Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Curves  (Read 106234 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8070



WWW
« Reply #60 on: July 12, 2007, 01:35:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That seriously isn't the way to try to move Adobe...pointing to OTHER products is a sure way to watch them shut down and quit listening. They seriously couldn't care less what other products do and will go out of their way to innovate around or beyond the competition.

Bringing up the competition is like the kiss of death in an argument.
And while true, would make little impact on their thinking...you have to understand that Hamburg in particular is really and truley trying to do new things. So, they will bust their butts to do something in a manner and approach that is new–even if it's a lot more work–than to do the expected and comfortable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

Since you have only reacted nagatively to the last 2 of my 5 arguments in fabour or point curves, I assume that you agree with the first 3?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8070



WWW
« Reply #61 on: July 12, 2007, 01:41:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You can work back and forth between them to shape that Curve with remarkable effectiveness. I've processed over a thousand images over the past several months using the new Camera Raw (same thing as LR Develop except ACR does have the point curve in a separate tab), and I find myself needing the Point Curve less and less - but when I need it, I do need it.

This is not because I absolutely can't do with Parametric what I can do with Point, but because the distinction between "want" and "need" is less clear-cut than Jeff's posts would imply. There is also a consideration of "time-effectiveness" in all this. I can probably get 90% of what I "need" from a Parametric Curve quite easily. The other 10% I could probably get as well - with much more time spent fiddling with sliders rather than plunking down several points. I would also like to see composite luminosity, Lab and HSB data read-outs in an expanded info palette. Maybe this needs to be a "feature request".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Anyhow I read this comment, it looks like you see value in point curve too.

Quote
I agree with Jeff that there are trade-offs between priorities, especially when a company - which is after all a for profit enterprise (absent which we wouln't have all this stuff) feels it's under commercial pressure to put a product on the market by a certain date. That said, the Point Curve add-in is probably one of the easiest and fastest things they could do, because all the technology for it is sitting right under their own roof in Camera Raw.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So why would we not want to request it and push for it?

Quote
Bernard, your last point - "I am used to working with Point curve" - yah, so am I, so is Jack, so is everyone. I don't know how old you guys are, but I'm getting on up there, and I still like to believe that old dogs can learn new tricks. But they'd best be better ones!   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But why do we need to adapt to a new tool that is overall less effective than the old one?

Why would I want to try to seduce a girl that I don't find attractive? Just to show friends that I can get her? Frankly speaking, what a waste of time.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5744



WWW
« Reply #62 on: July 12, 2007, 02:08:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Folks:

This has been an interesting discussion, and I certainly do not consider myself to be a Curves guru, but for all of the bantering back and forth with each other here, it seems to me that it explains both sides of the situation and solves nothing.  I have no inroads into Adobe, but wouldn't it be smarter for those of us (users) who consider a point curve of great value to move this discussion over to an Adobe forum where, as Jeff suggested, the people at Adobe might be more persuaded to actually do something about it?

Just a thought...

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #63 on: July 12, 2007, 02:33:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since you have only reacted nagatively to the last 2 of my 5 arguments in fabour or point curves, I assume that you agree with the first 3?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Correct.

And to be accurate I _DO_ want point curves in Lightroom...I want the ease and smoothness of the usability of parametrics while being able to access the accuracy of point when I need it.

I'm really just trying to explain to people what will or won't move the engineers. The single best argument to make is about image quality...that's something they respond to. All the "I want" or "I need" may make an impact on product and marketing managers but falls on deaf ears in engineering...

And yes, the BEST place to talk about the specifics of the point curves is in the Feature Requests in the Lightroom forums...and the _BEST_ thing to dwell on is image quality...none of the other "stuff" that the engineers don't respond to or care about.
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #64 on: July 12, 2007, 03:00:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay Jeff... and thanks for the additional background.  I get it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it!  However, consider me done banging my drum on this thread

PS: Andrew, I've taught PS too, and while I agree curves may not be initially intuitive for some, they seem to become so pretty quickly once the relationship between input and output values is explained.

So...  /rant

Best,
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2007, 04:06:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, consider me done banging my drum on this thread
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ok. . .but keep banging the drum at the Feature Request forum...that's where it'll count for something.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2007, 04:59:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Anyhow I read this comment, it looks like you see value in point curve too.
So why would we not want to request it and push for it?

But why do we need to adapt to a new tool that is overall less effective than the old one?

Why would I want to try to seduce a girl that I don't find attractive? Just to show friends that I can get her? Frankly speaking, what a waste of time.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127868\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,

Yes of course I see a lot of value in retaining the fully, infintely adjustable point curve. We should push for NOT losing it in Camera Raw. People who only want to use LR can decide whether they wish to push for it in LR too.

The new tool is NOT NECESSARILY less effective than the older one. Leave the word "overall" out of your question and we can discuss the merit of having both. It's a different approach. There are many images for which it's all you need. I find, having played with it quite a bit, that I like it more and more. I've reached a point where I can isolate what I can do "real fast" in the Parametric Curve, and what I would prefer to leave for drilling down with a Point Curve. Now that I'm more "at home" with the strengths of BOTH, I think my image processing skills are more efficient.

So I guess I'm saying the girl is attractive, she's not a waste of time, but I'd be seeing the other girl on the side at the same time!  
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ralph Eisenberg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #67 on: July 13, 2007, 07:28:09 AM »
ReplyReply

If there is power in numbers, I should also like to reiterate my feature request for the point-Curves tool, as in ACR 4.1, although not necessarily on the back of the bus. Because this feature obtains in ACR 4.1, I have been using Lightroom less and less, despite its congenial user environment. If I recall correctly, Bruce Fraser commented on what an achievement it was to have access to a (point -) Curves tool in ACR, that a tremendous amount was going on under the hood to make this possible. It would be a shame to forego this feature, which is not to diminish the accomplishment of parametric Curves.
Logged

Ralph
rainiershooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #68 on: July 15, 2007, 10:28:12 PM »
ReplyReply

As someone who is just getting started in digital after years with film I find the parametric curve control in Lightroom very easy to use.  The curves feature in PS looked intimitating (to me) and I wasn't particularly looking forward to having to try and figure it out.  

Pcrov:  no one is forcing you to use Lightroom.  Stay with PS and be happy.
Logged
IanSeward
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #69 on: July 15, 2007, 11:51:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As someone who is just getting started in digital after years with film I find the parametric curve control in Lightroom very easy to use.  The curves feature in PS looked intimitating (to me) and I wasn't particularly looking forward to having to try and figure it out. 

Pcrov:  no one is forcing you to use Lightroom.  Stay with PS and be happy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I was critical of the change to curves when Lightroom was introduced, as the main reason seemed to be to be different from Photoshop, but reserved judgment until I could evaluate the shipping version.  

Having now used Lightroom one aspect I have become aware off, is that for many images there is no need to use curves at all.  The extra controls available within Lightroom, such as, Recovery, Fill light etc., yield the required result.  Perhaps, because in Photoshop the only tools you had readily to hand were levels and curves you simply had to use curves to do simple adjustments like raising the shadows to bring out shadow detail.  With Lightroom, I have already clicked the fill button to accomplish the required adjustment.  There are some images that do require finessing with curves, and a small proportion of those could do with point curves.  However, if I am dealing with an image in this detail I will almost certainly require selective, rather than global adjustments, so a trip to Photoshop is necessary, and point curves are then available.

I am not an Adobe fan, and although Lightroom is far from being robust in its database functionality, it is an excellent Raw converter.  The apparent dedication of the development team also gives me confidence that the database functionality will improve, so much so that I have finally given in and purchased CS3  

To recap, I certainly found that in Photoshop I always had to use curves.  it would be interesting to know how many images people feel they have to use curves for, after having used the basic controls such as fill light, etc., in Lightroom?  

Having said all that, for good business reasons they might as well put point curves into Lightroom, simply for compatibility with CS3.  Compatibility with CS3 may be a significant driver for Photoshop; it was for me.

Ian
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9164



WWW
« Reply #70 on: July 16, 2007, 08:36:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Having now used Lightroom one aspect I have become aware off, is that for many images there is no need to use curves at all.

That's been my experience as well. Rarely used. Which bodes for the idea of working top down, left to right where curves are way past the other controls, and the fact that it takes place after basic tone adjustments. This doesn't mean point curves are not useful or we shouldn't ask for them. But going back a week when that one banned and nssty poster went ballistic because I suggested *some* users jump directly to curves based on years of work in Photoshop, and this isn't necessary or recommended. There's at least one Photoshop guru who suggests that we should all set CR and LR to default and conduct the edits afterwards in Photoshop because he fails to understand what's really going on under the hood, and I suspect has spent so many years fixing poorly rendered images in Photoshop instead of doing the heavy lifting at acquisition that the prospect of actually creating good quality images from raw data is way off his radar.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8070



WWW
« Reply #71 on: July 16, 2007, 09:00:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Having now used Lightroom one aspect I have become aware off, is that for many images there is no need to use curves at all.  The extra controls available within Lightroom, such as, Recovery, Fill light etc., yield the required result.  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While I agree that recovery and fill light and useful tools, IMHO they only do a sub-set of what I typically do with curves:

- recovery is a reconstruction tool that computes back some color from partially blown data. This is something that curves never did,
- fill light does selectively brigthen shadows and is something that can indeed be done with curves also.

What these 2 tools can not do is to control the level of contrast selectively for different brightness levels.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #72 on: July 16, 2007, 09:09:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
While I agree that recovery and fill light and useful tools, IMHO they only do a sub-set of what I typically do with curves:

What these 2 tools can not do is to control the level of contrast selectively for different brightness levels.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128420\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is true. For that you go to the Parametric Curve, where you can. That said, you can play between Fill Lights and Blacks to achieve some very interesting contrast.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
larsrc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


WWW
« Reply #73 on: July 18, 2007, 07:39:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was critical of the change to curves when Lightroom was introduced, as the main reason seemed to be to be different from Photoshop, but reserved judgment until I could evaluate the shipping version. 
[...]

To recap, I certainly found that in Photoshop I always had to use curves.  it would be interesting to know how many images people feel they have to use curves for, after having used the basic controls such as fill light, etc., in Lightroom? 

Having said all that, for good business reasons they might as well put point curves into Lightroom, simply for compatibility with CS3.  Compatibility with CS3 may be a significant driver for Photoshop; it was for me.

Ian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I always found Curves to be frustrating -- not that I couldn't use them, but it was all too easy to make the image be a grey morass or have poor toning or both.  I continue to be amazed at the quality LR gives me just by adjusting Fill Light, Black and parametric curves.  Sometimes it's like it reads my mind and knows exactly which parts I want adjusted.  I am so much more productive with this interface than I ever was before.

If I were the LR developers, I'd put point curves on the list, but not very high -- it's one of those "emergency tools" that is the reason they have round-trip to other photo editors built-in.  If you'd only need it for 5% of your images, is it really worth cluttering up the interface?  And here I mean *need*, not just "want" because you're used to it.

-Lars
Logged

seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #74 on: July 18, 2007, 10:29:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Would anybody like to see the various adjustment tools spread across the UI as in the latest Camera Raw rather than down as in LR? Personally, I find the Raw UI less work - it cuts out a lot of scrolling. Any thoughts?
Seamus
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804



WWW
« Reply #75 on: July 18, 2007, 11:31:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Would anybody like to see the various adjustment tools spread across the UI as in the latest Camera Raw rather than down as in LR? Personally, I find the Raw UI less work - it cuts out a lot of scrolling. Any thoughts?
Seamus
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128851\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Use Solo mode.
Logged

seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #76 on: July 19, 2007, 09:14:44 AM »
ReplyReply

John, Re Solo Mode - a great tip.... Just tried it, like it. Thanks
Logged

laughfta
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #77 on: July 20, 2007, 08:01:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's at least one Photoshop guru who suggests that we should all set CR and LR to default and conduct the edits afterwards in Photoshop because he fails to understand what's really going on under the hood, and I suspect has spent so many years fixing poorly rendered images in Photoshop instead of doing the heavy lifting at acquisition that the prospect of actually creating good quality images from raw data is way off his radar.


These kind of comments are just as offensive to me as the language that was banned earlier in the thread—and actually feel less honest.  When experts disagree it would be helpful if it were not in the form of a potshot.

I imagine the guru to whom you are referring is one who has carefully and precisely shown the benefits of adjusting curves by the channel in PS instead of using the composite curve that is available in CR and LR. Some gurus aren't satisfied with "good" quality images from raw data. Some may need raw data that can provide an excellent final image. Those two sets of data are not necessarily the same.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #78 on: July 20, 2007, 10:49:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Some may need raw data that can provide an excellent final image.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I suppose I've processed more images through Camera Raw and Lightroom than most "experts" or "gurus" and I'm here to tell ya the ONLY reasons one wouldn'd be getting really excelent output from Camera Raw or Lightroom is if you don't know what you are doing or the images you run through are crap to start with.

There is NOTHING about Camera Raw/Lightroom's design or internal engine that precludes photographer from using it to get excellent raw processing results. The "guru" in question ain't even a photographer...

And CR/LR's curve is NOT a composite RGB curve ala Photoshop...it's a hue locked, saturation tuned luminance based curve. Which I proved to the guru in question COULD come real close to his "luminance curve" out of Photoshop. Yeah, it took a few extra slider adjustments..but Thomas Knoll explained exactly why he chose NOT to use a simple luminance curve–because he didn't think it looked right. So, he tweaked it to also increase saturation–not as much as an RGB composite curve–and made sure the hue didn't wander.

Does it match a straight luminance curve? Nope...all ya have to do to do that is wait to edit in Photoshop...if ya got your heart set on a pure luminance curve (or learn how to use LR's controls).
« Last Edit: July 20, 2007, 10:50:59 PM by Schewe » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #79 on: July 21, 2007, 06:25:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with Jeff's remarks completely. Furthermore, There's nothing wrong with adjusting curves by the channel in Photoshop, but that doesn't invalidate other workflow ideas that can serve just as well - and in some cases better.

The raw data remains unchanged regardless of what we do with it thereafter - short of deleting it, in the sense that a raw file can always be returned to its "native", "as shot" position regardless of the instructions we generate for rendering that data. We can't really damage an image beyond repair or forever jeopardize the prospects of obtaining an excellent result by how we render a raw file. More often than not we would strive to render it properly so that it can be used optimally in Photoshop thereafter - if necessary, but if we're "too smart by half" and end-up with something that really does cause issues in Photoshop, nothing prevents us from going back to the raw file and re-rendering it, perhaps a bit sadder, but wiser.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad