Dumbfounded

Discussion in 'Photography' started by tony cooper, Nov 2, 2012.

  1. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    I have been starting to play with doing almost all my processing in RAW.
    Then opening in PS as a smart object, at minimal size. This tends to
    speed up the actual processing time. e.g. Ever use the "smear" tool. Use
    of smart objects makes all processing non-destructive.
     
    PeterN, Nov 2, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    Speaking as a RAW shooter who goes from RAW to Photoshop, the .jpg is
    the end result for me. After whatever adjustments I make in RAW, I
    open the file in Photoshop CS4 and immediately add a duplicate layer.
    This means that until I flatten the image I'm working with a .psd file
    with re-editable layers.

    All Photoshop edits are done on layers above the "Background Layer".
    When the edits are done, I'll save the .psd file (in case I want to
    make later changes), flatten, and Save As a .jpg. The .jpg is what
    goes up to a photo host or the file that is printed. The file is then
    uploaded in Lightroom for organization by keywording.

    That's my workflow, but I make no claims that it's the best workflow.
    Since I've been using versions of PS going 'way back, I've never
    bothered to learn to edit in Lightroom. Under-utilization of LR, but
    I don't care.
     
    tony cooper, Nov 2, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. I think I'm somewhere in between. I research to the Nth degree before I do
    anything so I'm already 10 steps ahead before I start, then create, then get
    bored and move on.

    I ripped into the chair of a meeting last week because contributions were
    random crap I could've read off the internet. There was just no spontaneity
    and people were talking at each other not relating with each other. Apart
    from an odd comment at the time or a sometime afterwards the overwhelming
    majority of discussion contained little insight or art.

    People can be at different levels, and have different ways of learning. I
    think it's important to recognise that because it can cause quite a lot of
    misunderstanding and friction.

    For my own part there's things I need to do to reconfigure my approach and
    that's taking time to work through. It's complicated but I sense it's a
    shift away from how you work to effectiveness and collaboration. On another
    level I'm also hoping it will just make me a happier and nicer person to be
    around.

    Your book (I must buy a copy sometime if you still have any going) and
    learning are likely to be tightly bound. You're successful as you are so, I
    guess, have no pressing need to change. I've hit a wall so dumping old
    baggage and exploring new territory.... There's lots of intriguing questions
    in there.
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Nov 3, 2012
    #23
  4. I really just stick with LR because it has the most useable interface and
    raw support for me which sounds similar to your own reasons.

    I think we can get lost in choice. After a lifetime of software development
    or working with applications I've got rather fed up with it. No amount of
    work is going to save a shit photograph in any case so I don't feel very
    motivated to learn all the clever clever tricks.

    You only have so much time and, personally, I'd rather not bother with
    becoming an Nth level master of whatever arbitrary software package is
    flavour of the moment. I'd rather put the work into subject matter and a
    range of softer issues.

    Ansel Adams photography had abstract qualities and a lot of his discussion
    was theoretical but that was him. People like Cartier-Bresson took photos
    and handed the post-processing off to a printer. Many others take wildly
    different approaches. Somewhere in there are more choices that may actually
    be more suitable to a person than the, sometimes, sterile deification of a
    few big names and that can be forgotten.

    Sometimes we get the right answers to the question but what if we're asking
    the wrong questions?
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Nov 3, 2012
    #24
  5. tony cooper

    philo Guest


    I may be lucky that I do not do photography professionally since it
    allows me to do only what I like to do.

    If you want one of my books some time just email me my gmail addy is
    philo565

    I get essentially nothing from sales through Amazon
     
    philo, Nov 3, 2012
    #25
  6. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    I have found that sharpening luminescence in RAW tends to avoid halos. I
    do my final sharpening on the lightness channel using LAB.
     
    PeterN, Nov 3, 2012
    #26
  7. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    You can do most the your adjustments in LR, which is pretty much the
    same as ACR.

    AA also used processing assistants. I dunno about Bresson, but AA gave
    strict instructions on what to do.
     
    PeterN, Nov 3, 2012
    #27
  8. tony cooper

    Alan Browne Guest

    It is useless to sharpen at the raw stage. You have to sharpen (USM)
    for each display/print size. Therefore it is the last step before
    saving/printing each production size.
     
    Alan Browne, Nov 3, 2012
    #28
  9. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    He is. If he's in LAB mode, he's in PS. I think he means he's
    sharpening in both RAW and in PS.
     
    tony cooper, Nov 3, 2012
    #29
  10. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    ....and it is usually best to apply sharpening/USM of any type other
    than in ACR to a "Luminosity" adjustment layer so as to preserve all
    prior adjustments.
    That is, unless you use "High Pass Filter" sharpening, then you will
    have to use other than "Luminosity".
     
    Savageduck, Nov 3, 2012
    #30
  11. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    That used to be my thinking. But with many of the newer cameras the
    images do not come out as blurry as they used to. Also, I like to get
    some idea how my image will look when it is sharpened, before I spend a
    lot of time in post. When working with layers in PS, since almost all my
    edits are non-destructive, and the resizing algorithms, so accurate, I
    find that often I do not need to do a final overall sharpening.
    YMMV
     
    PeterN, Nov 4, 2012
    #31
  12. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    Yup!
     
    PeterN, Nov 4, 2012
    #32
  13. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    I have done high pass sharpening on the lightness channel in LAB. My
    experience has been less of a halo effect. But, it depends on the image
    and my planned output. I certainly have screwed things up, too. And the
    screw up is not noticed until after posting. Witness my boat in bridge
    image in the SI.
     
    PeterN, Nov 4, 2012
    #33
  14. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    It is easy to over cook high pass sharpening. If I use, with or without
    smart filter enabled, I usuall move the slider until I can perceive a
    faint outline of the image, this is somewhere between 4.5-8 pixels. I
    then use either, "Overlay", "Soft Light" or "Hard Light" blend modes. I
    can then adjust the % opacity with the adjustment layer slider, or if I
    am using a Smart Filter, I can just reopen the filter and make the
    appropriate adjustment. There are many times I find that using the high
    pass filter method can be the only way to get a decent "Pop" to the
    final result.

    The standard caution when using HPF is to always use it judiciously, as
    it is very easy to over do things.
     
    Savageduck, Nov 4, 2012
    #34
  15. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    What do you mean by: "smart filter enabled."
    I have done high pass + smart sharpen.


    Yup1 I have also applied the blur too the edges of a sharpened object,
    to reduce the halo and give a roundish appearance.
     
    PeterN, Nov 4, 2012
    #35
  16. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    All I mean is, if you have enabled "Smart Filters", you have created a
    "Smart Object" either from ACR, or within the "Adjustment Layers"
    panel, so that the filters used on that "Smart Object" will be "Smart
    Filters" and can be re-adjusted to taste.

    "High Pass Filter" (HPF) and "Smart Sharpen" are as you know two
    different things. Both can be applied to a "Smart Object". However do
    not mistake "Smart Sharpen" for a "Smart Filter".

    .... and it would be over kill to apply HPF and "Smart Sharpen, or USM together.
     
    Savageduck, Nov 4, 2012
    #36
  17. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    However, there are images that I may selectively sharpen using different
    tools for different parts of the image.
    There are also images that I will double sharpen, using different tools.
    It depends on the image.
     
    PeterN, Nov 4, 2012
    #37
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
There are no similar threads yet.
Loading...