 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Squarerigger
|
B&W version. Attachment: Colonial Williamsburg Dec 2012 18 of 35 - Version 2.jpg (Downloaded 40 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Personally I like the BW version but there are a couple of thoings that I would address. Firstly the shopping bag in the window. The quickest way to lose this sort of thing is to 'Burn in' the area. Mask the area and using the highlights option...burn in to near black. Then if you want to pull the area back using either output Levels or Shadows/highlights you can just do enough to lift the black to dark grey. Secondly the latch on the left is a distraction. so I would clone it out. (probably better to do this before cropping to give more selection area) Attachment: touchup.jpg (Downloaded 35 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I would also increase contrast. A quick way to do this is duplicate the layer, set the top layer to Multiply and then back it off ...or partially erase selected areas to taste. In this example I have left the background darker to lift the man a tad. You might even consider cropping from the right to move the man more to the right and off centre. Because he is looking left you can afford to get him looking into the frame more by moving him right. But a nice interesting subject! Attachment: multiply.jpg (Downloaded 37 times) |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Thanks Eric. Agree the bag and latch are distractions. I use Aperture and the burn feature will not allow me to go that dark. I can get it to be a little less visible but not all the way out. What program did you use to accomplish this? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Squarerigger wrote: Thanks Eric. Agree the bag and latch are distractions. I use Aperture and the burn feature will not allow me to go that dark. I can get it to be a little less visible but not all the way out.Photoshop. Not familiar with the equivalent controls in Aperture. But many of the things I mentioned are in Elements and Lightroom. Here's what I meant about the offset cropping.... (but at the end of the day its down to what YOU like) Attachment: opt1.jpg (Downloaded 34 times) |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
I do like the B&W you created much better. Once again, Aperture does not have layers. My options in the B&W are contrast 0, contrast 2, and contrast 4. Contrast 0 is like a faded photo and contrast 4 looks like I spray painted the blacks with high gloss paint. Did you accomplish this with the same program you did the burn? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
If you want to get reeealy scarey...you can tilt him. His eyes are looking up slighting in the original so tilting him to look more horizontal (not down!) can be a bit more sexy. I would have been more tilted like this coming out of the tavern!  Attachment: opt3.jpg (Downloaded 35 times) |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
The offset crop looks great. I may have to look at getting some more advanced software. |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Eric wrote: If you want to get reeealy scarey...you can tilt him. His eyes are looking up slighting in the original so tilting him to look more horizontal (not down!) can be a bit more sexy.Is there a way to tilt him and not the tavern also? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Squarerigger wrote: The offset crop looks great. I may have to look at getting some more advanced software.Many people advocate getting it right in the camera....and thats a fair point. But frankly, I believe there is more than one 'image' in every 'photograph'. The only way to find those other images, is in the 'lightroom'. Besides, often there isnt time or the opportunity to 'remove the bag from inside the window'. AND...we all do it! Here's one of my wife wearing a new hat!!! Attachment: _DSC1405.jpg (Downloaded 34 times) |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Alright I found another way of getting rid of the bag in the widow. Aperture has a clone feature and I just used the shadow next to the bag and cloned that over the bag and voila no more bag. The burn feature won't go dark enough but the clone works well. Gosh I wish I could do that in real life - just clone away what one does not like. It's good to learn a new trick. Still working. Great tips Eric and gives me some "home work" to do. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Squarerigger wrote: Eric wrote:If you want to get reeealy scarey...you can tilt him. His eyes are looking up slighting in the original so tilting him to look more horizontal (not down!) can be a bit more sexy.Is there a way to tilt him and not the tavern also? You need to mask his outline and cut him out. Not straight forward to get a realistic result. will have a quick go (no work today!!!!!) and post again. OK here are a couple of examples how, once you have cut out the subject, you can change the effect....eg changing perspective and desaturating/defocusing/darkening the background. Attachment: cutout3.jpg (Downloaded 34 times) |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Eric wrote: Squarerigger wrote:Nice. How about I just send my photos to you on my SD card and you "handle" them, then return to me. Don't slap your copy write on them.Eric wrote:If you want to get reeealy scarey...you can tilt him. His eyes are looking up slighting in the original so tilting him to look more horizontal (not down!) can be a bit more sexy.Is there a way to tilt him and not the tavern also?  I have shown my wife what you accomplished and she was not complementary on my efforts. Said something about me getting a new hobby. The nerve.  Now back to work for me. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Squarerigger wrote: Eric wrote:Tell her she needs to buy you photoshop for your next birthday...or sooner!!!!Squarerigger wrote:Nice. How about I just send my photos to you on my SD card and you "handle" them, then return to me. Don't slap your copy write on them.Eric wrote:If you want to get reeealy scarey...you can tilt him. His eyes are looking up slighting in the original so tilting him to look more horizontal (not down!) can be a bit more sexy.Is there a way to tilt him and not the tavern also?  I have a nice shark hat you can give her! |
|||||||||
jk
|
Squarerigger wrote: Eric wrote:Squarerigger wrote:Nice. How about I just send my photos to you on my SD card and you "handle" them, then return to me. Don't slap your copy write on them.Eric wrote:If you want to get reeealy scarey...you can tilt him. His eyes are looking up slighting in the original so tilting him to look more horizontal (not down!) can be a bit more sexy.Is there a way to tilt him and not the tavern also? Well you need to go a long way to get a better tutor or photo editor than Eric. What he can do in a few minutes takes other much longer so dont be disheartened. |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Eric wrote: Squarerigger wrote:I have done some preliminary research on photoshop. Very expensive! However, it can be used as an external editor to Aperture and seems most Aperture users in fact do this.Eric wrote:Tell her she needs to buy you photoshop for your next birthday...or sooner!!!!Squarerigger wrote:Nice. How about I just send my photos to you on my SD card and you "handle" them, then return to me. Don't slap your copy write on them.Eric wrote:If you want to get reeealy scarey...you can tilt him. His eyes are looking up slighting in the original so tilting him to look more horizontal (not down!) can be a bit more sexy.Is there a way to tilt him and not the tavern also? Did I mention it is very expensive? My wife does not wear hats and I am sure your wife would hate to part with such a fashion statement. |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
jk wrote: Squarerigger wrote:You are so right JK. There is so much to learn.Eric wrote:Squarerigger wrote:Nice. How about I just send my photos to you on my SD card and you "handle" them, then return to me. Don't slap your copy write on them.Eric wrote:If you want to get reeealy scarey...you can tilt him. His eyes are looking up slighting in the original so tilting him to look more horizontal (not down!) can be a bit more sexy.Is there a way to tilt him and not the tavern also? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Like the B&W version especially after Eric's edits. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Squarerigger wrotSounds as though you have Yorkshire ancestry.I have done some preliminary research on photoshop. Very expensive! However, it can be used as an external editor to Aperture and seems most Aperture users in fact do this.  I DID say get the wife to buy it for you. Lightroom may be a good move.:thumbsup: Most of these packages will do what you want. You just have to define precisely what you are trying to achieve and seek out which tool/technique will do it for you. When I think of the hours/days/weeks/months/years I spent in the darkroom 'pickling my parts'.... then a good software package in a light/bright room wins every time. |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Alright Eric, after playing around, I mean spending quality time, trying to perfect this photograph, I have come on the solution. It is so obvious I don't know why I didn't think of it in the first place. Not nearly as expensive as the photoshop program. Instead of having the shopping bag be a distraction, make the shopping bag the focus of the photo. Crop out the gentleman and leave the bag. Now if I have shot at f11 instead of f3.5 the damn bag may be sharper. Don't tell me, photoshop can correct that? I won't say what my wife thinks of this idea but it can't hurt if I should come groveling for money to buy photoshop. What do you think? Attachment: Colonial Williamsburg Dec 2012 18 of 35 - Version 4.jpg (Downloaded 31 times) |
|||||||||
richw
|
Squarerigger wrote:I have done some preliminary research on photoshop. Very expensive! However, it can be used as an external editor to Aperture and seems most Aperture users in fact do this. Did I mention it is very expensive? Lightroom and Aperture are very equivalent programs, personally I prefer Lightroom but if cost is an issue and you already own Aperture you won't gain much by picking up Lightroom. I would look at Elements, you get most of the capability of Photoshop at a reduced price. Alternatively you could break new ground and get a free version of GIMP, however as the user base is much smaller (including on here) I would be reluctant to go down this route as tutorials/advice are much harder to come by. |
|||||||||
jk
|
That's very true Aperture and LR are very similar. IMHO if you want to image edit then you need to use Photoshop (PS) or GIMP. The latest version of GIMP V.2.8 onwards is more like Photoshop but it doesnt have the Actions of PS. The Actions of PS make it so much more useful. There are scripts in GIMP but they are difficult to make compared to the PS Actions. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
LSquarerigger wrote: Alright Eric, after playing around, I mean spending quality time, trying to perfect this photograph, I have come on the solution. It is so obvious I don't know why I didn't think of it in the first place. Not nearly as expensive as the photoshop program. Instead of having the shopping bag be a distraction, make the shopping bag the focus of the photo. Crop out the gentleman and leave the bag. Now if I have shot at f11 instead of f3.5 the damn bag may be sharper. Don't tell me, photoshop can correct that?This is one for Kathy's artistic techniques. I think it was morphing in Faststone...really impressive results.:thumbsup: |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Can photoshop elements accomplish the same things Eric did to the B&W shot with photoshop cs? |
|||||||||
richw
|
Squarerigger wrote: Can photoshop elements accomplish the same things Eric did to the B&W shot with photoshop cs? I don't have it myself, but I am certain it can. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Not sure how good the latest version of Elements is as I dont have a recent copy. |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
richw wrote: Squarerigger wrote:Thanks Rich. Elements is $600+ less expensive than Photoshop CS6. Maybe I should take a look at this. Photoshop may be more than I need and most probably more than I can comprehend. Bears some thinking.Can photoshop elements accomplish the same things Eric did to the B&W shot with photoshop cs? Maybe Eric is right and I have some Yorkshire blood. Not sure as my Mother was from St. Helens near Liverpool. Maybe some relative since parting with money is not one of my strong suits. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Squarerigger wrote: richw wrote:I did have a look atElements last year and it can do everything you need. I found it a bit slow and clunky compared to Photoshop.Squarerigger wrote:Thanks Rich. Elements is $600+ less expensive than Photoshop CS6. Maybe I should take a look at this. Photoshop may be more than I need and most probably more than I can comprehend. Bears some thinking.Can photoshop elements accomplish the same things Eric did to the B&W shot with photoshop cs? I have been using CS3 since it was released ..and I still haven't outgrown it. Many of the new features they added to CS4, 5 and 6 are what I would call flavours. That's because you use them for a while, then lose the taste for them and revert to the basic core functions. That's not to say there aren't some nice new features worth using. I do have CS5 on my computer (i skipped CS4) but on balance I still prefer the less complicated, more simplistic interface of CS3. In some ways I find it more responsive doing the basic functions. So...if you can get hold of a copy of CS3, you would have a lot of capacity for a discounted price. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
gary why not go for elements ,and you can buy/download it cheap from the APP store on apple ,it will give you most of what you need without the expense of the full version . all my pics are pre-edited (downloaded ) into apeture 3 then finished off in elements 10 .if i can do it at nearly 70 i,m sure you can |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Eric wrote: Squarerigger wrote:I had a quick look on Amazon for CS3 and wouldn't you know they spotted your endorsement of CS3 and now it costs MORE than CS6. Odd. Have not looked on ebay and never been very keen on ebay.richw wrote:I did have a look atElements last year and it can do everything you need. I found it a bit slow and clunky compared to Photoshop.Squarerigger wrote:Thanks Rich. Elements is $600+ less expensive than Photoshop CS6. Maybe I should take a look at this. Photoshop may be more than I need and most probably more than I can comprehend. Bears some thinking.Can photoshop elements accomplish the same things Eric did to the B&W shot with photoshop cs? |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
blackfox wrote: gary why not go for elements ,and you can buy/download it cheap from the APP store on apple ,it will give you most of what you need without the expense of the full version .Thanks Jeff. Nice to see another Aperture 3 user. I have been checking and find I can use any Adobe product as an additional editor. I really like how Aperture stores my photos. If elements will get me more capability, even if slower then CS as Eric states, then for $99 it may be worth while giving it a go. Oh, happy birthday to me! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Squarerigger wrote: Eric wrote:Its got antique value now.Squarerigger wrote:I had a quick look on Amazon for CS3 and wouldn't you know they spotted your endorsement of CS3 and now it costs MORE than CS6. Odd. Have not looked on ebay and never been very keen on ebay.richw wrote:I did have a look atElements last year and it can do everything you need. I found it a bit slow and clunky compared to Photoshop.Squarerigger wrote:Thanks Rich. Elements is $600+ less expensive than Photoshop CS6. Maybe I should take a look at this. Photoshop may be more than I need and most probably more than I can comprehend. Bears some thinking.Can photoshop elements accomplish the same things Eric did to the B&W shot with photoshop cs? Elements will be fine. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
You have two options for image storage with Lightroom. You can ingest the images into the Lightroom storage dataholding file, which then means it is only accessable via Lightroom, in much the same way as iPhoto or Aperture, which is a deal killer to me. I find that a nightmare because you can't duplicate or move the images to other locations without exporting them. I spent two days moving about 20,000 images out of an iPhoto library recently when my friend updated his iMac, that was very hard work. If they had been in normal folders and accessible it would have been done in an hour. I tried moving the entire date file but after 4 hours it crashed and caused more problems. So I ended up exporting them, then re-importing them on the new compouter. Or, much better method, you can leave the images in normal folders in your preferred layout and structure, it their normal format, ie. NEF, TIFF, JPEG or what ever you prefer. Lightroom only stores a display image to speed up rendering while you review your images. That is my method. When I edit an image I create a folder within the same folder as the originals, called edits. Most of my image folders contain these 'edits' folders and I know that is where I can find the pick 'pick of the bunch' images edited, ready for use.. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
gary i do all initial processing in apeture 3 ,when happy with the image ,i export to desktop as a 8 bit tiff file ,then drag/drop into elements ,i initially layer my subject then apply de-noise via a plug in filter to background layer (i use imageonic ) but theres tons out there including freebies ,as most of my work is posted to flickr or forums i then reduce image size to 1024 pixels on largest side .then i apply final sharpening to layered subject .then simply re-name as a j-peg and export back to desktop ,close down elements . your image is then ready to post to flickr or wherever and/or import back into a finished folder in apeture |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
blackfox wrote: gary i do all initial processing in apeture 3 ,when happy with the image ,i export to desktop as a 8 bit tiff file ,then drag/drop into elements ,i initially layer my subject then apply de-noise via a plug in filter to background layer (i use imageonic ) but theres tons out there including freebies ,as most of my work is posted to flickr or forums i then reduce image size to 1024 pixels on largest side .then i apply final sharpening to layered subject .then simply re-name as a j-peg and export back to desktop ,close down elements .Jeff, I read someplace you could make elements 11 or any other program your external editor in aperture preferences and then the file goes back and forth between both programs without having to make folders, etc. I have to get someone to explain this "layers" to me, I have no idea what it is. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric can probably describe it better than I can but from my perspective layers allows you to put different elements of the image on seperate layers. Each layer can be shown or hidden, adjusted indendently and the order of the layers can be changed. Any text you add is on a separate layer and can be moved, edited, rotated, reduced in transparency and a multitude of other things. Layers can also be used for very clever things like sharpening, bluring, darkening etc. Layers are a very powerful tool. One job I use layers for is to increase the depth ot focus and selective focus. For example, take a Magnolia tree, I try to position the camera so the best blooms are all in the sharp focus zone but one group of blooms may be rather out of it. I always try to use my lenses wide open to minimise distracting artifacts, so I expose the main image then I re-focus on the other group of blooms, expose that image, and take a few more just for good luck. Back home I pick the best match of the main exposure and the second group of blooms, layer the second group behind the main image, increase the transparency if the main image, align the images as well as I can, then using a soft edged brush erase the main image to reveal the sharp blooms behind. Bring the main image transparency up to 100% and make fine adjustments. When you are finished you can 'flatten' the image to remove the layers to create a normal single image file. That's just one example of thousands of things it can do. It can help to deal with high contrast images using a similar technique, instead of using HDR, bracket the exposures and layer the image. I could go on but I think you get the picture. |
|||||||||
Constable
|
Robert Don't forget the import as dng option in LR. This has the advantage of portability as all tags and info are saved in the same file rather than as a sidecar. Ed |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Squarerigger wrote: blackfox wrote:Layers are like transparent 'Acetate sheets' that you used for presentations on an overhead projector, back in the old days.gary i do all initial processing in apeture 3 ,when happy with the image ,i export to desktop as a 8 bit tiff file ,then drag/drop into elements ,i initially layer my subject then apply de-noise via a plug in filter to background layer (i use imageonic ) but theres tons out there including freebies ,as most of my work is posted to flickr or forums i then reduce image size to 1024 pixels on largest side .then i apply final sharpening to layered subject .then simply re-name as a j-peg and export back to desktop ,close down elements .Jeff, I read someplace you could make elements 11 or any other program your external editor in aperture preferences and then the file goes back and forth between both programs without having to make folders, etc. You can add content (photos, text, filter effects, drawings...) to these acetates such that when you lay them on top of one another you get a cumulative effect. Unlike acetates though, photoshop allows you to modify the individual layers characteristics (relative to one another), so you can get a myriad of combined effects. In my last version of your photo, I cut out the man and placed him on a new layer above the background ....from which he was removed. Having thus seperated the two elements I was able to tilt and enlarge the 'man layer' then blur/ desaturate/darken the 'background layer' to better visually seperate the two parts. As Robert said, these are tip of the iceberg uses ....and layers is far more versatile once you start to explore them. |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Eric wrote: Squarerigger wrote:Absolutely brilliant!blackfox wrote:Layers are like transparent 'Acetate sheets' that you used for presentations on an overhead projector, back in the old days.gary i do all initial processing in apeture 3 ,when happy with the image ,i export to desktop as a 8 bit tiff file ,then drag/drop into elements ,i initially layer my subject then apply de-noise via a plug in filter to background layer (i use imageonic ) but theres tons out there including freebies ,as most of my work is posted to flickr or forums i then reduce image size to 1024 pixels on largest side .then i apply final sharpening to layered subject .then simply re-name as a j-peg and export back to desktop ,close down elements .Jeff, I read someplace you could make elements 11 or any other program your external editor in aperture preferences and then the file goes back and forth between both programs without having to make folders, etc. Kind of like the biology book I had in school which had acetate sheets for anatomy - you kept adding sheets and pretty soon you had the entire human system. Really is a little scary being able to manipulate a photograph that much. I now understand how you did the magic with my photo. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Squarerigger wrote: Eric wrote:You will soon get the hang of it Gary.Everyone needs to start somewhere. Never to late to learn.Squarerigger wrote:Absolutely brilliant!blackfox wrote:Layers are like transparent 'Acetate sheets' that you used for presentations on an overhead projector, back in the old days.gary i do all initial processing in apeture 3 ,when happy with the image ,i export to desktop as a 8 bit tiff file ,then drag/drop into elements ,i initially layer my subject then apply de-noise via a plug in filter to background layer (i use imageonic ) but theres tons out there including freebies ,as most of my work is posted to flickr or forums i then reduce image size to 1024 pixels on largest side .then i apply final sharpening to layered subject .then simply re-name as a j-peg and export back to desktop ,close down elements .Jeff, I read someplace you could make elements 11 or any other program your external editor in aperture preferences and then the file goes back and forth between both programs without having to make folders, etc. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |