| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/05/2013 10:55:09 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by h2:
Originally posted by Tiberius:
But I am still curios what others use. I would like for example to know how  jagar gets his BWs |
AFAIK NikSilverEfex (but what he does with it is beyond my knowledge) |
He uses Nik Silver Efex Pro, and he uses Nik Color Efex Pro to put some "glamour glow" (just a little bit) in the B/W image. |
I assumed he just used the Jagar preset? Surely it will be included in the next release.
I've always wanted the Nik suite but couldn't manage the price. Still can't. But what is the difference between the version for Lightroom and the version for PS? Ability to work with layers, I'd imagine, but the control points and all that should work the same, no? I guess what I'm asking is... do you use the Nik software in concert with the tools of the other applications? Or do you perform Nik-specific actions with Nik and then work separately with those results in PS? |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 11:01:15 AM · #27 |
nik isn't a raw editor or a standalone program, its a plug in so it requires some sort of processing engine to run on top of. it needs something to take its modification and get them to a usable format.
i have no idea how the LR version work, but i imagine it exports the image, modifies it and then re imports to lightroom. similar to how you can export from LR to Photoshop and then back. losing the ability to modify edit before that point.
Message edited by author 2013-03-05 11:01:48. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 11:02:02 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
I assumed he just used the Jagar preset? Surely it will be included in the next release. |
Curiously, he doesn't even USE presets in SEP2, he just goes in and pushes sliders. Amusingly enough, I asked him once if he could send me the preset he uses for a starting point and he said he'd been too lazy to create one, basically. He described to me what he generally does and had ME make the preset for HIM... Whether he uses it I don't know. But in any case I wouldn't feel right sharing it, that would be up to him...
Originally posted by bohemka:
I've always wanted the Nik suite but couldn't manage the price. Still can't. But what is the difference between the version for Lightroom and the version for PS? Ability to work with layers, I'd imagine, but the control points and all that should work the same, no? I guess what I'm asking is... do you use the Nik software in concert with the tools of the other applications? Or do you perform Nik-specific actions with Nik and then work separately with those results in PS? |
I use Nik as a plugin with CS6, so I open in PS and use the Nik processes as part of a conventional workflow. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 11:14:06 AM · #29 |
I use NIK with Photoshop mostly.
Nik basically runs as a "Filter" add on. Once you select what you want, say SilverEfex, it takes you into an editing GUI. Once done, you click SAVE, and it generates a LAYER in Photoshop.
You can also enable a Smart Object, so you can save what you are working on and then go back in the filter where you left off. I do this regularly since I always go back to my photos at one point or another wanting to change it. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 11:17:25 AM · #30 |
Thanks for the explanation on Nik. Makes sense.
Regarding Jagar and presets, of course I was kidding. I would never expect him to use a preset, nor share exactly what he's done, per the fine print in his deal with the devil. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 11:34:13 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Thanks for the explanation on Nik. Makes sense.
Regarding Jagar and presets, of course I was kidding. I would never expect him to use a preset, nor share exactly what he's done, per the fine print in his deal with the devil. |
Hey, hey! Presets are GOOD! Most of us use 'em! We create our own presets that suit our workflow. Fantastic labor savers. A preset gives you a starting point for a given class of image. I have presets for backlighting, for example, that I use as a starting point whenever I shoot into the sun.
The odd thing about Jagar was that he hadn't created one :-) I tell ya, the man's a Luddite! Jejeje... |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 02:53:43 PM · #32 |
In This How-To I show how I went from this  to this  using only Curves Adjustment Layers with masks in Photoshop 5.0 (the 1998 version, not CS).
