If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Paul Rubin wrote:
"Wayne J. Cosshall" writes: I love adjustment layers too. It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art photographers (who may be professional) often revisit old images as their 'vision' changes. Could someone explain what adjustment layers are? If you want to edit non destructively, why not just make a copy of the original file before starting to edit? It allows you to make successive adjustments and then go back and change underlying adjustments without having to redo later ones. Eg. apply colour filters and then desaturate. You can change the hue and density of the colour filter and see the effects on the monochrome image. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Hi Doug!
Could you tell how did you stitch the high resolution panoramic shots? You wrote: "I tried Hugin on some panoramas I took", what's that? Some PS plug-in? Just D. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Richard Polhill wrote: Paul Rubin wrote: "Wayne J. Cosshall" writes: I love adjustment layers too. It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art photographers (who may be professional) often revisit old images as their 'vision' changes. Could someone explain what adjustment layers are? If you want to edit non destructively, why not just make a copy of the original file before starting to edit? It allows you to make successive adjustments and then go back and change underlying adjustments without having to redo later ones. Eg. apply colour filters and then desaturate. You can change the hue and density of the colour filter and see the effects on the monochrome image. Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate it as desired, then Save as a TIF so that I don't lose anything by compressing it more, and so that the original remains untouched. You aren't actually operating on your original file when you edit; you are just using the copy of it that you imported into Photoshop. No destoying is going on, unless you just hit "Save" and it replaces your camera original. Gary Eickmeier |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Richard Polhill wrote: Paul Rubin wrote: "Wayne J. Cosshall" writes: I love adjustment layers too. It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art photographers (who may be professional) often revisit old images as their 'vision' changes. Could someone explain what adjustment layers are? If you want to edit non destructively, why not just make a copy of the original file before starting to edit? It allows you to make successive adjustments and then go back and change underlying adjustments without having to redo later ones. Eg. apply colour filters and then desaturate. You can change the hue and density of the colour filter and see the effects on the monochrome image. Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate it as desired, then Save as a TIF so that I don't lose anything by compressing it more, and so that the original remains untouched. You aren't actually operating on your original file when you edit; you are just using the copy of it that you imported into Photoshop. No destoying is going on, unless you just hit "Save" and it replaces your camera original. However, if you want to change any of your choices, you have to go back to the camera original and do everything over from the beginning; you can't change just one curves adjustment applied via a mask to part of the picture -- because you've actually changed the pixels in the image. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
gimp has adjustment layers as well... As of what version? I don't remember finding them, but I don't actually *use* Gimp, I just try to check in now and then to avoid being totally ignorant (like this, but oh well). the one I have is 2.2 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Just D wrote:
Hi Doug! Could you tell how did you stitch the high resolution panoramic shots? You wrote: "I tried Hugin on some panoramas I took", what's that? Some PS plug-in? Err. Try googling "hugin". BugBear |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:43:57 -0500, Gary Eickmeier
wrote: Sounds like you are a fast learner. And experienced photographer. Yes, indeed. Your roving ISO procedure is new. Anyone else do this? I think we all end up checking our LCD after pictures are taken, to reassure ourselves that the highlights haven't been blown out and the color is right. No miracle procedures on light reading, even with digital. I think the ideal would be live preview, such as the R1 Sony and the Oly 330. With my 30D, I usually set the ISO to 200, and let it go from there, as much as possible. For my use, ISO 200 is as noise-free as 100, and I gain a shutter speed. Works for me. Gary Eickmeier -- Jesse Jackson said Thursday it's all but certain he will endorse Barack Obama for president. Let the bidding begin. Barack Obama has already offered ten million dollars and a cabinet post if he will endorse Hillary Clinton instead. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Gary Eickmeier wrote: Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate it as desired, then Save as a TIF so that I don't lose anything by compressing it more, and so that the original remains untouched. You aren't actually operating on your original file when you edit; you are just using the copy of it that you imported into Photoshop. No destoying is going on, unless you just hit "Save" and it replaces your camera original. However, if you want to change any of your choices, you have to go back to the camera original and do everything over from the beginning; you can't change just one curves adjustment applied via a mask to part of the picture -- because you've actually changed the pixels in the image. Sure, but... my editing isn't usually all that extensive. I just do it, and save my good image as a TIF, and I'm done with it. You ever go thru 300 wedding shots at once? Gary Eickmeier |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Gary Eickmeier wrote: Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate it as desired, then Save as a TIF so that I don't lose anything by compressing it more, and so that the original remains untouched. You aren't actually operating on your original file when you edit; you are just using the copy of it that you imported into Photoshop. No destoying is going on, unless you just hit "Save" and it replaces your camera original. However, if you want to change any of your choices, you have to go back to the camera original and do everything over from the beginning; you can't change just one curves adjustment applied via a mask to part of the picture -- because you've actually changed the pixels in the image. Sure, but... my editing isn't usually all that extensive. I just do it, and save my good image as a TIF, and I'm done with it. You ever go thru 300 wedding shots at once? Yes, last month I think it was. (One of four weddings I've done in the last 10 years, but yes.) I've said at considerable length in a number of posts that the wort of workflow a photographer needs/wants depends among other things on the kind of work they're doing, and cited wedding photographers as people likely to need to work with high volumes and need to not spend much time on individual pictures. So it doesn't surprise me that you don't -- for wedding pictures. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Yes, last month I think it was. (One of four weddings I've done in the last 10 years, but yes.) I've said at considerable length in a number of posts that the wort of workflow a photographer needs/wants depends among other things on the kind of work they're doing, and cited wedding photographers as people likely to need to work with high volumes and need to not spend much time on individual pictures. So it doesn't surprise me that you don't -- for wedding pictures. Amen, bro. Which brings up a great question: I've been wondering about the practicality of just sending the lab my camera files (JPEGs) and letting them sort out the corrections - just like we used to do with film. That would really simplify our lives. Have you ever thought about it? Gary Eickmeier |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My latest musings about photography | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital Photography | 56 | February 8th 07 01:08 AM |
More RAW musings and question on ACR vs. DPP | W | Digital Photography | 2 | October 18th 06 12:10 AM |
A few of my latest photos | DrAle | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | May 29th 06 08:26 PM |
Musings about Photography as an Art | Mike | In The Darkroom | 40 | February 14th 06 09:55 PM |
Musings on washing fiber-based prints | David Nebenzahl | In The Darkroom | 117 | March 11th 05 11:33 AM |