide open with some ND filters on?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
A5H posted:Is he doing that in post though or like shooting wide open with some ND filters on? Maybe a bit of both? It seems too perfect in some shots, but they are definitely nice photos to begin with (you can't make a bad photo good, but you can make a good photo better with post)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
Looking through his flickr I can't decide: http://www.flickr.com/photos/coldtrackdays/tags/larrychen/ I've never shot at 400mm so I guess that's what F4 looks like without post anyway? Shooting at iso50 also which I don't have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
A5H posted:I dunno. Even when it was sunny like here: http://cdn.driftworks.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0363.jpg it still doesn't look as good. Background does help on panning shots, even if it's blurry it helps fill in the picture. It adds color too. Tracks aren't designed to be scenery however, so it's rarely something you can control. Cropping the picture down so the vehicle fills the frame can help this. Also note how his shots in the sun lack specular highlights.. so not only did he have great lighting, he had a great angle where he could get the vehicle fully lit without a bunch of reflections. But again, with the way race tracks are designed, getting those angles is very difficult. Especially at Silverstone.. which has spectators approximately a thousand miles from the track surface. You'll need special access to get to the sweet spots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
A5H posted:Looking through his flickr I can't decide: http://www.flickr.com/photos/coldtrackdays/tags/larrychen/ Well seeing as he's using 15k worth of equipment between the lens and camera I'm sure that doesn't hurt things. Full frame + huge zoom gives you a pretty small depth of field. I still think some of the backgrounds have been touched up a bit though. subx fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Oct 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
Ah okay!xzzy posted:Background does help on panning shots, even if it's blurry it helps fill in the picture. It adds color too. Tracks aren't designed to be scenery however, so it's rarely something you can control. Cropping the picture down so the vehicle fills the frame can help this. This was with a press pass I only have 200mm maximum length though. Silverstone sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 20:40
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Raw I'll send it as soon as I get home from work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 21:06
|
|
|
I've been messing with processing in Lightroom, was wondering whether I could get some feedback from this image: Original:  DSC_0688 by spikespikespike, on Flickr Processed:  DSC_0688.jpg by spikespikespike, on Flickr I was trying to make the houses pop more, but I think I overdid it. Plus, I wish I could get the sky to be actually blue, but I'm guessing that's not possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 21:24
|
|
|
Treat the blue house, sky, and water separately. Sky is a weird color, blue fluorescent shadows on everything else is also just making it look like photoshoppy. You need to be more specific with your adjustments. I think adding density would get your sky more blue. Brush in a slight exposure adjustment into the light areas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
A5H posted:Ah okay! Yes, there's a reason you see guys at tracks with lenses the size of whale dicks. 200mm can technically be sufficient, especially on a crop sensor and some judicious cropping, but you gotta get into the 400mm range to really hug up to the cars. Safety regulations at most tracks make photography a pain. I'm glad a flying tire won't decapitate me, but I wanna be closer! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 22:18
|
|
|
xzzy posted:ExifTool is a command line thing I've used in the past for batch edits: Actually, I might not even have to deal with a script, I can apply the date shift to an entire folder according to this little bit. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
PIMM, it's sent. Look forward to seeing what you can do with it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
DJExile posted:The situation: Until I found the WF RAW extension or whatever, I only shot in "Large Superfine" JPEG mode because I didn't have any way to edit RAW files. Now, my biggest issue is noise (Oly shootin' gently caress yeah I have to do the writeup tomorrow, but here it is after denoising. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 01:03
|
|
) when I can get bitchin' moments like this...
|
poopinmymouth posted:I have to do the writeup tomorrow, but here it is after denoising. That's a hundred times nicer. drat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 14:26
|
|
|
I don't know if this belongs here or not, but: Is there a way to have Lightroom 3.2 automatically apply lens correction (if available) on import? I don't have my camera underhand right now so I can't do a test import, but I'm going through a few photos shot earlier with my new Sigma lens and I'm having to manually enable lens correction for each photo I imported.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 04:23
|
|
|
I don't see a way to do it upon import, but you can work around it (until you find a better way?) by checking the lens correction box on a single picture, highlighting all the pictures taken by that lens, and syncing the settings (ctrl + shift + s) Just make sure that if you do it at the end of your LR processing to uncheck all the other boxes in the sync settings dialog box.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 04:31
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I don't know if this belongs here or not, but:  (make sure the image you use to make this preset has the profile correction on) 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 04:35
|
|
|
Actually, I took what you just said and I made a new Develop Preset with only Lens Correction enabled. I called it "Apply Lens Correction". I know you can apply Develop Presets when you import, so there's a chance that it will automatically enable lens correction and auto-detect the lens that was used. I only have one lens so I can't really test that theory, but I'll take some photos tomorrow and see if it auto-imports with lens correction enabled. edit: drat it MrBland, I just typed this up and hit submit and saw that you beat me to it  Do you know if it will auto-profile the lens based on the input image, or will it take the lens profile of the photo you were on when you created the preset? That's pretty much the only thing I can't test since I only have one lens at the moment. As an aside, I literally had never even considered lens correction before I read about it recently. I wonder how many of my previous photos are all warped and distorted that could easily have been corrected. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Oct 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Do you know if it will auto-profile the lens based on the input image, or will it take the lens profile of the photo you were on when you created the profile? That's pretty much the only thing I can't test since I only have one lens at the moment. quote:I wonder how many of my previous photos are all warped and distorted that could easily have been corrected. e: Looking at the picture up there makes it look as if it will read and apply the correct lens profile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 04:43
|
|
|
Right now I'm using a Sigma 30 1.4 on a Nikon and it has a pretty significant straightening effect. Before this I basically used a ton of lenses, between Pentax and Canon. It's no big deal, more of a "hey I wonder" type of thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 05:13
|
|
|
There's a big new update for Aperture 3 users.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 05:52
|
|
|
DJExile posted:That's a hundred times nicer. drat. http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2010/10/noise-reduction.html Full writeup
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 12:40
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2010/10/noise-reduction.html Full writeup Fantastic, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 12:44
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Make a preset!  thanks, it's awesome!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
That is a hell of a writeup, poop. You are a post wizard. The output looks just as good as any image I've run through Dfine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
Well, while we're sort of talking about Lightroom, is there any way to operate on a single stack of photos in Library's Grid view? Like for example if in my last import I had 2 unique photos, then a stack of 8 photos stacked by similar capture time, then 2 more unique photos, then another stack of 6 or so. Is there any way to isolate just the first stack of eight photos and look at those individually, to the exclusion of everything else in grid view? Hopefully what I'm asking for makes sense because I don't feel I described it very well. edit: Though I guess that's what Survey view is for, technically. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Oct 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:30 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:edit: Though I guess that's what Survey view is for, technically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 08:51
|
|
