Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: New "Why the hell"  (Read 865 times)

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
    • My photography site
New "Why the hell"
« on: July 03, 2018, 04:44:23 AM »

Firstly, I'll justify my post by suggesting that the original thread should not have been locked. The original post's language aside, I just don't think it had deteriorated into snarky Coffee Corner-style attacks. Surely the bar should be set higher before locking a thread?

Anyway, as Jeff Schewe said:
"Adobe moved Dehaze because a large number of users asked for the move...also note that since Dehaze adjustments require subsequent adjustments to tone and color, it far more convenient have Dehaze in the Basic panel...which is why people asked for the change."

And this is the point.

I also dislike Dehaze cluttering up the ever-growing Basic panel, mostly because I almost never use this slider and prefer Dehaze as a local adjustment to correct a selected area of the image. That's a creative judgement, and I do find it hard to see why anyone should differ with it ;).

But I can accept the balance of votes was for moving. Dehaze is a powerful tool but so crude that it usually forces you to make compensating adjustments to tone and colour. Using it only as a local adjustment, I've always had those other adjustments in the local adjustment tool panel, but if you do insist - as many people do - on whacking the whole image with Dehaze, moving it makes sense.

So I "get over it". I don't have to use it, and what's yet one more slider in Basic?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 05:39:19 AM by john beardsworth »
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14912
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2018, 08:28:01 AM »

And a simple solution to the problem for the original poster of that other thread is: Go back to LR6 (stand-alone) where there ain't no Dehaze slider anyhow!
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4059
    • waynefox.com
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2018, 01:06:29 AM »

I just read the other thread.  I'm not sure how bad the language of the OP was but it seems to have been edited, but I'm with you John.  I have no clue why the thread was locked. Seemed pretty tame compared to others that have gone on for pages ...

Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5260
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2018, 03:13:39 AM »

It was locked because there wasn't any point to it? Just a rant.

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
    • My photography site
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2018, 03:37:15 AM »

No, it's probably just an understandable error of judgement. One rant began the thread. The following discussion of the slider's move didn't go ad hominem, which would have been a convincing reason. While the slider won't go back to its previous position, since when was futility of discussion a reason to lock a thread?

FranciscoDisilvestro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
    • Frank Disilvestro
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2018, 04:12:24 AM »

That's moderation going beyond its inital purpose

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5260
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2018, 04:16:39 AM »

Jeremy can answer for himself. It looks like to me he was anticipating problems and acted swiftly? :)

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
    • My photography site
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2018, 04:31:50 AM »

Exactly, we don't know. Can you imagine how many other threads would be locked in similar anticipation of problems? I'm really not posting about moderation policy anyway, though what I know for certain was that the anticipation was a misjudgement - the next post to that thread would have been what I said in my initial post here, from "As Jeff Schewe said...." onwards. And I hope people would have benefited from a discussion of applying Dehaze (and Clarity) locally rather than whacking it on the whole image.

FranciscoDisilvestro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
    • Frank Disilvestro
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2018, 05:04:18 AM »

Jeremy can answer for himself. It looks like to me he was anticipating problems and acted swiftly? :)

Judging in advance about what could happen? Then it is over!

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5260
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2018, 10:24:12 AM »

Judging in advance about what could happen? Then it is over!

You don't believe in looking forwards? :-\

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11384
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2018, 10:38:26 AM »

... I hope people would have benefited from a discussion of applying Dehaze (and Clarity) locally rather than whacking it on the whole image.

But the thread was not about it (the merits of Dehaze), but about bitching about its placement. How many times one needs to read about "I do not like it where it is placed now"? Once is enough, I think. That's why the thread was closed, as useless bitching.

You are welcome to start a new thread about the merits and proper application of Dehaze, as you did, though somewhat misguidedly. Misguided in the sense that it has become more about moderation and the previous thread than about local vs. global adjustment.

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
    • My photography site
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2018, 10:53:19 AM »

My own views about the slider's placement are largely based on my view of its best use.

Yes, I knew I shouldn't have mentioned moderation first! Useless bitching would close many more threads though, wouldn't it, and in this case maybe only the first post would fall into that category.

Chris Sanderson

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2612
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2018, 10:55:14 AM »

...Useless bitching would close many more threads though, wouldn't it, and in this case that wasn't happening.
it was a expletive-laden rant whose merit was forfeited by foul language. Enough said.
Logged
Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
    • My photography site
Re: New "Why the hell"
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2018, 11:31:45 AM »

it was a expletive-laden rant whose merit was forfeited by foul language. Enough said.

That applies to the initial post, and it had been edited. The rest of the thread did not use the same language, and had not gone towards ad hominem bickering. If you set the bar this low before closing a thread, shouldn't you close many, many more? I'm encouraging you not to waste your time doing so!
Pages: [1]   Go Up