New Hidden Gem in Photoshop CC

[Guest WPalank]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is for the newest version only, CC or Creative Cloud.

You can now open Camera RAW as a filter within the Photoshop CC Application. It doesn't matter if your file is DNG, Raw, jpeg, TIFF, etc.....Let me explain.

 

- Open an Image in CC.

- Go to Filter > Convert for Smart Filters... (which turns your image into a Smart Object.)

- Now, Filter > Camera Raw Filter.... which takes you into the Raw or ACR module and you can redo your adjustments.

 

Because we turned it into a Smart Object we can go back and forth again and again non-destructively. No Pixel damage. Cool.

[250swb]

Great if you didn't visualise your image before you pressed the shutter! Woohoo!

 

Steve

[jaapv]

What is the difference to converting a layer to a smart object and double-clicking it to reopen in ACR, William? That is the technique I have always been using.

[Guest WPalank]

Great if you didn't visualise your image before you pressed the shutter! Woohoo!

 

Steve

 

So Steve,

You must never add contrast, adjust exposure or white balance on any of your images in Post????

 

First, what camera are you using as I wants me one. neither my M8, M9, M, Monochrom ever gets it perfectly. Nor any of my Canons. Especially when street shooting.

 

Possibly you're one of those tripod guys that shows up to the landscape with your packed lunch of liver sandwich. Still, I know some of the best Landscape Shooters in the World and they all make adjustments or tweaks in post.

 

Time for you to head back under the bridge dude.

 

Edit: Just checked your stuff on Flickr. That HDR stuff came straight out of Camera!!!!??? Please tell me what camera you're using immediately.

[sanyasi]

Great if you didn't visualise your image before you pressed the shutter! Woohoo!

 

Steve

 

With all due respect, you assume that someone who takes advantage of RAW files didn't pre visualize. Many of the steps that are available in RAW have darkroom analogues that people who pre visualized their images in the days of film used to take advantage of after they clicked the shutter. I suspect that many of movie graphics folks who take Photoshop to places I never could imagine have also pre-visualized the end result when they stage the initial shoot.

 

Lately, I have been trying to imitate the look of a well-known early color film photographer. The effort works best on certain types of scenes that have certain colors. It requires the application of three filters in Nik's Color Efex software. I may need to apply those three filters in post processing, but when I click the shutter I have a pretty good idea that that is where I am headed.

 

In sum, taking advantage of the digital tools that are available to us today is not synonymous with sloppiness or lack of planning.

 

Jack Siegel

[Guest WPalank]

What is the difference to converting a layer to a smart object and double-clicking it to reopen in ACR, William? That is the technique I have always been using.

 

Not if you came from Lightroom. I believe you have to have used the ACR Application within Photoshop. I just Exported from LR to PS and the technique you mention does not work.

 

Also, if you load a Tiff directly into PS, let's say you shot it 4 years ago and feel it can use some improvement, there is not a one click way to get it into ACR.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

More explanation here.

 

As an aside, regarding 'visualization,' Ansel of course coined the term, and he was noted for editing his photos in many significant ways, sometimes over the course of many years. I've previously posted this series of Moonrise , printed different ways over the course of 34 years. This from the guy who created the term visualization.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

Not if you came from Lightroom. I believe you have to have used the ACR Application within Photoshop. I just Exported from LR to PS and the technique you mention does not work.

 

Also, if you load a Tiff directly into PS, let's say you shot it 4 years ago and feel it can use some improvement, there is not a one click way to get it into ACR.

Thanks, that explains it; I hardly use LR so the technique was familiar already.

[250swb]

With all due respect, you assume that someone who takes advantage of RAW files didn't pre visualize.

 

"With all due respect", which we know is a term of sarcasm (so duly noted), your assumption is wide of the mark. I fully advocate visualising the image and how it comes out in ACR by adjusting contrast etc. But I fail to see how the discipline of visualisation can be asserted if the idea is to make ACR a Smart Object, so you can 'go back and forth' (as quoted by the OP) making adjustments. You either have an idea of what you want, or you make it up as you go along, make your mind up, or give yourself the get out clause that you haven't really made your mind up. Just another way for photographers to blast away without having a plan.

