Lightroom, making images POP? Tutorials?

[nutsnbolts]

Ok, I haven't really seen any tutorials that utilizes Lightroom to POP an image. There are tons of Photoshop tutorials for this specific topic but was wondering if anyone has a tutorial or know links specifically taking an ordinary image within lightroom and while still using lightroom, make it pop.

Editing in Photoshop within Lightroom doesn't count. Everything has to be done in the develop module.

The point in this whole thing is I'm trying to figure out if I can strictly use Lightroom directly to achieve something close to what I can do with Photoshop which hopefully can reduce my export/import files and save some HD space.

Usually, you'd have your originals, then you have your Photoshop edited images that can be 10+ megs in size, never mind people who edit it even further for print, essentially giving you 3 versions of your images.

Thanks in advance.

[Radtech1]

Please define "POP"

[nutsnbolts]

Here is a tutorial that was done in photoshop.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=95468

Essentially, achieve something very similar within Lightroom.

[jcolman]

Here's a few I did in LR.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x148/jcolman_photo/350Z-2-1.jpg

above pic with a little "boost" (mainly saturation and vibrance) added.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x148/jcolman_photo/350Zsecondshoot-36.jpg

A little more boost added

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x148/jcolman_photo/1motionrig-3small.jpg

This pic was converted with a preset I have.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x148/jcolman_photo/storageunit-40-Edit.jpg

Just a little bit of tweaking with curves

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x148/jcolman_photo/storageunit-29-Edit-1.jpg

another of my presets

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x148/jcolman_photo/storageunit-1.jpg

some "boost" added mainly via saturation and vibrance

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x148/jcolman_photo/girls-25.jpg

[nutsnbolts]

I'd like to see the before pictures.

[Radtech1]

Here is a tutorial that was done in photoshop.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=95468

Essentially, achieve something very similar within Lightroom.


OK, based on the link, POP means to correct the lighting (the face was in the shade) and to correct the white balance (the entire shot was shifted to the cyan.) In all honesty, I have not used Lightroom, but if it is not used for standard corrections (as PS was used in your link) then what is Lightroom for?

Rad

[jcolman]

I'd like to see the before pictures. I've only got the first car pic uploaded as a "before" shot. The point is that LR is very good at making all of your adjustments in the Develop mode. You have quite a few options at your disposal for tweaking your pics. I only us PS for skin touch up or rig or other spot removal. LR has a good spot removal tool but PS offers more options.

[nutsnbolts]

OK, based on the link, POP means to correct the lighting (the face was in the shade) and to correct the white balance (the entire shot was shifted to the cyan.) In all honesty, I have not used Lightroom, but if it is not used for standard corrections (as PS was used in your link) then what is Lightroom for?

Rad

No offense, Rad, are you serious with your questions? Lightroom can be used for standard corrections but PS allows much more complex (even simple) editing/corrections.

Doing a search for tutorials on PS in making images "POP" is all over the place, different techniques, this and that but essentially the final results is a "POP" of the image.

Lightroom on the other hand, strides to have many of the "tweaking" items found in Photoshop but it's more than just "developing" your images. It's also used to catalogue your images, tag, slideshow, print, etc.

Take a look at Lightroom.

Anyway, regarding my question, I'm inquiring about whether there was way to avoid using Photoshop in achieving the "POP" result. From the looks of it, it can be done but now I was wondering if anyone here has any workflow on specifically making things "POP" using lightroom alone.

[In2Photos]

Achieving "POP" in LR is no different then in the tutorial you mention above. The terms are just slightly different.

Step 1. Fix WB.
Easily doable in LR as you know. The following were copied from Schmoelzel's tutorial.
ADJUST

white balance: Shade
exposure: 0
Shadows: 5
Brightness: 50
Contrast: +25
Saturation: 0

Detail

Sharp: 25
Lum. smoothing: 0
Color Noise reduc.: 25

Lens:

C/A r/c: 0
C/A b/y: 0
Vignetting Amt: +61
Vignetting Midpoint:+50

Calibrate

Shadow tint: 0
Red Hue: 0
Red saturation: +14
Green hue: 0
Green saturation: +21
Blue hue: -9
Blue saturation: +36

Each of these is more or less available in the Develop Module with the detail tab being the most different.

Step 2. Here Michael takes the image into PS for Shadow/Highlight recovery. In LR you use the recovery and fill light sliders. The exact settings would be different for each image.

Step 3. Crop to enhance the vision you wish to achieve.


Step 4. Michael uses two passes of Fred Miranda's Intellisharpen. This is the one thing you won't be able to use, yet, in LR. I am sure that somewhere down the road when the full SDK is released Fred will release it. So what to do? Use LR's sharpening feature to handle your first pass. LR 2.0 Beta has output sharpening capabilities so you can eventually use that for your second pass.

Step 5. Make a frame. Well LR can sort of do this.

Now there are a couple of things worth mentioning. Michael always seems to have colors that are bright and vibrant. I believe this has lots to do with the lighting available to him in Canada ;), as well as the CCD sensor of his 1D classic, and the fine glass he uses (although his tutorial uses a Sigma 15mm fisheye lens). But he didn't have access to some nice tools like the Clarity and Vibrance sliders, or the point adjustment tools for Hue, Saturation, and Luminance. These new tools can offer some really nice enhancements when used.

[jcolman]

No offense, Rad, are you serious with your questions? Lightroom can be used for standard corrections but PS allows much more complex (even simple) editing/corrections.

Doing a search for tutorials on PS in making images "POP" is all over the place, different techniques, this and that but essentially the final results is a "POP" of the image.

Lightroom on the other hand, strides to have many of the "tweaking" items found in Photoshop but it's more than just "developing" your images. It's also used to catalogue your images, tag, slideshow, print, etc.

Take a look at Lightroom.

Anyway, regarding my question, I'm inquiring about whether there was way to avoid using Photoshop in achieving the "POP" result. From the looks of it, it can be done but now I was wondering if anyone here has any workflow on specifically making things "POP" using lightroom alone.

LR offers a whole lot more than just "standard corrections" as I've tried to illustrate with my pictures. My workflow on making images "pop" can be as simple as this:

Open Lightroom.
Select import or go to images already imported.
Go to develop module.
Select picture.
Select "boost" preset. (or any other of my 40+ presets)
Done.

However, I rarely leave it at that. I usually tweak something else in the picture but unless I'm really doing a major "look" to the shot, I usually don't spend more than 30-40 seconds on an image. I can then apply that setting to the rest of my images and call it a day.

[Radtech1]

No offense, Rad, are you serious with your questions? Lightroom can be used for standard corrections but PS allows much more complex (even simple) editing/corrections.

Doing a search for tutorials on PS in making images "POP" is all over the place, different techniques, this and that but essentially the final results is a "POP" of the image.

Actually, I was serious with the question.

I do not have Lightroom and I have never used it. Based on the sample shot (the little girl with the hat) in link you provided, the corrections done were to compensate for a cyan WB, and to fill a shaded face. And your question seemed to be asking if it is possible to do this in Lightroom. Which is why I was wondering what is the intent of Lightroom - if you have to ask is it possible to use LR to tweak brightness and WB, then it would seem that those tweaks are not it's primary purpose. Forgive me if I got your intent wrong, but that is how it read to me.

But, for me, the bigger stumbling block is wanting images to "pop". I once asked what that means, and I got dozens of answers (aside from those accusing me of trolling), and the range of definitions for "POP" was astounding. To one person POP is high contrast. To another it is high saturation. And other linked to a heavily tone-mapped shot as an example of "POP". Anther said that "POP" is when a border is placed around most of an image, and part of the image (usually a person, or part of a person, like a hand, etc) extends outside of that border - as though they were reaching out of the shot. That is why I asked for a definition. If "POP" to you is tone-mapping, is it useless to find examples of high saturation.

BTW - I have consulted literally a dozen Photography Dictionaries and only one has a definition of "POP" - it is when the film of a slide curls under the heat of the lamp and pulls away from the cardboard frame.

