Dangers with new features.

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by Gerald Cafferty, Jun 26, 2022.

  1. The new masking features in Lightroom should have come with a health warning. Just because you can doesn't mean you should!. Not until I uploaded this photo to a recent thread did I realise I'd turned it into a near HDR, I hate HDR.
    SponStreetCoventry_F5444-408.jpg
     
  2. It does look a bit like Stratford meets Vegas but I like it.
     
  3. In general, you're right.

    What happened in this photo, Gerald? In the sense of what LR adjustments were you trying to make with which areas masked in and out? Did LR just ignore the maks and apply the adjustments to the whole photo? Or did the 'masking' just screw up the whole export process? Just curious!

    Mike
     
  4. LR was not at fault it's all down to me. The recent update to LR classic enables tools that makes selections of elements in the photo a one click operation. Choose Select Sky results in a near perfect cut-out of the sky. This and other features are so easy I just felt the need to use them, over processing is even more of a danger. I repeat I'm to blame not the software:(
     
    mikemorrell and digitaldog like this.
  5. My experience is consistent with Gerald's. The LR masking features work well and substantially move the border between what can be done in LR and what needs Photoshop, although the latter is still far stronger and offers more control. The only problems I've had with LR's masking have been operator error. There have been quite a number of those.
     
    mikemorrell likes this.
  6. I’m pleased with the new masking tools in LR especially the Subject and Sky ones. I’ve never learnt PS selections etc so the 1-click selection mask in LR is appreciated
     
  7. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    The masking is very good. What one does to the mask is iffy. It's a tool to select and works quite well. After that, the control over the selection is successful or not, based on the user.
    At least you're never burning any edits into pixels; all parametric edits. As such, you can, if so desired, back off that HDR 'look' you over did.
    More such masking and controls over it are on the way. And that's good.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2022
  8. At least LR added some detail to a cloudy sky, and not simply replaced it with cloudless blue. The latter would have raised questions whether the photo was taken in Great Britain at all. (That's not totally fair. I have personally witnessed blue sky in rural England. Ireland too.)
     
    Gerald Cafferty likes this.
  9. PS:

    Me too.

    The one exception I made for a while was the Merge to HDR function in LR, which usually doesn't create the color distortions or grunge artifacts that characterize HDR. However, in processing one bracketed image recently, I found that it did distort colors in a way that I couldn't easily correct. So, I'm back to exposure blending, either using LR Enfuse or manually. In that particular case, I redid the composite using LR confuse, and the colors were just fine.
     
    Gerald Cafferty likes this.
  10. Photoshop has many one click selection tools, they are far more superior to the LR equivalent....
     
    mikemorrell likes this.
  11. I offer a similar caution when using Luminar. It does some very handy things, but it's easy to get carried away and create over-saturated and unrealistic images. I'm not aware of any software that comes with built-in good taste. :D
     
  12. I’m sure that’s the case but LR does enough for me. Thanks, anyway
     
    digitaldog likes this.
  13. AJG

    AJG

    I've often thought that using Photoshop should require an aesthetic license--sort of like getting a driver's license before you're allowed to legally drive a car. Who would determine what "good taste" is would be the problem though...
     
  14. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    And unfortunately are not parametric raw edits.
    As for superior; stay tuned for far more one-click masking options for those of us that want to do so at the raw processing stage.
     
  15. That's not Stratford, it's Coventry. Featuring what was once known as "Ma Brown's" or the Old Windmill pub.
    In reality the colors of the pub sign are nowhere near that bright and saturated.
     
  16. But 32 bits.. and you can create a mask and come back to ACR any time for adjustments...
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2022
  17. Lightroom's workspace is 16-bit--called Melissa, a variant of ProPhoto

    Outside of HDR and 3D rendering, I don't think 32 bits gives any advantage in Photoshop, and some of its functions won't run in 32 bits. The standard is ProPhoto, which is 16 bit.

    My workflow varies with the image, but I often find it helpful to make some edits at the raw stage, so LR's much improved selection tools are a help. An LR is sometimes enough. I've exhibited prints edited only in Lightroom, and I sold one last year.
     
    digitaldog likes this.
  18. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Nope, plus you can pour a pint into a gallon container, it is still a pint. Photoshop only supports 8-bit selections and Layer Masks as well.
    Photoshop has always been 15 bits plus one level...done for algorithmic processing reasons. And since there really isn't a real-life source of full 16-bit image captures, that's all the precision Photoshop needs.
    But the big differences between edits in Photoshop and ACR/LR is far more than about bit depth and a lot about parametric editing with scene-referred data or better, fully raw data.
     
  19. Mine is different. Try levels in 32 bit, it's better than any raw software.

    Screenshot 2022-07-05 at 00.54.36.png

    Screenshot 2022-07-05 at 00.54.27.png
     
  20. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2022

Share This Page

1111