On 3/30/2011 8:25 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Moose wrote:
>> <snip>
>> I just tried the brush(es), with no instructions and less thought. I got
>> weird results. ;-)
> Dear A Stick-in-the-Mud Moose,
>
> I know you are wiser than that. The brushes are more intuitive than they seem
> (I know, a contradiction), but once you've fiddled with them some they're
> indispensable. Okay, for me they are.
I've watched a couple of videos, as well as reading your examples. It's clear
how it works and that it works well. On
the other hand, it reminds me a lot of how I often paint effects in and out
with masks. In that sense, I don't see where
it does anything I'm not already doing.
> [clip lots of useful illustration]
>
> Now, for extra kicks, when you transport to CS5, you can embed the RAW file
> as a Smart Object in your Background Layer. Yes, it increases the size of the
> file, but it means that when working in CS5, if you notice something you wish
> you'd done to the RAW file, you can click on that little box on the corner of
> the Background layer and voila! ACR opens with the RAW file, you make
> adjustments as necessary, and presto!t hey take effect in the CS5 file.
>
> Can't get much niftier than that.
I didn't know about that, and I can see where it makes the whole thing much
more controllable. On the other hand, If one
works different magic on different parts of the image, they are all smooshed
together in the Background layer. With a
complex image, like Marc's recent B&W seascape, i can end up with different
adjustments to several different masked layers.
When I come back to see how what I've done looks after getting away from it for
a while, I will suddenly see how one
layer isn't right. I can then go in and just work the adjustments for that one
layer and its already carefully defined mask.
I'll probably try it one of these days, when an image seems to lend itself to
it.
> True, it's a new, ah, paradigm for working, one that's still evolving, but I
> suspect it's the future of post-processing, because little birds keep
> whispering in my ear that Adobe has marked Lightroom for its ultimate photo
> tool, with Photoshop drifting toward a more graphic artist work space. And if
> I recall, Lightroom doesn't have CS type editing capabilities, it has ACR all
> gussied up.
You could well be right. Personally, i really disliked the early release of LR
that I tried. It was weak where PS is
strong and strong in areas of much less importance to me.
>> They kept adding functions to ACR that I thought properly belonged in PS,
>> but I was able to ignore them for a long time.
>> Then they introduced lens corrections with profiles in both, but all the
>> profiles seem to be for ACR. But, phew, it
>> wasn't as quite good as PTLens, so again I could ignore it.
> See above. It's the future. I like the new lens correction function so much
> I've quit using PT Lens. If I get something really out of whack, I'll go
> back, but I don't see it for run of the mill landscape images.
Partly a matter of what lenses one has and how good the profiles are. For my
lenses, at least at some focal lengths, the
linear correction in ACR is no better than or slightly worse than PTLens. As
you say, for many nature images, there's no
visible difference. With a sharp horizon and mustache distortion, though, I
notice it.
Also, ACR overcompensates for vignetting, on my lenses. This is easy enough to
correct by hand, but one must remember to
do so. I prefer a tool where auto use leaves the image under messed with,
rather than more . We are used to some
vignetting, but light corners stick out. And I still don't like the way it
expands the image to crop off bits from
correction.
>> Now with the Samsung JPEGs, ACR is indispensable for highlight recovery on a
>> camera with limited DR. I've found it
>> invaluable to have the image at 2-3 separate steps, with some hints as to
>> what was done. I want to keep the untouched
>> original, the ACRed version and the fully processed PSD.
> Recovery coupled with Fill Light is worth the price of ACR alone. It does
> much of what Shadow/Highlight will do in Photoshop proper, but for most
> purposes, it does it better than with less ill effect. S/H still has it's
> uses, particularly if you're over adjusting, filling a mask with black, and
> then painting in the heavier adjustments you want. But for most of us. ACR's
> Recovery and Fill Light works genuine wonders. It's one of the reasons I
> don't begrudge Adobe its money. The product is superb. Bulky, in some cases
> morbidly obese, but superb.<g>
I generally agree. The two tools do similar things, but also differ enough that
I am very happy I have both.
>> And now you are suggesting I should consider ACR for further post
>> processing? UGH! :-) Until it has nameable layers
>> for masking, so I can step back a ways, try an alternate approach and
>> compare it with what I've done before when things
>> get squirrely, I think I'll stay with PS for that work.
> See above. Those pins aren't layers in the true sense of the word, but they
> essentially function the same way in that you have an unlimited ability to
> fiddle, settle, and then decide to fiddle some more.<g> True, as far as I
> know, you can't do it with actions, but then aren't those actions just a
> little bit addictive?<wink>
Multi-wink! When I hear someone say they use PS a lot and don't use Actions, it
makes my hands and eyes tired just
thinking about it. I have about 20 Actions that I use over and over and over
again. I find them indispensable. I also
make temporary ones for limited projects.
> Of course the wonderful thing about all this stuff is that you can do as you
> please when you please, and any information or advice you get on this list is
> worth exactly what you paid for it.<g>
Often worth much more than that! I really appreciate the time you took here to
educate me, even if it has limited
initial effect. ;-) Knowing more gives me more options, and that's good.
Evolutionarily Challenged Moose
(But then, Alces Alces is already a perfect product of evolution.)
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|