 

Steve

[250swb]

 

Edit: Just checked your stuff on Flickr. That HDR stuff came straight out of Camera!!!!??? Please tell me what camera you're using immediately.

 

Truly baffled as to what you were looking at, I don't use HDR. But regarding your point, it was answered above, what has 'going back and forth' at the earliest stage in making a photograph got to do with visualisation? If you can't make your mind up early on where to take it it's just another aspect of the uncommitted machine gun approach.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

I don't think it has to do with visualisation, steve. It is useful for an image if your DR is too large for the result you want to get. Do a "double develop" in ACR, make a layer mask and paint in the areas that need to be lightened/darkened. Works very well for areas with a colour cast too.

[sanyasi]

"With all due respect", which we know is a term of sarcasm (so duly noted), your assumption is wide of the mark. I fully advocate visualising the image and how it comes out in ACR by adjusting contrast etc. But I fail to see how the discipline of visualisation can be asserted if the idea is to make ACR a Smart Object, so you can 'go back and forth' (as quoted by the OP) making adjustments. You either have an idea of what you want, or you make it up as you go along, make your mind up, or give yourself the get out clause that you haven't really made your mind up. Just another way for photographers to blast away without having a plan.

 

Steve

 

In my case, it is not sarcasm, it is a way to try and diffuse the nastiness that often arises when I write something that takes a position contrary to the the post I am responding to--I had no reason, however, to assume that you would be nasty.

 

I may be wide of the mark in your mind, but this and your first response to the original post reflect a sense of superiority ("blast away", "make up your mind", "Woohoo."). There is the pure way (your way) and then there is everybody else. Apparently if people don't share your philosophy, there is work is inferior to yours. A few thoughts:

 

First, if people want to go back and forth, I don't understand why that matters to you. That's their work flow--they experiment. So what?

 

Second, and in direct response to your point, my work flow continues to evolve. As it stands now, I do my initial processing. I then post to my Zenfolio website. Over the course of a week or so, I examine the recently posted photos when I am out having coffee, riding the bus, or whatever. Sometimes I notice that the colors are not just right---with the M(240) I often think the leaves are too bright (which means too much yellow in the green) or the faces have too much red. Being able to go back and use a smart filter to make a quick adjustment is a time saver.

 

Third, you have a very constricted version of the creative process. Having had the opportunity to view countless art exhibits over the years, it is quite apparent that the old masters, impressionists, and countless other well-known and highly regarded artists didn't pre-visualize to the extent you might believe. An entire community of experts have made careers out of examining what is under or went before the final image. Last December, I saw a Matisse exhibit at New York's Metropolitan Museum. A significant portion of that exhibit was devoted to examining where he started and where he finished. Often the difference is so extreme it would be hard to make the case that he pre-visualized.

 

Fourth, in fact, we see the outtakes in all forms of art. Half the fun is seeing how a piece of work evolved to the form that we are familiar with.. I think that is why the Beatles bootlegs are so interesting--I love all 27 or whatever number of takes of Strawberry Fields that are out there. Same can be said of director's cuts and DVDs with scenes that never made the final print.

 

Fifth, despite your great faith in pre-visualization, in many cases, the great photographers didn't pre-visualize--particularly so-called street photographers. I am always amused when I see the contact sheet from which a great photo came. There is more luck involved than many would like to admit. And how many great photos are there where someone snapped the shutter thinking they were taking a photo of one thing, only to discover that interesting object or person that they didn't notice in the frame. As it turns out, the photo would have been ordinary without that unintended capture. Presumably you throw those out.

 

Sixth, and most importantly, there is nothing wrong with experimentation. I dare say, culturally, we would be far worse off if people didn't experiment. "I wonder what might happen if I did this."

 

In the end, photography is supposed to be something that is fun and expressive. Too many artificial rules undercut the experience.

 

By the way, you can pre-visualize all you want. Most viewers/buyers don't care. They only care about the final image. It either excites them or it doesn't.

 

Jack Siegel

 

P.S. Although this post rambles a bit, most of it was pre-visualized.

[250swb]

 

First, if people want to go back and forth, I don't understand why that matters to you. That's their work flow--they experiment. So what?

 

 

.

