| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2011 07:04:04 PM · #26 |
Interesting thread. I got more seriously into photography 2 years ago, and really seriously 6 months ago (since joining DPC). It is a hobby/obsession so no tax breaks and I have to make choices. So far the cost of photographic equipment was much higher than the software. The 70-200mm lens alone cost more than all software combined!
I bought this year CS5, NIK and Topaz plugins. I already had Photomatix and LR3. I bought them all with 30-80% discounts on super specials using Promo Codes (some found here, thanks!) And I bought full suites. I think I paid less for NIK suite than the standard price of Silver Efex. I am still learning to use them, especially CS5 takes time to learn but I am already using most of NIKs plugins. I am yet to start using Topaz. My current standard workflow is:
1. LR3 for all Camera RAW equivalent adjustments and photo management
2. Photomatix - for HDR and single image tonemapping. I found it great in getting out the colors I did not know existed in the RAW image
3. Viveza - it is great for detail and color refinement
4. LR3 - final adjustments and export
I also use Silver Efex a lot for non-DPC projects. I found Color Efex useful sometimes, and NIKs HDR Efex but I prefer Photomatix for single image tonemapping. I got Topaz mainly for De-Noise as I have read it is great but luckily didn't take many noisy photos lately so have not used it much.
The hidden cost is computer hardware. I had to upgrade my desktop and soon will have to upgrade my laptop. |
|
|
|
06/06/2011 08:46:03 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That WOULD be interesting. Awesome list of your steps. That's something to really sink my teeth into. Some things I would never, ever think to do. Burn in lighten mode? Explain that to me. |
I don't think I have the layered psd for that photo any more but it probably should have said multiply mode. |
Can I ask another stupid question? How do you burn with multiply mode? It doesn't seem to be a preset for burn and if you set the layer you are burning to multiply, the entire image is burned. I thought about using the brush to reveal the layer with a mask, but that wouldn't hit midtones in specific.
Help? |
|
|
|
06/06/2011 09:08:59 PM · #28 |
Empty layer with 50% gray mask.
ETA: PM your e-mail and I will send the action.
Message edited by author 2011-06-06 21:16:41. |
|
|
|
06/06/2011 09:17:37 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
I've always been intrigued by Nik's viveza product and wonder why I've never really seen anyone talk about it here. That looks like a massive time-saver, and perfect for controlling exposure values and highlights/focal points without time-consuming layers work or goofy HDR results.
Of course I need a hardware upgrade, and then a OS upgrade, and then an applications upgrade before I can try it. So I'm a bit stuck with my goofy HDR at the moment. |
I use Viveza for certain things, and it is very quick and useful. Same with Color Efex Pro and Silver Efex. But then, I got Viveza and CEP bundled for free with something else I bought. Don't recall where Viveza came from, but CEP came with my tablet, as well as a PS elements, which I never used. So, there are SOME ways that these costs can be mitigated.
The biggest reason I use Nik products in place of something else is the fact that I don't have to mask anything, which is a huge time saver (and I do use Topaz Remask when I have to... which speeds things up itself). I don't tend to use hyper complex editing, and many of the ways I do things is odd because it's sorta been cobbled together as the need arose. |
|
|
|
06/06/2011 09:41:16 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That WOULD be interesting. Awesome list of your steps. That's something to really sink my teeth into. Some things I would never, ever think to do. Burn in lighten mode? Explain that to me. |
I don't think I have the layered psd for that photo any more but it probably should have said multiply mode. |
Can I ask another stupid question? How do you burn with multiply mode? It doesn't seem to be a preset for burn and if you set the layer you are burning to multiply, the entire image is burned. I thought about using the brush to reveal the layer with a mask, but that wouldn't hit midtones in specific.
Help? |
I probably just did that as a light burn (it was only 7% opacity) to deal with the particular image. I normally use curves in lighten and multiply modes for dodging and burning. See  mgarsteck's video tutorial in which he walks throught the process. In addition to some freehand masking I also do highlight, midtone and shadow selections via ctrl+alt+5 (use 2, 3 or 4 for increased selections) or ctrl+tilde if you are using CS4 or older. You can also keep applying the shortcut to grab more and more of the highlights. So for example, if you hit ctrl+alt+2 several times and then invert then you'll have the shadows highlighted, which you can then use to subtract from a highlights selection to get a midtones selection (or something close enough). It's better if you have a photo that is well exposed for both the shadows and highlights. In mgarsteck video he is using a photo that is much darker than what I would normally use for this process. I prefer to expose to the right and start with photos that have a lot of detail in the shadows especially in the blue channel. It helps with keeping the noise down which allows for more pushing in post.