I am more of a Luddlite� than jagar ... |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 03:34:43 AM · #33 |
| i tried making a preset in SilverEfex but it only worked for that one image, then i quit. I always start from scratch now. though i've tried using that one I've heard you talk about, wet rocks maybe? to little avail. though there is so much potential in that program it's fun just to process them differently... |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 06:48:48 AM · #34 |
| Lightroom for me, Photoshop when i need to actual composites or artistic pieces that i cant do in LR. And wouldnt want to do in LR anyway. and Make my own presets in LR for my camera's adjustments to make processing lots of photos that much easier. without disturbing the original Photos. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 06:59:25 AM · #35 |
color efex and silver efex on almost everything.
silver efex on luminosity blends. Color efex on everything -- especially on B&Ws.
Very nice tool. Many things can be done by hand in photoshop, but with a lot more work. However, I haven't quite figured out how to do glamor glow or the sunlight presets without the NIK products.
When I tried the 30 day free trial of color efex, I wasn't impressed, and couldn't figure out why anyone would bother, and then I was on a DPL team with Christophe, and he showed me some of the wonders of color efex. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 07:12:40 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
color efex and silver efex on almost everything.
silver efex on luminosity blends. Color efex on everything -- especially on B&Ws.
Very nice tool. Many things can be done by hand in photoshop, but with a lot more work. However, I haven't quite figured out how to do glamor glow or the sunlight presets without the NIK products.
When I tried the 30 day free trial of color efex, I wasn't impressed, and couldn't figure out why anyone would bother, and then I was on a DPL team with Christophe, and he showed me some of the wonders of color efex. |
very interesting on hearing how many people here are using plugins for LR to localise one or more points in a photo to PP anything but global subtleties... i have to wonder how many come dangerously close to contravening the rules set using such things as color efex and silver efex... |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 07:25:17 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
color efex and silver efex on almost everything.
silver efex on luminosity blends. Color efex on everything -- especially on B&Ws.
Very nice tool. Many things can be done by hand in photoshop, but with a lot more work. However, I haven't quite figured out how to do glamor glow or the sunlight presets without the NIK products.
When I tried the 30 day free trial of color efex, I wasn't impressed, and couldn't figure out why anyone would bother, and then I was on a DPL team with Christophe, and he showed me some of the wonders of color efex. |
I do Viveza on all colored images and Silver Efex on B&W. As much as I mess around with Color Efex, I just don't get it. I rarely get something out of it that I like. Guess I don't know how to really use its power.
Can you explain using a B&W image for a luminosity layer? |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 07:49:23 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Originally posted by vawendy:
color efex and silver efex on almost everything.
silver efex on luminosity blends. Color efex on everything -- especially on B&Ws.
Very nice tool. Many things can be done by hand in photoshop, but with a lot more work. However, I haven't quite figured out how to do glamor glow or the sunlight presets without the NIK products.
When I tried the 30 day free trial of color efex, I wasn't impressed, and couldn't figure out why anyone would bother, and then I was on a DPL team with Christophe, and he showed me some of the wonders of color efex. |
very interesting on hearing how many people here are using plugins for LR to localise one or more points in a photo to PP anything but global subtleties... i have to wonder how many come dangerously close to contravening the rules set using such things as color efex and silver efex... |
I don't know about others -- but I use the tools to bring out what I can from the photos. I use silver efex on luminosity to bring out the details on the nature shots. I find that many times natural lighting is quite harsh and the shadows are too deep and the highlights are too harsh. I use the fine arts high key to lighten the shadows and darken the highlights and on luminosity layer it just brings everything into a little more even tones.
I use color efex to bring out the richness in the photos. Many times things look flat, and color efex is wonderful for making things deep and vibrant.
I don't want to change my photo, I want it to represent what my eye saw, but my camera didn't catch.
original:
edited:
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 07:55:23. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 08:01:27 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
Originally posted by vawendy:
color efex and silver efex on almost everything.
silver efex on luminosity blends. Color efex on everything -- especially on B&Ws.
Very nice tool. Many things can be done by hand in photoshop, but with a lot more work. However, I haven't quite figured out how to do glamor glow or the sunlight presets without the NIK products.
When I tried the 30 day free trial of color efex, I wasn't impressed, and couldn't figure out why anyone would bother, and then I was on a DPL team with Christophe, and he showed me some of the wonders of color efex. |
I do Viveza on all colored images and Silver Efex on B&W. As much as I mess around with Color Efex, I just don't get it. I rarely get something out of it that I like. Guess I don't know how to really use its power.
Can you explain using a B&W image for a luminosity layer? |
Your best bet is to open an image in PS and add a B&W layer and set that on luminosity. Now move the sliders around and watch what happens, it is a truly excellent editing step. I of course prefer using Silver Efex Pro and set that to luminosity but doing it in PS will let you see what it does better/ |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 08:02:48 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
Originally posted by vawendy:
color efex and silver efex on almost everything.
silver efex on luminosity blends. Color efex on everything -- especially on B&Ws.
Very nice tool. Many things can be done by hand in photoshop, but with a lot more work. However, I haven't quite figured out how to do glamor glow or the sunlight presets without the NIK products.
When I tried the 30 day free trial of color efex, I wasn't impressed, and couldn't figure out why anyone would bother, and then I was on a DPL team with Christophe, and he showed me some of the wonders of color efex. |
I do Viveza on all colored images and Silver Efex on B&W. As much as I mess around with Color Efex, I just don't get it. I rarely get something out of it that I like. Guess I don't know how to really use its power.
Can you explain using a B&W image for a luminosity layer? |
Here's an example from the processing of the osprey shot. Everything was a bit too flat:
so I went into SEP and found something that had more depth to it:
and set the layer to luminosity blend and the opacity to about 52%
which gave me more contrast and richer tones
|
|
|
|
03/06/2013 08:02:54 AM · #41 |
| Thanks Wendy. Why would you use Color Efex on a B&W image? SEP ia quite powerful as is, what can CEP do that SEP can't? |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 08:07:38 AM · #42 |
Mostly for glamor glow -- it's pretty cool on b&ws. Here's an little over the top example:
 |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 08:08:14 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I don't know about others -- but I use the tools to bring out what I can from the photos. I use silver efex on luminosity to bring out the details on the nature shots. I find that many times natural lighting is quite harsh and the shadows are too deep and the highlights are too harsh. I use the fine arts high key to lighten the shadows and darken the highlights and on luminosity layer it just brings everything into a little more even tones.
I use color efex to bring out the richness in the photos. Many times things look flat, and color efex is wonderful for making things deep and vibrant.
I don't want to change my photo, I want it to represent what my eye saw, but my camera didn't catch. |
thats interesting point that many would probably state, i just want to question the nature of the things your saying there, its not to cause offence or anything, just think its a matter of debate regardless of the views.
1 the image you took and the image you PP has changed. even applying any type of in built camera filter or external filter is changing it. so its impossible to say what your eye and the camera saw are two different things as a matter of the PP, because a photo is a representation of the object but as to how close it comes is a matter of the viewers perception and not actual, your looking at an image that you setup the camera to take, regardless of your skill level with it you just changed that in PP.
2. the PP you chose may not be anywhere close to what your eye saw, one because our perception v the camera etc are all different, you choosing what you want to see not what you actually saw. so thats a little bit of debatable difference on PP.
3. richness or value in colour is a perception based on that very thing. people see different things, pumping up the value (saturation) etc is a a matter of element & principles not in actual reality of what you saw or what the same two people see... your applying your perception to the photo.
3. the photo is a flat medium that represents the object it not a realistic hologram that changes over time so it will never be that, and photos tend to be richer in colour than reality, especially in digital than even film used to be and thats because of the whole PP thing... |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 08:09:52 AM · #44 |
Very interesting. I imagine you could achieve that same effect in SEP with control points....and time.
I've just learned two useful tricks today. Thank you. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 08:13:07 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Mostly for glamor glow -- it's pretty cool on b&ws. Here's an little over the top example:
|
both of those techniques are effectively a form of single image HDR but not as harsh or surreal as the multiple photo HDR but theyre just using a different name... lol |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 08:27:07 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I don't know about others -- but I use the tools to bring out what I can from the photos. I use silver efex on luminosity to bring out the details on the nature shots. I find that many times natural lighting is quite harsh and the shadows are too deep and the highlights are too harsh. I use the fine arts high key to lighten the shadows and darken the highlights and on luminosity layer it just brings everything into a little more even tones.
I use color efex to bring out the richness in the photos. Many times things look flat, and color efex is wonderful for making things deep and vibrant.
I don't want to change my photo, I want it to represent what my eye saw, but my camera didn't catch. |
thats interesting point that many would probably state, i just want to question the nature of the things your saying there, its not to cause offence or anything, just think its a matter of debate regardless of the views.
1 the image you took and the image you PP has changed. even applying any type of in built camera filter or external filter is changing it. so its impossible to say what your eye and the camera saw are two different things as a matter of the PP, because a photo is a representation of the object but as to how close it comes is a matter of the viewers perception and not actual, your looking at an image that you setup the camera to take, regardless of your skill level with it you just changed that in PP.
2. the PP you chose may not be anywhere close to what your eye saw, one because our perception v the camera etc are all different, you choosing what you want to see not what you actually saw. so thats a little bit of debatable difference on PP.
3. richness or value in colour is a perception based on that very thing. people see different things, pumping up the value (saturation) etc is a a matter of element & principles not in actual reality of what you saw or what the same two people see... your applying your perception to the photo.
3. the photo is a flat medium that represents the object it not a realistic hologram that changes over time so it will never be that, and photos tend to be richer in colour than reality, especially in digital than even film used to be and thats because of the whole PP thing... |
Im confused as to what your point is. Of course we are creating our perception of the scene. Isn't that they point of photography? And why would we ever leave it straight from the camera? Just because there are no darkrooms anymore, should we stop processing our photos?
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 08:43:54. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 08:53:58 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by mikeee:
Ooh, here's an idea. If I give somebody one of my pics from a previous challenge would they PP it in one of these packages so I can see what the difference actually is? I am currently limited to GIMP 2.8 (through a combination of tghtness and lack of better information). |
Did you get some more takers? I only saw one in the thread (Kevin). I'd be happy to play, probably just using the presets as they are but to give you an idea of some of the filters. I have Topaz Adjust and the Nik filters. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 08:59:53 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Im confused as to what your point is. Of course we are creating our perception of the scene. Isn't that they point of photography? And why would we ever leave it straight from the camera? Just because there are no darkrooms anymore, should we stop processing our photos? |
no thats cool totally get what your saying, and glad your thinking about it. Well theres a difference to processing the film the way it was shot and the post processing of say colour and or colouring etc... admittedly what your saying is not completely wrong, its a difference to what is shot intended and what is ultimately finally on paper or in a digital reproduction.
theres controlling the image in the camera and controlling the output based on that. your eye doesnt see all the same colours as the camera in fact, the eye and more so in women is approximately 65,000 values of colour whereas modern technology can record well over in excess of that in value, plus cameras with filters alone can record images at frequencies that the human eye cant, as well as adjusting the properties of the light coming at it that we cant filter out with visual aids like sun glases and the like, some people are coloured blind and some are more sensative to different colour blends etc. so your perception of the scene is specific to you, it may have a more or less mutually enjoyable mass apeeal, but it doesnt mean your capturing it as it was if you follow. you may perceive you have, but your memory of it and the actual reality and how you set te camera up in order to do that will all be different. i think what your talking about is an ideal that you PP into your images that you prefer not what the camera is or could capture. hope that makes sense.
so rather than allowing a camera to function and use it in the way it was designed and the reason we use them is being eroded from the art of the medium to the digital perfection based on your ideal of what you perceive from memory its richer and larger than the original because otherewise it seems bland compared to images that have been PP beyond what the reality was. the camera in any case does pick up more than the eye sees, but your memory and perception of the event is coloured too... does that help?
i just think its something people are moving away from just because all around us is marketed perfection and glamourisation of everything and so therefore it also starts to creep into our own photos not because they are not what we saw but because it doesnt live upto expectation or in some cases because we are lazier than we care to admit in trying to capture it in camera more than PP... yeah?
