|
Is there a way to stitch together RAW files so that I can edit a panorama as a whole? My attempts at using the same image processing on the individual images before stitching didn't turn out so well. edit: Thanks for the tips, I figured things out. burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Sep 8, 2010 |
#
¿
Sep 6, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:Am I only the only one who finds this tacky? Like laser backdrop from the early-90s tacky. It's going to look really dated in 10 years. I don't think the backdrop itself is necessarily tacky, it's her placement within it that bothers me. She's too big for the room and appears to be standing inside the floor in perspective. I really like the rim lighting on the model though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
I'm trying to stitch together about 20 images or so. Photoshop tends to crash at around 8-10 images, so I'm guessing I need to merge smaller sections at a time and then merge those into the final image. What settings in Photomerge am I going to want to use for Photoshop to be able to figure out how to stitch the smaller merged sections together? I merged two sections using perspective mode and geometric correction checked off, but the two images those created don't want to seem to merge together. edit: I just kept doing it and eventually it went through with 20 pictures. burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Apr 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
delicious beef posted:I'm not even sure at the moment how to be subtle, or how to control it, that's the main issue. What I'll often do is this: while only looking at the image (not the slider), I'll slowly slide it over, when it looks like too much, I'll slowly start sliding it back, when it looks like too little I'll slide it in the other direction a bit more and so forth until I hit the point I'm looking for. If you're having trouble, give your eyes a break for a while and come back to it. Taking your eyes off something for just a little while helps you see things a little more objectively when you come back. There's no right answer for how much is too much or how little is too little, it really depends on the image and what you're trying to say with it. Do what feels right to you, try processing your images in a way that evokes whatever you were experiencing when you took the shot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 01:29
|
|
|
You can get a Wacom Bamboo for about forty bucks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
I like it with the bag in. It adds a nice secondary focal point and some balance. If anything, just move it over a little to the right to keep it away from the edge of frame.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2011 13:01
|
|
|
Probably easier to just put the grass on a new layer in Photoshop and then play with its yellow hue/saturation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
dexter6 posted:I'm not sure running out and grabbing Lightroom/ Photoshop right now is my best option since I know nothing about using those programs. No one knows how to use them until they learn. Get them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
ND filter too judging by those clouds.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
Screen and overlay layers probably, the smoke just looks like a brush or texture applied to the light layers. The effects look nice but make the car look really bad and out of place..
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
Fix your goddamn verticals because that's a good shot waiting to be a great shot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
I'm not sure about LR4 as I'm still using LR3. I usually just fix perspective issues with the transform tool in Photoshop.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
Lightroom is a nice, quick way to approach whatever look you want for your photo. Photoshop will take you the rest of the way if you're up for a lot of manual, obsessive tweaking.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
rio posted:I wonder if great film photographers burn through a ton of film with only a few keepers or if they just shoot more discriminately. Both. If you have a roll of 24 decent exposures, you're still going to toss all but the best shots. That's what editing involves.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
It definitely gets easier to identify when there isn't a shot to take. You also get to just enjoy things instead of observing them through a viewfinder at that point.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
"Excuse me, which aisle are your steampunk vintages in? Namaste."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
If you like it, then it's the right way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
Online ColorIQ Challenge posted:You have perfect color vision! gently caress YES I DO
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
404notfound posted:Does anybody here strive for a consistent "look" across all their pictures? Right now I just kinda dick around in Lightroom until I get something that looks cool, but it can vary a fair bit from one picture to another. Is it sort of a conscious decision, or does it just happen as you work on more and more pictures? Or is it something that I shouldn't even waste time thinking about if I only ever plan to shoot for fun? Consistency is something I have a lot of trouble with. One month I'll be obsessed with shooting street, another I'll just want to hop in my car and search for landscapes. I wish I was more focused, but ultimately I work best on whatever it is I'm excited about. Over the past year, I've basically tried to take it upon myself to shoot more reactively and hold on to my shots instead of jumping into processing. It's kind of a bummer sitting on your photos for months at a time, but it's definitely helped me to notice themes that are consistent in my photography and think about how I can organize them into series before finishing them. Having a few concepts in the back of my mind really helps, it means that no matter what kind of material I feel like shooting on a particular day, I'll be able to put it toward something.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 01:06
|
|