|
alkanphel posted:Depends on whether you need the new features that they offer with each CC update. Plus camera raw support for newer cameras. I shoot film so there's no need to upgrade but I do like the new straightening options in LR/PS CC so someday I might just spring for it. Have they finally added something that'll let you zoom in to use the level? tau posted:Is the "Photography" package from Adobe (includes Photoshop CC and Lightroom CC) worth it? I bought LR5 a while back and only have version 5.7. I'm wanting to use Photoshop, but is it worth just getting the combined photography package even though I already have LR 5.7? I would rather have a standalone product downloaded, but subscriptions seem to be the only way to do these things any more. I have my old version of CS5 from college, naturally it can't handle my Sony A7 RAWs, but it's easy enough to export the few shots that need further Photoshop attention as TIFFs from LR and work from there. I actually don't think I've used Photoshop to edit a photo in a very long time though, though it used to be my one-and-only before LR5. I'm running 5.6, fwiw. I checked Adobe's site and yep, still no compelling reason for me to get CC. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Aug 4, 2016 |
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Dehazing tool is pretty neat and that's only available in the subscription version. It even checks on launch - if you launch from the Lr shortcut, the dehaze tool is missing from the Develop tab but if you launch it from CC, then the tool is there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Dehazing tool is pretty neat and that's only available in the subscription version. It even checks on launch - if you launch from the Lr shortcut, the dehaze tool is missing from the Develop tab but if you launch it from CC, then the tool is there. Not sure that's true, as I always use LR from a shortcut and dehaze is always there. Do you maybe have two copies of LR installed? You might have something else going on.. like if you're editing an old photo it may be using an older process. Under the camera calibration section, make sure "2012 (current)" is selected. As for whether the subscription is worth it.. for me it has been. I use photoshop way more than I would have predicted and $10 a month for both programs has been pretty nice. I hate the way we're all being bled to death by subscriptions but don't see any way around it. My only real complaint with CC is lightroom mobile is complete garbage. Specifically the catalog syncing, it's hilariously limited.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Dehazing tool is pretty neat and that's only available in the subscription version. It even checks on launch - if you launch from the Lr shortcut, the dehaze tool is missing from the Develop tab but if you launch it from CC, then the tool is there. It's not just a fancy clarity slider? I was skeptical of it, does it actually work? I have a lot of photos I took in Amalfi that were bleh because it was such a hazy, humid day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Shampoo posted:It's not just a fancy clarity slider? I was skeptical of it, does it actually work? I have a lot of photos I took in Amalfi that were bleh because it was such a hazy, humid day. It has the same limitations of clarity.. you can use it a little bit to give a photo some extra pop but it can't save a bad photo. Pushing the slider beyond +15 is guaranteed to ruin everything. Maxing it out makes it look like a bad HDR conversion but instead of turning it into a blurry mess like clarity, it turns it into a high contrast mess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
xzzy posted:It has the same limitations of clarity.. you can use it a little bit to give a photo some extra pop but it can't save a bad photo. Pushing the slider beyond +15 is guaranteed to ruin everything. So much I don't know. I'll give it a shot then and see how things look.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Shampoo posted:So much I don't know. I'll give it a shot then and see how things look. LR is a heap of fun, you can wiggle sliders around and learn a lot about the exposure you took. You just have to keep a critical eye to make sure you aren't falling into the trap of tonemapped vomit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Dehazing tool is pretty neat and that's only available in the subscription version. It even checks on launch - if you launch from the Lr shortcut, the dehaze tool is missing from the Develop tab but if you launch it from CC, then the tool is there. Not surprisingly, since it's built into the program and artificially restricted, somebody whipped up some free presets that allow you to use dehaze even from the standalone version: http://www.proloststore.com/products/dehaze
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
 Hay Bale by a a, on FlickrThis is nothing special, but I was curious.. how bad is the blown out sky?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
How bad in what sense? Also is it blown or just featureless (phone screen RN)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:How bad in what sense? Also is it blown or just featureless (phone screen RN) Really it was featureless I guess.. its just that after adjusting the white point and stuff it feels... surreal or something. Is it distracting?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
I've seen photos with 100% blown skies that look good, it depends on the rest of the image. That one doesn't really do it for me. A hay field should have brilliant blue skies or sunbeams or lumpy grey clouds with lots of texture. A flat sky might work in that situation if it was snowy or foggy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I've seen photos with 100% blown skies that look good, it depends on the rest of the image. That one doesn't really do it for me. A hay field should have brilliant blue skies or sunbeams or lumpy grey clouds with lots of texture. I was thinking the same thing, just needed some confirmation. Thanks for the reply!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
I use Lightroom on two different devices. Mostly on my Macbook at home, but also sometimes on my work PC. Is there a way to sync Flickr albums in the Publish service across different Lr clients? I sometimes edit photos on one machine that I want to publish to an album that was created on the other one and, as far as I can see, there's no way to force a sync of Flickr albums in Lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I use Lightroom on two different devices. Mostly on my Macbook at home, but also sometimes on my work PC. Is there a way to sync Flickr albums in the Publish service across different Lr clients? I sometimes edit photos on one machine that I want to publish to an album that was created on the other one and, as far as I can see, there's no way to force a sync of Flickr albums in Lightroom. I'd like to know this too. I ended up accidentally deleting a bunch of photos from flickr. My favs....
