Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Curves  (Read 104689 times)
X-Re
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2007, 04:11:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is that better?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127617\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

     Take a hike, bub.
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2007, 05:06:43 PM »
ReplyReply

The individual has now been deleted and banned.

Michael
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 05:26:16 PM by michael » Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2007, 05:16:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
IF you're rendering raw data (not using LR or ACR to edit existing rendered gamma corrected images which I think is silly), then you have to look at this tool in a different light.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127615\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew:

I hear you on rendering raw, BUT...  ACR has a curves point mode in addition to the sliders -- and thus I have a good old fashioned curves type interface in RAW that I can place points on. This option is missing in LR...  My only point was I prefer that type of adjustment freedom (and I submit higher precision) to the parametric sliders.  Moreover,  it's what I'm used to doing.  (Not sure why the other guy went postal, but I thought that was his point too...)

Cheers,
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 05:19:08 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

JeffCharles
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2007, 05:42:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for the ban.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 05:43:58 PM by JeffCharles » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2007, 05:58:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The individual has now been deleted and banned.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127675\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good. And thanks for telling us - it will serve as a public future reference point in case other such people join the site and behave likewise.
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2007, 06:08:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andrew:

I hear you on rendering raw, BUT...  ACR has a curves point mode in addition to the sliders -- and thus I have a good old fashioned curves type interface in RAW that I can place points on. This option is missing in LR...  My only point was I prefer that type of adjustment freedom (and I submit higher precision) to the parametric sliders.  Moreover,  it's what I'm used to doing.  (Not sure why the other guy went postal, but I thought that was his point too...)

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127676\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Jack,

OK, now that this thread is back to sanity we can discuss technicalities in peace and harmony. I agree with your observation that the point curve is extremely useful, it's what we know best, and I applaud Thomas Knoll that it was retained in Adobe Camera Raw. I also applaud the Adobe team on the development of the Parametric Curve which appears in both Lightroom and in Camera Raw. I also agree it would be helpful if the point curve were also included in Lightroom as it is in Camera Raw. When I attended a Lightroom seminar at PhotoshopWorld in Boston this past April I met a number of the key players on the Lightroom team and I made this recommendation to them. Of course many people recommend all kinds of things to them, and they must decide whether a point curve is a good philosophical fit for their concept of what Lightroom is supposed to be about.

At first I was a bit skeptical about the usefulness of this parametric curve, because I was forever frustrated that I could not detach the end points from their anchors - that is really the main hiccup with it. But I must report, now that I have played with this parametric curve ALOT, I have really become a convert - don't get me wrong - I still want my point curve, but this tool is GOOD. It's a very efficient way of doing zonal-type adjustments on images - as a complement if needed after you finish with Exposure, Recovery, Fill Light and Blacks in the Basic Tab. Once you combine the adjustability of the zonal demarcators with the adjustability of the four portions of the Curve itself, you can get a surprising amount of very refined and powerful control out of this system. I'm developing techniques for setting it which in some ways surpass the flexibility of the point curve in terms of acceptable impacts on images.

Cheers,

Mark
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 06:09:01 PM by MarkDS » 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
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2007, 06:18:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I applaud Thomas Knoll that it was retained in Adobe Camera Raw. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It had to be retained for backwards compatibility reasons. It should also be noted that Lightroom 1/1.1 CAN render a point curve, you just can't actually edit the point curve.

However, if you'all want the point curve editor in Lightroom, you would do better posting in the Feature Request forum for Lightroom and be prepared to make a use case why certain edits HAVE to be done with points and why the lack of points in Lightroom is causing less than optimal processing results. That is the only real factor with weight.

Merely saying you LIKE points better than parametric or you WANT point editing won't get any traction, what so ever. You must make a case and prove it. Fact is, most curves CAN be done quicker and easier with parametric than points–if you know what you're doing. There are only a very few things that can't be done-like editing extreme highlights to tease textural detail out. That's an example...and the engineers already know that...but it would be useful to find more use cases to strengthen the case.

