Tim Evans

I don't seem to have one at a close enough focal length, but it should be easy to get one. I'm even driving by the same spot later this month.

2 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

Did you look through your other photos, to see if there's some broader background detail you can borrow?

I didn't even think about using a background from another photo. Pretty sure I'll have one somewhere.

Yes, I was aware when I shot this that there was a tree "sticking" out of the bride's head, but this was actually the best angle. You sometimes have to choose the least bad angle, you know? I have cloned and healed the tree away in another copy, but the repetition of patterns in the background just looks awful, even though I tried to not sample from a nearby area. Photo attached is after raw processing.

After ten days of the 30-day Bridge Challenge, I have made the decision to leave Lightroom behind. I am in the process of getting as much metadata as possible out of LR. I have quite a few metadata presets. I cant find a way to export these. Is there something I'm overlooking?

The one thing I am having trouble figuring out is how to adapt your techniques into my workflow. With Lightroom, I'd make limited adjustments--exposure, temperature, maybe increase vibrance and saturation, and then the client would review the keepers out of the photo shoot to pick which photos he/she wanted fully edited.

With the "Symonds Method," it appears I would have to fully edit all photo before the client review. While I could make just raw edits, I'm not sure your typical person with no photo editing experience is capable of looking at a photo edited to that point and see the potential for it in Photoshop.

I'm quite sure there's a simple solution staring me in the face, and I welcome you or another member to point it out to me.

I bought a floor lamp today to go next to my very dim editing area. With the new lighting, should I recalibrate (or fully calibrate) the monitor again?

With smartphones now able to save images in DNG, is there anything about them that would cause the raw processing to be any different than raw files from a DSLR? I know the quality won't be there due to the small sensor size, but do you know anything that would be different?

I did, but somehow overlooked the section on recalibration. I've got to learn to go back and read twice before asking questions.

Correct.

I believe the answer to this is, "no sh-t"  but since I've been wrong about so much this week, I figured I'd ask anyway. If you want to re-edit the photos you've used for test prints, am I correct that you either need to either (a) make a copy of the file to edit so that you preserve the image in the state from which the test print was made, or, if you don't make a copy, (b) order new test prints from the newly-edited file?

The Spyder software as an option to "recal" your monitor, as opposed to going through the full calibration again. I'm really not sure what the difference is, but can we use that, or do you recommend going through the full calibration again?

Oh, and I also have very dim light where I edit, so I have the trifecta for bad calibration: Miller's lab, cheap monitor, and dim light. I have to invest in a lamp and some daylight-balanced bulbs. It is a windowless room, so I have that going for me.

I opened some holiday pics in both LR and ACR, and I now understand. . You're quickly making an ACR & Bridge convert out of me!

I've seen where Damien mentions LR's clipping warning as useless, but I can't find a more thorough discussion on it. Does Damien have an article discussing his "problems" with Lightroom?