|
Every once in a while I'll accidentally open bridge by hitting "browse" in photoshop when I meant to hit open.  I'm still working on optimizing my workflow but right now I start with stuff in Photo Mechanic, where I tag my picks and also tag anything that is a black frame, photo of the floor or whatever for deletion. Everything goes in a master folder with the shoot name and date, then I put the picks into a "picks" folder and pull them into Capture One. The processed images go in a "processed" folder. If that's all I need then I'm done, if I need to do retouching in photoshop or whatever, the final images go in a "final" folder. The idea is to make sure that I have everything in one place and easy to find. I have master folders to separate the different kinds of shoots I might do-- personal, client, and for the newspaper. I've never done much retouching before recently, but it's been a big part of my internship that I'm doing now-- the way I've learned people retouching is pretty simple but it works well-- making an edit layer that is a dupe of the base, cleaning up using the clone and healing brush, then backing it off using a mask so it looks realistic.
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2009 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Xabi posted:I must've deleted them on a drunken rampage yesterday, but I've tried to make a beautiful paint example: That's not lightroom doing that. It's something wrong with your card most likely.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2009 20:17
|
|
|
Womens Jeans posted:Does anyone know how to make photos look like these? What exactly is it about these photos you want to replicate? Quite a few of them are great news photos but I'm not really seeing any particularly standout about the processing- indeed, as news photos they are probably undergoing very limited editing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 01:32
|
|
|
Shoot in angular light (ie early morning, late afternoon) and keep the sun behind you. Blue skies all over the place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 01:42
|
|
|
Yep, and you can see where the shadows go really black-- there is no light coming from the other direction. In many respects its hard to find better light. ninja edit: unless for some reason you have to shoot the other way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 01:49
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:Bleh, why did they make the reporter sound like he's talking through a radio or something. Just sounds cheesy. It sounds to me like he is making field reports into whatever he's recording the conversations / interviews with. It's not like they have high-end recording gear just laying around Afghanistan. Women's Jeans posted:drat that's easy :P
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 12:32
|
|
|
My conclusion has also been that removing blemishes manually works a lot better than any kind of filter. Has anyone here used Silver Efex Pro for black and white conversion? Any opinions on it other than price? edit: brad that gif is really creepy
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2009 20:03
|
|
|
SeXReX posted:I load my photos into Windows live gallery and hit auto fix, if I don't like the results I hit undo and do it myself, the few options available are enough to fine tune photos, besides, why waste your time on the computer when you can get it right on the camera. Something tells me your photos don't look as good as you think they do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2009 19:23
|
|
|
Canon images usually have similar issues in Photoshop ACR/Lightroom, they look snappy until they load, then you have to work to get them back to what they already looked like. I was on the edge of shooting jpeg I got so frustrated with it, then I started using Capture One instead 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2009 14:32
|
|
|
Loinworm posted:People generally shoot raw because they don't want software making any assumptions about the white balance, gamma encoding or color space of their images. This is more of a feature than an issue. Well no crap, but if your raw converter lets you start from a base of 'decent' instead of awful, it will save you a lot of time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2009 17:34
|
|
|
Loinworm posted:It starts from a base of "don't clip anything anywhere unless it cannot be avoided." Your subjective impressions of what this looks like are far less important than the technical necessities of the process of maximizing the amount of capture data you pull into your final product, and quite frankly the ability to apply any arbitrary collection of settings to as many images as you want with a single click makes this a complete non-argument. Your missing the point of what I'm saying in order to make a pedantic argument. My irritation with Lightroom has nothing to do with the way it renders light/dark but the color that Adobe's processor renders-- no two raw processors are going to give you exactly the same result, and it is indeed an entirely subjective thing-- Adobe's results are not "right" any more than any other converter (though Canon will tell you that DPP is the "correct" interpreter of their raw data). Notice how I didn't say that I was shooting jpeg, but that I simply switched raw converters because I prefer the way that C1 handles Canon raw files. I think you'll find that plenty of people agree with me on this point, even if they are not busy posting to the internet. edit: can't type today TsarAleksi fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Apr 27, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2009 20:09
|
|
|
All I said was that if you don't like the way that Adobe is rendering the raw file, look at other software that you like better. Of course you can get to the end result you're looking for with any piece of software, but it seems pointless to waste your time tinkering in one program when you can start out with a base you prefer in another. I got a free copy of C1 4LE and started playing with it on someone's advice, and liked it better, for a lot of reasons other than just the rendering, but that's beside the point. Adobe products seem to be universally used/recommended, so I feel like I might be doing someone a favor by pointing out that there are alternatives- I certainly didn't know that there were other options until they were demonstrated to me. And by snappy I meant "like I like them" not "popping." Perhaps that was a confusing choice of words.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2009 20:55
