Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 01/25/2017 in all areas

  1. 3 likes
    HI Damien, I have been working on this for two days! lol I wanted to share what I have so far. I am waiting on more photos to make this complete. Thanks again for all your help!
  2. 2 likes
    I downloaded the trial of flood, here is what I did 😊
  3. 2 likes
    Sorry my internet was down so I didn't get a chance to check. Yes, definitely looks much better. I haven't try this technique yet. I need to figure out how to do it. Thank you very much! You're the best!
  4. 2 likes
    There is a plug-in called "Flood" which everyone raves about for this kind of thing. I've never found that Photoshop's ripple features are much good.
  5. 2 likes
    Download my PSD First, I duplicated the Background layer twice, and ran High Pass filter on both of them - first broad, and second narrow. This brings out the detail a bit. It also creates halos, but since those were in the example photo you linked too, I figured it was ok - part of the style. Then a Levels layer for an aggressive vignette. And finally another Levels layer for the hazy look. Make sure you look at all of the channels in this layer.
  6. 2 likes
  7. 1 like
    dude that looks totally awesome! thx!
  8. 1 like
    Far from being a dumb question, this is actually quite a complex one. So many aspects to consider. Are you watermarking your photos?
  9. 1 like
    Ok, yep, the face one will need to be this method. Now may I see a 100% crop from her neck?
  10. 1 like
    Yes, I do have another computer to try and calibrate which is a desk top. I will give that a try tomorrow and see how it comes out and let you know. Thanks!
  11. 1 like
    Yes, sir, indeed..........you are right on target. I don't remember ever making that keyboard shortcut but I added it back and it is working as usual now. Thanks a million!
  12. 1 like
    Good point, I guess I was expecting too much from it! Thank you
  13. 1 like
    Thanks Damien , I will have a play with this . I had tried it as you mention in in levels but not far enough. Will try and get signed up for deluxe asap. Thanks so much I honestly wish I had taken your classes years ago instead of spending so much on actions and never quite achieving what I want. Still heaps to learn but have learnt so much first read threw. Thanks again.
  14. 1 like
    Yes, it's so simple you'll fall off your chair. It's just a Levels layer, and I moved the black Input slider to 50, and the black Output slider to 70. Then masked it to everything except the child. And you'll find dozens more matte variations in the download files.
  15. 1 like
    Yeah, funny how many well known photographers are shit at editing.
  16. 1 like
    FYI: 80% in LR is equal to "10" in PS. 100% in LR is equal to "12" in PS. Adobe's ratings are based on a 1 --> 12 method. "11" in PS would be "90%" in LR, "9" would be "70%," and so on.
  17. 1 like
    Many thanks! I haven't done flipping eyes before, but let me play around first and will let you know if I need your guidance.
  18. 1 like
  19. 1 like
    I,ll certainly try it out, ive taken quite a few photos lately that I think would work well in this style. I'll post the results when I'm finished. Thanks again for your help Damien.
  20. 1 like
    No trouble! I enjoy this kind of question. If you try it on other photos, can you show us? Needless to say, if you fiddle with the sliders on the top layer, you'll get different colour effects. The possibilities are endless.
  21. 1 like
    No, no, not at all. I'll upload the PSD so you can see what I did. Stand by ...
  22. 1 like
    Thank you for your response, Damien. I was afraid you were going to say that! I did inform the restaurant before taking the photos of the glare problem, so this won't be a surprise to them. Thank you for your help, I will try some cloning and see what happens from there. Thank you again!
  23. 1 like
    You'd hope that a calibrator would last for at least three years. Some may last a heck of a lot longer than that, but eventually they might be made out-of-date by software upgrades (eg Operating Systems). I haven't heard of one whose reliability has faded gradually. Usually they just stop working.
  24. 1 like
    Please hurry. You'll kick yourself over any images you send to people without that knowledge. No, this is really bad. Please read this again.
  25. 1 like
    Awesome! I had planned to paint it, then I thought -- would Damien laugh if he were watching me do this? Bet there's a better way. thanks for the quick response! I feel better!
  26. 1 like
    This is what the Levels Class is for, Emma. Please don't wait any longer. In the meantime, can you post this one in the Raw Class so I can check your edit?
  27. 1 like
    Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Will read it just now.
  28. 1 like
    Oh gee, no, that's really bad. Press Cmd Y to turn proof colors off.
  29. 1 like
    Thank you! Been a good learning experience.
  30. 1 like
    Good. Now walk away. It won't get any better than this.
  31. 1 like
    I think just replace it with a gradient. Download the PSD file
  32. 1 like
    Wow Damien!! Thank you so much!!! I never thought you would go in this much detail and help me this much! I really appreciate it, really I do. ill be working on this tomorrow while my daughter is at school. thanks again!!
  33. 1 like
  34. 1 like
    Can you see how the top edge of the collar is now slightly skin-coloured? You'll need to mask that away.
  35. 1 like
    Thank you. So what I suggest is this: Duplicated the Background layer, then apply some Gaussian Blur to the whole photo. Just enough to get rid of the moire. I think about 8px should do it for this photo. Then change the layer's blend mode to "Color". Then add a mask to hide the blurred layer completely. Then paint to reveal on just the shirt where needed.
  36. 1 like
    Oh gee, can we talk about this in the Raw Class please?
  37. 1 like
    Oh, bugger. May I see the whole photo, so I can see what you mean?
  38. 1 like
    It's pretty mild, I think we can use the easy option. Add a Solid Color layer of shirt blue, and set its blend mode to "Color".
  39. 1 like
  40. 1 like
  41. 1 like
    Got sidetracked by life. Will work on it soon and let you know.
  42. 1 like
    Thank you! I like it. I am going to try this method.
  43. 1 like
    There are probably half a dozen ways we could approach this, but let's keep it simple. I suggest adding a Hue/Saturation layer and putting it on "Multiply" blend mode. Then patiently mask it on to the area, until it's pretty good. I did that, but found that I was a bit fussy, and it wasn't quite as nice as I wanted. So I turned on the "Colorize" checkbox in the Hue/Sat dialog, then fiddled with the three sliders until I was happier with the result. I ended up with: Hue 19 Saturation 20 Lightness -9
  44. 1 like
    Hello all! I've been posting lately, but thought I would finally introduce myself. My name is Kris and I am from Kansas City. About 20 years ago I was into B&W film photography (in high school). I loved it. About 7 or 8 years ago I bought my dSLR to have a "nice" camera. I had intentions of "getting into it" back when I purchased the camera, but life always found a way to get in the way. Fast forward to November 11th my wife and I had our baby girl. I got six weeks off work in paternity leave. I spent the entire time my baby was sleeping by reading and learning everything I could about Lightroom (I know - I see the light now... ACR all the way! You got me.). Eventually, I was referred to Damien's courses after posting a photo in a photography facebook group (thank you Sue Morris if you are reading this!). So far my experience has been nothing short of amazing. I've grown so much in the past two'ish months and I know after I take levels (and eventually the skin and the sharpening classes) I will have a great foundation. So thank you first to Sue for guiding me here. And, second, thank you Damien for such thorough classes and honest feedback! Lastly, I am a huge Royals (major league baseball) and Jayhawks (college basketball / football) fan. Hence my username. -Kris
  45. 1 like
    In essence, the method is putting a black-and-white layer over the photo, on a blend mode. I've used Channel Mixer for the BW, but there are other BW layers that might work too. I have used Soft Light mode, but I hope you saw this thread in your searching, where I used Hard Light mode instead.