P.S. Mike, thanks for making butthead go bye bye...of course now that's he listed as "registered" his darn vulgar posts reappeared. :~(
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 06:20:31 PM by Schewe » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2007, 06:59:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It had to be retained for backwards compatibility reasons. It should also be noted that Lightroom 1/1.1 CAN render a point curve, you just can't actually edit the point curve.

However, if you'all want the point curve editor in Lightroom, you would do better posting in the Feature Request forum for Lightroom and be prepared to make a use case why certain edits HAVE to be done with points and why the lack of points in Lightroom is causing less than optimal processing results. That is the only real factor with weight.

Merely saying you LIKE points better than parametric or you WANT point editing won't get any traction, what so ever. You must make a case and prove it. Fact is, most curves CAN be done quicker and easier with parametric than points–if you know what you're doing. There are only a very few things that can't be done-like editing extreme highlights to tease textural detail out. That's an example...and the engineers already know that...but it would be useful to find more use cases to strengthen the case.

P.S. Mike, thanks for making butthead go bye bye...of course now that's he listed as "registered" his darn vulgar posts reappeared. :~(
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Long live backward compatibility!

It's not a matter of "liking it better". It happens to be a very efficient and effective way of achieving higher contrast and brightness at the same time with a distinctly smooth gradiant of luminosity change that you can get from a linear more easily than from a curvilinear transformation. I had hoped at least one or more of the huge number of beta testers and perhaps an alpha or two would have recommended that to them, and perhaps did. (I had a long delay getting into Lightroom Beta because I'm on Windows, then soon after the CS3 Beta came out, so I opted for that.) The feedback I got to my suggestion for the point curve at PSW indicated quite clearly that not including it in LR was a deliberate choice to "keep the program simple" - so it's not that they don't know the merits of it, they consciously decided not to include it. Well, they are the developers - their prerogative. Maybe if they get enough recommendations from enough customers all saying the same thing they'll rethink that decision. Clearly it's no big deal to just drop it in - the whole thing is there already in Camera Raw.

(edited)

Cheers,

Mark
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 07:01:27 PM by MarkDS » 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
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2007, 07:11:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There are only a very few things that can't be done-like editing extreme highlights to tease textural detail out. That's an example...and the engineers already know that...but it would be useful to find more use cases to strengthen the case.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I hear you Jeff, but maintaining detail in highlights is an area I personally pay lots of attention to, especially during the raw conversion;  I expend enough energy to make sure they're not blown during capture, that I certainly want to be able to tweak them without blowing them during conversion. The upper end of the highlights is probably not as important for folks posting mainly to the web -- a LR strength -- but IMO it makes a difference in obtaining the optimal tonal balance in a print.   I am often asked how I get the look I get in my images (web and print) by folks who know how to process, and I suspect the question is at least partially answered by what I do with my highlights.

Mark: If I could add another slider or two to the parametric curve so I had more control in the highlights without giving it up in the shadows, I might be more enthused with the tool, but even then I have doubts they would give me the discrimination I want in that adjustment...

Cheers,
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 07:20:22 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2007, 07:35:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
IMark: If I could add another slider or two to the parametric curve so I had more control in the highlights without giving it up in the shadows, I might be more enthused with the tool, but even then I have doubts they would give me the discrimination I want in that adjustment...

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127698\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack,

I find that by very careful placement of the first zone placer to the right on the x-axis of the dialogue box, and then iterating between adjusting it as well as the Highlights and Lights sliders themselves, one can achieve quite subtle control of what happens to real highlights, versus "Lights". As I'm sure you've discovered already, one really should play with those zonal markers to make the most of that tool. By the way, you don't give up a thing in the shadows by playing with the Lights and the Highlights, especially if watching the placement of the zone marker between Darks and Shadows.
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
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2007, 09:18:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack,

I find that by very careful placement of the first zone placer to the right on the x-axis of the dialogue box, and then iterating between adjusting it as well as the Highlights and Lights sliders themselves, one can achieve quite subtle control of what happens to real highlights, versus "Lights". As I'm sure you've discovered already, one really should play with those zonal markers to make the most of that tool. By the way, you don't give up a thing in the shadows by playing with the Lights and the Highlights, especially if watching the placement of the zone marker between Darks and Shadows.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127699\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've played with it a bit, but admit I am not even close to proficient...  Explain to me how I would increase contrast in the highlights while keeping the maximum brightness at 97% (roughly 248) and at the same time not affecting any pixels below say 87% (roughly 222) using the parametric controls.  

Assume at the same time I want to add an inverse adjustment (lower contrast but maintain certain border values) in the shadows.  

Finally, suppose once the above are done, I might want to boost contrast slightly throughout the middle range from say 25% through 75%, and increase brightness slightly, but of course without significantly altering either of the earlier adjustments.

I'm sure it can be done and moreover understand a "similar" more general effect could be achieved, but I cannot see how to do it with precision using the slider interface.  Yet in curves it is accomplished pretty easily with good precision.  

Cheers,
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 09:23:44 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2007, 09:20:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The feedback I got to my suggestion for the point curve at PSW indicated quite clearly that not including it in LR was a deliberate choice to "keep the program simple" - so it's not that they don't know the merits of it, they consciously decided not to include it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127697\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You THINK they said "keep the program simple", what they were REALLY saying is that it didn't sound mission critical so they chose not to spend the engineering time required to engineer a UI into Lightroom to be able to edit points because they had so many other things they couldn't afford the time. You need to be able to read the context (engineer speak).

Will Lightroom get the UI to edit points?

I'll bet it will at some "point" :~) Not that hard since the code is already there, just no UI. Will it happen sooner vs later? The more people that post on the Feature Request forum asking for it and giving strong use cases the more likely it will to be soon than later.
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2007, 09:29:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You THINK they said "keep the program simple", what they were REALLY saying is that it didn't sound mission critical [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At least the sliders are more or less idiot-proof    I see it akin to having a stereo with bass, treble and volume adjustments, versus having a component system with a graphic equalizer.  I suspect from a business POV, it gets the job done "well enough" for 80% of the users, and for management, that's "good enough".

I liked Adobe better when Lamkin was there -- at least I had his ear on some of this stuff  

Cheers,
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 09:55:52 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2007, 09:33:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At least the sliders are more or less idiot-proof    I see it akin to having a stereo with bass, treble and volume adjustments, versus having a component system with a graphic equalizer.  I suspect from a business POV, it gets the job done "good enough" for 80% of the users, and for management, that's "good enough".

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, the sliders are NOT idiot proof. Use them badly and you can mess-up an image just as badly as you would with a traditional Curve  
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2007, 09:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've played with it a bit, but admit I am not even close to proficient...  Explain to me how I would increase contrast in the highlights while keeping the maximum brightness at 97% (roughly 248) and at the same time not affecting any pixels below say 87% (roughly 222) using the parametric controls. 

Assume at the same time I want to add an inverse adjustment (lower contrast but maintain certain border values) in the shadows. 

Finally, suppose once the above are done, I might want to boost contrast slightly throughout the middle range from say 25% through 75%, and increase brightness slightly, but of course without significantly altering either of the earlier adjustments.

I'm sure it can be done and moreover understand a "similar" more general effect could be achieved, but I cannot see how to do it with precision using the slider interface.  Yet in curves it is accomplished pretty easily with good precision. 

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For the highlight portion, you would set the rightmost zone marker far enough to the left to isolate only the highlights whose contrast you want to increase. Then you would steepen that portion of the curve with the Highlight slider.

For the shadows, likewise you would set the left most point far enough to the left to isolate just the shadow areas, and adjust the shadows slider to make it flatter.

For the middle range, you would then steepen the "Darks" and "Lights" portions, experimenting how much for each and where to place the middle zone marker to delineate the Lights from the Darks. You can have some quite refined control over the mid-tones - for example, suppose you Lighten the Lights and Darken the darks, or you Lighten both but the Darks by less than the Lights. Then by sliding that middle zone marker to the left the mid-tones darken, and by sliding it to the right they lighten. Etc., etc.
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
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2007, 09:51:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For the highlight portion, you would set the rightmost zone marker far enough to the left to isolate only the highlights whose contrast you want to increase. Then you would steepen that portion of the curve with the Highlight slider.

For the shadows, likewise you would set the left most point far enough to the left to isolate just the shadow areas, and adjust the shadows slider to make it flatter.

For the middle range, you would then steepen the "Darks" and "Lights" portions, experimenting how much for each and where to place the middle zone marker to delineate the Lights from the Darks. You can have some quite refined control over the mid-tones - for example, suppose you Lighten the Lights and Darken the darks, or you Lighten both but the Darks by less than the Lights. Then by sliding that middle zone marker to the left the mid-tones darken, and by sliding it to the right they lighten. Etc., etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, I get that -- as I said I could generate a similar effect... But can I lock down the specific end values as I listed them for the highlights?  I think not.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 09:57:53 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 11, 2007, 10:40:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yeah, I get that -- as I said I could generate a similar effect... But can I lock down the specific end values as I listed them for the highlights?  I think not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127721\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack, it's a different kind of thinking. The language of "locking down values" is more applicable to traditional point curves - which I too still like very much.
My version of the LR interface doesn't even give me those composite Luminosity values to reference (or at least I haven't seen where). Where does one see when you are at luminosity 87%? (I only see individual R G B values on LR-1 for Windows.) I think luminosity in the LR interface is meant to be used more visually and less by specific numerical luminosity values as in the traditional way.
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
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 11, 2007, 10:52:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think luminosity in the LR interface is meant to be used more visually and less by specific numerical luminosity values as in the traditional way.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, I got that... Reminds of an old ad... "With the Bose radio you don't need any complicated dials or settings because our professional audiophiles have pre-balanced the radio to perfection for you!  Simply adjust the volume to your desired level and enjoy the music!"   ~~~  Want some more Kool-Aid?

All kidding aside, if LR works as-is for you, great.  Me, I want more flexibility and repeatable precision.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 11:03:00 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7744



WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 11, 2007, 11:53:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, if you'all want the point curve editor in Lightroom, you would do better posting in the Feature Request forum for Lightroom and be prepared to make a use case why certain edits HAVE to be done with points and why the lack of points in Lightroom is causing less than optimal processing results. That is the only real factor with weight.

Merely saying you LIKE points better than parametric or you WANT point editing won't get any traction, what so ever. You must make a case and prove it. Fact is, most curves CAN be done quicker and easier with parametric than points–if you know what you're doing. There are only a very few things that can't be done-like editing extreme highlights to tease textural detail out. That's an example...and the engineers already know that...but it would be useful to find more use cases to strengthen the case.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

I understand the constraints of software developement.

But... overlooking the "want" to focus on the "need" will not capture the fact that if I don't get what I "want" I'll probably decide at some point of time to use a piece of software that does give me what I "want".

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 510


« Reply #39 on: July 12, 2007, 12:07:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jeff,

I understand the constraints of software developement.

But... overlooking the "want" to focus on the "need" will not capture the fact that if I don't get what I "want" I'll probably decide at some point of time to use a piece of software that does give me what I "want".

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That is the crux of the matter; I keep hearing from software companies what amounts to "we know you don't like it but its better this way, get used to it" with little or no thought to what the consumer actually desires.  It seems that many of these companies would benifit in taking a basic business course from their local community college.  But, then again, I doubt adobe will be losing money anytime soon because of something like this.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad