Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Problems With Auto-Mask  (Read 7596 times)

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 686
    • http://www.davechewphotography.com
Re: Problems With Auto-Mask
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2011, 08:24:10 AM »

Agreed...but now that you mention it, what are your settings in the Lightroom Lens Corrections under Defringe? If you set it to All Edges (or even Highlight Edges) does that help mitigate the halos?

That's a great point Jeff.  I seem to be able to push the color sliders a bit farther in B&W conversions now because I am using lens profiles and paying much closer attention to fringing before converting.

On the one hand I keep wishing for more features in LR like an adjustable micro/gaussian/feather blur for Automask, while on the other hand not wanting LR to balloon into another PS...

I need to be careful what I wish for.

Dave
Logged

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: Problems With Auto-Mask
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2011, 10:22:10 AM »

While we're at it . . .

There are a couple of other little snags (perhaps bugs) which I have encountered in LR 3, which can catch you out. This is in B/W mind, I haven't tested what happens in colour.

* White objects against a darker sky (such as a lighthouse, flagpole, etc) interact unpleasantly with the detail slider. If you crank up the detail, you can get a large dark halo around the white object.

* There is some sort of bug in the highlight priority vignette. Eric has said that it is a known issue. What happens is that a local brush adjustment using EV also alters the overall vignette density, and the two interact in an unpredictable way.

Otherwise, of course, Lightroom is completely brilliant (and I'm not kidding - I tried using Phocus again the other night, which made me realise how brilliant LR really is).

John
« Last Edit: January 31, 2011, 10:34:23 AM by John R Smith »
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits

Bill Carr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
    • billcarrphoto.com
Re: Problems With Auto-Mask
« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2011, 01:44:22 AM »

Darn, I thought you were going to have a really simple question, one that many would benefit from: "The problem with Auto-mask is .... drumroll .... IT"S NOT PHOTOSHOP"

Maybe they could add a new menu item between Develop and Slideshow and call it, what the heck, Photoshop!

Oh, darn, then LR would be $898.   :o

Jeff, thanks for the helpful info.  Interesting about the starting center point.  I'll try the new eraser trick, too. 
Logged

Bill Carr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
    • billcarrphoto.com
Re: Problems With Auto-Mask
« Reply #23 on: May 04, 2011, 02:26:33 AM »

It seems to me that the issue here may have to do with the fact that we are talking about parametric editing as opposed to pixel level editing.  PS actually changes the pixels along the edges and if it misses one, you can go in and actually change the pixel.  In LR, it writes a description of the change in the database, making it much more difficult to describe the color of each pixel along this border that, in this case, has a lot of detail in it.

Calls up the difference between running the car through the car wash and taking it in to get detailed.  Different products for different purposes.
Logged

BFoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
    • Brad's blog
Re: Problems With Auto-Mask
« Reply #24 on: May 04, 2011, 03:57:05 PM »

* White objects against a darker sky (such as a lighthouse, flagpole, etc) interact unpleasantly with the detail slider. If you crank up the detail, you can get a large dark halo around the white object.
John

Are you sure this is not the clarity bumped too high?

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: Problems With Auto-Mask
« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2011, 03:08:44 AM »

Are you sure this is not the clarity bumped too high?


Essentially, yes, in this circumstance the acceptable level available from the detail slider is reduced to the point where you can barely use it. I am working in B/W, not colour, so things may be different there, I don't know.

John
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits

NikoJorj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1057
    • http://nikojorj.free.fr/
Re: Problems With Auto-Mask
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2011, 06:16:40 AM »

Essentially, yes, in this circumstance the acceptable level available from the detail slider is reduced to the point where you can barely use it.
From what I heard, that's the way it works : detail at 0 means no haloes, detail at 100 means deconvolution sharpening and haloes.
You can choose, at least.
Logged
Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: Problems With Auto-Mask
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2011, 09:12:51 AM »

Sorry, chaps. I have led you all completely astray. I meant to type the "clarity" slider, not detail, which of course is in the sharpening department. And then I go and perpetuate my mistake twice over.

I can only plead advancing years, and the early onset of dribbling senility. Probably exacerbated by a lifetime of substance abuse, just to top things off . . .

John
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits

NikoJorj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1057
    • http://nikojorj.free.fr/
Re: Problems With Auto-Mask
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2011, 03:50:05 PM »

Okay, then, direct from our "No Free Lunch" dept... yes, the clarity slider does produce haloes when pushed too far, and yes sometimes too far isn't far enough.   
Logged
Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up