The Channel Mixer Class is here!  It's the most fun class I've ever written, you'll love it.  Info here

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. Is it possible to show me a couple of example images? Yeah, definitely try to keep to raw editing only.
  3. Hi, Damien, Wondering if you have any suggestions/guidelines on how to approach editing several hundred images for sporting events in a short time frame. These are basically courtesy photos. It's not feasible to give 800 images a full levels edit within optimal turn-around time. In the past, I have spent days photographing events, and then days sorting and editing (admittedly badly), but that's simply not a sustainable model. I dig your action for creating web-ready images with my signature and borders. So I am kind of thinking doing my raw edits in groups of 15 or so, opening them in PS, possibly adding some midtone contrast, and then running your action. Would love to hear any thoughts or advice you have on the optimal intersection of speed and quality for these images. Of course, if anyone wants to purchase a print, I would provide a more carefully edited file. Does this sound reasonable approach? What could improve this process? Thanks for your perspective. Cheers, msn
  4. Thank you, thank you, thank you. And of course that makes perfect sense in hindsight.
  5. In the Options Bar, you have to make sure your gradient is set to "Foreground to Transparent" not "Foreground to Background".
  6. I thought I would ask this here rather than in the new class as it is a general question that I probably should have worked out a long time ago-- when you are masking Russell's rock image you masked the rock first then added a gradient to the mask for the sky-- when I add the gradient I lose the rock masking and I have looked all over the screen for an additive mode but I can't seem to find it. I have tried to add gradients like this before or multiple gradients but have always ended up adding multiple layers to do this.
  7. Yesterday
  8. Thanks Damien. Much appreciated. I'll make a note of it and adjust as required for others. (Shame I have to go to Ps, but oh well.)
  9. For this particular image, these numbers should work fine, and be fairly easy to mask on, except for immediately adjacent to the calf and wheels. Similar numbers should work for others.
  10. I shoot indoor sport (roller derby), and deliver a fair number of files for every bout. As a result, I don't want to spend an age editing each and every one; I try to get it as right as I can in-camera, then PP in Bridge/ACR to correct exposure, contrast etc. No real problems there. The issue comes when the attending ambulance personnel are in the frame, and the flash bounces off those reflective strips on their clothing- it make a big bright mess of things. The ideal solution would be something that allows me to stay in ACR for simplicity. The glow can stay there, but a reduction would be very good. These aren't fine art, they're sport photos that I need to get up PDQ and I'd like a quick way to fix those that need it. If I need to drop into PS, so be it. Note that mostly the ambos are out of focus in the background, not primary subjects, so dodgy work is OK. Here's a SOOR crop to illustrate the issue. Thanks.
  11. If your images are already reasonably good in terms of their exposure and white balance, you can get results every bit as amazing as raw. But jpeg is far less forgiving than raw, you see. If you have been working in tricky light, and ended up with a set of underexposed or overexposed photos, your results will be MUCH better if they're raw files.
  12. Just read your introduction to RAW and have just signed up for the masks and layering class. I have alot of images that are in Jpeg that i would and propbably should edit Am i right in saying that RAW is best for editing in terms of flexibility and options but I can still get good editing results with Jpeg images just not amazing like RAW?
  13. I've just sent you an email.
  14. Last week
  15. Hi Piero, You only calibrate in the dark. Immediately after calibration, you turn the lights back up (good light) to check the calibration by comparing your screen to pro lab prints. If you find the screen's brightness isn't correct (either too dark or too bright), you turn the lights off to calibrate again to a different value. Then turn the lights on to check again. Etc. YOU MUST NEVER EDIT IN THE DARK. This is so important.
  16. Many thanks for your tutorial on spyder5 pro because the official documentation is poor, inaccurate and sometimes contradictory. I would still have doubts about things I did not understand. You do not use the ambient light measurement and you have calibrated it in a completely dark ambient. But if later edited with ambient light, the brightness values set in the dark do not change? I'll explain it better: Let's imagine that the calibration gives you a white 90 that in the dark is fine, it will not do better for a brighter environment where you will need a greater brightness. Am I wrong? in short words: if I edit sometimes in the dark and sometimes with light do not I have to change the brightness with osd of monitor ? sorry for my translation en english and still thanks Piero from Milan - Italy
  17. Actually, jpeg files are more robust than people think. You can usually edit them every bit as much as any other photo. Unless they are underexposed - the darker they are, the worse the quality. Anyway, to answer your question, generally I'll make white balance adjustments in raw, and maybe some simple tweaks such as Exposure, but mainly I leave it for Photoshop.
  18. If I've missed the answer somewhere else.... I apologise but... FIRSTLY - Yes, I shoot in RAW.. BUT.... when I went to RIO last year I didn't always feel comfortable lugging my mate's DSLR round in full view - so I have a large number of shots that were taken with a point and shoot that only did JPEG.. :-( Any suggestions on the processing of these for best results. Or just process as normal, and understand that anything more than "gentle" persuasion will likely produce poor results.
  19. Yes!!! That did the trick. So weird! The only strange thing is that my brightness really needed to be cranked up to hit 80 as a target- I don't remember that being the case before- so strange. I'm off to compare pictures....
  20. Oh, this is SUCH an annoying quirk of the Spyder program. You might have to do this, I'm afraid.
  21. Hello Damien, I just recalibrated my laptop monitor using a Spyder 4 Pro- I used the "full calibration" option and what is interesting, is it didn't do the pause to allow for brightness adjustment. The reason I'm extra concerned about this is that I noticed that my power settings on my new laptop were varying- i.e. brighter when plugged in vs' darker (power save) when running on battery alone. I went into the settings and modified them so that they were consistent- it was at 80 for plugged in and I originally set my calibration settings while plugged in so I assumed that made sense but ran a calibration to use the brightness "pause" to make sure that I'm in the range I mentioned. Additionally, I noticed that the last set I ordered had a few photos that were much darker than anticipated, which I'm attributing to editing while the laptop was running on battery. Any thoughts, advice, etc. would be most appreciated! Thanks much in advance, Kerry Ann
  22. Hey there! I'm Chloe. I've been learning photography for about a year. I started editing in LR but recently switched over to PS. I have learned quite a bit on my own through free tutorials but I figured if I ever want to master editing I better take some classes. I plan on eventually taking all of your classes, but for now I am starting with Levels. Can't wait to jump in and learn as much as possible!
  23. I just updated the link.
  24. PSD no longer available...Maybe because you are using this particular example in the class?
  25. Great. Thanks for letting me know.
  26. I went back to the original picture and it was edited. Duh. My bad I know what happened now. Thanks!
  1. Load more activity