Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 20 Oct 2017 (Friday) 10:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

So if we are done with LR, whats our choices?

 
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Nov 08, 2017 05:38 |  #256

nardes wrote in post #18491590 (external link)
That was English - each word is defined in any decent English Dictionary;-)a, so what do you not understand?:-)

In #1 can you see the differences between the Pre and Post side-by-side comparisons?:-)
You should see 3 changes: the white door had gone to grey, the iPad has been toned down and the side of the bag has been lightened. Each is a separate and independent non-destructive edit, which does not affect the image globally. They can also be undone.
#2 shows 2 "Teal Overlays" which define a region or local selection (i.e. part of the image) showing where I would like to make a Local change, limited to the region defined by the Selection.
#3 shows just one of these Selection Masks and a series of associated Sliders which can be dragged Up/Down to apply a change to the Local region defined by the Teal overlay mask. This change will not be applied to the other parts of the image.
#4 illustrates that I have applied 3 individual Masks, each a separate entity, so I can apply specific changes to each of the 3 Masked regions independent of each other or the rest of the image.
In #4, the Masks are not shown, just the control points that define them.
In #2 and #3 the Masks are shown as Teal overlays so you can see where each effect will be applied.

In the post, I am showing what I was able to achieve just after a few minutes of playing with DxO PhotoLab, having previously used the Nik Software which used the same technology. I understand that this is a significant change; introducing (multiple) Local Edits as opposed to Global Edits.

Hope that clarifies some stuff for you, if not, head over to the DxO website.:-)

http://www.dxo.com …oto-software/dxo-photolab (external link)

Cheers

Dennis

Thanks. I am lazy. I'd prefer to light properly before releasing the shutter.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mathmans
Senior Member
273 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Apr 2014
     
Nov 08, 2017 06:26 as a reply to  @ Bassat's post |  #257

I wonder how would you do that. I guess you're too lazy to explain.


My photos:
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/149610703@N05/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited over 1 year ago by Bassat.
     
Nov 08, 2017 06:54 as a reply to  @ Mathmans's post |  #258

Apologies all around, I suppose. I have spent the last 40+ years behind an SLR assuming that it is preferential to get it right in-camera. With the advent of digital photography, experimentation costs even less, and I can see the results immediately, and reshoot if necessary/possible. The entire concept of releasing the shutter and planning to fix it later seems a bit backwards to me.

I'm not trying to insinuate that I get every exposure right first time. Far from it. Planning to get it wrong in-camera, and making major lighting fixes in software is just too much work for an lazy old man like me. A bit of thoughtful planning and setup in order to get close, resulting in a photo I can adjust with (highlights, whites, shadows, blacks) sliders in LR seems much easier. That's the thing about lazy people, we will find the easiest way to do just about anything.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 893
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
     
Nov 08, 2017 07:13 |  #259

Bassat wrote in post #18491653 (external link)
Apologies all around, I suppose. I have spent the last 40+ years behind an SLR assuming that it is preferential to get it right in-camera. With the advent of digital photography, experimentation costs even less, and I can see the results immediately, and reshoot if necessary/possible. The entire concept of releasing the shutter and planning to fix it later seems a bit backwards to me.

I'm not trying to insinuate that I get every exposure right first time. Far from it. Planning to get it wrong in-camera, and making major lighting fixes in software is just too much work for an lazy old man like me. A bit of thoughtful planning and setup in order to get close, resulting in a photo I can adjust with (highlights, whites, shadows, blacks) sliders in LR seems much easier. That's the thing about lazy people, we will find the easiest way to do just about anything.

I think you and Nardes are arguing at cross-purposes.

I don't think Nardes is trying to say anything about the right way to produce images, just trying to test the editing power of a piece of software.

I agree with you that the lazy man's approach (getting it right when the shot is taken) is a lot less work than putting it right later. And far more satisfying.

But if a shot hasn't worked out ... putting it right in processing will often be the lazy man's second best alternative (a lot less work than trying to capture the shot again).


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
Avatar
2,607 posts
Likes: 333
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Slovenia
Post edited over 1 year ago by agedbriar.
     
Nov 08, 2017 07:26 |  #260

It's a description of a new feature implemented into the latest DxO editor.

Very informative to many people, I'm sure.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Nov 08, 2017 07:28 as a reply to  @ DaviSto's post |  #261

I don't see it as an argument, especially in the negative sense of the word. I just don't live in a world where that kind of fix even crosses my mind. I can see the value in trying to save a photo by this means. For what I do as a hobbyist, if a photo needed that kind of work, I'd bin it. The bottom line is that someone willing to do that will have a shot where I won't. It's all good. I just didn't understand the purpose of the 'masking' post.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Avatar
17,886 posts
Gallery: 278 photos
Best ofs: 10
Likes: 6090
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
     
Nov 08, 2017 07:46 as a reply to  @ Bassat's post |  #262

Tom, I think everybody would agree that it is always better to get your exposure right in camera, but there will always be scenes with too great a dynamic range to capture and no matter how you solve the problem, it will include fixing things in post.


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Nov 08, 2017 07:52 |  #263

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18491679 (external link)
Tom, I think everybody would agree that it is always better to get your exposure right in camera, but there will always be scenes with too great a dynamic range to capture and no matter how you solve the problem, it will include fixing things in post.

Agreed. I run into that from time to time. I am usually left deciding which part I need, and letting the other blow out, or go black. Though I am experimenting with the in-camera HDR on my 80D. I've also tried a bit of HDR in PSE. The masking stuff seems rather difficult to me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,739 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 581
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Nov 08, 2017 07:54 |  #264

When getting to grips with DxO, one thing to remember is that, unlike most raw converters, DxO performs automatic corrections to tone, color, contrast, etc. on a per-image basis. If you do not like this starting point, you can remove all corrections (there is a preset called “no corrections” or something like that) and develop your own.

