Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: The real cost of renting software from Adobe  (Read 3425 times)

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4088
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2017, 08:53:49 AM »

Your sweeping statement that Lr has no tethering capability is simply wrong. There is a tethering feature, and it can easily apply adjustments to successive images. If you are shooting into a magazine or other layout, it can do that by overlaying a transparent image on the photos (like the C1 equivalent). You can also automatically sync new photos to remote screens for client approval and annotation (imagine shooting for a client who can't get to the shoot). But it does not have live view or other features that make me say C1 is better at tethering. As I say, my main problem was with your sweeping statement which was simply wrong.

If you don't use Photoshop's newer tools daily, it's always going to be hard to appreciate their value. Just thinking of the tools I mentioned, content aware is a range of tools and I can think of one client who uses CA transform to squeeze photos of stages (performing arts) into the dimensions required for posters. In his portrait work, he uses Liquify's new face aware feature to tweak eyes, noses etc. That's just a couple of features. Yes, you can do them in CS2 or whatever, just not as quickly or as well.
Logged
www.beardsworth.co.uk   www.lightroomsolutions.com

New Fuji-to-Lightroom plugin X-LR

Ignoring : AlterEgo, digitaldog, scyth, deejaaa

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9483
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2017, 08:56:21 AM »

Try using the content aware tool to remove outlets on walls with wall paper; it fails miserably.

That's because you need to use the patch tool for that, Joe. Maybe spending some time with a Photoshop book like Kelby's might help. The tools are there. You just need to learn what they are and how to use them.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2017, 08:58:43 AM »

That's because you need to use the patch tool for that, Joe. Maybe spending some time with a Photoshop book like Kelby's might help. The tools are there. You just need to learn what they are and how to use them.

Actually no, that is what the Vanishing Point filter is used for, because the patch tool does not take into account perspectives. 

I can assure you, my knowledge of PS is more then up to speed, I am going to bet, better then yours.  This is why I know the improvement of these tools has be slow in the past couple of generations. 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 09:04:36 AM by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2017, 09:04:01 AM »

Your sweeping statement that Lr has no tethering capability is simply wrong. There is a tethering feature, and it can easily apply adjustments to successive images. If you are shooting into a magazine or other layout, it can do that by overlaying a transparent image on the photos (like the C1 equivalent). You can also automatically sync new photos to remote screens for client approval and annotation (imagine shooting for a client who can't get to the shoot). But it does not have live view or other features that make me say C1 is better at tethering. As I say, my main problem was with your sweeping statement which was simply wrong.

If you don't use Photoshop's newer tools daily, it's always going to be hard to appreciate their value. Just thinking of the tools I mentioned, content aware is a range of tools and I can think of one client who uses CA transform to squeeze photos of stages (performing arts) into the dimensions required for posters. In his portrait work, he uses Liquify's new face aware feature to tweak eyes, noses etc. That's just a couple of features. Yes, you can do them in CS2 or whatever, just not as quickly or as well.

Okay, well, yes then LR does have tethering capabilities, just not at the level most pros would expect. 

Liquify is a very specific tool used mainly on people.  Architecture and produce work just does not have too much of an application, aside from my splash work.  However, the time spent using the liquify tool is nothing compared to the time spent editing you selection of images down to find the ones that will merge together seamlessly. 
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9483
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2017, 09:08:35 AM »

Actually no, that is what the Vanishing Point filter is used for, because the patch tool does not take into account perspectives. 

Sounds as if that's a problem you need to take into account when you set up the shot.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2017, 09:18:37 AM »

Sounds as if that's a problem you need to take into account when you set up the shot.

Aside: I should have used the phrase "perspective distortions." 

How do you take into account that whenever you look at a wall on an angle, the straight lines of the wall, along with the rest of the wall, converge to a point?  You can't. 

It's impossible, even with One-Point Perspectives since you are usually looking at another wall not parallel to the image plane and is therefore skewed or angled. 

The patch tool does not take into account the changing shape of a pattern dependent on your perspective.  Only the Vanishing Point Filter does that. 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 10:05:23 AM by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4088
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2017, 10:06:18 AM »

Okay, well, yes then LR does have tethering capabilities, just not at the level most pros would expect. 

Just not as good as the C1 capabilities, but adequate for most pros. Most people just don't push the envelope.

Liquify is a very specific tool used mainly on people.  Architecture and produce work just does not have too much of an application, aside from my splash work.  However, the time spent using the liquify tool is nothing compared to the time spent editing you selection of images down to find the ones that will merge together seamlessly.

