|
johnasavoia posted:One of my favorite shots recently and one that a couple people commented on here and elsewhere. This is generally how I process all my shots as well. (RAW metadata is great, all I had to to was save a copy at each stage from the original development that Lightroom had saved) Gee that place in the background looks awfully familiar.  
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2009 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
Jahoodie posted:I'm really excited for this thread because my post-fu is non-existent. It's never going to happen- I asked months ago for some shots but I think his eyes glazed over and only reads that which applies to technical detail. Remember folks- there are photographers that are "technically" perfect but that doesn't mean their pictures are good. All this talk about color management is way over my head though- I'll leave that to brad and waffle to duke it out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2009 01:25
|
|
|
Bridge is decent when you're shooting tethered to the computer- I use it to view my photos after every shot and use ACR to look at the histogram. Once I'm done, everything goes to Lightroom to be cataloged and probably never opened again. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2009 02:02
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Bridge is awful for shooting tethered compared to basically anything else (ie Capture One). I mean Bridge is loads better than the proprietary software, and while yes that is obvious I've assisted 2 photographers who refused to use anything else. Haven't used Capture One so I'm  when it comes to that.What do you mean Mannequin?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2009 02:17
|
|
|
Oh. I use Canon's software to control the taking of photos and I'll admit, it's somewhat clumsy although nowhere as lovely when it comes to UI as Nikon's "Camera Control Pro 2" or whatever it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2009 02:28
|
|
|
To add to the list of keyboard shortcuts for PS: c => crop tool [ => changes the brush size, in this case smaller ] => changes the brush size, in this case larger Ctrl or command + 0 => fits image to screen Ctrl or command + + => zooms into the image Ctrl or command - => zooms out of the image command alt i => image size
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2009 05:10
|
|
|
Jerry Uelsman used multiple enlargers. In addition to being really meticulous I think you need to find subjects that go very well together in the form of a perfect mind gently caress- his process was as cerebral as it was a show off of technical perfection.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2009 18:50
|
|
|
I think Photoshop would be your best alternative to Photomatix although to be honest, for what it does, $99 is a pretty decent price to pay.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2009 04:45
|
|
|
cLin posted:Anyone have tips on reading histograms? I have a bit of colorblindness so even the slightest offset that someone spots wouldn't be noticeable for me. I'm just trying to see if there's another way to figure colors out for my photographs. Histograms really aren't about color (though there are separate color channels- RGB- that show you where they fall) but more about exposure. There is no "right" or "wrong" histogram- ideally you want to expose as much as you can to the right before your highlights become blown out. That said, what you're photographing is the biggest variable and therefore you don't always want/need a histogram that has information as far to the right as possible. Unfortunately I don't know of any way to help you out with color blindness. The word "red" is just a word, while any numerical value is worthless if you have no idea what the color actually looks like.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2009 18:07
|
|
|
Pretty good. I skimmed over it and I didn't see any horrible outlandish statements like you would most likely find on Ken Rockwell's site. I feel they didn't emphasize this enough though- histograms are completely subjective to what you're shooting. After I got my first lesson on histograms I ran out and tried to get everything as close to the right as possible but when it came to night photography or darker scenes this really kind of screwed me over. Basically, use some common sense to interpret the histogram. It's a great tool when it is used in conjunction with the photographer's knowledge.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2009 22:00
|
|
|
Good Sir posted:What sort of places would you recommend? Is Wal-Mart any good?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2009 20:28
|
|
|
^^^ I'm too slow. Ever thought of sending your prints away to be printed? It is kind of a pain in transit as sometimes prints come damaged but that's a risk I'd rather take than having to deal with lovely local places.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2009 20:34
|
|
|
SirRobin posted:if you're not shooting raw, do me a favour and slap yourself across the face a few times). I guess all the photojournalists here should slap themselves in the face. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2009 04:06
|
|
|
Are you doing this to a JPEG? Hopefully you have a RAW file?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2009 20:54
|
|
|
Ruin images? What??? Explain please.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2009 17:05
|
|
|
Overall it's way too cool. I see too much cyan. Any chance you were shooting on AWB?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2009 20:06
|
|
|
Probably to make some kind of point like "ha, you spend hours on one photograph when I can just let the computah do it for me!" Either it's a really good troll or he's just really clueless. Edit: has to be clueless after rereading that part about doing it right in camera. That's what the grey card is for, buddy. Hell, even those little sun, cloud icons are better than just shooting in AWB. Plus the fact that his eyes can't pick up on the cool color temperature. Yeah, seems to be the cool thing these days. Oh well. VVVV germskr fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Apr 22, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2009 21:27
|
|
|
The problem with the histogram though is it really doesn't say "this point is that object and that point is this object," so it's all kind of subjective on the scene you are shooting. It works well in a studio setting where you have absolute control of the lights but outdoors or with mixed lighting forget it. Also, there is no "right" histogram so again it's all subjective. Edit: beaten.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2009 18:40
|
|
|
brad industry posted:RA-4 printing is the reason I switched to digital. I hate that poo poo. And of course, the only other thing that approaches that level of tedium and frustration is scanning negatives. I will take the worst RAW processor over having to constantly walk back and forth from an enlarger to a processor any day. You forgot to mention the lovely wait time of 5 minutes to see whether the print came out correctly or not.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2009 02:33
|
|
|
Pantone Huey Pro is worth the extra buck. The normal Huey doesn't give you as many options and therefore is inferior especially when it comes to viewing darks.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2009 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:I think Adobe's DNG converter is free (http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/), but since I already have CS4 and Lightroom installed I don't know if those provide some sort of basic ACR functionality that is required. Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2009 01:35
|
|