|
Lightroom? Not sure exactly what you're asking, the only adjustment with a graph is curves, and Photoshop has that as well.
1st AD fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jan 14, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Sorry, I meant node graphs. Essentially create a graph of functions and a flow of data to create custom processing. Pretty much all grading and compositing solutions are video based. Something that'd work with RAW files instead would be nice. Something like this:  But with more specialized functions than just the math shown in the screenshot, e.g. all Lightroom functionality as separated modules, extensive color keying, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
I don't think node-based grading is a thing in photography, Photoshop and Lightroom or Capture One seem to be the norm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Shameful admission - I've never used a light meter before. Every time I've shot with something that didn't have a meter, I'd just whip out a mirrorless camera and proof the metering with that. That's a lot of unnecessary work and gear to lug around, so I picked up a Gossen Digisix. How do people in the Dorkroom meter scenes, and when do they meter things differently? I'm especially interested in hearing about high dynamic range scenes, like landscapes at sunset:  edit: a good example, because this auto/evaluative exposure sucks, I know luchadornado fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Go learn the Zone System.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Go learn the Zone System. I'm familiar with the Zone System, and my takeaway from reading about it before is that I basically want to identify the darkest area of the image that I want to retain detail, and place it in Zone III. Then everything else kind of falls into place and you deal with it, right? What I was asking more was how would DR apply that thinking to the image above? If I do incident metering, that would get me in the right ballpark. To adjust that, I'd reflective meter one of the fenceposts? Or reflective meter the darkest part of the clouds? I'm going to screw up exposures, I'd just like to be a little better prepared since I'm screwing up with 120 film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Shameful admission - I've never used a light meter before. Every time I've shot with something that didn't have a meter, I'd just whip out a mirrorless camera and proof the metering with that. That's a lot of unnecessary work and gear to lug around, so I picked up a Gossen Digisix. Unless you are using a grad ND filter it is always going to be a compromise between exposing more for the sky or the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Shameful admission - I've never used a light meter before. Every time I've shot with something that didn't have a meter, I'd just whip out a mirrorless camera and proof the metering with that. That's a lot of unnecessary work and gear to lug around, so I picked up a Gossen Digisix. Deaders is right. But that aside... Let me ask a non-technical question: What is "good" exposure? What's it to you anyway? Like if you are going for reproducing what you see 1:1 you're setting yourself up for failure. That won't work, and has -- as far as I am aware -- in the photographic medium, never worked. Instead, I'd go for how a scene feels. How does it make you feel? Is it blindingly bright? Dark? Is the light soft and almost dream-like? Go and enhance those qualities, go for what the scene feels like to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Is it a common thing in the photography world to pull up a picture, click through a ton of presets you purchased/downloaded for free until you find the "right" one, apply it, and then move on to the next one, similar to Instagram filters? I'm working on learning to do black and white in Lightroom among other things and it's so tempting to just start clicking through presets until I find one I like but I feel like that'd be cheating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
I use a pretty small VSCO pack to help get a feel from what I want out of the image, and then manually edit from there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Eh, it's not cheating, but if that's all you do, your pictures are going to end up looking very similar--both to each other and to photos by other people who are doing the same thing. I love VSCO presets as a starting point, but it usually takes a bit more tweaking before I'm completely happy. Learn how to mess with tone curves--tuning a color channel curve just a few pixels in one direction or another can make a huge difference in the color grading, which I find can sometimes have a bigger impact on the feel of an image than finding the "right" preset. Here's an exercise: once you open a picture in Lightroom, and before you've even touched the develop panels, think about how you want the result to look. You probably won't have a very good idea at first, but the more you do it and the better you get, the more you'll find the presets become just a tool in your toolbox, rather than a one-click solution. Another thing you can try is limiting the VSCO packs you use. I recently uninstalled VSCO Film 02, 03, and 05, so I'm left with three distinct "buckets" for my pictures: traditional film look from 01, 04 for contrasty/saturated slide film, and something more in between (contrasty pushed film look) from 06. The x-pro half of 06 is a little too heavy for me, so I use it very sparingly. Cutting down your options will give you a clearer idea of at least how you want to start your post-processing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Images will work processed in multiple different ways — there's no one right processing for a particular image. What you should ask yourself is "Does this processing capture the feeling I was after when I took this shot? If not does it take the shot in a new direction that is also good?" When you think you've got it (even if it is just the application of a preset) take a LR snapshot, minimize LR, and walk away for 10-30 minutes. When you come back look at it with fresh eyes and see if anything immediately pops out that you want to change, then make those adjustments, snapshot, minimize, and walk away again. Repeat until you are pretty happy with the results then flip through the snapshots to get a feeling for how the look you've got evolved (this may trigger more editing). If you don't know how the various editing tools work figure those out too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Exposure for high contrast situations is a matter of knowing your gear. Different sensors handle dynamic range differently. For instance, with my A7S, I generally try to expose for the highlights because I can pull shadow detail for days but I can't recover blown highlights very well with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Bracket for exposure if you're unsure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
HPL posted:Exposure for high contrast situations is a matter of knowing your gear. Different sensors handle dynamic range differently. For instance, with my A7S, I generally try to expose for the highlights because I can pull shadow detail for days but I can't recover blown highlights very well with it. That's basically every digital camera ever. Shadow detail will always be more recoverable than highlight details. Negative film is the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Dren posted:Images will work processed in multiple different ways — there's no one right processing for a particular image. What you should ask yourself is "Does this processing capture the feeling I was after when I took this shot? If not does it take the shot in a new direction that is also good?" When you think you've got it (even if it is just the application of a preset) take a LR snapshot, minimize LR, and walk away for 10-30 minutes. When you come back look at it with fresh eyes and see if anything immediately pops out that you want to change, then make those adjustments, snapshot, minimize, and walk away again. Repeat until you are pretty happy with the results then flip through the snapshots to get a feeling for how the look you've got evolved (this may trigger more editing). Then save those adjustments as a preset so that next time you're 95% of the way there. Or apply the settings to every other similar shot from that day. HPL posted:Exposure for high contrast situations is a matter of knowing your gear. Different sensors handle dynamic range differently. For instance, with my A7S, I generally try to expose for the highlights because I can pull shadow detail for days but I can't recover blown highlights very well with it. This too. Like I knew with my d700 I had about a half-stop either direction with exposure adjustments and dodge/burn, my Df I've got a stop and some change. Plus the Df has like 2 extra stops of DR, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
I always expose for highlights and am always conservative with them, putting them like a half-stop under. But I also have a camera that captures 13 stops and so far I haven't run into a situation where I ran into excessive noise after pulling up shadows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
One thing I'd recommend to those stressing over aspect ratios of frames is to learn how to cut your own mats. I despise being confined to horrible boxy formats like 8x10, so I just print smaller than that in the shape I want and cut the mat to size! It's pretty easy and cheap, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Radbot posted:One thing I'd recommend to those stressing over aspect ratios of frames is to learn how to cut your own mats. I despise being confined to horrible boxy formats like 8x10, so I just print smaller than that in the shape I want and cut the mat to size! It's pretty easy and cheap, too. Also, I hate the idea of printing smaller than some size just to fit into a frame. 8x10 is a MINIMUM size for hanging a photo on my wall, I really want much, much larger. huhu posted:Is it a common thing in the photography world to pull up a picture, click through a ton of presets you purchased/downloaded for free until you find the "right" one, apply it, and then move on to the next one, similar to Instagram filters? I'm working on learning to do black and white in Lightroom among other things and it's so tempting to just start clicking through presets until I find one I like but I feel like that'd be cheating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I haven't run into a situation where I ran into excessive noise after pulling up shadows. In isolated situations I have run into this, but I deal with the crappy DR that Canon gives you. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
At what point is dust visible? I've got a single chunk of something about twice the width of human hair in a new lens. I don't need the flashlight test or anything, it's plain as day with the naked eye at arm's length. Reading up on dust, it becomes more pronounced near the rear element (yes), on a wide lens (yes, 28mm equiv), at small apertures (yes, I'll mostly be shooting f11 and smaller). Would this warrant something less than an EX from KEH? Would it warrant me just dealing with it and enjoying my new lens without going through a return process and rolling the dice on another lens? It's bothering me because this is the most expensive lens I've ever purchased, and I just RMAd something else that wasn't up to what I was expecting. I'm starting to think I'm being picky though. edit: it's medium format film, so it would be a week+ before a test roll could be processed. luchadornado fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
It's probably nothing to worry about, but you can always test it by shooting your ceiling or something at 30s f/32 or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Helicity posted:At what point is dust visible? I've got a single chunk of something about twice the width of human hair in a new lens. I don't need the flashlight test or anything, it's plain as day with the naked eye at arm's length. Reading up on dust, it becomes more pronounced near the rear element (yes), on a wide lens (yes, 28mm equiv), at small apertures (yes, I'll mostly be shooting f11 and smaller). Would this warrant something less than an EX from KEH? Would it warrant me just dealing with it and enjoying my new lens without going through a return process and rolling the dice on another lens? If you are unhappy, sent it back. Regardless of the image quality, it will annoy you. Constantly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Yeah, I can actually tell where it is on the focusing glass in controlled experiments. KEH is going to help me pick out a lens and do an exchange so I don't have to do the return shuffle anymore. They seriously rock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
So here's an interesting dilemma. I have a few nice canon L lenses that I own but photography for me is just a hobby that I do in my spare time, I don't charge people. A friend of mine, who is really more of a person that I work with, is a little more serious and actually charges people to do photo shoots and editing and that sort of thing. Well, he's a big fan of my 70-200 f/4 L and I've been letting him borrow it to try it out and mess around but now he's asking to borrow it more and more and I'm pretty sure he's getting paid on some of these shoots to use my borrowed lens yet I'm not seeing a dime for any of this. Where should I draw the line and start asking for a rental fee or some sort of compensation? I don't know if this will really continue but I'm caught between letting a friend borrow and lens and being a free rental house.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
IceLicker posted:So here's an interesting dilemma. I have a few nice canon L lenses that I own but photography for me is just a hobby that I do in my spare time, I don't charge people. A friend of mine, who is really more of a person that I work with, is a little more serious and actually charges people to do photo shoots and editing and that sort of thing. Well, he's a big fan of my 70-200 f/4 L and I've been letting him borrow it to try it out and mess around but now he's asking to borrow it more and more and I'm pretty sure he's getting paid on some of these shoots to use my borrowed lens yet I'm not seeing a dime for any of this. Where should I draw the line and start asking for a rental fee or some sort of compensation? I don't know if this will really continue but I'm caught between letting a friend borrow and lens and being a free rental house. Tell him to buy his own loving lens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
IceLicker posted:So here's an interesting dilemma. I have a few nice canon L lenses that I own but photography for me is just a hobby that I do in my spare time, I don't charge people. A friend of mine, who is really more of a person that I work with, is a little more serious and actually charges people to do photo shoots and editing and that sort of thing. Well, he's a big fan of my 70-200 f/4 L and I've been letting him borrow it to try it out and mess around but now he's asking to borrow it more and more and I'm pretty sure he's getting paid on some of these shoots to use my borrowed lens yet I'm not seeing a dime for any of this. Where should I draw the line and start asking for a rental fee or some sort of compensation? I don't know if this will really continue but I'm caught between letting a friend borrow and lens and being a free rental house. If you have to ask this question on the Internet then you already know that the answer is RangerScum posted:Tell him to buy his own loving lens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Tell him to buy his own loving lens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
I'll word it slightly differently but it's for the best, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
If you had only LR5 and $200 to buy another piece of software to help improve your images, what would it be? DxO? Nik? Old copy of Photoshop?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Is there a Lightroom equivalent of Photoshop's "Save for Web"? I'm running into an issue where I'm editing my images on an AdobeRGB monitor and when I convert them to sRGB during export from LR, they look oversaturated and gross (despite every online tutorial saying to do this to maintain accurate color). However, if I use "save for web" in PS I can remove any and all embedded color profiles and the result looks fine in all programs and browsers. In LR they force you to choose a color space upon export, which messes the images up regardless of what I choose. Anybody know of a way around that? I could just export from LR, open in PS, and re-save, but  .EDIT: Interesting. I just tried using PS to convert the photo from AdobeRGB to sRGB and it returned to the accurate colors. LR's sRGB conversion must just suck (or there's more to it than what's obvious). That 70s Shirt fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Radbot posted:If you had only LR5 and $200 to buy another piece of software to help improve your images, what would it be? DxO? Nik? Old copy of Photoshop? Don't get anything. LR5 + Photoshop cs5-6 is plenty, but if you have to ask you probably dont need the Photoshop at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
I'd get Nik, but I'm a sucker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
I'd get capture one Pro for the sweet sharpening and tethered shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Don't get anything. LR5 + Photoshop cs5-6 is plenty, but if you have to ask you probably dont need the Photoshop at this point. That's two pieces of good advice in one day. I personally only fire up photoshop for panoramics and hdr wankery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Also, isn't DxO more like a replacement for LR (both primarily RAW converters) rather than something to use in addition to LR, like Nik?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:I'd get capture one Pro for the sweet sharpening and tethered shooting. Capture one costs $300, it's not for scrubs  And LR5 should be fine for like 90% of people anyway. Maybe some VSCO presets to mess around with? Perfect Photo suite is reasonable and has some useful programs, and integrates with LR5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Take your significant other out for something nice
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Take your significant other out for something nice Take somebody else's significant other out for something nice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Splinter posted:Also, isn't DxO more like a replacement for LR (both primarily RAW converters) rather than something to use in addition to LR, like Nik? DxO's photo cataloging and organizing functions are nearly non-existent. It is fantastic for image processing though. It isn't really a replacement for Lightroom so much as it is a supplement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:08
|
|