No, it's a general use tool. Certainly it's more useful on people, and its capabilities in that area have advanced significantly since you last used it. My point about CA transform was more relevant to architecture-type work.
Logged
www.beardsworth.co.uk   www.lightroomsolutions.com

New Fuji-to-Lightroom plugin X-LR

Ignoring : AlterEgo, digitaldog, scyth, deejaaa

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9483
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2017, 10:18:43 AM »

How do you take into account that whenever you look at a wall on an angle, the straight lines of the wall, along with the rest of the wall, converge to a point?  You can't.

Of course. So if you can see a wall outlet is going to be a problem you move something in front of the outlet, or you move to a different vantage point. People have been shooting the kind of picture you're talking about since long before there was a Photoshop. We've reached a point where the default approach is to bang away and fix it all in post-processing. Post-processing was a lot harder in darkroom days, so people worked hard to minimize problems during the shoot.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2017, 10:26:40 AM »

Just not as good as the C1 capabilities, but adequate for most pros. Most people just don't push the envelope.

No, it's a general use tool. Certainly it's more useful on people, and its capabilities in that area have advanced significantly since you last used it. My point about CA transform was more relevant to architecture-type work.

If you can't control the camera or use live view, it's just not that great.  Using live view is a great help when setting up an interior shot or a table top.  Sure, you have a run around; have the camera control software open too, but then you switching back and forth. 

I know Adobe does not produce any cameras, and Phase One started off having their camera control panel in their Raw processor, so maybe they had an advantage with the thought process.  But it is now 2017, and camera controls and live view should be part of LR. 

Like I brought into the conversation above, and probably should have from the beginning, I will contest that LR is probably better for wedding and even shooters.  The presets are nice and you can do effects in LR you can't in C1 that are applicable to that type of work.  Actually C1 does not really have any presents, aside from recipe presets, but that is more about file output, not look. 

On top of that, LR does not do LCC corrections (I know they have a plugin, but last I checked it does not work so well), something which I need due to my camera of choice.  (I know it's a negative on my camera, but the other positives inherent with tech cameras for my work far out weight it.) 

I still can't see a use in architectural work with the liquify tool; maybe to remove lens distortions.  However the built-in presets in Capture One do a perfect job even with the wide Rodenstock lenses.  Maybe I should check out CA Transform. 

To be honest though, I hate retouching.  I enjoy the color grading and tone adjustments, and feel that is part of my vision.  But the nitty gritty stuff, like remove outlets and wires, I'd rather just send to a retoucher. 
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2017, 10:28:06 AM »

Of course. So if you can see a wall outlet is going to be a problem you move something in front of the outlet, or you move to a different vantage point. People have been shooting the kind of picture you're talking about since long before there was a Photoshop. We've reached a point where the default approach is to bang away and fix it all in post-processing. Post-processing was a lot harder in darkroom days, so people worked hard to minimize problems during the shoot.

Yes, you can do that, sometimes, if the client lets you, and I surely do.  However, if you're working for a minimalist, or if it just does not look good and too cluttered, you're stuck. 

And sometimes it is not avoidable, like wires in front of the building, and you can't always capture a true elevation shot in a city. 

Anyway, back to the initial point, the Vanishing Point Filter does a better jump at removing objects when perspectives are taken into account then what you recommended, the stamp tool.  Lets not suddenly introduce a red herring to distract from which is the best tool. 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 11:30:05 AM by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6672
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2017, 11:23:16 AM »

How do you take into account that whenever you look at a wall on an angle, the straight lines of the wall, along with the rest of the wall, converge to a point?  Hint, you can't. 

It's impossible, even with One-Point Perspectives since you are usually looking at another wall not parallel to the image plane and is therefore skewed or angled. 

The patch tool does not take into account the changing shape of a pattern dependent on your perspective.  Only the Vanishing Point Filter does that.

FWIW, Affinity Photo also allows the use of "Inpainting" (or Cloning or Healing or Blemish removal) in Live Perspective Projection mode. Works very good, and a similar tool is also usable to correct 360 degrees VR images (Nadir/Zenith, or in other spots of the image).
Also Cloning from other images is possible, and Clones can be resized and rotated as they are cloned in.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2017, 11:29:39 AM »

FWIW, Affinity Photo also allows the use of "Inpainting" (or Cloning or Healing or Blemish removal) in Live Perspective Projection mode. Works very good, and a similar tool is also usable to correct 360 degrees VR images (Nadir/Zenith, or in other spots of the image).
Also Cloning from other images is possible, and Clones can be resized and rotated as they are cloned in.

Cheers,
Bart

That is awesome, and something I now need to check out. 

Another thing that always annoyed me about the vanishing point filter is that it takes into account all layers that are on, not just the ones below.  So if you have color, curve and level adjustments above the layer for the vanishing point filter that are turned on, it applies those to the fix and then those are applied again outside the window. 

I don't know why they designed it like this.  Not that it is difficult to remember to turn those layers off before opening up the filter, but it does not make sense. 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 11:33:09 AM by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4088
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2017, 11:47:14 AM »

If you can't control the camera or use live view, it's just not that great.  Using live view is a great help when setting up an interior shot or a table top.  Sure, you have a run around; have the camera control software open too, but then you switching back and forth. 

I know Adobe does not produce any cameras, and Phase One started off having their camera control panel in their Raw processor, so maybe they had an advantage with the thought process.  But it is now 2017, and camera controls and live view should be part of LR. 

As I said, my main point was about your incorrect sweeping statement and I regard C1's tethering as superior. After all, C1 has to support P1's core business. The lack of live view in Lr probably reflects the size of the remaining market, but Adobe have also changed emphasis. Instead of developing the tethering feature in-house, they have now given the camera makers tools to develop their own, given that they have the greater incentive. Fuji did that, but I've not seen if live view was included.

Like I brought into the conversation above, and probably should have from the beginning, I will contest that LR is probably better for wedding and even shooters.  The presets are nice and you can do effects in LR you can't in C1 that are applicable to that type of work.  Actually C1 does not really have any presents, aside from recipe presets, but that is more about file output, not look. 

Presets are a bit of a cheap trick - you can produce the same look with sliders. Their less-hyped benefit is consistency, which is important with a big shoot, and efficiency. So it's 3/4 clicks to produce an entire shoot in B&W, sepia tone, soft focus,  vignette etc to include on the disc sent to the happy couple or for multimedia output. It's more the integration of picture management, processing and output that make Lr strong in the wedding and volume markets.

On top of that, LR does not do LCC corrections (I know they have a plugin, but last I checked it does not work so well), something which I need due to my camera of choice.  (I know it's a negative on my camera, but the other positives inherent with tech cameras for my work far out weight it.) 

Which is important for you, yet most photographers wouldn't care, just like they don't care much about CMYK.

I still can't see a use in architectural work with the liquify tool; maybe to remove lens distortions.  However the built-in presets in Capture One do a perfect job even with the wide Rodenstock lenses.  Maybe I should check out CA Transform. 

Last time I used Liquify was on some curtain material in an interior, but I keep mentioning Liquify with faces because we began with "nothing for pros in the last few versions" and this face feature is new.

To give you an example of CA Transform with something more architectural, I remember we had a shot of a stage set with two groups of people, one on the left in front of a tree, the others on the right in front of a castle. It was roughly 16:9 but they wanted it as a CD cover, uncropped. CA Transform let us squeeze it in from each side - PS compressed the featureless central area, but kept the people/tree/castle normally proportioned. The other CA tools all have uses in particular circumstances, and Adobe have continued improving them in each version.

To be honest though, I hate retouching.  I enjoy the color grading and tone adjustments, and feel that is part of my vision.  But the nitty gritty stuff, like remove outlets and wires, I'd rather just send to a retoucher.

Now you can ask a few awkward questions beginning with can't we use CA.... :)
Logged
www.beardsworth.co.uk   www.lightroomsolutions.com

New Fuji-to-Lightroom plugin X-LR

Ignoring : AlterEgo, digitaldog, scyth, deejaaa

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1537
    • Flicker photos
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2017, 11:58:47 AM »

I'm a hobbyist so I get by with LR, Photoshop Elements and Photoshop Premiere Elements.  I don't do a lot of editing other than cropping and adjusting some colors, contrast, etc.  Sometimes perspective adjustments which raises a question.

You know how you get the keystone effect when shooting buildings?  Well, sometimes when I shoot landscapes with a lake and the shore on the opposite side, I realize I must be getting a horizontal keystone effect so that you can' tilt to correct and level the horizon.  After all, horizontal lines are vertical lines on their side.  The 3D to 2D causes the same thing.  How do you deal with horizontal shores?  Does this have something to do with correcting using vanishing points?
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6672
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2017, 12:44:50 PM »

That is awesome, and something I now need to check out.

There's a link to a tutorial video about the Live Perspective Projection tool on their forum, under the Live Projections (360 editing, perspective projection) section. Their examples demonstrate adding features in perspective, but obviously removing features works the same. It can be helpful, once in editing mode, to add a pixel layer to paint the correction on (while sampling that layer and those below), because that also allows correcting and editing edge transparency of the correction on its own layer, or moving it a bit for a better fit, before merging down and exiting Perspective mode.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2392
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2017, 02:35:07 PM »

There's a link to a tutorial video about the Live Perspective Projection tool on their forum, under the Live Projections (360 editing, perspective projection) section. Their examples demonstrate adding features in perspective, but obviously removing features works the same. It can be helpful, once in editing mode, to add a pixel layer to paint the correction on (while sampling that layer and those below), because that also allows correcting and editing edge transparency of the correction on its own layer, or moving it a bit for a better fit, before merging down and exiting Perspective mode.

Cheers,
Bart
I just took a quick look at their website.  The price is certainly right at $49.95.  I assume one can integrate edits performed in Affinity and still use LR as the Raw Converter, DAM, and the first stage development platform.  One would just need to export a developed TIFF to Affinity for further manipulation, correct?  As long as the TIFF is saved to the same location, LR should see it.
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6672
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2017, 03:17:25 PM »

I just took a quick look at their website.  The price is certainly right at $49.95.  I assume one can integrate edits performed in Affinity and still use LR as the Raw Converter, DAM, and the first stage development platform.  One would just need to export a developed TIFF to Affinity for further manipulation, correct?  As long as the TIFF is saved to the same location, LR should see it.

Hi Alan,

Yes, if you send a TIFF from LR to AP it should work as expected.

And since this thread is about cost, AP is not expensive at all (for a perpetual license no less). Updates are free until Version 2 arrives, at which time I'd expect a discounted upgrade fee. So running cost is modest for a very capable Photo Editor, that also does pretty decent focus-stacking, HDRI, and Pano Stitching on multiple images. Its Raw conversions are not bad either but they could be improved.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2392
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #37 on: May 07, 2017, 03:35:54 PM »

Hi Alan,

Yes, if you send a TIFF from LR to AP it should work as expected.

And since this thread is about cost, AP is not expensive at all (for a perpetual license no less). Updates are free until Version 2 arrives, at which time I'd expect a discounted upgrade fee. So running cost is modest for a very capable Photo Editor, that also does pretty decent focus-stacking, HDRI, and Pano Stitching on multiple images. Its Raw conversions are not bad either but they could be improved.

Cheers,
Bart
Thanks, I think I might give this a try.  I'm on the perpetual license of LR and like most of the features.  I don't use photoshop much at all (do have CS6 installed).  I don't want to be switching the LR part because of the DAM with all the images I have.  I did see the exhaustive set of tutorials on their website which is a good thing.


Alan
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2017, 07:35:32 AM »

I'm a hobbyist so I get by with LR, Photoshop Elements and Photoshop Premiere Elements.  I don't do a lot of editing other than cropping and adjusting some colors, contrast, etc.  Sometimes perspective adjustments which raises a question.

You know how you get the keystone effect when shooting buildings?  Well, sometimes when I shoot landscapes with a lake and the shore on the opposite side, I realize I must be getting a horizontal keystone effect so that you can' tilt to correct and level the horizon.  After all, horizontal lines are vertical lines on their side.  The 3D to 2D causes the same thing.  How do you deal with horizontal shores?  Does this have something to do with correcting using vanishing points?

Yes, you can get horizontal keystoning with lines away from the center of the image.  (Well actually the center of the image circle that the lens projects, but, unless you are shifting, the center of the image will be where the center of the circle is.)  If the horizon line is close to the center of the image, you are likely just not level.

But anyway, to correct this in post, you use the lens correction filter.  If you were to buy a tilt/shift lens or a MF camera with built in shift (which is what I use), you could also correct it in camera instead of in post. 

The vanishing point filter is completely different.  This is used to edit out objects where you have a repetitive pattern but are looking at the wall on an angle.  For instance, if I am photographing a kitchen, looking at it on an angle) with say subway tile as a backsplash and there are outlets I need to remove in post, I can't just use the stamp tool.  This is because in the image, the tiles are no longer the same size or shape due to my perspective; they are all kind of angle towards each other.  The vanishing point filter takes this into account so you can copy and paste from one area to another with the section you're copying from automatically changing shape and size to fit over the object you are erasing.  It does take sometime to get the hang of using this filter though and I do not think it is included in the watered down PS Elements. 

Although it is nice, they kind of pepper houses and kitchens with outlets nowadays.  Great, since I will always have a place to plug in all my lights, but annoying, and you can't always obscure them since then the kitchen would start to look cluttered.  The better kitchen designers usually install the outlets under the cabinets with the under lighting, so they are hidden and even better. 
« Last Edit: May 09, 2017, 07:38:53 AM by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1537
    • Flicker photos
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2017, 08:32:16 AM »

Ok.  So i use lens correction for both horizontal and vertical keystoning.  Thanks.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up