Rad

[nutsnbolts]

Actually, I was serious with the question.

I do not have Lightroom and I have never used it. Based on the sample shot (the little girl with the hat) in link you provided, the corrections done were to compensate for a cyan WB, and to fill a shaded face. And your question seemed to be asking if it is possible to do this in Lightroom. Which is why I was wondering what is the intent of Lightroom - if you have to ask is it possible to use LR to tweak brightness and WB, then it would seem that those tweaks are not it's primary purpose. Forgive me if I got your intent wrong, but that is how it read to me.

But, for me, the bigger stumbling block is wanting images to "pop". I once asked what that means, and I got dozens of answers (aside from those accusing me of trolling), and the range of definitions for "POP" was astounding. To one person POP is high contrast. To another it is high saturation. And other linked to a heavily tone-mapped shot as an example of "POP". Anther said that "POP" is when a border is placed around most of an image, and part of the image (usually a person, or part of a person, like a hand, etc) extends outside of that border - as though they were reaching out of the shot. That is why I asked for a definition. If "POP" to you is tone-mapping, is it useless to find examples of high saturation.

BTW - I have consulted literally a dozen Photography Dictionaries and only one has a definition of "POP" - it is when the film of a slide curls under the heat of the lamp and pulls away from the cardboard frame.

Rad

LoL...

Well, the word POP wasn't really meant to be taken specifically to do something specific. I'm implying more of a general point of "POP". That doesn't make sense but all in all the responses that you have received is theoretically correct. In other words, it's a combination of all those things that usually depends on subjectivity. One "control" can make an image "POP" enough or a combination of several things depending on how "correct" you begin with within the shot you take.

So I can't really say that there is a right and wrong in making an image "pop".

So...overall, I guess it's hard to define what it is I'm trying to achieve. All I know is that I have been able to make some dramatic "POP" within Photoshop versus what I have been able to do in Lightroom. I have tried...I have made image better but I can't say I have made the image truly "POP" by simply using Lightroom alone.

I guess this goes back to my question, I'd like to see someone who used Lightroom specifically with a before and after image that made it "POP".

Regarding your pictures Jcolman, I guess those can be considered POP but I really need to see the before pictures.

The last image looks good!

[In2Photos]

Actually, I was serious with the question.

I do not have Lightroom and I have never used it. Based on the sample shot (the little girl with the hat) in link you provided, the corrections done were to compensate for a cyan WB, and to fill a shaded face. And your question seemed to be asking if it is possible to do this in Lightroom. Which is why I was wondering what is the intent of Lightroom - if you have to ask is it possible to use LR to tweak brightness and WB, then it would seem that those tweaks are not it's primary purpose. Forgive me if I got your intent wrong, but that is how it read to me.

But, for me, the bigger stumbling block is wanting images to "pop". I once asked what that means, and I got dozens of answers (aside from those accusing me of trolling), and the range of definitions for "POP" was astounding. To one person POP is high contrast. To another it is high saturation. And other linked to a heavily tone-mapped shot as an example of "POP". Anther said that "POP" is when a border is placed around most of an image, and part of the image (usually a person, or part of a person, like a hand, etc) extends outside of that border - as though they were reaching out of the shot. That is why I asked for a definition. If "POP" to you is tone-mapping, is it useless to find examples of high saturation.

BTW - I have consulted literally a dozen Photography Dictionaries and only one has a definition of "POP" - it is when the film of a slide curls under the heat of the lamp and pulls away from the cardboard frame.

Rad
Then I have to ask Rad, why even poke your head in here? If all you want to do is ask the OP what "POP" is and you have no idea of what Lightroom does, are you just looking for an argument? Or do you really want to help the OP? I have seen several posts about your crusade to eliminate the word "Pop" from use in photography, but frankly it does get a little old.

[Glenn NK]

Please define "POP"

It's the younger photographers' word for WAY COOL.;) At least no one seems to be able to actually define it.

Seriously though, Lightroom will give all the POP you can get in any other application - it takes some time to learn how.

I've spent well over a year with it, and in just the past few months, I feel that I'm getting more out of it - call it a learning curve if you wish.

