UPDATES Luminous Landscape Home
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
 1 
 on: Today at 06:57:43 AM 
Started by bretedge - Last post by john beardsworth
Well John, I think not, I have actually compared the methods myself after reading this thread and have come to the conclusion that it works a treat for me for the images I tried it on, tried the 'official' method as well of course.  So not saying it works better in all cases but it seems a welcome addition. (there you go Pegelli, I'm not dismissing anything here  Wink )
Meticulously examining an alternative method suggested and pointing out possible throwbacks is one thing, but trying to burn it down to the ground using a huge number of posts, dismissing given examples and filling up this thread with loadsa "I am right and you are all wrong " is another. I came back to the thread to see if there was more news, information or suggestions and I find this...

BTW I haven't accused you of attacking the person, it's the way you attack the method that I dislike. Can't get my head around why you would spent so much posts basically screaming of the top of your lungs that what Bret suggested is 100% wrong. I apologize for the fact that couldn't get over that, leave it be etc. etc. and instead did make a remark that is in the end personal.

Be that as it may I wish you personally all the best in getting on with your site and business, pretty sure many people will enjoy that and benefit from it, just not me likely.

byebye, Sander


I think that's fair-enough, as you've at least tested for yourself, though I'll point out that I have not said Brett is 100% wrong but instead that I wouldn't recommend spending much time on the dehaze method as it is based on not using the built-in dust spotting tools fully. As for "screaming at the top of your lungs", I've responded calmly with straight facts and detail about how to get the most out of the built-in dust spotting tools. Number of posts - when someone responds and quotes you, should you not reply? So that's "I am right and you are wrong", screaming?

As a more general observation, delivered calmly as ever, in Photoshop but also in Lightroom there is always an attraction to methods that seem counter-intuitive and clever. We all - hope that's not too sweeping - experience this at times, but just because you're clicking more or doing something clever doesn't really make the magic bullet or voodoo method any better than using the built in features fully. For example, ask Andrew what he thinks of some of the Lab techniques that are advocated for Photoshop, or in Lightroom I'd point to using the HSL Saturation/Luminance sliders to do B&W. That idea stretches back to Martin Evening and I separately advocating it as a workaround for an Lr 1.0 noise reduction bug, fixed long ago, but you still see recommendations to do B&W that way. It produces no difference in quality, requires more clicks, and you sacrifice how filters and smart collections can quickly track down B&W versions. Objectively it is wrong. But the anyone screams "king's new clothes", isn't the general defence always "it works for me", "different strokes for different folks"....

John

 2 
 on: Today at 06:39:55 AM 
Started by mcnash - Last post by mcnash

thx - I wrote him a mail to.
(hope they sell in my price range Smiley)
best regards

 3 
 on: Today at 06:27:38 AM 
Started by bretedge - Last post by pegelli
It's too darn hot to think here in the Netherlands right now. Suppose a meditative lunchbreak would be best  Cheesy
Same here in Belgium, > 30 degrees C, only dust spots I'm seeing at the moment is probably black snow  Grin

 4 
 on: Today at 06:22:37 AM 
Started by bretedge - Last post by SanderKikkert
I wasn't thinking of you Sander, it was more of a "reflective" comment.

Ah I see Pieter, perhaps I ws subconsciously feeling guilty of dismissing stuff and it was "fitting the shoe" that made me react  Grin

It's too darn hot to think here in the Netherlands right now. Suppose a meditative lunchbreak would be best  Cheesy

Best Regards, Sander

 5 
 on: Today at 06:14:47 AM 
Started by bretedge - Last post by pegelli
(there you go Pegelli, I'm not dismissing anything here  Wink )
I wasn't thinking of you Sander, it was more of a "reflective" comment.

 6 
 on: Today at 06:09:33 AM 
Started by mcnash - Last post by dreidesq
Try this guy.

Pascal Gauthier.


Groupe APPLIGRAPHIC sa I Pascal GAUTHIER | M. 06 22 02 01 15
B.P. 50 - 01480 Jassans-Riottier
Tel. 04 74 60 80 59 | Fax. 04 74 09 81 76
pga@noos.fr
Facebook | Twitter | www.appligraphic-groupe.com

 7 
 on: Today at 05:57:42 AM 
Started by bretedge - Last post by SanderKikkert
Your loss. Remember, I've consistently attacked the method, not the person, but maybe you can't handle someone saying "the king has no clothes"? Because if you use the built-in spotting tools properly, the dehaze method is really of negligible value.

Well John, I think not, I have actually compared the methods myself after reading this thread and have come to the conclusion that it works a treat for me for the images I tried it on, tried the 'official' method as well of course.  So not saying it works better in all cases but it seems a welcome addition. (there you go Pegelli, I'm not dismissing anything here  Wink )
Meticulously examining an alternative method suggested and pointing out possible throwbacks is one thing, but trying to burn it down to the ground using a huge number of posts, dismissing given examples and filling up this thread with loadsa "I am right and you are all wrong " is another. I came back to the thread to see if there was more news, information or suggestions and I find this...

BTW I haven't accused you of attacking the person, it's the way you attack the method that I dislike. Can't get my head around why you would spent so much posts basically screaming of the top of your lungs that what Bret suggested is 100% wrong. I apologize for the fact that couldn't get over that, leave it be etc. etc. and instead did make a remark that is in the end personal.

Be that as it may I wish you personally all the best in getting on with your site and business, pretty sure many people will enjoy that and benefit from it, just not me likely.

byebye, Sander

 8 
 on: Today at 05:43:39 AM 
Started by bretedge - Last post by sniper
For me autosync in LR stays firmly on, it suits the type of images I work with and my workflow, but I can see that for some it wouldn't work at all well. 
Regards Wayne

 9 
 on: Today at 05:31:58 AM 
Started by NigelC - Last post by Ray R
I got some Magic Bullet  from Marrutt in the uk

http://www.marrutt.com/printing-accessories/printer-maintenance.html.

It is some time since I have used my 3800, but needed to use it sometime back after it had not been used for months.

Patience helps in that it needs to sit for a while after using the windex trick, and after a nozzle check. I think it took a week or so to get mine back into printing a near complete nozzle check. (Just have one Magenta nozzle that will not clear).

 10 
 on: Today at 05:29:38 AM 
Started by bretedge - Last post by pegelli
Your loss.
Well said, but I think that's true for everybody who dismisses some of the methods presented in this thread, whether it's "A", 100 dehaze or 200 clarity. None of these methods is perfect, so having a range of tools should be more valuable I think.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »