Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 1,385 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #15319
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    John said: The only thing that concerns me is the new processing standard. It will take a while to grow into that and it’ affects on your existing pictures will need keeping a look out for. They last changed in 2012.

    For anyone who’s concerned about this, it’s useful to know that when Adobe introduces a major upgrade (eg LR3>LR4>LR6) there’s often a change to, among other things, the way RAW files are processed and how the Develop Module alters files, often with new features and sliders. To make sure that pictures processed with earlier version of the software don’t get messed up, Adobe provides a ‘process version’ configuration for each major revision of LR, and allows you to decide whether you want to apply it to any older picture that you may decide to re-edit.

    You don’t have to apply the new process version to your older image files, though you can do so if you wish. Of course, you’ll almost certainly want to apply the latest process version to any new photographs that you’re importing for the first time, so that you can use all the latest editing features.

    There’s a useful summary of all the ins and outs in a recently updated article here.

    For anyone interested in how to do backups of LR, or in where it keeps its various files by default, there’s a useful summary with information and links here.

     

     

    #15314
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    Peter >>> Properly speaking, it’s LR 6.x that won’t be updated beyond 6.7  (‘Lightroom Classic’ is the name that Adobe has given to its successor, which is in effect LR 7.0). But I take your point, and I’ve been looking round for a replacement for the inevitable day when an OS update causes LR6 to stop working.

    The most promising alternative I’ve come across is Luminar 2018. It appears to have all the editing capabilities of Lightroom and more (where ‘more’ includes, for example, Layers, Masks and Blending Modes); it runs on PC or Mac; and in the New Year it will get a Digital Asset Management module that will be able to work with Lightroom Catalogues. It looks seriously worth considering.

     

    #15312
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    [Following a phone conversation with Paul, I remembered that when LR upgrades your catalogue, it does not over-write your existing one, but creates a new upgraded copy with a different name. I’ve edited this post to take note of this.]

    Hi Paul

    There are now two versions of LR, both of them ‘subscription only’. Lightroom CC is an entirely internet-based ‘software as a service’ application that runs on Adobe’s servers while you’re using it. Lightroom Classic is an update to the old standalone LR that runs on your computer; but it now only keeps running if you’re putting money in the Adobe meter every month; and it is, in effect, Version 7 of the old LR. (Version 6 will get a couple of updates – LR 6.6 and LR 6.7 – but will then not be updated, and will eventually stop working when an operating system update changes Windows or Mac in some way that no longer supports LR 6.)

    Anyway, it sounds like you’re using Lightroom Classic (or ‘LR 7’, as we might call it). And it also sounds like the software has been updated so that it has a slightly different way of handling the catalogue, which is why it wants to update your old catalogue.LR usually asks to update the catalogue for each major upgrade of LR from LR4 to LR5 to LR6, so there’s nothing odd about this. (I’ve normally said ‘Yes’ to the ‘Upgrade your existing catalogue’ request.)

    There’s no need to be concerned about this – let it go ahead: it leaves your old catalogue in place, and creates an updated version of it with a new name. It even lets you adjust this name to one that suits you better than the default offer, which is simply to add something like ‘-1’ to your existing catalogue name. (I suggest you use something like LR7-catalogue.lrcat, for example.)

    Hope this helps.

    #15302
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    Here’s one I scanned this afternoon, with leading lines created by pattern:

     

    (Click picture to view large on black)

     

    Technical details:

    Olympus OM1, with Zuiko 50mm f/1.8
    Ilford FP4 Plus pushed to ASA 400
    Rodinal 1+24 20min 20ºC
    Scanned with an Epson V750

     

    #15295
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    Mmm… But does it still feel like the alpine sky above is clear, bright and intensely blue, and that the sun is shining outside the frame to the left?

     

    #15293
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    I’ve just posted the following comment on the Monthly Theme forum, where our discussion here seems to have leaked. But my comment needs to be here, too, for completeness…

    The blue in Ralph’s picture could possibly be a bit more intense than the blue shade you’d actually see (perhaps because he has toned down the highlights to reduce some ‘glare’ from the snow on the mountain in the background? Such adjustments tend to shift hue values, too.)

    But it is certainly the case that shadows on snow on a bright day actually do look blue-ish, because of the colour reflected faintly from a blue sky. So ‘fixing’ that blueness with white balance or other tonal adjustments actually makes such shaded areas look less natural (though it may, of course, create a picture that’s warmer, if that’s the look you want to fabricate).

    That was the whole point of the original post here: natural light isn’t white.

     

    #15292
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    Blueness in Ralph’s photo… Well, it could possibly be a bit stronger than the blue shade you’d actually see, but it is certainly the case that shadows on snow on a bright day actually do look blue-ish, because of the colour reflected faintly from a blue sky. So ‘fixing’ that blueness with white balance or other tonal adjustments actually makes them less natural (though it may, of course, create a picture that’s warmer, if that’s the look you want to fabricate). That was the whole point of the post, ‘Natural light isn’t white’.

    #15285
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    OK, Peter. Since you’ve gone to the trouble of asking…

    The first picture is monochrome gold, isn’t it? It’s a lovely effect; and the picture is very atmospheric. I’d be inclined to emphasise the figures by cropping the top of the picture off just below the shoreline, so that there’s only the two people and the sea. But don’t you just wish the two people were standing at the bottom right rather than the bottom left! That’d make the descending diagonal of the wave edges do a compositional job as leading lines, wouldn’t it?

    I’m less wowed by the gun. The ultra-wide-angle distortion of depth makes the muzzle brake on the end of the barrel strangely enormous and disembodied, and stretches the barrel into an unrecognisable thin wedge. But the main problem is, as you hint, the rather chaotic jumble of stuff below the sky line. (What happens if you crop off both sides, and just leave the gun and its barrel in a tall vertical frame, I wonder?)

     

     

    #15281
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    I’ve just added the next set, ‘Great Black and White Photos – Part 6‘ – to the list in the first post above. Some more fine pictures.

     

    #15271
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    Interesting video, John: we either consciously create a colour palette, or we let the world dump one on us arbitrarily.

    It reminds us, if we needed reminding, that colour in photographs is as much an ‘artificial’ set of conventions and decisions as monochrome is. Neither is ‘real’ or ‘natural’; both are about design and about solving interesting ‘picture problems’ that we set ourselves as photographers.

    #15265
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    It’s always a bit of a nightmare and compromise photographing in mixed lighting. I’ve tried photographing bands where the light constantly changes colour and intensity. You just can’t record the colours as you saw them.

    That hit’s the nail on the head exactly: the camera doesn’t record the colours as you saw them – it records the frequencies of the light that hits the sensor; but the colours we perceive in real scenes are constructed by our brains from what our eyes detect, heavily modified by our knowledge of what colour the things actually are. In other words, our perception cleverly ‘corrects’ for the lighting. Cognitive psychologists call this ‘colour constancy’: we really do perceive the bride’s dress as white, regardless (within limits) of the colour of the light illuminating it, whether it’s sunlight, moonlight, firelight, fluorescent bulbs, or whatever.

    This problem is exacerbated in mixed lighting because our cameras record the colours literally, so they look odd to us. And if we try to adjust the colour balance in post processing, we can’t please the girl who has carefully chosen a ‘Cadbury’s Purple’ hue for her dress without making her face sickly green under the fluorescent lighting; and if we put her skin tones right, she’s annoyed because we’ve made her dress look royal blue!

    Really, the only way to deal with this is to take complete control of the lighting, which is how those geniuses of light, the film makers (i.e cinematographers and lighting designers) do it so that we don’t even notice.

    Here, cinematographer Roger Deakins, describes his lighting set up for a single location scene from the 2016 Coen Brothers film, ‘Hail, Caesar’:

     

     

    “This scene was shot on location and, although a seemingly simple scene, this caused quite a few challenges. Not the least of these was controlling the natural light during daylight hours and into the evening. The location windows were facing South West, which made control of the sun even more critical. To do this I decided to light with large Ultrabounce reflectors. Using these, it is possible to cut out any natural light whilst re-creating the softness of north facing daylight.

    “I also wanted to build in some colour contrast and pretend there was a warm overhead source. This was in fact a soft box of 4 bouncing Nook lights, all of which were dimmed down to produce the warmth in the scene. The whole rig was suspended from existing ceiling light fittings and, consequently, needed to be as lightweight as it could possible be without compromising its soft quality.”

    And here’s Deakins’s lighting plan:

    This is exactly why David Hobby says that photographers who photograph in colour should not use bare, ungelled flash!

     

     

    #15220
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    The old ones are the best, Wallace: leading lines that act as a bridge to the main subject – or a bridge that acts as leading lines..! Neat.

    #15201
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    I guess leading lines can be implied by a pattern…

     

     

    …or by a gesture?..

     

     

     

    #15147
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    If you don’t use Adobe software (Photoshop or Lightroom) there’s not really much more to do than you’ve described, Ken. Most cameras have their colour space set to sRGB by default; and I’m pretty sure the JPEGs that your software produces will already be using the sRGB colour space that our projector needs.

    Why is it different if you use Adobe software? Because Adobe uses a different (bigger) colour space by default. Left to it’s own devices, Adobe’s software will change the image to its own working colour space when it first opens the file. If you wish, you can set Adobe software to open your files as sRGB instead; but many photographers want to edit with Photoshop / Lightroom’s bigger default colour space, so they set their cameras to use Adobe RGB. Then they open their files with Photoshop / Lightroom’s default colour settings, do the editing, and save the edited file. But to use a picture in our PDI comps, they also need to convert its final image file to sRGB, and save it again as a JPEG of the right size for our projector.

    To change the colour profile of your picture in Photoshop, you click the Edit menu, and select “Convert to Profile” near the bottom of the menu; then select “sRGB IEC6 1966-2.1” from the drop-down list of Profiles in the “Destination Space” box, and click OK.

    Simples!

     

    (The complicated stuff is about calibrating your camera, computer screen, printer and papers so that the colours on your final print are the same as the colours of the things you originally photographed. That’s another story all together!)

     

    #15064
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    …the front page is currently carrying two statements of what we have next week and one errant underlining. (When he reads this Ian will no doubt correct that).

    Looks like you’ve already managed to put that right, as I can’t see any errant underlining. 🙂

     

     

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 1,385 total)