I also use PS Elements 6.0, but I find the controls in LR to be more photographer friendly, and I can work directly on Canon CR2 files without having to convert them first.

For sharpening, LR isn't too bad, but PS or CS will give you more options and control (once you learn them, which can be difficult).

Getting more technical: I frequent another forum quite a bit (Naturscapes.net), and noticed that other people's images of the same flower shot in the same location as mine (literally the same location) had more POP than mine did. So, I loaded up my image in Lightroom, with the other guy's image on the forum, and compared them.

It turns out that I was being too conservative with the VIBRANCE and SATURATION settings. When I cranked these up a bit more, my image looked like the pro photog's image.

One comment about VIBRANCE and SATURATION: Vibrance affects the more muted colours whereas Saturation affects all colours. When dealing with skin tones, use Saturation sparingly or the faces start to turn reddish/orange. Vibrance will prevent this.

[Radtech1]

If all you want to do is ask the OP what "POP" is and you have no idea of what Lightroom does, are you just looking for an argument? Or do you really want to help the OP?

No to the first question, Yes to the second.

By prompting the OP to be clear on what his desired final results are, that would better enable those who answer him - those who are familiar with Lightroom - to point him in the right direction.

Even if I don't have the answer, I can still help by encouraging a better question.

Rad

[Radtech1]

It's the younger photographers' word for WAY COOL.;)

Bitchen'

That's what I was afraid of.

[Zoodles]

It's the younger photographers' word for WAY COOL.;) At least no one seems to be able to actually define it.



Seriously, I think "pop" is meant to describe how to make an image stand out - (where originally it may have been dull or just average) IMO YMMV :)

[Glenn NK]

Seriously, I think "pop" is meant to describe how to make an image stand out - (where originally it may have been dull or just average) IMO YMMV :)

That's called processing.;) Which includes exposure, brightness, WB, curves, levels, colour tweaking, sharpening, masks, filters, airbrushing, cloning, all that stuff. It's the hard part of photography.

Very few images right out of a digital camera stand out.

[Zoodles]

That's called processing.;) Which includes exposure, brightness, WB, curves, levels, colour tweaking, sharpening, masks, filters, airbrushing, cloning, all that stuff. It's the hard part of photography.

Very few images right out of a digital camera stand out.


Exactly - and there's good PP and bad PP... :)

[In2Photos]

No to the first question, Yes to the second.

By prompting the OP to be clear on what his desired final results are, that would better enable those who answer him - those who are familiar with Lightroom - to point him in the right direction.

Even if I don't have the answer, I can still help by encouraging a better question.

Rad
Fair enough.

[nutsnbolts]

Exactly - and there's good PP and bad PP... :)

And good PP of POP is what I'm trying to achieve in Lightroom.

I have tried achieving POP (processing) in Lightroom to do what I have done in PS and I can't seem to get it right.

Right now, if I want to achieve POP, I have to export it from LR (jpg, RAW, tiff, or PSD) then import one by one, make my edits using all the tools like described in (Scott Kelby's 7-point system) or any of the tutorials that are available and wala! I would then import these back into LR and essentially have two copies, the original and the PS edited version, hence, decreasing HD space.

ON the other hand, the root of the reason why I posted this is to find out if anyone here strictly uses Lightroom to achieve what is achieveable in PS...or close to it by means of Virtual Copy, hence, not wasting any HD space. IF you need the images, you just export it.

Either way, I can't seem to be able to POP my images in Lightroom.

I know that it depends on the image as to what you tweak but there is a good PP and there is a bad PP.

[In2Photos]

Why don't you post an image and let the LR users have a play, describing their process.

[cdifoto]

I haven't found Lightroom to be an all-in-one solution just yet. I use Lightroom to get me in the ballpark, and Photoshop to polish.

[jcolman]

Regarding your pictures Jcolman, I guess those can be considered POP but I really need to see the before pictures.

The last image looks good! Thanks. I'll post up some before and after shots in the next day or two. I'll also post up some images that REALLY pop for you. I tend to keep my images on the subdued side of "POP".

[Glenn NK]

I haven't found Lightroom to be an all-in-one solution just yet. I use Lightroom to get me in the ballpark, and Photoshop to polish.

I'm getting so I can get most of it in LR, but I do sharpening in PS.

All the controls are in LR, but they are more subtle (takes more movement with a slider to get the same effect).

I suspect that it comes down to which app one started with; I started with DPP, then went to LR, so I use PS for things like airbrushing, cloning, and sharpening. The crop tool in LR seems so much easier to use, but maybe because I learned cropping in LR.

To answer the OP about what to make his photos pop, I'm of the opinion that every image requires its own approach; one might need more contrast where another one needs less.

I think it's too comlex to write down forumlas. It's a lot like music, the notes are the same, but everyone interprets the piece differently.

[jcolman]

I'm getting so I can get most of it in LR, but I do sharpening in PS.

All the controls are in LR, but they are more subtle (takes more movement with a slider to get the same effect).

I suspect that it comes down to which app one started with; I started with DPP, then went to LR, so I use PS for things like airbrushing, cloning, and sharpening. The crop tool in LR seems so much easier to use, but maybe because I learned cropping in LR.

To answer the OP about what to make his photos pop, I'm of the opinion that every image requires its own approach; one might need more contrast where another one needs less.

I think it's too comlex to write down forumlas. It's a lot like music, the notes are the same, but everyone interprets the piece differently.



Interesting that you sharpen in PS. Do you not like the sharpening that LR does??

[nutsnbolts]

I haven't found Lightroom to be an all-in-one solution just yet. I use Lightroom to get me in the ballpark, and Photoshop to polish.

This is something I knew already. I just wanted to makes sure that I wasn't missing anything...such as, LR can do everything as an all-in-one solution...which is obviously not. LR 2 does seem to get closer.

[nutsnbolts]

Thanks. I'll post up some before and after shots in the next day or two. I'll also post up some images that REALLY pop for you. I tend to keep my images on the subdued side of "POP".

Same here....actually. Thanks for giving it a try. I would like to see how powerful LR is in the develop module. OR how much I suck at using LR in the develop module. :rolleyes:

[nutsnbolts]

Why don't you post an image and let the LR users have a play, describing their process.

I will give this another shot. Don't get me wrong. I post in a gallery and a blog. The gallery, I do all my edits with LR and export and that's that. The blog, I focus on getting more "POP". IF I can do everything within LR, then I'll be a happy camper and save extra time in my workflow.

[nutsnbolts]

I'm getting so I can get most of it in LR, but I do sharpening in PS.

All the controls are in LR, but they are more subtle (takes more movement with a slider to get the same effect).

I suspect that it comes down to which app one started with; I started with DPP, then went to LR, so I use PS for things like airbrushing, cloning, and sharpening. The crop tool in LR seems so much easier to use, but maybe because I learned cropping in LR.

To answer the OP about what to make his photos pop, I'm of the opinion that every image requires its own approach; one might need more contrast where another one needs less.

I think it's too complex to write down formulas. It's a lot like music, the notes are the same, but everyone interprets the piece differently.

I go directly into LR and then export my images for the blog as JPG. I know I can export as PSD, TIFF, etc. but I'm trying to save some space. It may not be the most perfect image but I'm taking bla images to cool, that's POP'd. Overall, you're right, each image is a bit difference hence, I don't have fancy actions/droplets to do all my work.

One thing I learned about all these tutorials available to "POP" an image is the simple fact that you take one or several things to make your own, hence, my way of doing it within Photoshop. This post is to achieve the same thing with LR, see what everyone else is doing, see the before/after images and say, you know what, I'm definitely doing something terribly wrong with LR.

On a positive note, if there are good ways to do this within LR which people here provides, then I will definitely give that a try and push on forward.

So far it seems like everyone uses LR lightly and PS to really do the work. I guess it all depends on what everyone feels is "POP".

[Glenn NK]

Interesting that you sharpen in PS. Do you not like the sharpening that LR does??

Maybe I do it in LR because I've been unduly influenced by so many users that panned the sharpening in LR when it first came out.

Truthfully - I haven't really compared the two to see if LR can match the high pass sharpening in PS. I'm thinking that since you asked this question I will give it a try.:)

Probably the main reason is that I quite often do a fair bit of cloning and airbrushing in PS Elements (flower stuff - removing oof bugs, etc), and since one should sharpen last, I just stay in PS and sharpen there.

I then import the TIFF into LR to resize for the web because it gives me more control. Where I host my images (NatureScapes.net), the limit is 750 pixels on the long side and 200 KB, so I need control of both aspects which I can't seem to be able to do in PSE.

Next time I will try my sharpening in LR as the last step.

[Mike McCusker]

I have found LR sharpening to suffer compared to High Pass in Photoshop...

[In2Photos]

Interesting that you sharpen in PS. Do you not like the sharpening that LR does??
LR 1.x sharpening is considered capture sharpening, not output sharpening. It is designed to compensate for the AA filter in your camera. It does not take into account your desired output type (print or web), or any resizing as it is done BEFORE resizing. This is why you still need PS.

LR 2.0 BETA now has output sharpening during export so PS may not be needed for this task.

[nutsnbolts]

Maybe I do it in LR because I've been unduly influenced by so many users that panned the sharpening in LR when it first came out.

Truthfully - I haven't really compared the two to see if LR can match the high pass sharpening in PS. I'm thinking that since you asked this question I will give it a try.:)

Probably the main reason is that I quite often do a fair bit of cloning and airbrushing in PS Elements (flower stuff - removing oof bugs, etc), and since one should sharpen last, I just stay in PS and sharpen there.

I then import the TIFF into LR to resize for the web because it gives me more control. Where I host my images (NatureScapes.net), the limit is 750 pixels on the long side and 200 KB, so I need control of both aspects which I can't seem to be able to do in PSE.

Next time I will try my sharpening in LR as the last step.

You can possibly output and crop from PS as well considering you are there to begin with.

When I do my blog images....


I export from LR
Open as Raw in PS and begin my processing.
Make further processing when I completely open the image in PS.
After all processing, I run my action to do the sharpening.
I run another action to resize, border, watermark (I can do this step by batch folder, as well).
Reimport the (non resized, bordered, watermarked) images into LR.The only issue I guess people may have is that what I'm reimporting are JPG because it's what I exported to begin with...I know that people mentioned I should export as PSD, RAW or even TIFF but I tried this once and an original 10meg file became 20+megs after I got done with my normal workflow. So all in all after importing back in LR, I'm looking at 30meg+ per image total for one picture???

That didn't make sense to me.

[Glenn NK]

I have found LR sharpening to suffer compared to High Pass in Photoshop...

Interesting. I like the high pass in PS because it's so easy to see when enough if enough - just watch the gray screen, and when some colour starts to appear in this screen, you've about sharpened enough. At least that's the level I'm at.:D

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/high-pass-sharpening-photoshop.html

http://maixner.blogspot.com/2008/02/advanced-high-pass-sharpening.html

[In2Photos]

Does this do anything for you?

Before------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After
278974 278975

I altered the WB slightly, added some exposure, blacks, and fill light, decreased brightness, added some clarity and vibrance, as well as some sharpening in LR. I then sent the file to PS for the last pass of USM.

[Souwalker]

Here is a tutorial that was done in photoshop.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=95468

Essentially, achieve something very similar within Lightroom.

Will the above work with jpegs?
Pat

[nutsnbolts]

Will the above work with jpegs?
Pat

Hope you don't mind, In2Photos. But this was done in JPG.

It's a bit on the warm side but I just wanted to see the difference between a PS one that I do and the one you did in Lightroom.

My point in this is, if I am able to achieve similar results on the left within LR, that would awesome. Unfortunately, I think the best you can do is what is on the right. It's not bad but you can see a big difference between the two.

What I tweaked within PS:
-WB
-Temp
-Vibrance
-Sat
-Lab Mode
-Apply Image (Soften)
-Curves Adjustments

Done in 10 secs.

POP!


PS Processing (JPG) (after image "before") ------------------------------------------------------ LR Processing (After image above)

[In2Photos]

Hope you don't mind, In2Photos. But this was done in JPG.

It's a bit on the warm side but I just wanted to see the difference between a PS one that I do and the one you did in Lightroom.

My point in this is, if I am able to achieve similar results on the left within LR, that would awesome. Unfortunately, I think the best you can do is what is on the right. It's not bad but you can see a big difference between the two.

What I tweaked within PS:
-WB
-Temp
-Vibrance
-Sat
-Lab Mode
-Apply Image (Soften)
-Curves Adjustments

Done in 10 secs.

POP!


PS Processing (JPG) (after image "before") ------------------------------------------------------ LR Processing (After image above)
I am not on my calibrated monitor but "a little warm"? She is glowing orange!

Sorry but I don't see "POP" on your processed image. I see a highly saturated, overcooked image.

I also only spent about 1 minute on my edit, including export and opening in PS for sharpening.

[nutsnbolts]

I am not on my calibrated monitor but "a little warm"? She is glowing orange!

Sorry but I don't see "POP" on your processed image. I see a highly saturated, overcooked image.

I also only spent about 1 minute on my edit, including export and opening in PS for sharpening.

woah there horsey. I guess I have to be very careful what I say, ok she's glowing...not on my calibrated monitor as well, I was editing this on a train on a laptop (wow, my laptop monitor is totally off).

How about you spending more than 1 minute and showing me your best edit on it within LR. I'd like to see your meaning of POP. Either way, in comparison to the original, not bad.

[In2Photos]

woah there horsey. I guess I have to be very careful what I say, ok she's glowing...not on my calibrated monitor as well, I was editing this on a train on a laptop (wow, my laptop monitor is totally off).

How about you spending more than 1 minute and showing me your best edit on it within LR. I'd like to see your meaning of POP. Either way, in comparison to the original, not bad.
Wow, I wasn't even getting nippy. ;) Just saying.

I might be able to dig through my stuff tonight and find a more suitable image to spend some time on.

[nutsnbolts]

Wow, I wasn't even getting nippy. ;) Just saying.

I might be able to dig through my stuff tonight and find a more suitable image to spend some time on.

Cool...no harm done :lol: Although I do agree mine was overcooked and glowy...lol. I have to slap my laptop around for having me post something like that. I will probably make another attempt at this, that one was just not acceptable...looking at it from a work computer (non calibrated as well but probably better than my laptop) ... OUCH.

[Souwalker]

How do you tweak WB in CS3 (jpeg)? I was told to us the Curves feature and select the middle dropper and click on something that is supposed to be grey or grey. What do I click if there's nothing grey in the picture or even netural?
Rgds
Pat

[Alexajlex]

How do you tweak WB in CS3 (jpeg)? I was told to us the Curves feature and select the middle dropper and click on something that is supposed to be grey or grey. What do I click if there's nothing grey in the picture or even netural?
Rgds
Pat


It is the levels tool and middle picker.

In CS3 you can load JPGs in ACR (there is setting in the preferences along these lines "User ACR for JPGs"). With that you can use ACR and the WB tool + you also get access to the other ACR goodies for your JPG.

I have all the PCs I work on setup like this since I sometimes get files from people that shoot JPGs.

[Souwalker]

It is the levels tool and middle picker.

In CS3 you can load JPGs in ACR (there is setting in the preferences along these lines "User ACR for JPGs"). With that you can use ACR and the WB tool + you also get access to the other ACR goodies for your JPG.

I have all the PCs I work on setup like this since I sometimes get files from people that shoot JPGs.

I am 100% sure it was curves, unless you can use bothe curves or levels?
Pat

[schmoelzel]

Interesting discussion (and using my humble tutorial from ages ago!!). I am not sure that my tutorial was really showing how to POP an image, but I still use the same technique for most of my shots of my daughters (hey, I have multiple daughters now!!). The most enjoyable thing about this whole discussion was seeing my daughter from from a few years back and hardly believing that she's in school now!!