Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Viveza plug-in for Lightroom  (Read 7050 times)
Tklimek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


« on: March 04, 2009, 01:17:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Folks....

I just saw a blurb on Matt Koslowski's blog regarding the Viveza plug-in now being available for Lightroom.  Does anyone know how this works?  Does this let you use the control points to mask an area much like you would use the TAT - and then let you change the various sliders which are available in LR?  Sounds like a possible interesting announcement.

Cheers...

Todd in Chicago
Logged
James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2009, 01:40:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tklimek
Folks....

I just saw a blurb on Matt Koslowski's blog regarding the Viveza plug-in now being available for Lightroom.  Does anyone know how this works?  Does this let you use the control points to mask an area much like you would use the TAT - and then let you change the various sliders which are available in LR?  Sounds like a possible interesting announcement.

Cheers...

Todd in Chicago

It works very well.  However, it allows to make numerous adjustments using control points.  Once you have all the adjustments fine tuned, you hit the apply button.  It saves the image back into LR2.  Now you have a new image with which to play.  I think it is a great tool.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2009, 01:56:06 PM »
ReplyReply

How it works is just like Photoshop expect you don't necessarily need PS. This is how all so called plug-in's for Aperture, LR and other Raw converters operate, they build a rendered pixel based image and apply the filter, just as they would do in Photoshop. Its NOT happening in the Raw processing engine using metadata instructions.

The only Raw converter I know of that actually applies a few 3rd party plug-in's directly within the Raw engine is Bibble. Using NoiseNinji, its actually doing this in the Raw processing engine, not on some rendered image, making it truly non destructive and providing all the advantages of the Raw engine (high bit, wide gamut, linear encoding, non destructive etc).
Logged

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

Posts: 286


« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2009, 02:05:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Ahhhh....thanks Andrew...that's exactly what I was looking for.

I'm really not all that interested in the export/import business....    

I think it would be really "cool" tech if they could do it inside of Lightroom; such that it simply IS a set of instructions to the plug-in that get saved like any other changes in LR -- not ending up with two files which is sounds is like what really happens here.

Does anyone know if the LR roadmap includes some sort of functionality which will let 3rd party plugins operate by saving their instructiongs in the image "instruction set" vs. actually baking the image?

Cheers...

Todd in Chicago

Quote from: digitaldog
How it works is just like Photoshop expect you don't necessarily need PS. This is how all so called plug-in's for Aperture, LR and other Raw converters operate, they build a rendered pixel based image and apply the filter, just as they would do in Photoshop. Its NOT happening in the Raw processing engine using metadata instructions.

The only Raw converter I know of that actually applies a few 3rd party plug-in's directly within the Raw engine is Bibble. Using NoiseNinji, its actually doing this in the Raw processing engine, not on some rendered image, making it truly non destructive and providing all the advantages of the Raw engine (high bit, wide gamut, linear encoding, non destructive etc).
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2009, 02:07:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Currently there is no SDK for the processing engine.

Logged

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

Posts: 277



« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2009, 02:43:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Currently there is no SDK for the processing engine.

...which is unfortunate, really. Some of these "plug-ins", which are just external editors like PS, look interesting but I have no desire to leave the non-destructive world of LR. I don't quite understand the lack of SDK's for options like this. Maybe it's a technical hurdle that's just too much trouble to deal with. Maybe it's something else but providing a pathway into the RAW engine for interesting and useful 3rd party tools would be a boon for customers, not to mention Adobe. I come from the world of pro audio where non-destructive PI's are a big part of a given audio recording/editing/mixing platform's strength and appeal. It's a true win-win.
Logged

Tklimek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2009, 03:14:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if part of this is to not cannabalize the flagship product Photoshop.  Or perhaps they wanted to give this product a good set of sturdy legs before opening Pandora's box.

It would be really cool to be able to utilize a program like Photomatix to do HDR stuff inside of LR....all non-destructive, or to be able to use plug-ins like the Topaz Labs stuff.

Hey...did we start a "Lightroom 3.0 Requested Features" thread yet?    

After all.....we ARE consumers and will never be satisfied!  ;-)

Cheers....

Todd in Chicago

Quote from: dwood
...which is unfortunate, really. Some of these "plug-ins", which are just external editors like PS, look interesting but I have no desire to leave the non-destructive world of LR. I don't quite understand the lack of SDK's for options like this. Maybe it's a technical hurdle that's just too much trouble to deal with. Maybe it's something else but providing a pathway into the RAW engine for interesting and useful 3rd party tools would be a boon for customers, not to mention Adobe. I come from the world of pro audio where non-destructive PI's are a big part of a given audio recording/editing/mixing platform's strength and appeal. It's a true win-win.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2009, 05:10:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwood
...which is unfortunate, really. Some of these "plug-ins", which are just external editors like PS, look interesting but I have no desire to leave the non-destructive world of LR.

Me either. Once I render pixels, that's a big line I draw in the sand editing wise.

Quote
I don't quite understand the lack of SDK's for options like this. Maybe it's a technical hurdle that's just too much trouble to deal with. Maybe it's something else but providing a pathway into the RAW engine for interesting and useful 3rd party tools would be a boon for customers, not to mention Adobe. I come from the world of pro audio where non-destructive PI's are a big part of a given audio recording/editing/mixing platform's strength and appeal. It's a true win-win.

I think its a technical issue as well as one in which the manufacturer has to either open up the Raw processing pipeline to outsiders or convince them to hand over their proprietary processing. Hopefully someday it will be solved. Bibble was able to do so.
Logged

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

Posts: 1334


« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2009, 07:02:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Me either. Once I render pixels, that's a big line I draw in the sand editing wise.
I also had hoped that somehow Viveza would work *in* LR.  However, for people that use LR and avoid Photoshop, I suppose that using Viveza as an external editor gives them access to local adjustments beyond those in LR (ACR), and Viveza is so easy to use that many will probably be able to make subtle adjustments without layers and direct masking.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2009, 07:34:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: walter.sk
I also had hoped that somehow Viveza would work *in* LR.  However, for people that use LR and avoid Photoshop, I suppose that using Viveza as an external editor gives them access to local adjustments beyond those in LR (ACR), and Viveza is so easy to use that many will probably be able to make subtle adjustments without layers and direct masking.

Yup, its only an advantage is for non Photoshop users (or users who don't have a host product that accepts this and other plug ins). But its not really fair to say it gives them access to local adjustments beyond those in LR and ACR since the latter are true, metadata edits using the Raw processing pipeline. There's a pretty significant difference in applying these local corrections in a Raw pipeline versus doing so on rendered pixels.

I just wish these manufacturers were more clear on what they are actually doing on the specific data provided. It appears for many that they are getting these edits within the Raw pipeline when in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. And I'd probably still want to apply such edits, in Photoshop on a separate layer for flexibility and control (opacity, blend modes, fade etc).
Logged

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

Posts: 277



« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2009, 07:45:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
I just wish these manufacturers were more clear on what they are actually doing on the specific data provided. It appears for many that they are getting these edits within the Raw pipeline when in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Yup. The whole marketing spin of calling these external editors PI's came from the Aperture group, or at least that's my sense. Those darn marketing folks at Apple are pretty good, and lots of folks buy into it. Bugs the heck out of me that these app's are referred to as PI's though.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2009, 07:49:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwood
Yup. The whole marketing spin of calling these external editors PI's came from the Aperture group, or at least that's my sense. Those darn marketing folks at Apple are pretty good, and lots of folks buy into it. Bugs the heck out of me that these app's are referred to as PI's though.

Agreed. Apple started this as far as I recall.

Not saying the plug-ins are not useful. But they are far less useful than they would lead some to believe.

I'm really looking forward to checking out the new version of Bibble. Current version is pretty slick in terms of how they implement 3rd party functionality within the actual Raw pipeline.
Logged

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

Posts: 574


« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2009, 07:50:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwood
Yup. The whole marketing spin of calling these external editors PI's came from the Aperture group, or at least that's my sense. Those darn marketing folks at Apple are pretty good, and lots of folks buy into it. Bugs the heck out of me that these app's are referred to as PI's though.

I had someone ask me about plugins for LR the other day.  It threw me until I read this.  I had read of some things that were available for 'round trips' more or less (as I sometimes go to PS), but they were insistent that they were 'plugins'.  Now I know.

Diane
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2009, 10:46:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Yup, its only an advantage is for non Photoshop users (or users who don't have a host product that accepts this and other plug ins). But its not really fair to say it gives them access to local adjustments beyond those in LR and ACR since the latter are true, metadata edits using the Raw processing pipeline. There's a pretty significant difference in applying these local corrections in a Raw pipeline versus doing so on rendered pixels.

Metadata editing is one thing. That and its advantages are clear enough to me. But you keep mentioning the 'raw processing pipeline'. How can you know which functions, processes, edits are applied on the raw (i.e. pre-demosaiced) data rather than the RGB (i.e. rendered data) in processors like LR, ACR and Aperture. AFAIK there's no documentation by the manufacturers with regards to that.

Metadata editing can be applied both to 'raw' and RGB data and nobody who has no insider info can tell what is happening at which stage.One can make some educated guesses (e.g. some operation like colour modifications make no sense on raw data) but these would be just guesses nevertheless.

So the way I understand, is that you should be asking for plugins to be integrated in the 'metadata editing pipeline' rather than the 'raw processing pipeline' which is as misleading as the statements by Apple you are referring to.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2009, 10:52:45 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2009, 10:56:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
How can you know which functions, processes, edits are applied on the raw (i.e. pre-demosaiced) data rather than the RGB (i.e. rendered data) in processors like LR, ACR and Aperture.

Well I know for a fact none are applied by 3rd party plug-in's for both products as there's no SDK and therefore no way for these folks to access anything but what gets spit out of the rendering engine.

I also have numerous emails from Adobe engineers, much of it under NDA, discussing the processing pipeline in layman terms such that I can understand what the heck they are talking about.

And lastly, when I say Raw processing pipeline, I'm not drawing a line in the sand between pre and post demosiaced data.
Logged

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

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2009, 11:03:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Well I know for a fact none are applied by 3rd party plug-in's for both products as there's no SDK and therefore no way for these folks to access anything but what gets spit out of the rendering engine.

I also have numerous emails from Adobe engineers, much of it under NDA, discussing the processing pipeline in layman terms such that I can understand what the heck they are talking about.

And lastly, when I say Raw processing pipeline, I'm not drawing a line in the sand between pre and post demosiaced data.


I'm sure you are right that these 3rd party products access a rendered image. I never implied otherwise.

About your insider info I cannot comment on since I don't know what it is.

IMO, if one talks about a 'raw processing pipeline' one implies processing on raw data. At least, that's what a reader would understand, allowing one to make the (inaccurate) assumption that if an edit is applied on raw data it is somehow better by definition than if it is applied on RGB data.  Which, as I explained, is not accurate and it can be misleading, since many of the operations are applied on rendered data anyhow.

I believe many people confuse meta data editing with raw conversion and processing and delineating between the two would be semantically helpful. The first can exist without the second.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2009, 11:09:10 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2009, 11:09:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
IMO, if one talks about a 'raw processing pipeline' one implies processing on raw data.

Yes, the data initially is Raw and what comes out the back end is a gamma corrected RGB image. The instructions for processing that data is instruction based.

These products can also initially deal with RGB, gamma corrected, pixel data (JPEG, TIFF); non Raw data. This can be "somehow" better for processing such data for a number of reasons.

What about all this inaccurate or an attempt to confuse?
Logged

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

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2009, 11:13:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Yes, the data initially is Raw and what comes out the back end is a gamma corrected RGB image. The instructions for processing that data is instruction based.

These products can also initially deal with RGB, gamma corrected, pixel data (JPEG, TIFF); non Raw data. This can be "somehow" better for processing such data for a number of reasons.

What about all this inaccurate or an attempt to confuse?

I never said that you have attempted to confuse. I have said that your phrase 'raw processing pipeline' can be inaccurate and, as such, confusing.I think that I have stated why I think so clearly enough, no reason to repeat it.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2009, 11:21:30 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2009, 11:21:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
I never said that you have attempted to confuse. I have said that your phrase 'raw processing pipeline' is inaccurate and confusing.I think that I have stated why I think so clearly enough, no reason to repeat it.

Maybe this will help anyone else may be confused:

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/unde...lrawcapture.pdf

And:

http://mysite.verizon.net/rajeevramanath/R...line-SPM-05.pdf



« Last Edit: March 05, 2009, 11:31:07 AM by digitaldog » Logged

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

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2009, 11:28:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Maybe this will help anyone else may be confused:

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/unde...lrawcapture.pdf

This is a nice introduction but I fail to see how it helps our discussion.
Logged

Nikos
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad