papasan

<p>I think it's the fate of true artists to never be fully satisfied with their work. The best picture is always the one that has not yet been captured... </p>

<p>Thanks Mike, it is back now. Earlier when i tried the option and box was not there. It must have been a glitch in the system. </p>

<p>I was trying to mark one of the subscriber as interesting so i could follow up on his work, and I realized much to my surprise that the "mark this person as interesting" option is no longer available on top of a subscriber's page. Has this option been removed? if so why? and if not where was it moved to?</p>

<p>Blake if you have a problem downloading the software you can contact Topaz technical support (they have a link on their website) they are exceptionally good at replying and solving any problem you may have.</p>

<p>Hi Wade, <br>

Check out this video it shows a simple technique that creates a "edgy" look that is very popular these days <a href="

</p>

<p>I concur, BW Efx is a great piece of software. It gives you complete flexibility and control over monochromatic conversion in one truly affordable package, it even includes local adjustments such as dodging and burning which is really cool for a plug in. Worth checking out (they have a free 30 day trial). </p>

 

<p>Jay Maisel?</p>

<p>Thank you William and jf. I did a little more research, and it turns out that indeed some filters are only available in 8bit mode, so to use those filters one must convert the photo to 8bit first. This is indeed strange and one wonders why Adobe didn't bother to upgrade its filters to fit the 16 bit formats. Thanks again for your answers. Regards - michel</p>

<p>Hi i searched the forum but didn't find this topic.<br>

I am using CS5 64bits(although it seems to only work in 32 bits), on a Window 7 platform. I recently installed both CS5 (upgrade from CS4) and Lightroom 3 (upgrade from LR2). I seem to have some problems with opening filters in CS5. When i go to the filter menu, many filters are shown as not available, the filter gallery is also not available. All those filters were available in CS4. Am I missing something?</p>

<p>"Sounds like you need to get off the beaten track a bit Michel" </p>

<p>Andrew i think you misunderstood my point, in fact i was saying that we (as photographers) need to recognize that we do not own the places we want to photograph and we have to find ways around the tourists (or else use them in our photos). If you look at my portfolio you will see that i have traveled quite a bit in areas which are not "on the beaten track". But as an (amateur) photographer there are places on the tourist list which i want to visit for my own (not only photographic) interests and i want to bring back images i can enjoy and if I'm lucky that i can share with others, which are not the typical "smiling-and-standing-in-front-of-the-Eiffel-Tower" type of image (and there is nothing wrong with this type of image if that is what you want to bring home) Since my last post on this topic, i think i have found an answer to the question of what the lesson is. At least for me, based on my recent trip to Angkor the lesson has been that often the presence of visual obstacles (like tourist lines) can be a challenge to help you find new and fresh approaches to an icon that has been photographed a million time, by forcing you to find a new angle, or a less explored part of the said icon, or even by using the tourists as part of the image in a creative way.</p>

<p>"...most people don't know when to not use a flash, or even how to force their camera to not use it..." </p>

<p>Jeroen, i think that it is quite true, most of the people in this "paparazzi-style" line-up were using a small P&S likely set on automatic, handheld (in a low light situation), standing up and stretching over others in front of them. I did get annoyed at the flash, but then i go back to my previous point, these people were paying the same amount of money as i was to be there and they had all the rights in the world to stand there and take that picture they wanted to take. </p>

<p>On a recent trip to Angkor Wat i found it very challenging to get good shots of the structures without having a large number of tourists appearing in the photos. The most attended iconic photo scene was the rising of the sun at Angkor Wat. This is where hundreds of people stand up as early as 5 am to catch the first lights coming over the towers and reflecting in the pond. The most annoying were those who had their on camera flash turned on, as if the light from these little devices could reach the walls of the temple 250 meters away but instead it was just lighting the shore of the pond and messing up the long exposures of other photographers who knew better.<br>

I'm not sure what the lesson is, obviously people want to visit such iconic places and bring back photos to their friends and family "proving" they were there. Not every one is interested (as photographers are) in creating an original image worthy of artistic discussion. Every one pays his/her entrance fee to these places and has as much right as the next guy to stand there taking or having his photo taken where thousands have stood before. </p>

<div></div>

<p>I spend 80% of my time in South East Asia where the humidity can be cut with a knife... I also have had many problems with humidity, including losing a camera and several lenses due to mold building up inside the elements and on the sensor. I keep my camera and lenses in a dry safe as much as i can. These can be purchased in any good camera store for a few hundred $ or less and it can save you thousands of dollars. I also avoid air conditioning so the camera and the lenses are generally at the ambient temperature to avoid condensation to take place. Of course if you live in a cold humid climate the problem will be coming indoor from the cold to a warm humid house. Other than letting your camera and equipment adjust to the change in temperature, i would not know what else you can do. Good luck</p>

<p><em>"I think it may have been shot on medium format film</em>"</p>

<p>According to the data for the other picture in this series in her Photo.Net gallery, this was shot with a Nikon D3 camera.</p>

<p>In CS4 you can photomerge RAW images. The software will the most of the work for you. Just go to <file/automate/photomerge> and in the dialog box you click browse. Then go to the folder where your RAW images are located select them all and let CS4 do the work. When it's done you can merge all layers and save as a psd file or TIFF file then open that file in ACR from bridge <file/open in camera raw>. Then you can do all the editing you want in ACR before opening in Photoshop if needed. Hope this helps. </p>

<p>Dennis<br>

if you don't want to pay more than $1000 then it eliminates quite a few candidates. The Canon 85 f/1.2 L is around $2000. The 135 f/2.8 L is about $1200 but while it is probably tack sharp, it not as fast as the 85 f/1.2 by far. A good compromise and at a steal for the price is the Canon 85 f/1.8 for about $550. I also cannot afford or justify paying $2000 for a dedicated portrait lens, so the 85 f/1.8 has been my choice and i find it quite sharp with the 5DII, it is sufficiently fast for most situations, and i like the bokeh. And for $550, you can't go wrong it's a great value lens. I also occasionally use the 100 f/2.8 Macro for portrait. It's quite good (but not as fast as the 85) and at $650 it's a versatile lens which yields good results in medium lit environment. Your choice of lens should take into consideration the type of portraits you want to take. Studio portrait may not require as fast a lens because the lighting can be adjusted easily, but if you are interested in low light candid portraits, then definitely a faster lens should be considered. Good luck</p>

<p>the easiest way is to duplicate the image in Photoshop and change the blending mode of the duplicate image to "multiply" then adjust opacity to taste. </p><div></div>

<p>Manuel you may want to post one of the photos you want process like this and let a few of us have a go at it. There are many ways to achieve a result in PS, but by the look of it, i would start with adding a duplicate layer to the original file, and changing the blending mode to screen. Then adjust opacity to taste. If that doesn't work you may have to work on the original layer and increase vibrance and add or reduce contrast etc. Good luck - michel</p>

<p>I have had pretty good success with a method that i refer to as "channel selection" which is explained in a few books and on video tutorials. Here is my synopsis of a video tutorial i have found on Kelby Training:<br>

1- From the channel panel, select the channel that has the highest contract between the subject to be isolated and the background<br>

2- Duplicate this channel by dragging it to the new channel icon to create a Channel Copy<br>

3- Invert the channel (ctrl I ) the mask is inverted in the channel palette we want the subject to be selected to be white against black<br>

The next few steps are designed to make the white selection as white as possible and the black mask as black as possible. Some of those steps may or may not be required or repeated depending on the level of contrast in the original scene. They also may be applied in different sequence depending on the needs.<br>

4- Apply a level adjustment to the Channel Copy layer to darken the dark and whiten the whites;<br>

5- With a soft brush with the brush blending mode set at Overlay and opacity 50% go over the white area with a white brush, and the black/gray areas with a black brush;<br>

6- From <Edit: Fill> select White and blending mode to overlay and apply. It may be possible to apply it twice; OR<br>

7- From <Image: Apply Image> select Channel Copy and Overlay mode and apply. It may also be possible to apply 2 or 3 times; <br>

8- When the mask is near perfect, switch back to RGB mode in the channel palette and go back to the layer mode<br>

9- From <select> chose <Load Selection> and chose Channel Copy<br>

10- Create a new layer with the selection by <ctrl J><br>

11- To remove white fringing go to <Layer: Mating> and select <defringe> may apply 2x<br>

12- May also apply <layer: mating> and select <remove white mat><br>

13- Create a new empty layer above the active layer set the blending mode to “Multiply” and opacity at 50%<br>

14- Select a dark color from the hair and paint with a soft brush onto the new layer where fringing still exists, then adjust opacity</p>

 

<p>Wonderful! Thanks John</p>

<p>Jack,<br>

it looks likes the photos were partly desaturated and in some case (the second shot) some colors (red) were selectively re-saturated to achieve this effect. If you want to achieve similar results, duplicate your background layer, then de-saturate the copy and adjust opacity until some of the colors return to your taste. Add an adjustment curve and increase contrast (S curve) to your liking. You can also add layer masks to the desaturated layer to reveal more or less areas from the original layer.</p>

<p>Wouldn't gelling the light(s) do the trick? </p>

<p>FWIW I think it's an excellent idea. In addition to bringing people to visit other posters' portfolios, it may also encourage others to contribute to a discussion.</p>

<p>I also noticed that the "First/Prev and Next/Last" icons allowing to go to the next page or last page etc are now conveniently located under the original post and at the top (and bottom) of every page. That is also a good innovation, it makes it a lot easier and faster to navigate through each post this way. Great work Josh. Regards - michel</p>

<p>Here is a workflow i learned from Scott Kelby which i find works quite nicely: <br>

First assuming you took the pix in RAW mode, make sure your WB and exposure/fill light etc are fine.<br>

Open the photo in CS-X <br>

<strong>Brighten the eyes</strong>: Duplicate your bckgrnd layer and change the blend mode to Screen. Apply a black mask (while pressing Alt key, click on the mask icon at the bottom of the layer palette). Using a soft white brush, and making sure the layer mask is active, paint over the eyes. Then adjust opacity of the layer until the eyes look natural but brighter (generally around 30-45%).<br>

<strong>Whiten the teeth</strong> if necessary (you can follow the same procedure as above) <br>

<strong>remove skin blemishes </strong> Open a new blank layer over your background layer, select the healing brush, and make sure that in the "sample" box "current and below" is selected. Enlarge the photo to 100% and clean up any blemishes on the skin. The size of the healing brush should be just slightly larger than the size of the blemish you are trying to remove. Make sure you select an area that is clean before you apply it to another area. This may be tedious if there are many blemishes but it is the most important step in smoothening the skin.<br>

<strong>reduce wrinkle and eye bags</strong>: following the same procedure as above, paint the wrinkles and the eye bags with the healing brush and/or stamp tool. When done, reduce the opacity of the layer to 50% or whatever level looks natural.<br>

<strong>enhance hair highlights:</strong> duplicate the background layer and change blending mode to Screen. Again apply a black layer mask to hide the change and paint on the layer mask with a white brush following the highlights in the hair. When done, reduce opacity until the highlights look natural<br>

<strong>enhance facial features: </strong>with the burn tool set at 10% and middle tone, paint all the dark areas of the face (like the cheek bones and the dark side of the nose, then do the same thing with the dodge tool painting all the highlights in the face. The purpose is to "sculpt" the features. This works well with a subject that has camera ready make up. When done adjust opacity of the layer until it looks natural<br>

<strong>sharpen eye and mouth</strong> enlarge the eyes to 100%, and apply smart sharpen filter (or high pass filter) until the eyes look tack sharp. Then apply a black mask to the layer and paint away the mask over the eyes to reveal them. Lower the opacity of the brush and paint over the lips and teeth, with the white brush without overdoing it. <br>

<strong>soften skin.</strong> Apply a gaussian blur (20pix opacity 50%) and apply a black mask. With a white soft brush paint away the mask over the skin areas you want smoothened. <br>

good luck</p>

<p>I like your composition and i find the portrait mode gives the photo more depth and a sense of direction for the lady walking up the hill. There are many possibilities but when i saw this shot i had a idea of a contrasty, almost grungy looking image to bring a sense of loneliness about the lady. So here is my take. Not for every taste but just fun. Regards - michel</p><div></div>

<p>" <em>"that "pops" to the extent of looking like the kid has rosacea on my monitor anyhow. And what about the white goggle around the right eye?</em>"<br /> Actually JDM, the original was much more red which i admitted i didn't completely correct. The white goggle was there as well, this is from the shoot not from post-processing, and i didn't attempt to correct this either. This was a 5 mins quick fix. The OP wanted more pop and that's what i try to do by bringing out the eyes and the colors and adding a bit of contrast. I never claim that my approach is better just my own interpretation. I like Les' take on this though, it's probably the most natural color balance.</p>