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:I'd like to know this too. I ended up accidentally deleting a bunch of photos from flickr. My favs.... This is why I don't use the LR publish services.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
So is Photoshop/Lightroom/NIK good for subtle HDR? I don't need to bother with dedicated programs like Photomatix or Aurora? Actually, speaking of NIK, has Google said anything about whether they're going to upgrade NIK at all now that they own it? Seems very powerful, but the interface is something out of the prehistory of modern UI design. Bloody Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:So is Photoshop/Lightroom/NIK good for subtle HDR? I don't need to bother with dedicated programs like Photomatix or Aurora? Yeah, Lightroom doesn't give you a lot of control over the composite but the default setting and slider options are very much on the subtle end of the scale. Photoshop's HDR Pro editor lets you push things a lot further if over-produced acid nightmares are your jam. I haven't used the NIK version but the sample image on the site is the sort of awful tone-mapped monstrosity that infests online photography groups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Anyone got an opinion on white balance for cave photos? I visited Carlsbad a few days ago and all the lights in there were some kind of orange sodium based lamp. I'm having a conundrum over whether to white balance for how I saw it (keeping the orange), or how I think the rocks actually are colored (they're limestone, meaning a very cool white balance like around ~2700 which gives the photos a moon-like appearance). Either way there is very little color variation down there so whichever I pick, the images are going to look either greyscale or sepia. I guess it comes down to personal preference or the intent of the pictures I took, but I can't decide. Help me pick one. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Can any astro goons give me a run down of Deep Sky Stacker. ive watched a youtube video and done some stacks with it and produced some colourful nebulas but my recent work all comes out greyscale.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Quick question about sidecar XMP files. Does Lightroom only save sidecars for RAW files? I have the option turned on to create sidecars automatically, and it does for RAW's, but not for TIFF's. I know TIFF's can store metadata inside the image file itself, but I was curious if it's normal behavior for LR to never write sidecars for TIFF's even with the option enabled.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
I stumbled across someone's landscape photos that have some post-processing going on, but I can't exactly figure out what he is doing. Here are some examples:   (both examples from his ello.co page. My first assumption/attempt was to mask the subject out and then apply a motion blur. I have found that while that keeps the subject from being blurred, the subject does blur out from behind the mask. Here is a lovely example I just did quick of a person walking on a dock. You can see blur emanating out from behind the subject.  I am pretty convinced he is using motion blur, but I can't figure out how he is keeping the subjects crisp. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
My guess is they're copying the person to a new layer then clone brushing the person out of the original layer, then applying the motion blur
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
ShowerShoes posted:I am pretty convinced he is using motion blur, but I can't figure out how he is keeping the subjects crisp. Any ideas? Mask person onto a new layer, photoshop the person out of the background, blur background, put person layer over background. The pixels told me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
ShowerShoes posted:Here are some examples: This one bugs me because of the footprints in the sand. You can clearly see where he used the tool to mask them out (or in.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
No reference to Musket, 2 points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Has anyone ran into an issue where both Photoshop and Lightroom wants to read the color temperature of photos completely wrong? They had both been fine for quite some time but then they started acting up while I was shooting some concerts last weekend. For some reason now it wants to read photos at a temperature of 7200 (or at least that's what it displays). But here's the weird part: it's not all of the photos. Some were loaded with the correct values. Also when I view the photos in IrfanView with the CR2 plug in they are displayed correctly. If I crank the color temp to 50,000 then they come close to looking correct but then things like Exposure and such are thrown off. The bit that's really baffling is that why did it start happening 'mid-stream' and why did it only affect certain photos? Here's an example that should help explain what I'm seeing. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
I'm a dslr noobs and am looking for recommendations for post processing software, the nikon software that came with my camera seems to be hot garbage, move the ev to +.3? Here have a poo poo load of noise. Oh was that a crop? Here have some free grain at no additional cost to you. Are there any other suggestions for mild adjustment to raw .nef files besides lightroom? I mean 150 just seems steep considering it's more than 50% of what I spent on my camera and lens. If that's it I'll bite the bullet and buy it but sheeyat son 150 is like a set of racing pedals for my other $$$ hobby. Ia the subscription based adobe stuff worth a drat?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
