|
It's real and not an April Fools' joke. Here's the paper: http://www.shaiavidan.org/papers/imretFinal.pdf
|
# ¿ Mar 26, 2010 03:53 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 12:35 |
|
I'm running Lightroom 3 and it's just as fast as 2.6 was for me. Vista 64, Q6600, 8GB RAM, GTX260. All of my photos are on a 500GB drive on a (Samba-based) fileserver I access over gigabit Ethernet. 35462 images in my catalog. Each 21MP image fully loads to 100% view in about three seconds. It does seem to take an extra few seconds the first time I view an image in LR3, though. Maybe previews and such need to be updated?
|
# ¿ Jun 23, 2010 02:18 |
|
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 |
|
Helicity posted:Is this a lost cause? I'm desperately trying to get this as good as possible, and unfortunately motion blur is horrible here. Any recommendations on how to salvage it as best possible with post-processing? I was thinking of doing some masking/sharpening, but that hasn't gone well so far. I can make pictures that are taken well better, but I've never really attempted to "save" a picture. It worked decently on the small version - I chose a lane marker as the reference point since the cloud doesn't have much detail. I know $2 isn't $0 but it's cheap if you really want to save the picture.
|
# ¿ Apr 13, 2011 17:53 |
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I use Carbonite for the online backup part. I still have 2 physical drives in my place. The speed is pretty good because I never notice it slow me down. I've put up 250gb so far and there's still another 80gb to go. I'm not seeing them going out of business anytime soon, and it's $50 a year for unlimited internal drives. I have a feeling that this deal will go away soon with 2TB drives being under$100 now. I ended up with Crashplan. I didn't need to take advantage of it in the end, but for $125 they'll send you a 1TB drive, you put your stuff on it and send it back, and then you can do the regular online backups. Really neat. Same thing with restoring your files if it comes to that.
|
# ¿ Apr 14, 2011 22:11 |
|
Greybone posted:I'm especially unsure how to handle the bottom blacks as well as the sky, if i should just kill it or not. I like the black at the bottom of the frame too. You could do something like this instead of cropping:
|
# ¿ Apr 26, 2011 02:54 |
|
teethgrinder posted:You don't like using the built in Facebook & Flickr management? http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/flickr http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/template
|
# ¿ May 9, 2011 14:52 |
|
ease posted:Has anyone ever given lightroom a gigantic processing job? I have about 404gbs of photos mostly in cr2 that I'd like to compress into smallish jpgs.
|
# ¿ Sep 10, 2011 03:40 |
|
sentientcarbon posted:Stupid newbie question (probably): Since you're in a research lab, do you not have access to MATLAB? You can do some really powerful stuff with it along these lines.
|
# ¿ Sep 19, 2011 18:47 |
|
sentientcarbon posted:Remarkably no, the closest thing we have is SAS. Although we are part of a university system, so I may be able to find someone to get me an academic license for MATLAB. That'll probably take a while though . If you're set on using Photoshop, look into Photoshop scripting - start here: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/scripting.html But I would really rather use a purpose-built scientific tool for this kind of analysis. BetterLekNextTime's suggestion of ImageJ looks interesting - and it's free.
|
# ¿ Sep 20, 2011 16:35 |
|
InternetJunky posted:I feel like a retard, but I think I really need someone to dumb down how to mask properly. If there's a clear delineation between foreground and background I have no problem, but if there's not I'm in trouble. Have your NR'd image on the top layer and the original on the bottom. Paint in the mask like you would normally do - first do a magic wand selection and fill it in on the layer mask. Then zoom in and refine by hand it for the parts like the wingtip where the magic wand won't do, which indeed can take a lot of time. You can hit \ (backslash) to show the layer mask as an overlay. edit: I meant magnetic lasso in this case, not magic wand. Duh. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Dec 7, 2011 |
# ¿ Dec 6, 2011 19:04 |
|
Bottom Liner posted:My pics look exactly the same on both desktops in LR 2, 3, and beta 4. I'm lucky I guess? Did you hit the button to "update process"?
|
# ¿ Feb 3, 2012 07:37 |
|
Phanatic posted:Where the hell did that blotchiness in the sky come from? If I crank the luminance in the sky down, it becomes more and more apparent. What did I do to make that happen? It looks like JPEG compression artifacts to me. Try upping the JPEG quality factor or use a less lossy format.
|
# ¿ Mar 14, 2012 04:35 |
|
It may be something they're doing wrong, but I've seen people complain about the LR built-in Flickr publish service deleting their pictures when the pictures aren't in their catalog anymore (because of hard drive crash, file got moved, whatever). I use Jeffrey Friedl's plugin. It's worth a donation.
|
# ¿ Mar 25, 2012 20:41 |
|
xzzy posted:Anyone in these parts use a dropbox-style "folder syncing" software with Lightroom? Should be OK as long as you make sure not to have Lightroom open on more than one computer at a time.
|
# ¿ Dec 29, 2012 05:05 |
|
Krakkles posted:What's the opinion on presets like VSCO? If you want the film look, you should buy $120 worth of film, because no preset is actually going to look like film. If you just want the VSCO look, yeah, just spend more time playing with sliders and curves.
|
# ¿ Jan 9, 2013 18:22 |
|
Mr. Despair posted:vsco is great for when you're processing the negatives you just scanned and you really want to make sure your portra looks like portra. I can't tell if this is parody or not. Poe's Law...?
|
# ¿ Jul 26, 2013 20:16 |
|
Putrid Grin posted:Anyone has an idea how to reduce or eliminate stress marks from a scanned negative. That's bromide drag. Do a presoak and do more agitation.
|
# ¿ Sep 20, 2013 01:30 |
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Well, yes, expose to the right is the general rule. Expose off the histogram isn't. When they say expose to the right, it just means slightly left of center. No, it means expose to the right - that is, overexpose as much as possible without clipping whites anywhere. That said, I think it's a strategy with dubious merit and you're almost always better off just exposing properly.
|
# ¿ Feb 23, 2014 23:33 |
|
Shaocaholica posted:But use at your own risk. I don't fully know what tools/filters this might 'break'. Hopefully none. It should only affect blending when one layer is semi transparent on top of another. There's a bunch of stuff (mostly filters) that doesn't work in 32-bit mode, but as far as I know everything works in 16-bit mode. I do use 16-bit mode exclusively, and it helps a lot when I'm working with curves - as Helicity points out, you avoid posterization more easily working with more bit depth.
|
# ¿ Feb 24, 2014 17:49 |
|
DILLIGAF posted:Looks like it is graduated.. like they did a color balance adjustment layer, pushed cyan in the shadows, then did a 50% mask on some of her face and the top right. Then a warming filter and then a vibrance mask. You just described split toning.
|
# ¿ Apr 14, 2014 01:07 |
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:There aren't many situations where it's more useful than just tweaking the levels (compositing being the main one off the top of my head) but it does have its place for fine control of images. I beg to differ. RGB curves are great for fixing color casts, especially when you have different casts in the shadows vs in the highlights (like with film).
|
# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 20:43 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 12:35 |
|
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 |