I'm never throwing away a picture again

HA HA damn it i thought it was Flipping!
ggrrr.

Just saw this thread, and yeah, I'm impressed. I keep procrastinating on doing anything really significant in LR.

Cant believe I just found this thread I'm just curious as to why the WB was so far off in the original photo? Or, was the WB close and the blue hue was removed in lightroom which then made the second photo look so much better? I'm just now beginning to use PP on RAW pics, so I'm just curious as to which process gave the most benefit.

^i'm curious too - and the pics in the first post are just question marks

Excuse my ignorance, But i'm fairly new to RAW files and know nothing, Nor do I know what lightroom is, I'm guessing its like a photoshop?


What does shooting in RAW actually mean, Never used it personally, and what benefits are there when it comes to editing? If there are any links about that you know of, could you link me please?

Picture is fantastic

In a very quick nutshell, RAW gives you much more data to work with when processing your pictures. You can select RAW as an option just like you can choose large jpeg or medium jpeg under the menu in your camera.

Right now Lightroom 3 beta is available free to anyone that fills out their information on the adobe site and you will be able to use it for several more months before the beta is over. It is an amazing program once you have watched a few tutorials to help you understand the interface.

that's amazing!

Wow. I've found that working with the custom WB in LR on performance (ie stage lit) shots does some amazing things, but never occurred to me to tweak the luminance of one colour too! Great example above

The same can be done using Aperture as long as you are shooting in the "full" RAW format (not sRAW etc).

I tried following the OPs steps with a similar photo which was underexposed and red channels blown out and it worked to the same effect. I'm going to have to go back and review all my old shots to see which I can still actually use!

No need for B&W high contrast conversions anymore

Duhphotoman wrote in post #8976611
Cant believe I just found this thread I'm just curious as to why the WB was so far off in the original photo? Or, was the WB close and the blue hue was removed in lightroom which then made the second photo look so much better? I'm just now beginning to use PP on RAW pics, so I'm just curious as to which process gave the most benefit.

I'll guess that it was simply the stage lighting - it it was lit up with blue gels, it would look... blue! Our eyes/brains will compensate for it, but the camera doesn't "understand" it.

It's almost impossible to establish a "neutral" WB in most stage conditions, where the lighting can frequently change very quickly without time to adjust; most of the time, it's easier to shoot either awb or tungsten and then reassess it and tweak it in post. The OP's technique is a wonderful way of working with one strong colour - I'm so glad I saw this thread so I can add that to my list of "fixes"!

Unfortunately, the domain www.shesgotthepic.com does not exist anymore, so photos are not shown at the beginning of this thread. It made me interested . So if Shesgotthepic or other members got the photos, would you please upload them here?

shesgotthepic wrote in post #3177256
Someone told me "remember Che Guevarra" and told me the story about the classic picture of Che.

That was one reason to stop deleting images.

Anotherone I just discovered working in Lightroom using custom whitebalance and going through my pictures of Styx last week.

The original comes first.

Then I upped the luminance on blue, grabbed the picker, clicked at the whitest spot I found and the result is the second image.

I've got loads of images like that, pin sharp that I've grayscaled as they were crap in color. I really need to spend a couple of days when I don't have a mild stubborn migraine rolling around in my head and just LEARN!

/She