Sony A7x lounge

navydoc wrote in post #18168811
Make a duplicate layer of your image and apply a "Filter>Blur>Average" to it. Then create a levels adjustment above that and using the grey eyedropper, select the averaged blurred layer below. Once you've done that, hide the blurred layer to see the results of the levels adjustment on the actual image. Sometimes this works brilliantly and sometimes not so much.

A variation on the same technique, which will yield yet another result, is to:
1. duplicate the base layer twice (Ctl/Cmd j),
2. apply the average blur on the first duplicate layer,
3. jump the average-blurred layer to acr filter (Ctl/Cmd Shift a) and use the WB eyedropper tool,
4. then select the second duplicate layer and use the last-filter shortcut (Ctl/Cmd f) to apply the change.
5. delete the blurred layer.

navydoc wrote in post #18168811
Make a duplicate layer of your image and apply a "Filter>Blur>Average" to it. Then create a levels adjustment above that and using the grey eyedropper, select the averaged blurred layer below. Once you've done that, hide the blurred layer to see the results of the levels adjustment on the actual image. Sometimes this works brilliantly and sometimes not so much.

Thanks Gene for the explanation. And thanks David for the new technique.

Testing out the 70-200 GM.

navydoc wrote in post #18168670
Here's a quick video I just made demonstrating this too. In Photoshop, there are many ways to accomplish the same thing. It's just that some ways are easier than others.

Great vid Gene. Good stuff....I need to watch it again when I don't have babies making all this noise around me.

mystik610 wrote in post #18168923
Testing out the 70-200 GM.

Hosted photo: posted by mystik610 in
./showthread.php?p=181​68923&i=i134355591
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Sony is killing it with the bokeh on the GM lenses...that looks smooth and great.

mystik610 wrote in post #18168923
Testing out the 70-200 GM.

Hosted photo: posted by mystik610 in
./showthread.php?p=181​68923&i=i134355591
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Awesome. How heavy is the lens?

I'm very jealous of your GM collection!

My son wanted to be Superman this year for Halloween. Shot with the FE 55. This was our second Halloween party this week. One more on Friday and another on Saturday.

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …i-JGMfk23-XL.jpg&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …i-wRDWnLd-XL.jpg&lb=1&s=A

mystik610 wrote in post #18168923
Testing out the 70-200 GM.

Hosted photo: posted by mystik610 in
./showthread.php?p=181​68923&i=i134355591
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Oooooo that has that 3D feel so many 85mm lenses have..... Im back on board wanting that lens..... NEED NO MUST know how it works with the 2xTC

picked up a pentax super takumar 200mm f4 in m42 mount at value village today for 15$. took her out for a walk today

David, I somehow missed the fact it needs to be set to colour blend mode in the video. I'll tweak my action tonight and see what it does

David Arbogast wrote in post #18168754
Nice tutorial Gene - you always make very professional looking videos.

One tip to add, which seems to be missing from your tutorial, is the blending mode needs to be set to "Color" so that Auto Color doesn't change the tones. In Curves method the curves adjustment layer needs to be in Color blend mode. And if you're doing the Auto Color method, then copy the base layer (Ctl + J) and apply the Auto Color to the copied layer - set the layer to Color blend mode. I don't want my WB adjustment to be affecting tones. Either way none of this amounts to multiple mouse clicks if you record a simple action. Make an action and it's always a one-click solution.

Whether using the "Auto Color" or the Curves with Auto settings, I find that that method doesn't always turn out as well as the Average Blur with Levels or Curves method. Sometimes I'm splitting the difference looking for the best result. I've got a lot of street shots I'm working through with horrible WB issues. It's nice that there are different methods that produce different results.

navydoc wrote in post #18168811
Make a duplicate layer of your image and apply a "Filter>Blur>Average" to it. Then create a levels adjustment above that and using the grey eyedropper, select the averaged blurred layer below. Once you've done that, hide the blurred layer to see the results of the levels adjustment on the actual image. Sometimes this works brilliantly and sometimes not so much.

Filter-blur-average wasn't in the video either. Am I watching the correct video?

from the recent shoot.