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 09:05:19. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 09:02:13 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by nam:
Originally posted by mikeee:
Ooh, here's an idea. If I give somebody one of my pics from a previous challenge would they PP it in one of these packages so I can see what the difference actually is? I am currently limited to GIMP 2.8 (through a combination of tghtness and lack of better information). |
Did you get some more takers? I only saw one in the thread (Kevin). I'd be happy to play, probably just using the presets as they are but to give you an idea of some of the filters. I have Topaz Adjust and the Nik filters. |
I missed this -- yes -- send one my way and I'll take a shot at it. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 09:12:09 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Im confused as to what your point is. Of course we are creating our perception of the scene. Isn't that they point of photography? And why would we ever leave it straight from the camera? Just because there are no darkrooms anymore, should we stop processing our photos? |
no thats cool totally get what your saying, and glad your thinking about it. Well theres a difference to processing the film the way it was shot and the post processing of say colour and or colouring etc... admittedly what your saying is not completely wrong, its a difference to what is shot intended and what is ultimately finally on paper or in a digital reproduction.
theres controlling the image in the camera and controlling the output based on that. your eye doesnt see all the same colours as the camera in fact, the eye and more so in women is approximately 65,000 values of colour whereas modern technology can record well over in excess of that in value, plus cameras with filters alone can record images at frequencies that the human eye cant, as well as adjusting the properties of the light coming at it that we cant filter out with visual aids like sun glases and the like, some people are coloured blind and some are more sensative to different colour blends etc. so your perception of the scene is specific to you, it may have a more or less mutually enjoyable mass apeeal, but it doesnt mean your capturing it as it was if you follow. you may perceive you have, but your memory of it and the actual reality and how you set te camera up in order to do that will all be different. i think what your talking about is an ideal that you PP into your images that you prefer not what the camera is or could capture. hope that makes sense.
so rather than allowing a camera to function and use it in the way it was designed and the reason we use them is being eroded from the art of the medium to the digital perfection based on your ideal of what you perceive from memory its richer and larger than the original because otherewise it seems bland compared to images that have been PP beyond what the reality was. the camera in case does pick up more than the eye sees, but your memory and perception of the even is coloured too... does that help?
i just think its something people are moving away from just because all around us is marketed perfection and glamourisation of everything and so therefore it also starts to creep into our own photos not because they are not what we saw but because it doesnt live upto expectation or in some cases because we are lazier than we care to admit in trying to capture it in camera more than PP... yeah? |
Definitely agree in some cases -- definitely disagree in other cases.
I have certainly PPd the snot out of some things to save a shot. Though my pp skills aren't anything compared to others, so I'm not sure that's saying much.
Where I disagree is the fact that nature photographers can't control their environment. Yes. If you're doing a studio shot, it's laziness not to bother getting it right and depending upon pp to fix everything that you didn't want to bother with. Street photography and nature photography you just don't have that option. Either you just don't bother shooting, because you can't have perfection, or you depend upon the fact that you can do the darkroom techniques -- you can dodge and burn, you can saturate or desaturate, you can bring out what you want. Ansel Adams did things that I couldn't even begin to do in photoshop in his darkroom. Yes, he waited for the light, and that's probably why he didn't shoot many wildlife shots, but what he did with the negative was truly unbelievable. The camera is just part of the tool. It seems silly not to use all the parts of photography -- which as always been the taking of the photo AND the processing of the photo. Has photoshop allowed us to go overboard? Yes. Do people assume that we're going overboard all the time? Yes. Are we? You'll never know. Look at the minimal editing on white on white. People are seriously doubting some of the photos. I have a comment that doubts mine. It's definitely minimal.
Sometimes you may be surprised what's edited and just how much. :) |
|
