New Hidden Gem in Photoshop CC

[sanyasi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pre-Visualization:

 

Last Thursday night I attended an outdoor concert. I had photographed the main act several times before and will have the opportunity to do so again. Given that friends had called and said join us on the lawn, I decided to leave my camera at home, so that the evening would be more social than me getting up and photographing for an hour.

 

Interesting thing happened. A three-year kid hops into the aisle with a massive DSLR around his neck. The camera was bigger than the kid's head. He is jumping around pretending to take photos of everything in sight. In fact, he runs up to the stage and starts photographing the performers, but looking at his height, it was obvious that if he was pressing the button, he was getting the wall in front of the stage. In any event, it was such a funny image that one of the news photographers turned around and started photographing the kid. The kid began mimicking the photographer, which meant they were photographing each other.

 

I can't help it; I start thinking: If I had my camera how would I shoot this. Well, I would get down very low because I would want the kid's view, but I would frame it so both the kid and the photographer were in the shot. I would make sure I had the right exposure, avoid shooting wide open so that both would be in relative focus.

 

But with little kids, you don't know how long you've got that moment. A few minutes later, the kids mother carried him out crying--I think they took the camera from him. My primary goal would be to capture the image. Color, black or white, crop to eliminate a person who looks goofy off to the right, adjust the white balance because of the stage lights? Sorry, those decisions are going to happen after the fact.

 

The notion that you perfect a photo in the camera is just a little too dogmatic to me in this context. Ansel Adams is known for his landscapes. You can ponder all the different angles before you activate the cable release. I imagine that appeals to those who like a good game of chess. But with some photography, much of it undertaken with Leica rangefinders, you will miss far too many shots if you play that game. In my mind, you plan as much as you can, but there are limits.

 

Jack Siegel

[jaapv]

Yes, Jack, but where does the pre come in here? You were visualizing images. Visualization is a process that takes place in the head. The only meaning I can assign to pre-visualization is sitting at home and figuring out how you are going to handle a shoot and what images you want out of it.

[sanyasi]

Not sure I understand the question, but I will offer a response based on what I think it might mean.

 

I don't know where the "pre" comes in, but that is the term that many people use. The "pre" seems a bit redundant to me.

 

The point I wanted to make is that you are likely to get better results if you think about what you are doing. In my example of the kid with the camera, I was saying that I would use my prior experience with photographing kids and people in crowds as I framed the shot. In that example the time of day was dusk and there was cloud cover, so there were no shadows. Had the scene been contrasty, I would of thought about where the light falls, but that after that, I take the photo.

 

As I said, I find a lot of the "rules" to be dogmatic and highly artificial. I suspect many of then are honored in the breach. I certainly am not arguing for "pre-visualization." My earlier posts demonstrate that. Quite candidly, I think some of these rules simply reflect the frustration of many long-time and talented photographers with the fact that the equipment has gotten so good that the number of people who can produce good work with a camera has multiplied many times over.

 

In short, people need to take pleasure in what they produce and not worry about what others produce.

[Guest WPalank]

The pre to me comes from visualizing a scene through my viewfinder and seeing a blown out area that I cannot reduce there at the scene, but know I can attempt it with a specific slider in ACR (would it be the Highlight or White Slider?). Visualization would mean IMHO, I would know the exact value of the slider to reach my target exposure and exactly what the image would look like in post.

As mentioned before, sometimes I let the image take me for a ride and I know some very successful and great photographers that do as well. So what? Does that make them less of an artist or possibly a schmuck?

 

I've studied Picasso and others and sure many make small or large sketches of what they assume the canvas might look like in the end. But most of the time it looks nothing like original sketches. It wasn't until brush met canvas that the genius opened up and was finalized.

 

Once again, the spirit of my starting this thread was to give people another tool they may not be aware of to work on there images non-destructively. It was not the purpose of starting a war of semantics.

Were specific responses meant to be "mean spirited" or "helpful". It's an easy choice for me.

[sanyasi]

 

Once again, the spirit of my starting this thread was to give people another tool they may not be aware of to work on there images non-destructively. It was not the purpose of starting a war of semantics.

Were specific responses meant to be "mean spirited" or "helpful". It's an easy choice for me.

 

Are you saying that you did not pre-visualize (know) exactly where this thread would go?

[k-hawinkler]

Are you saying that you did not pre-visualize (know) exactly where this thread would go?

 

 

Exactly!

Well, if you shoot unpredictably and fast moving creatures, like hummingbirds, one can pre-visualize as much as one wants ...

Based on that experience I like lucky surprises.

I guess, better lucky than smart seems to work for me just fine.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

WTF is a smart object?

[sanyasi]

It is a filter that you can go back and adjust even after you have saved the file. Nik software serves as a good example. When you open Nik's Silver Efex in Lightroom and save the file back into Lightroom, you can't re-open Silver Efex and adjust the edits you made (all the sliders have returned to the preset locations), but you can continue to modify the file in Lightroom using the LR controls. I haven't really experimented with LR 5, but that was how it worked in LR 4. Someone will know whether they incorporated Smart Filters into LR 5. Since I use Silver Effex in combination with LR, I found this to be a bad workflow.

 

Now go to Photoshop. If you open Silver Efex in Photoshop as a plug-in, it opens as a layer, you make the Silver Efex adjustments, and then the layer is frozen--you can't change it using Silver Efex--just like in LR. However, if you first designate it as a Smart Object before you open Silver Efex as a Photoshop plug in, then you can modify the layer even after you have made the edits. In other words, when you go back to the Silver Efex layer in Photoshop, the Silver Efex sliders will be where you last left them rather than reset to the preset.

 

I haven't used Smart Objects all that much, and I suspect there may be more to the concept it, but that is my experience. In Photoshop, you create the smart object by going to the filters menu, and selecting Convert to Smart Objects. Then just open the Nik plug-in under the filter menu.

[Jeff S]

WTF is a smart object?

 

This video explains moving an image from LR (or Bridge) to PS as a smart object versus pixel based.

 

Here is a written description of the term, but I find the video to be a more practical guide. Julieanne also has other videos regarding smart objects (or almost any other topic in LR or PS).

 

Jeff

[melissah]

Can't believe I read this thread. So stupid.

William. Yes you can open as smart object (SO) and go back and forth. We can also convert to SO in photoshop to use silver efex and go back and forth.

However to any and all using SO be warned you can't use all of photoshops features. In order to you have to render the SO.

 

For me lightroom is the real savior here. It's bigger and better that ACR. Does all the same stuff and then some.

I pretty much only use photoshop anymore for NIk because I do convert to SO for B/W. I don't have to, I can do it out of lightroom, but I prefer accessing NIK in photoshop. Also If I resize I can do it (and print with profiles) out of lightroom, but I'm still doing that in photoshop.

 

If all of you could take the time and work with lightroom I'm fairly sure this conversation would be very different. This is the product Adobe built for photographers. Not photoshop. Photoshop was built by john knoll as part of the Industrial light and magic group when they were creating special effects for movies. If you're making collages, or creating images that aren't photographs-fantasy, that sort of thing, then yes of course photoshop. That's what it's best for.

 

ACR is/was a plug-in for photoshop for photogs. Eventually adobe realized that was stupid, bulky& didn't work as well as it could. So they built lightroom.

 

Spend some time watching Julianne kost videos on lightroom and the science might make better sense.

Besides she's very pleasant in that teacher kind a way. J.kost.com/lightroom.html

 

Lightroom is a digital darkroom. That's the difference.

 

Ok to the pre-visualize. How you should shoot the 3yr old isn't pre-visualization. It's how you would photograph him. You're thinking about the mechanics of capturing what he's doing.

Pre-visualizing would of been thinking of the final image/print. The tones, the light on his face, etc...

 

It saddens me that when one comes with a way to do something as william did, some kind of high school girl fight breaks out.because basically all he said was, hey! I found a way to open as a smart object w/o going through ACR!

[LucisPictor]

Really, what does the chance to adjust something in post-production have to do with any kind of absence of the capability to pre-visualize? (That's a rhetorical question.)

 

Was everybody who did some dodge and burn jobs in the darkroom to get better results unable to pre-visualize?

 

Gosh...

 

William, thanks for the hint. Much appreciated!

[Jeff S]

Spend some time watching Julianne kost videos on lightroom and the science might make better sense.

Besides she's very pleasant in that teacher kind a way. J.kost.com/lightroom.html

 

The post preceding yours.

 

Jeff

[melissah]

Yes I saw after, but I think the link I sent is slightly easier to navigate. But she's my fav.

[sanyasi]

Can't believe I read this thread. So stupid.

William. Yes you can open as smart object (SO) and go back and forth. We can also convert to SO in photoshop to use silver efex and go back and forth.