Message edited by author 2011-06-06 21:43:45. |
|
|
|
06/06/2011 11:37:34 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have never, not even once, used Topaz. Am I a fool? |
Hmm... This calls for a 'DrAchoo - Genius or Fool?' thread. |
I've already made up my mind!
|
|
|
|
06/07/2011 02:10:28 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Not that it was ever cheap, but digital has brought the cost within reach of many more people. Film...medium format...etc. etc., it all added up and kept many people from being able to participate.
But now I've noticed that many elite photographers are relying more and more on processing packages like Nik and others which are not cheap. Photoshop alone (already expensive) seems to be no longer enough to reach the level of a site like 1x.com. I wonder if others feel the same way?
Just wanted to have the discussion of the day. |
When I was a kid, I could send my Brownie film out to be developed and printed. Yep, I'm an old fart, and proud of it. Later in life I could send my Instamatic film out to be processed and printed. Still later my SLR film ... By today's standards, this was fantastically expensive. If you want spectacular results today, you should expect a-bit-less-than-spectacular cost for you digital darkroom. Photoshop; OnOne; Nik ... and the hits just keep on coming. Spend the fcuk'ing (sic) money to deliver your art "exactly" as you imagine it. It's cheap by comparison ... this month's lattes will cover it!
Shish! |
|
|
|
06/07/2011 05:48:36 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Not that it was ever cheap, but digital has brought the cost within reach of many more people. Film...medium format...etc. etc., it all added up and kept many people from being able to participate.
But now I've noticed that many elite photographers are relying more and more on processing packages like Nik and others which are not cheap. Photoshop alone (already expensive) seems to be no longer enough to reach the level of a site like 1x.com. I wonder if others feel the same way?
Just wanted to have the discussion of the day. |
When I was a kid, I could send my Brownie film out to be developed and printed. Yep, I'm an old fart, and proud of it. Later in life I could send my Instamatic film out to be processed and printed. Still later my SLR film ... By today's standards, this was fantastically expensive. If you want spectacular results today, you should expect a-bit-less-than-spectacular cost for you digital darkroom. Photoshop; OnOne; Nik ... and the hits just keep on coming. Spend the fcuk'ing (sic) money to deliver your art "exactly" as you imagine it. It's cheap by comparison ... this month's lattes will cover it!
Shish! |
I like you take on this, it is lovely :) |
|
|
|
06/07/2011 06:03:02 AM · #34 |
| I now only use lightroom and Nik Software's stuff. I've never done any expert editing and quit frankly don't really want to, i hate it when i have to spend more than half an hour with an image, i already waste enough time in front of this box as it is. |
|
|
|
06/07/2011 10:30:49 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Not that it was ever cheap, but digital has brought the cost within reach of many more people. Film...medium format...etc. etc., it all added up and kept many people from being able to participate.
But now I've noticed that many elite photographers are relying more and more on processing packages like Nik and others which are not cheap. Photoshop alone (already expensive) seems to be no longer enough to reach the level of a site like 1x.com. I wonder if others feel the same way?
Just wanted to have the discussion of the day. |
When I was a kid, I could send my Brownie film out to be developed and printed. Yep, I'm an old fart, and proud of it. Later in life I could send my Instamatic film out to be processed and printed. Still later my SLR film ... By today's standards, this was fantastically expensive. If you want spectacular results today, you should expect a-bit-less-than-spectacular cost for you digital darkroom. Photoshop; OnOne; Nik ... and the hits just keep on coming. Spend the fcuk'ing (sic) money to deliver your art "exactly" as you imagine it. It's cheap by comparison ... this month's lattes will cover it!
Shish! |
Anyone want to talk about $$$ when shooting slides? Try it once and see how cheap digital really is on the capture & process end :-) I still believe people underestimate the cost of the long term storage for digital cause we are all maniacs compared to how many shots we all took with film but capture & process no real question [shite... I had one roll of 36 slides with images from London, Bangkok & Sydney :-).... now I would have a few TB from each :-)] |
|
|
|
06/07/2011 10:40:13 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Not that it was ever cheap, but digital has brought the cost within reach of many more people. Film...medium format...etc. etc., it all added up and kept many people from being able to participate.
But now I've noticed that many elite photographers are relying more and more on processing packages like Nik and others which are not cheap. Photoshop alone (already expensive) seems to be no longer enough to reach the level of a site like 1x.com. I wonder if others feel the same way?
Just wanted to have the discussion of the day. |
When I was a kid, I could send my Brownie film out to be developed and printed. Yep, I'm an old fart, and proud of it. Later in life I could send my Instamatic film out to be processed and printed. Still later my SLR film ... By today's standards, this was fantastically expensive. If you want spectacular results today, you should expect a-bit-less-than-spectacular cost for you digital darkroom. Photoshop; OnOne; Nik ... and the hits just keep on coming. Spend the fcuk'ing (sic) money to deliver your art "exactly" as you imagine it. It's cheap by comparison ... this month's lattes will cover it!