You can also customize the workspace and remove the tools that you do not use, or create multiple workspaces for individual tasks (a color and tone space, a crop and distortion space, a noise reduction space, a color grading and styling space, etc.). This will reduce clutter.

I do not use a DAM or enter keywords and that kind of thing, but you can do this within DxO. On a Mac, these labels are searchable within the Finder.

Kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 893
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
     
Nov 08, 2017 07:59 |  #265

Bassat wrote in post #18491669 (external link)
I don't see it as an argument, especially in the negative sense of the word.

Yes ... and I too meant "argument" in the sense of a 'debate' and not in the sense of a 'quarrel'.

Bassat wrote in post #18491669 (external link)
For what I do as a hobbyist, if a photo needed that kind of work, I'd bin it.

Usually I'd agree with you ... but it's not always possible. I'm currently working my way through some old photographs of my wife when she was pregnant. Massive hormone imbalances really messed up her skin. I didn't see her that way when I looked at her but, in photographs, it doesn't look good. It's no technical fault of mine that they look that way. It's not possible to go back and retake the shots. They are important to me. Post-processing to clean them up one-by-one, so that she looks in photographs the way that I saw her through my eyes, is the only option.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
8,058 posts
Gallery: 349 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 13485
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Nov 08, 2017 09:49 |  #266

This thread is about LR alternatives, not about getting the shot right in-camera.

It is interesting to get a look at what DXO can do.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 77D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Avatar
17,886 posts
Gallery: 278 photos
Best ofs: 10
Likes: 6090
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
     
Nov 08, 2017 09:53 |  #267

Bassat wrote in post #18491684 (external link)
Agreed. I run into that from time to time. I am usually left deciding which part I need, and letting the other blow out, or go black. Though I am experimenting with the in-camera HDR on my 80D. I've also tried a bit of HDR in PSE. The masking stuff seems rather difficult to me.

Yes, taking multiple shots with different exposure and blending them in post (or in camera), using highlight recovery and pulling shadows, or using other techniques that involve masks. And no, masking stuff is not difficult at all. Photoshop is all about layers and masking and you can make selections that are pixel accurate, something you can't do in a raw converter (as the above examples show). In that respect I very much agree with what kirkt said in another thread (emphasis by me):

kirkt wrote in post #18486082 (external link)
I would always prefer the highest quality raw conversion into an appropriate working color space for retouching and grading in a capable pixel editor - period. Raw conversion and grading/retouching are two distinct tasks that benefit from being done in two distinct environments. I cannot understand peoples' need to have these things done in a unified application where both tasks potentially suffer (quality, workflow speed, precision) as a result of what is probably the notion of convenience over quality - jack of all trades, master of none. At some point you are going to have to commit to your edits, even if you have multiple versions of your envisioned output.

kirkt wrote in post #18491686 (external link)
I do not use a DAM or enter keywords and that kind of thing, but you can do this within DxO. On a Mac, these labels are searchable within the Finder.
Kirk

Well, the problem with that is that the Finder searches keywords only, whereas Lightroom e.g. searches the actual metadata (and can search keywords as well of course). The Finder also ignores edits, done in a raw converter, and that's also not really handy.


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,739 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 581
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Post edited over 1 year ago by kirkt. (4 edits in all)
     
Nov 08, 2017 10:25 |  #268

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18491774 (external link)
Well, the problem with that is that the Finder searches keywords only, whereas Lightroom e.g. searches the actual metadata (and can search keywords as well of course). The Finder also ignores edits, done in a raw converter, and that's also not really handy.

You can search ISO, aperture, keywords, tags, color space, and a whole bunch of EXIF data from the Finder. You need to enable these terms to appear in the dropdown search menu.

Open a Finder Window and navigate to the drive or folder you want to search;
Type a search term in the field in the upper right - If you are searching for raw files from a Canon, something like ".CR2" will be a good start.
Select the volume or folder you want to search - the Finder defaults to all of the files on your machine, but the location where you initiated the search is next to this option, so it is easy to select that;
Click the "+" button to add a search term and, at the bottom of the dropdown list, select "Other..."

Take a look at all of those options!

Check the ones you think you would use on a regular basis and they will appear in the dropdown menu. Some applications that apply keywords write them directly into the raw file (using EXIFTool, or a similar approach) and some write them into an XMP or other type of sidecar file. Either way, the files with those keywords will be found. Etc. After all, the Finder is just a digital asset manager.

Once you have your search criteria dialed in, you can save the results as a Smart Folder - any additional files that satisfy the criteria will be added as they get copied to your machine.

kirk


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Avatar
17,886 posts
Gallery: 278 photos
Best ofs: 10
Likes: 6090
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
     
Nov 08, 2017 10:44 as a reply to  @ kirkt's post |  #269

You're right, I'd forgotten about that! I remember checking it out under Tiger and deciding on Lightroom because Lightroom lists all the values found in the images so you can simply take your pick.


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Nov 08, 2017 10:46 |  #270

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18491774 (external link)
Yes, taking multiple shots with different exposure and blending them in post (or in camera), using highlight recovery and pulling shadows, or using other techniques that involve masks. And no, masking stuff is not difficult at all. Photoshop is all about layers and masking and you can make selections that are pixel accurate, something you can't do in a raw converter (as the above examples show).
...

I've tried to mess with layers in PSE. I can't seem to make any sense of it. I get by with DPP and LR. Like I said, lazy.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

77,028 views & 130 likes for this thread
So if we are done with LR, whats our choices?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is rickpe
945 guests, 370 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.