 

Exactly, my first comment was a throw away remark, but you decided to elevate it to something that it wasn't via a long rant. 'So what' is what I think as well.

 

By the way, what exactly is 'pre-visualisation', something that happens before you visualise something? Adams used the term 'visualisation' (once), Minor White misquoted him and coined 'pre-visualisation' but there is no hard evidence to suggest that he meant to say it in the way he said it anyway. I always try to work with the notion of what somebody means to say, rather than what they sometimes actually say. It saves being pedantic if you aren't constantly picking somebody up on what they say in the shorthand of the internet. So I'll accept you probably meant to say 'visualisation' and the discussion can move on. It is a skill worth learning.

 

Steve

[Guest WPalank]

I don't think it has to do with visualisation, steve. It is useful for an image if your DR is too large for the result you want to get. Do a "double develop" in ACR, make a layer mask and paint in the areas that need to be lightened/darkened. Works very well for areas with a colour cast too.

 

Your buddy Steve is more comfortable using one of the Nik High Contrast filters and blowing it out globally on an image rather than creating localized masks and painting it in subtly (ACR).

Much better way of pre-.....errr.. visualization.

[250swb]

Your buddy Steve is more comfortable using one of the Nik High Contrast filters and blowing it out globally on an image rather than creating localized masks and painting it in subtly (ACR).

Much better way of pre-.....errr.. visualization.

 

I think the main thing about processing is that the image comes out the way you want it too and the photograph is more important that the actual technique of making it. As anybody who uses Photoshop will know, there are usually a couple of ways to make an adjustment, and if all you have is 'your way is best', then at least aim for showing this in results, otherwise there is no way to prove it. I feel confident in using high contrast, I'm happy using low contrast, each depending on the subject and what I visualised. So I'm not impressed by your 'subtle' pissing contest, do that by yourself.

 

Steve

[Guest WPalank]

You started the "pissing contest" and have now admitted you do enhance your images in Photoshop. Please refer to your original post http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-post-processing-forum/293881-new-hidden-gem-photoshop-cc.html#post2464609

 

May I suggest you stay on topic with your original post which logically infers you make no adjustments to your images as you bring up your statement of visualization.

 

Yes I enhance my images and would rather do it as non-destructively as possible. The reason for my posting.

 

You have added absolutely nothing to the discussion, as in most of your posts on the forum and created a mean spirited aura. Time for you to 'subtly' retreat beneath the bridge once again.

[Phil U]

William,

 

Steve's preference (if he has one) for visualization of a finished image at the point of capture does not logically infer he make no adjustments to his images or uses no post processing. Nor do i think that he was suggesting such a thing, or suggesting that it's in any way a bad thing for anyone to make adjustments to images in photoshop or other software. I think Steve's point was that he didn't see a valid reason why one would need to keep going 'back and forth again and again' to the ACR software if one already had a vision of how the image should look.

 

p.s. But I also think he may have missed your point as much as you missed his.

 

p.p.s BTW - sorry to have to say it but whilst Steve's "wooohoo" comment has understandably got your back up, the mean spirited aura is coming as much from you here. Attacking another person's photographs in the way you are (post #14) just comes across as childish. It's not cool.

[Guest WPalank]

Phil,

I did not attack and will never attack another person's photograph.

I know the Nik software (I used to give seminars for them before the Google take-over) and he is using a global high contrast filter, most likely by Nik or using a large amount of Structure, again globally. Maybe I shouldn't have said blowing it out. Retracted.

I use High Contrast all the time. Since you entered the discussion, would you please point out which image I "attacked"? Secondly, where did I link to a specific image? (Please point this out for me because if I did, it was unintentional).

 

He was the one that came in with the concept of visualization, (which I still have no idea where he is coming from and I do understand very well the term), the filter, as I noted, allows one to paint it in localized areas non-destructively. His Woohoo came in to me as very sarcastic and therefore I assume he knows nothing about masking or the automatic masking capabilities now within the ACR Module, especially when looking at his body of work.

The auto masking is one of the great features of ACR. It is evident, obviously I guess only to me.

 

Maybe I should of been clearer, the only reason I said back and forth, not something I typically do, was to show that one could if they chose so and not damage pixels until committed. For me, let's say I am working on a specific image and as I go through my workflow, masking all the way, I notice I am blocking up shadows, I can go back and open them up. I guess I'm not as good as others at predicting where the image will take me in fact I like to go with the flow and allow the image to take me for a ride. Sometimes I have an image visualized at the moment of shutter click and other times I'll take off in a new direction, just cuz I fu**in' feel like it.

 

God forbid to you and 250.

 

My point for the post:

There is a new tool that allows one to make changes non-destructively. Actually, it's not really a new tool, it's an easier way.

 

250 (sarcastically):

You obviously have no concept of visualization.

 

Me:

WTF does that have to do with anything. Obviously, given my point for the post, this is a man that doesn't believe any sliders should be utilized in post and gets it right in camera every time.

Look at his work, fine. He is doing work in Post! and to knock the can off the shoulder, globally.

 

Then Sanyasi enters the conversation beginning his statement "with all due respect" and is attacked, not to mention gives a very competent argument for pre-visulaization or visualization. One I personally agree with 100%.

[250swb]

Phil,

I did not attack and will never attack another person's photograph.

I know the Nik software (I used to give seminars for them before the Google take-over) and he is using a global high contrast filter, most likely by Nik or using a large amount of Structure, again globally. Maybe I shouldn't have said blowing it out. Retracted..

 

Firstly thank you Phil for reading the posts and seeing what was meant, it makes a refreshing change from the insecurity and paranoia that it promoted.

 

William, but you did attack another person's photographs. You could have asked before making an assertion about how they were made, but you didn't. So for the record I rarely go anywhere near the Nik global high contrast filter slider, nor indeed the high contrast preset. The blacks and whites (and all tones in between) in my photographs are tailored to the requirements of the image, and they pretty well all start in Photoshop with a normal looking histogram. And of course we are only talking about a few high contrast images, yet you would prefer to leave others with the impression that they are all like that. I could equally look at your pictures and say you use the Structure or Soft Contrast, or Dynamic Brightness sliders to excess, and in the wrong direction. But that is just an assumption from the overtly digital look of the images, but I wouldn't dream of saying it as fact.

 

So you proved what a nice person you are, especially as looking at some of your pictures they exhibit a similar contrast range. I suggest if you are an ace post processor and you still don't have the confidence to embrace white and black you are of the type that know all the rules but have never had the confidence to break any, afraid your peers will tut tut. The rules of Photoshop are for teaching to beginners, just as the rules of painting and colour combination are for beginners at painting. Grown up artists need to move on, or remain Photoshop teachers themselves. If I choose white (and very few times do I have pure white anyway, you might find you are confused over the amount of brighter tones), I do it without feeling repressed, I do it without looking to see if it contravenes the rules of digital photography, I do it without worrying what fuck-wits think (present company excluded, ....of course).

 

As for the confusion over 'visualisation', if you read back you'll find it was creatively assumed I didn't use any post processing. 'Why' soon became clear as it was to make a point that was nothing to do with what I said. Putting word's into somebody else's mouth is an attack in itself, but then you'd know that already.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sanyasi]

Great if you didn't visualise your image before you pressed the shutter! Woohoo!

 

Steve

 

I don't like when discussions get as heated as this one, but I need to weigh in by returning to your original post, which is the second post in this thread. As the thread has progressed, you indicate that you may use more post processing than this quote suggests, which is fine. However, I have read this quote more than a few times now. I just don't see how it can be read not to be a put down of people who post process. Let's parse it:

 

"Great" is a reference to the original post. I (Steve) recognize that ACR is now a smart filter and people can go back and forth.

 

"If you didn't visualize your image before you pressed the shutter." The clear implication is that you wouldn't need to use ACR or go back and forth if you had pre-visualized your image.

 

"Woohoo" is a pejorative term, particularly when used after the main statement. My choice would have been "Big Whoop" Its says, "What's the big deal. You wouldn't need to do this if you did it right in the first place.

 

Let' return to William's original post. His intention is to provide a public service, as in "I was looking closer at Photoshop CC. I discovered this useful tool. Just wanted everybody to know about it."

 

At the end of the day, that sort of post is what makes a forum useful to people. Here is something new that you may have missed or that may be helpful to you.

 

Jack Siegel