Shish! |
Anyone want to talk about $$$ when shooting slides? Try it once and see how cheap digital really is on the capture & process end :-) I still believe people underestimate the cost of the long term storage for digital cause we are all maniacs compared to how many shots we all took with film but capture & process no real question [shite... I had one roll of 36 slides with images from London, Bangkok & Sydney :-).... now I would have a few TB from each :-)] |
When I worked commercially, it was nothing for a small catalog shoot to have exposed 3-400 36 exposure rolls of Ektachrome at the end of the job. Multiply that but ~$8 per roll for the film and another $8 for the processing (more if you had test snips done) and it's easy to see how for one job, the media costs alone could be thousands of dollars.
On a per shot basis though, shooting 8x10 chromes was the most expensive. |
|
|
|
06/07/2011 12:06:14 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
If you want spectacular results today, you should expect a-bit-less-than-spectacular cost for you digital darkroom. Photoshop; OnOne; Nik ... and the hits just keep on coming. Spend the fcuk'ing (sic) money to deliver your art "exactly" as you imagine it. It's cheap by comparison ... this month's lattes will cover it!
Shish! |
I really have to disagree. Dollars invested in software does not equate to quality of output. ther *are* some very valuable tools, and sometimes they cost significant money. No one debates that Ps and Lr (or Aperture) are great tools, but they are expensive. Bottom line is, they provide functionality that justifies their cost.
Where I don't see justification is in many of these third-party plug-ins that really don't add functionality, just make it easy. Not that easy is all bad, but it *is* bad when it becomes a crutch. It does so when we don't understand what the software is doing, only how to move the sliders. If the tool goes away, you're screwed, you don't know how to do it with the basic Ps tools.
Bottom line, it's not necessary to rely on a boatload of third-party add-ins, if we take the time to master the basic tools. I see people that have been using Ps for years and don't understand Curves.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2011 02:14:06 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I really have to disagree. Dollars invested in software does not equate to quality of output. ther *are* some very valuable tools, and sometimes they cost significant money. No one debates that Ps and Lr (or Aperture) are great tools, but they are expensive. Bottom line is, they provide functionality that justifies their cost.
Where I don't see justification is in many of these third-party plug-ins that really don't add functionality, just make it easy. Not that easy is all bad, but it *is* bad when it becomes a crutch. It does so when we don't understand what the software is doing, only how to move the sliders. If the tool goes away, you're screwed, you don't know how to do it with the basic Ps tools.
Bottom line, it's not necessary to rely on a boatload of third-party add-ins, if we take the time to master the basic tools. I see people that have been using Ps for years and don't understand Curves. |
One interesting thought is if it becomes easier and that leads to more professionals using them does that specific look become de rigueur? A tool with less options is going to lead to a more similar result when different people use it compared to a tool with more options like photoshop. Perhaps the decreased options funnel people toward similar end products which then hits a tipping point and now such results are expected.
Just an interesting thought. I'm having some fun with Topaz BTW, and the price is actually much less than I thought it was. I'll probably pick it up at the end of the trial. |
|
|
|
06/07/2011 02:24:54 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I really have to disagree. Dollars invested in software does not equate to quality of output. ther *are* some very valuable tools, and sometimes they cost significant money. No one debates that Ps and Lr (or Aperture) are great tools, but they are expensive. Bottom line is, they provide functionality that justifies their cost.
Where I don't see justification is in many of these third-party plug-ins that really don't add functionality, just make it easy. Not that easy is all bad, but it *is* bad when it becomes a crutch. It does so when we don't understand what the software is doing, only how to move the sliders. If the tool goes away, you're screwed, you don't know how to do it with the basic Ps tools.
Bottom line, it's not necessary to rely on a boatload of third-party add-ins, if we take the time to master the basic tools. I see people that have been using Ps for years and don't understand Curves. |
One interesting thought is if it becomes easier and that leads to more professionals using them does that specific look become de rigueur? A tool with less options is going to lead to a more similar result when different people use it compared to a tool with more options like photoshop. Perhaps the decreased options funnel people toward similar end products which then hits a tipping point and now such results are expected.
Just an interesting thought. I'm having some fun with Topaz BTW, and the price is actually much less than I thought it was. I'll probably pick it up at the end of the trial. |
Make sure you check for coupon codes first, there are many floating out there. As much as 30% off. |
|
|
|
06/07/2011 02:48:56 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I see people that have been using Ps for years and don't understand Curves. |
I've been using PS since version 2.0 -- Curves are about ALL I understand ... or use ... ;-)
Really, if you can understand Curves, the UnSharp Mask filter, and making/saving masks/selections, you can do probably 90% of what any of these plug-in suites do. And if you can learn to record Actions, you can create your own "plug-ins" (or the near-equivalent). |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 01:54:36 PM EDT.
