Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR
It's real and not an April Fools' joke. Here's the paper: http://www.shaiavidan.org/papers/imretFinal.pdf

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR
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?

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

Martytoof posted:

I don't know if this belongs here or not, but:

Is there a way to have Lightroom 3.2 automatically apply lens correction (if available) on import? I don't have my camera underhand right now so I can't do a test import, but I'm going through a few photos shot earlier with my new Sigma lens and I'm having to manually enable lens correction for each photo I imported.
Make a preset!



(make sure the image you use to make this preset has the profile correction on)


MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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.



I know there are plenty of things I can do where I wouldn't have to rely on post-processing, but in my defense, grabbing a tripod or fussing with my ISO were pretty far away on my brain at the time.
Try my friend's web app with a larger copy: http://www.blurity.com/ It's really cool because it tries to mathematically reverse the blur.

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.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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 have it set up where I'm concentrating on replicating my "keeper" .RAW files and processed .jpgs first. I still have everything locally, but the more important stuff goes online first.

I really wish I could just mail them a hard drive when I first got started and be done with it because it's a constant uphill battle, I upload 2 gigs a day but then create 4 gigs of data per day. uughhh.
I hated Carbonite. After you have x number of gigabytes backed up they throttle your uploads. With nearly 500GB to back up this is a major problem.

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.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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:

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

teethgrinder posted:

You don't like using the built in Facebook & Flickr management?

I do wish the official Flickr plug-in would allow you read "captions" for titling on Facebook instead of just titles or file-names.
I use Jeffrey Friedl's plugins. You can build your titles out of pretty much whatever metadata you want.

http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/flickr
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/template

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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.
I've done 40GB that way no problem. Took a few hours.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

sentientcarbon posted:

Stupid newbie question (probably):

I work in a cancer research lab, and we've got a big store of digital images of microscope slides containing stained tissue. Some of these slides contain significant deposits of darker pigmentation which can interfere with certain assays. I'd like to set up some image processing method to make this pigmentation identifiable at a glance to laypeople (read: some administrative higher-ups) and easily quantifiable. Basically, would there be a way to set up a filter/something in photoshop (CS4) that can:

1. Take pixels that have a certain range of RGB values, and replace them with pure black pixels (or something equally easy to spot)?
2. Only take pixels within that RGB range which are also in close proximity to other pixels that fall in that range? (pigmentation tends to occur in big blobs)
3. Count how many pixels satisfied those two requirements?

Any help is appreciated-sorry if this is a dumb question, I've never worked with photoshop before, my only image processing experience is a little dabbling in gimp and imagej.

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.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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 :(.

I had a free half-hour today and worked with it a bit, so far it's looking like my best options are the magic wand tool (bleh) or selecting a color range and setting a low fuzziness level (actually works ok, but I'd much prefer setting well-defined RGB ranges than just upping 'fuzziness' since I'm not quite sure how that's defined). I also poked around online and found a forum where someone had a similar issue, and advanced blending modes/manual masks were suggested, but the tutorial links that were posted were broken. Any of these sound like I'm heading in the right direction?

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.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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"?

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR
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.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

xzzy posted:

Anyone in these parts use a dropbox-style "folder syncing" software with Lightroom?

I'm in the process of setting up a home cloud storage type deal, and one thing that would be cool to do is sync my Lightroom catalogs across multiple computers so I can process photos on any computer I own, and those edits will show up all my other computers.

I'm just not sure whether Lightroom will appreciate me doing this.

Should be OK as long as you make sure not to have Lightroom open on more than one computer at a time.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

Krakkles posted:

What's the opinion on presets like VSCO?

http://visualsupply.co/film/

I like look that it seems to give, but I don't know if I really want to blow $120 on it, especially if it seems like it's possible to get the same effects from sliders.

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.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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.

:psypop:

I can't tell if this is parody or not. Poe's Law...?

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

Putrid Grin posted:

Anyone has an idea how to reduce or eliminate stress marks from a scanned negative.
What I have is a roll of this:


stress marks by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr

and I need to make those streaks of while look less distracting if I cant get rid of them altogether. Any ideas?

That's bromide drag. Do a presoak and do more agitation.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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.

It is a cool look... going to have to see if I have a picture I can try that with and see if my guess is even close.

You just described split toning.

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

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.

  • Locked thread