|
|
|
That sounds interesting... whose images would we use? And of what? Maybe a selection of different kinds of imagery?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2009 22:18
|
|
|
Would it be a strict conversion exercise or postprocessing in general?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2009 22:51
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:This is done often in 3D where one model (think a digital sculpture) is offered, then as many people as desire do a texture for it (think painting the surface) You really get some amazingly different interpretations, and it's awesome. Yeah that's kinda what I was thinking, though it might be fun to do both something really out there and do them in your own "processing style" to compare how people would interpret the file given normal circumstances. I can offer raws as well though they are not going to be as widely process-able.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2009 01:02
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:Yeah I've been too busy to set it up, I will start a thread tonight. I'm thinking that it'll be a lot easier if people with cameras from the last 9months or so (ie 5D2/50D/etc) ought not contribute because it'll mean that people without the newest raw converters won't be able to do anything with them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:So much good advice in here; I hope you can help a newbie with a simple project: I am working on a DVD cover but somehow can't quite get the picture to work. Here's the current look of things: I think as a start you ought to try upping the background contrast and dropping the levels a lot-- it really looks oddly cartoonish to me, as it is presently. Just sorta unnatural.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2009 23:05
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I don't trust most of the services out there but Amazon's S3 is what I use (with the JungleDisk software for doing the actual backups). S3 runs like half the internet, and Amazon or their services aren't going to disappear over night or anything which is more than you can say for some of these "$5/mo for unlimited backup!!" services like Mozy. About how much would you say that you spend on S3? I am looking into backup and while a lot of it seems like it would be fairly inexpensive when you look at raw numbers, adding it up makes the costs seem to explode. Or do you only backup high value files, or what-have-you?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2009 19:06
|
|
|
HPL posted:Theoretically, couldn't you use something like SmugMug or Flickr as your backup? Upload everything and then make it private. Because most of my stuff goes up on smugmug when it's finished, I'm not worried about backup for finished files, but moreso the raw files and particularly stuff that is not finished / in progress. Smugmug has a built in backup program you can buy into that works through Amazon, but I'm curious how the costs compare to just going through amazon directly and how it changes the functionality.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2009 21:12
|
|
|
My experience has been that while I used to do everything in LR, I am happier with my results if I do everything by hand using a collection of pieces of software. It takes longer but I like the end results better and it encourages care in how I edit-- which is to say I can't and hence don't blaze through the editing of stuff then shove it onto the web.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2009 17:29
|
|
|
brad industry posted:One tip I can't live without: Press "|" to see where the mask is. I find that apple (or ctrl) 'i' speeds things up a lot, rather than having to dig for the invert command.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2009 00:53
|
|
|
rigeek posted:This. I don't think anyone is "hating." There is nothing wrong with legitimate criticisms: they can do nothing but help. You want to edit your photos that way, go crazy, but there is no reason it should be in a critical vacuum.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2009 15:30
|
|
|
Zoowick posted:Least amount of noise possible. It just gives me more leeway when pulling from shadows. Also I like to incorporate dramatic skies in a lot of my portraits with strobes so you need a really low ISO to keep from going over your camera's sync speed. It might be helpful to know that shooting at 50 doesn't actually help you pull from the shadows-- in fact it might be hurting you. Because it's not a native ISO in the 5D2, shooting at 50 actually reduces the dynamic range and should be reserved for when you absolutely must use it because of shooting with strobes or a large aperture.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2009 00:23
|
|
|
rigeek posted:It's easy to over-use the Topaz / Lucis filters .. but when a properly lighted photo is processed with one of them correctly, the end result is usually pretty good, Dave Hill or not. I'll be the first to admit sometimes stuff looks over-the-top, but bottom line is, and I'm sure Zoowick will back me up here, that's what certain types of clients want these days .. they want over-the-top, larger-than-life type photos. Bands, HS seniors, etc. Gotta give 'em what they want! I think it might be easier to just make your own with either photographs or a scanner.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2009 14:34
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:The little graduating filter tool in Lightroom is nice, but it doesn't help much if your sky line is not straight as a ruler. Yeah, you make layers to edit the image. For the per-pixel type editing you're talking about, you will need to export an image that you'll edit in photoshop/gimp/paint/whatever. If you're worried about the lossy nature of jpeg just use a tiff.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2009 16:28
|
|
|