tater_salad posted:I'm a dslr noobs and am looking for recommendations for post processing software, the nikon software that came with my camera seems to be hot garbage, move the ev to +.3? Here have a poo poo load of noise. Oh was that a crop? Here have some free grain at no additional cost to you. Yeah, go for the sub route if you want to go with Adobe. There's no commitment there, so if you ultimately don't like it you can then opt out. Plus you get Photoshop, which is everything you need for what Lightroom can't do. You can sign up for a free 10-day trial account at KelbyONE, a great site in itself with hundreds of tutorial vids, and then you can use their discount link to drop the price of Adobe's "Photography Plan" to $7.99 a month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
I mean um not entirely committed to adobe products, anything would be a learning curve, I last purchased photoshop probably 10 years ago for school so it's all changed up from what I'm use to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
tater_salad posted:I mean um not entirely committed to adobe products, anything would be a learning curve, I last purchased photoshop probably 10 years ago for school so it's all changed up from what I'm use to. Lightroom is good and there are tons of tutorials all over the internet. There is a trial version.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Giving Lightroom a Try, and trying my hand at a generic photo I took. I think it looks okay but maybe overdone a bit? I mean overally I'm pretty happy with the original, but I could see how LR can help make it stand out a bit. I tried a few of the sites in the OP but the one was just a single picture, and the other site seemed to be mostly Photoshop related. Edited  Original  edit: Had original and edited swapped edit2: I also played with Lightzone a bunch and see some advantages to it, I really liked being able to draw a path and apply things to that mask, I had a pic of child with sun beaming down and I fixed some of the overblown cheeks with some creative white balance edits (made it warm), Maybe LR has it and I just haven't gotten there yet. I can see how once you really get the hang of all 3 (PS, LR, LZ) you can spend an hour+ messing with a single pic. tater_salad fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
You're pushing saturation too far.. everything's radioactive. In general if you push a slider beyond -10/+10 in lightroom you're going too far. There's exceptions to this but it's a pretty reliable rule of thumb. If I do go beyond the +10 limit, my MO is to move the slider where I think something looks cool, then divide that value in half. Basically less is more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
If that image were a steak it would be ruined as it's very overdone. Here's a tip, make your edits, walk away from it for a few hours or even until the next day. Take a look at it again and see how you like it. Also compare it to the original occasionally. I think when you stare at something long enough your eyes adjust and get used to the edits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
tater_salad posted:Giving Lightroom a Try, and trying my hand at a generic photo I took. I think it looks okay but maybe overdone a bit? I mean overally I'm pretty happy with the original, but I could see how LR can help make it stand out a bit. As someone who usually over processes, I think you've over done it a tad. Also, as far as selectively applying.. you are probably looking for Adjustment Brushes in Lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
murk posted:As someone who usually over processes, I think you've over done it a tad. Also, as far as selectively applying.. you are probably looking for Adjustment Brushes in Lightroom. I like the brushes in light room, something that light zone misses, but i suck at brushes, I can at least adjust the path afterwards, I used the brush to get the sky a bit bluer. I agree that it looks a bit overprocessed, I saw a lot of the LR tutorial folks pushing sliders to 55 or more. I'll give it another whack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Tell me if I"m making GBS threads up this thread or not. Tried my hand again and did more subtle changes, Left the sky alone but used the spot mask/adjustment tool to make some adjustments to the dark trees on the left. I would try it with the rest, with proabably a 2nd adjustment brush to lighten up a tad since it's brighter. Didn't feel like all that brushwork though. Plus due to making the mistake of shooting this I think at ISO 1000 it's got a fair bit of grain so I don't feel like brushing all that for a picture i"m most likely not going to print. I"m just trying to get a general idea since I'd like to do some work on pictures of my kids to give to my mom for her birthday. edit: I guess I"d also maybe soften up the hard red on the boat near the concrete on the lower left. 
tater_salad fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Ask yourself why are you making those adjustments in the first place? To me, the photo doesn't need anything other than maybe a slight bump in the shadows to bring out some detail in the trees. You can do this with the shadows slider and don't need to touch brushes at all. You're overthinking it. It's also not a very interesting photo to begin with and no amount of editing will make it more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
You should really only put that kind of post effort into a photo that you know is a winner and want to make every pixel perfect. 99% of the time you're only adjusting the contrast and white balance. Even for an exceptional photo you still probably wouldn't be required to put that kind of effort into it, a good photo is always a good photo, but it can help make it more eye catching.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:18
|
|