  46. 1 like
    I'd encourage you to read up on what contributes to the depth of your focal plane. There are a ton of free depth of field calculators online that will let you put in numbers and figure out how much of your photo will be within your focal plane (i.e., in focus). Three basic factors: - aperture (the wider your aperture, the shallower your focal plane) - focal length (the longer your focal length, the shallower your focal plane) - distance to subject (the closer you are to your subject, the shallower your focal plane) Here, you were at a fairly wide aperture (f/3.2), at a middle-normal focal length (50mm), and I'm guessing you were super close to your subject. That gave you a focal plane that was too shallow to have both eyes in focus. If after you took this photo you checked it on your LCD screen and zoomed in to check your focus, and noticed that your focal plane was too narrow for what you wanted to achieve, you'd have three options: narrow your aperture, use a wider focal length, or get farther away from your subject. Or recognize that your focal plane, however narrow or deep it is, is a "slice" of the scene in front of you that is perpendicular to your camera. In other words, if you want to use a super shallow DOF *and* get both eyes in focus, angle yourself such that both of your subject's eyes are the same distance from your camera, so they'll both fall within the focal plane.
  47. 1 like
    Are you using this?
  48. 1 like
    The prints are the standard. You sent files to your pro lab, and the lab printed those files. If the prints come back and your screen is off from them, that means your screen is not showing you what the file truly looks like. "What the file truly looks like" is determined entirely by how the lab printed them (assuming you didn't ask for color correction, and assuming they're a reputable pro lab and didn't mess up the print). So the purpose of calibration is to fix your screen so it renders your files the way they truly look. You calibrate and make sure the calibration is correct by checking your screen against the prints -- which, again, are the true indicator of what the files actually look like. Once your screen matches the prints, you can be confident that what you see on the screen is in fact what the file actually looks like. Now you can edit the files knowing that what you see as you edit is in fact what will come back when you print. Also: calibrating your screen only changes the way your screen renders the file. It does not change the file itself. So if you send a file to print before you calibrate your screen, and then send the same file to the same lab to print after you calibrate your screen, the lab, having received the exact same file again, will send you back the exact same print. So it's a waste of money to send the same file to print a second time.
  49. 1 like
    I miss seeing the posts in my newsfeed, since that was easy to check from my phone. However, this setup seems a lot nicer. I love that I don't have to scroll through so many comments to get to what Damien or the admins have to say. Congrats on the new forum!
  50. 1 like
    ACR: Adobe camera raw (the raw processing plug-in that comes with Photoshop and Elements) CA: Chromatic aberration: a type of distortion in which there is a failure of a lens to focus all colors to the same convergence point. "The purple fringe" CC: 1. (Adobe) Creative Cloud or 2. Constructive criticism CMYK: Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/Black (the colours of ink from which all other colours are printed) (K is black because B was already taken for Blue. Also it used to be called the "key" colour.) CR2: Canon raw format CS6(/5/4/3/2/etc): Creative Suite 6. Strictly speaking, this refers to the whole Adobe suite (InDesign, Illustrator, etc). But mostly, in this group, when we say "CS6", we're just talking about Photoshop. DNG: Digital Negative (a generic raw file format) DOF: Depth of field DPP: Digital Photo Professional (Canon's raw processing software) DR: Dynamic Range ETTL: Expose to the left ETTL (flash): Evaluative-Through The Lens (auto) ETTR: Expose to the right HDR: High Dynamic Range JPEG: Joint Photographic Experts Group (named after the organisation who made it - compressed file format; the most common image format in the world) LR: Lightroom NEF: Nikon raw format NR: Noise Reduction / Removal OOC/SOOC: Out Of Camera / Straight out of Camera (as in straight out of camera with no processing) (Only applies to jpegs. Cannot, by its nature, refer to raw files, which always need at least some processing in order to be viewed). OOF: Out of focus PP: Post-processing PS: Photoshop PSD: Photoshop Document (the all-encompassing file format - layers, channels, high-bit, etc) PSE: Photoshop Elements RGB: Red/Green/Blue (the colours of light from which all other colours are made) (The three colour channels which make up all digital images) SOOC: Straight out of camera SOOR: Straight out of raw - a file that has only clean raw edits done, no Photoshop work as yet sRGB: standard RGB colour space, used on monitors, printers and web browsers. SS: shutter speed TIFF: Tagged Image File Format (similar format to PSD, but not specific to Adobe) WB: White balance