plaguedoctor posted:Also, regarding brad's post; I think your understanding of post processing software is a bit... lacking. Lightroom can handle some pretty dramatic editing, especially given the inclusion of dodge/burn masking type tools and the ability to manipulate most elements of the global photo. However, ACR in CS4 is the same editing engine that is in Lightroom-- the only thing lacking is the file management side of things. CS4 will let you do everything LR editing wise + the per-pixel editing. Picking a raw converter is a matter of personal preference, but the only person I've ever heard claim that DPP was superior to all other raw converters was this shifty Canon rep I talked to at a convention. And the only place that it's going to be better is possibly in the conversion-- I never used DPP because it's such a clunky and irritating program to work with. If it really was that much better there wouldn't be such a huge market for programs like Lightroom and Capture One.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2009 17:16
|
|
|
Except it's never going to look as nice as if you do your retouching by hand.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:
:professionalsay: Listen to Brad. Besides, light retouching/removing blemishes shouldn't take too terribly long if you get some experience, and you can tailor it to the needs of the specific image. And it's not spare time it's caring about your work/reputation. Not to mention that the examples on that site look horrible. edit: ok, looking again at some of the examples: if the quality of work that you're putting into the program is similar to what they display, then it's reasonable, I suppose, to use it. Most of that stuff shouldn't even be a retouching issue, it should be a shooting issue (like hideous color cast, blur, etc). TsarAleksi fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Feb 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
I do retouch by first creating a duplicate of the image, and on that duplicate I use the heal brush for small problem areas (like a small zit, say) and patch tool for larger. After that I create another duplicate layer, then us a clone stamp at 20% (give or take) to smooth the skin, working out from a given spot. On this layer I'll go 'overboard' to the point that the skin looks over-smooth, but then just back down the layer opacity until it looks about right. If there is a specific area that I want to remove more of the retouch layer from, I use a layer mask. It's not really too complex, it just takes practice. And everyone has a way of doing it that they prefer (more often than not it's how whoever they learned from did it), so it's not as though there is a canonical approach.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2010 23:13
|
|
|
miasma blues posted:I did buy Noise Ninja already. I just wanted to try and keep noise down as much as possible even before actively denoising it. That's why I'd like to know whether or how exposure correction, gamma correction/linearity and messing with the base curve will influence noise differently. Honestly if you're doing event photography like it sounds like, you need to use flash for most of your shots.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2010 17:24
|
|
|
unleash the unicorn posted:No, I don't think it's there in CS3. Yes, CS3 does remove the exif data by default, but I wanted to prevent that (keep it). You need to reduce the image to 8 bit in order to save as a jpeg using the Save As command.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2010 20:06
|
|
|
unleash the unicorn posted:Yeah, I know. I just wanted to know whether there was any way to do it from Save for Web.. which is the superior JPG saving dialog imo In what way is save-for-web superior if you're saving jpegs?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:It's probably more accurate to say that you don't notice it when it is. The thing is that 99% of the time, the term HDR is used to define images generated out of something like Photomatix or Photoshop's "Merge to HDR" function, the result of which is, in all but extremely rare circumstances, the kind of overwrought, 3d-render-esque mess that is being critiqued. I've never seen an 'HDR' that couldn't have been done better by blending exposures by hand.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Technically HDR: yes But by this definition of HDR (expanding the range in the print/final image beyond what could fit originally), you could expand it to fit just about any example of photography with localized exposure editing (ie dodge/burn on a film print, etc )
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 05:34
|
|
|
 Re-edited this older photo into a 4x5 crop and took out a bunch of antennae. Not sure if the crop is helping or not vs. the older version: 
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
HPL posted:Am I going crazy or does it seem like the photo is tilted to the right a bit? It's quite possible, though Venice buildings are not straight up and down so it might be playing eye tricks.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Anyone have any good resources for learning more about curves? Every time I sit down to learn the curves tool I poke around blindly without knowing what I'm doing, make the image look like inverted poo poo, get frustrated, close photoshop and decide "meh curves can't be that important". I mean... what do you want to do with curves? It's pretty easy to just use it as a basic contrast and light/dark editor...
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 18:30
|
|
|
One way to speed up LR is to use a light-weight editing program on the front end, such as Photo Mechanic. Culling pre-LR sped it up a great deal for me (this was only LR 2, so it could have changed...)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:I already did something similar to that, mostly marking anything that was trash as rejected and deleting it, but photo mechanic looks so much better. It's so expensive though Just make a calculation of how much time PM might save you, figure out what your time is worth, and it will seem like a bargain.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2010 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
dakana posted:I've been reprocessing some old photos, trying new things. No, they don't look overprocessed at all, they look really nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2010 05:12
|
|