Image hosted by forum (821689) © vinmunoz THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18169180
Filter-blur-average wasn't in the video either. Am I watching the correct video?

It's a completely different technique from either Brigantino's or Gene's video. In my second paragraph I had referenced the technique, but had merely assumed it was well known. My mistake. Thankfully Gene stepped in helpfully to provide the explanation and steps for the average-blur WB method. Here it is again:

Step One: Make a duplicate of your image layer [cmd j]
Step Two: With the duplicated layer selected apply an "average" blur [Filter > Blur > Average]
Step Three: Add a Levels or Curves adjustment layer and use the gray (middle) eyedropper tool to select the average-blurred layer.
Step Four: Hide or Delete the blurred layer to see the results.

I also posted another version of the average-blur method using the acr filter. Strangely, using the WB eyedropper in the acr filter produces a different result than the levels/curves adjustment layer does.

In my recent experience with very challenging WB scenes (crappy street lighting at night) I am finding the Average-blur method to be more effective than Brigantino's auto WB method. But it is definitely handy to have different auto WB methods.

Unfortunately the average-blur method is harder replicate in a reusable action. To my knowledge you can't get the action to intelligently eyedropper the average-blur.

Thanks David, I wasn't aware of this method. I will give it a go

David Arbogast wrote in post #18169222
It's a completely different technique from either Brigantino's or Gene's video. In my second paragraph I had referenced the technique, but had merely assumed it was well known. My mistake. Thankfully Gene stepped in helpfully to provide the explanation and steps for the average-blur WB method. Here it is again:

Step One: Make a duplicate of your image layer [cmd j]
Step Two: With the duplicated layer selected apply an "average" blur [Filter > Blur > Average]
Step Three: Add a Levels or Curves adjustment layer and use the gray (middle) eyedropper tool to select the average-blurred layer.
Step Four: Hide or Delete the blurred layer to see the results.

I also posted another version of the average-blur method using the acr filter. Strangely, using the WB eyedropper in the acr filter produces a different result than the levels/curves adjustment layer does.

In my recent experience with very challenging WB scenes (crappy street lighting at night) I am finding the Average-blur method to be more effective than Brigantino's auto WB method. But it is definitely handy to have different auto WB methods.

Unfortunately the average-blur method is harder replicate in a reusable action. To my knowledge you can't get the action to intelligently eyedropper the average-blur.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18168939
Sony is killing it with the bokeh on the GM lenses...that looks smooth and great.

Yeah they weren't kidding when they said the GM lenses were designed to excel in regards to bokeh. First impression is that the colors don't seem as flat on the 70-200 gm as they do on the 24-70 gm.

eriet30 wrote in post #18169105
Oooooo that has that 3D feel so many 85mm lenses have..... Im back on board wanting that lens..... NEED NO MUST know how it works with the 2xTC

Hehe yeah early impression is that the rendering is similar to the 85gm and SAL 135 1.8 where its really sharp wide open, bokeh is very smooth, and there's a hard transition between the in focus area and OOF areas so the subject pops...almost looks like a composite image.

The 2xTC is on my list to add eventually. Even if there's a degradation in image quality, the base image seems to have a lot of head-room.

digital_AM wrote in post #18168987
Awesome. How heavy is the lens?

I'm very jealous of your GM collection!

It's as big and heavy as the 70-200II. I'm not excited about the size and weight of it, and when mounted to the a7rII it doesn't fit too well in the bags I use. This lens is more of a 'need' than a 'want' TBH. Not something I'll use unless I have to.

If you keep shooting for money you'll find that its a catch 22 sometimes.....its a nice source of side cash, but it also means you end up spending money on gear you probably wouldn't otherwise buy. This lens wasn't a high priority for me until I shot that wedding a couple of weeks back and realized that to do that sort of job right, I need a fast telephoto zoom with reliable AF.

vinmunoz wrote in post #18169188
from the recent shoot.

Hosted photo: posted by vinmunoz in
./showthread.php?p=181​69188&i=i164756171
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by vinmunoz in
./showthread.php?p=181​69188&i=i15564811
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Looks good Vinz. I can see why you corrected his skin so aggressively last time, but I think it looks better this way.