However to any and all using SO be warned you can't use all of photoshops features. In order to you have to render the SO.

 

For me lightroom is the real savior here. It's bigger and better that ACR. Does all the same stuff and then some.

I pretty much only use photoshop anymore for NIk because I do convert to SO for B/W. I don't have to, I can do it out of lightroom, but I prefer accessing NIK in photoshop. Also If I resize I can do it (and print with profiles) out of lightroom, but I'm still doing that in photoshop.

 

If all of you could take the time and work with lightroom I'm fairly sure this conversation would be very different. This is the product Adobe built for photographers. Not photoshop. Photoshop was built by john knoll as part of the Industrial light and magic group when they were creating special effects for movies. If you're making collages, or creating images that aren't photographs-fantasy, that sort of thing, then yes of course photoshop. That's what it's best for.

 

ACR is/was a plug-in for photoshop for photogs. Eventually adobe realized that was stupid, bulky& didn't work as well as it could. So they built lightroom.

 

Spend some time watching Julianne kost videos on lightroom and the science might make better sense.

Besides she's very pleasant in that teacher kind a way. J.kost.com/lightroom.html

 

Lightroom is a digital darkroom. That's the difference.

 

Ok to the pre-visualize. How you should shoot the 3yr old isn't pre-visualization. It's how you would photograph him. You're thinking about the mechanics of capturing what he's doing.

Pre-visualizing would of been thinking of the final image/print. The tones, the light on his face, etc...

 

It saddens me that when one comes with a way to do something as william did, some kind of high school girl fight breaks out.because basically all he said was, hey! I found a way to open as a smart object w/o going through ACR!

 

I've been using LR since it was first released, but recently switched to a Photoshop workflow as part of a conscious decision. You do what you like and I'll do what I like, but please don't tell me that the only way to do things is your way. Pretty arrogant.

[k-hawinkler]

Can't believe I read this thread. So stupid.

William. Yes you can open as smart object (SO) and go back and forth. We can also convert to SO in photoshop to use silver efex and go back and forth.

However to any and all using SO be warned you can't use all of photoshops features. In order to you have to render the SO.

 

For me lightroom is the real savior here. It's bigger and better that ACR. Does all the same stuff and then some.

I pretty much only use photoshop anymore for NIk because I do convert to SO for B/W. I don't have to, I can do it out of lightroom, but I prefer accessing NIK in photoshop. Also If I resize I can do it (and print with profiles) out of lightroom, but I'm still doing that in photoshop.

 

If all of you could take the time and work with lightroom I'm fairly sure this conversation would be very different. This is the product Adobe built for photographers. Not photoshop. Photoshop was built by john knoll as part of the Industrial light and magic group when they were creating special effects for movies. If you're making collages, or creating images that aren't photographs-fantasy, that sort of thing, then yes of course photoshop. That's what it's best for.

 

ACR is/was a plug-in for photoshop for photogs. Eventually adobe realized that was stupid, bulky& didn't work as well as it could. So they built lightroom.

 

Spend some time watching Julianne kost videos on lightroom and the science might make better sense.

Besides she's very pleasant in that teacher kind a way. J.kost.com/lightroom.html

 

Lightroom is a digital darkroom. That's the difference.

 

Ok to the pre-visualize. How you should shoot the 3yr old isn't pre-visualization. It's how you would photograph him. You're thinking about the mechanics of capturing what he's doing.

Pre-visualizing would of been thinking of the final image/print. The tones, the light on his face, etc...

 

It saddens me that when one comes with a way to do something as william did, some kind of high school girl fight breaks out.because basically all he said was, hey! I found a way to open as a smart object w/o going through ACR!

 

 

Melissah,

 

Thank you so much for your perspective.

That has been very helpful.

Indeed, Julianne Kost has some great videos.

They are good to watch as an introduction to a subject.

However, I have to slow down and systematically learn from books and practice in LR5 what they preach in the books while I work through a particular book chapter.

 

Right now I have begun to work into the LR5 books by Martin Evening, Scott Kelby, and Victoria Bampton's LR5 The Missing FAQ. She added an extensive overview introduction to her treatment of the subject that I find very useful. The three books approach the subject in very different ways. Martin Evening's book appeals to me the most for studying a particular area systematically. Scott Kelby's book seems to be a collection of how to examples. And Victoria Bampton's book tries to answer open questions one still has.

 

As I am pretty familiar with the ACR part of CS6 I find it very easy to learn the DEV section of LR5 and have adopted your approach of invoking NIK functions through CS6 from LR5. That seems to work particularly well. No hickups yet! Knock on wood.

 

I probably have over 100k images that need to be worked on and a fair fraction of them have to be deleted. My current MacBook Pro is just to slow to accomplish that in an efficient interactive manner. So I am counting on Apple to come through with their announced Mac Pro soon. For the time being I work only with small subsets of my images to develop the skills necessary to pull off that monster task ahead of me.

 

Thanks again for your explanations.

[melissah]

If you're going to call me arrogant fine. I only asked you read what I posted first.

[sanyasi]

 

If all of you could take the time and work with lightroom I'm fairly sure this conversation would be very different. This is the product Adobe built for photographers. Not photoshop. Photoshop was built by john knoll as part of the Industrial light and magic group when they were creating special effects for movies. If you're making collages, or creating images that aren't photographs-fantasy, that sort of thing, then yes of course photoshop. That's what it's best for.

 

ACR is/was a plug-in for photoshop for photogs. Eventually adobe realized that was stupid, bulky& didn't work as well as it could. So they built lightroom. ...

 

Lightroom is a digital darkroom. That's the difference. ...

 

 

It saddens me that when one comes with a way to do something as william did, some kind of high school girl fight breaks out.because basically all he said was, hey! I found a way to open as a smart object w/o going through ACR!

 

I have read your post several times." The first portion of the quote still strikes me as arrogant. "If all of you could take the time." The assumption behind this statement is that people haven't taken or are unwilling to take the time. I can't speak for everyone, but if you looked at my iPad you would find at least 20 books on LR and Photoshop. Most of which I've read in their entirety. You will also find links to kelby training and J. Kost video page. I've watched many of the videos, some multiple times. In short I have taken the time. To me, your statement says, if you just worked like me, there would be no problems. That is an arrogant statement. On photo forums, there are too many people who say my way, my equipment choices, my... Is the only way. I find these scolds tedious.

 

If I have misunderstood what you intended, please feel free to clarify.

 

We are in agreement about the op. a member who takes the time to provide info that may be helpful to others is to be thanked even if the particular tidbit is only relevant to some of the members.

 

As for pre-visualization, it is like many over used terms: It pretty much means nothing at this point. Each user has ascribed his own meaning. At this point, to me pre-visualization means think several steps ahead before you do something. Thus it is relevant when planning a photo trip, setting up a photo before clicking the shutter, and think before you begin post processing. That may not be what Adams originally meant, but after reading lots of commentary, that's what it means to me.

 

Jack Siegel

[Jeff S]

Yes I saw after, but I think the link I sent is slightly easier to navigate.

 

I see Jack's point.

 

BTW, I prefer a link that opens directly with a click to one that requires copy, paste and search. Easier to navigate, you know.

 

Jeff

[mark_j]

Whilst the discussions on pre-visualisation seem much more interesting I thought it might be worth dragging the thread (probably kicking and screaming) back to PS CC and using ACR as a filter,

 

I think people may have not fully appreciated how this new feature works and how it is different to saving the ACR output as a SO in CS6 by shift clicking the "open image" button when leaving ACR. In CC you can achieve the same (even if you didn't bring the image in via ACR) by converting the background layer to a SO and then applying the ACR filter and then you can go back and forth as already suggested.

 

The new (and for me the really great part) is that ACR can be applied as a filter in PS to any layer within the file and best of all if you apply it as a filter to a SO layer then you get a mask so you can selectively apply it using the usual masking/brushing techniques. I know you can apply some of ACR's adjustments in LR using local adjustments but this is just a magnitude more powerful and flexible.

 

As an example if you want to add some selective clarity in PS then you could use the unsharp mask filter which sort of works or you can use the clarity slider in the ACR filter (which for me gives much better results) and just mask it in where needed.

 

Another example is white balance where if you have mixed light sources you can use two (or more layers) and use the ACR WB tools (much better than the direct PS equivalents) to selectively apply different WB to different parts of the image.

 

It is a very nice feature indeed.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[philipus]

I find it amazing that yet another helpful thread was derailed like this by an irrelevant meta discussion. Appalling behaviour.

 

I, for one, much appreciated the information about opening ACR as a smart filter. I will soon be able to buy the latest version of Photoshop with the educational discount I get through a post-processing course I will undertake at a university so this is great news.

 

Cheers

philip

 

Ps. Melissa, thanks for posting the info about J Kost, too. The website is jkost.com, though.