Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: rmyers on May 27, 2015, 11:35:04 pm
-
Interesting feature. Wonder when it will be added?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIJYL_AmqX0&feature=youtu.be
-
PhotoLine 19 already has it.
-
PhotoLine 19 already has it.
Indeed, and Topaz Clarity (https://www.topazlabs.com/clarity) has also been able to do that for 2 years already.
Cheers,
Bart
-
When he says that it will be in LR CC I'm sure what is meant is that it will be in ACR with Photoshop CC and therefore it will come to LR CC....
-
When he says that it will be in LR CC I'm sure what is meant is that it will be in ACR with Photoshop CC and therefore it will come to LR CC....
Maybe he means that it will only be in Lightrroom CC and not in Lightroom 6? That's when the shit hits the fan, if true.
It's is also getting increasingly complicated for Adobe evangelists and employees to clearly communicate all these artificial divides....
Cheers
Bart
-
clearly communicate all these artificial divides....
they run out of smoke & mirrors
-
When he says that it will be in LR CC I'm sure what is meant is that it will be in ACR with Photoshop CC and therefore it will come to LR CC....
Ironically, White didn't mention ACR at all. Though, since this new addition appears to be part of the Develop module, it would make sense that it is part of ACR as well.
Now that Adobe has made an official and technical distinction between Lr CC (subscription) and Lr 6 (perpetual) ... these new "features" can be delivered to CC apps whenever Adobe wishes to do so. Perpetual users will have to wait for these feature additions until the next full version cycle introduction.
-
they run out of smoke & mirrors
They dehazed the smoke.
-
Indeed, and Topaz Clarity (https://www.topazlabs.com/clarity) has also been able to do that for 2 years already.
In a raw converter, on raw data?
-
Maybe he means that it will only be in Lightrroom CC and not in Lightroom 6? That's when the shit hits the fan, if true.
Why? It's been known from day one that LR6 will get NO NEW FEATURE but bug fixes and camera support. And LRCC like Photoshop CC will get new features as time rolls on.
-
Maybe he means that it will only be in Lightrroom CC and not in Lightroom 6? That's when the shit hits the fan, if true.
I guess it will be in LR 6.X or maybe at the latest in LR7 (if we live to see one). We've been living without this tool since LR1 so don't think it's such a big deal if the subscribers get it some time before the perpetual license buyers.
-
So there were not much features for a 2 years development time and suddenly we have a new CC feature within a month after the release?
-
So there were not much features for a 2 years development time and suddenly we have a new CC feature within a month after the release?
It has happened in the past... for example some extra defringe tools that came with Lightroom 4.1 - https://luminous-landscape.com/lr4upd/
Probably this tools was already being developed for Lightroom 6/CC but it did not make the cut of stable features to be released for the established deadline. Or Adobe likes the idea of moving Lightroom to an incremental feature additions like they are doing with Photoshop CC and other apps.
David
-
In a raw converter, on raw data?
Hi Andrew,
How would that make a difference to the resulting image?
Besides, LR applies these effects on demosaiced data, so no longer Raw.
It basically is just a local contrast adjustment, with a twist in the shape of a contrast mask.
Cheers,
Bart
-
How would that make a difference to the resulting image?
Besides, LR applies these effects on demosaiced data, so no longer Raw.
It basically is just a local contrast adjustment, with a twist in the shape of a contrast mask.
With that concept, one could/should simply set all the controls in a raw converter to default, render and move on in Photoshop?
-
With that concept, one could/should simply set all the controls in a raw converter to default, render and move on in Photoshop?
Or shoot jpeg. ;D
Sometimes as important as the resulting image is how streamline and efficient the workflow proceeds.
To me, although there may not be "much difference" in the final image ... there is a huge difference in workflow, time and drive space consumed whenever any adjustment or modification can take place in the RAW image processing pipeline.
While I am a fan of various plugins, I will almost always opt for doing everything I can in the RAW workflow and utilize an external plugin only as a last resort when that which I desire to achieve can't be accomplished in my RAW pipeline. Over the course of a year, the time I save and the storage space I can preserve for more RAW files rather than a mountain of tiff or psd can be a significant savings in both time and money.
What is worthy of pointing out ... we have been able to control fog/haze/smog in Lr from it's first introduction ... it just took more time, patience and certainly more than one slider to get there. There really was/is no need for an external plugin.
-
Or shoot jpeg. ;D
To me, although there may not be "much difference" in the final image ... there is a huge difference in workflow, time and drive space consumed whenever any adjustment or modification can take place in the RAW image processing pipeline.
Exactly!
-
I wonder how the workflow with Photoshop looks like if the features of Lr 6 are different from the one of Lr CC and ACR.
-
I wonder how the workflow with Photoshop looks like if the features of Lr 6 are different from the one of Lr CC and ACR.
Without giving the NDA lawyers too much to get me in trouble, it's pretty obvious that LR/ACR will continue to stay on feature parity as we've seen in the past. Not doing so would hose workflows (Smart Objects, Edit in Photoshop etc).
-
I wonder how the workflow with Photoshop looks like if the features of Lr 6 are different from the one of Lr CC and ACR.
Probably the same way they handled the adjustment brush in the Gradient and Radial overlays ... ACR had them when ready ... Lr received it with v6.
-
I wonder how the workflow with Photoshop looks like if the features of Lr 6 are different from the one of Lr CC and ACR.
Well if you have a current version of PS, then you also have LR CC. So no problems there.
If you have LR6 and a older version of PS that does not have the same version of ACR as LR6 then you won't be able to open images as smart objects to retain full raw editability into PS.
-
Probably the same way they handled the adjustment brush in the Gradient and Radial overlays ... ACR had them when ready ... Lr received it with v6.
Ok, and how does an image look in Lightroom after saving it in ACR and resyncing the metadata in Lr ?
-
Ok, and how does an image look in Lightroom after saving it in ACR and resyncing the metadata in Lr ?
The adjustments are still there at the metadata level Lr and would be included when you print or export, though, you can't edit them in Lr. If you need to make adjustments to settings only available in ACR, you would have to return to Ps/ACR to make them.
-
The adjustments are still there at the metadata level Lr and would be included when you print or export, though, you can't edit them in Lr. If you need to make adjustments to settings only available in ACR, you would have to return to Ps/ACR to make them.
That would mean that the function itself is included into Lr6, but the slider are not available, so Lr can identify and interpret the settings, but you cannot alter them unless you send the image back to ACR.
So Lr 6 and CC have to be updated at the same time ? Or, and this would be more intersting, all new functions will be there from the beginning and are made visible in Lr at the 'flavor' of Adobe's product manager for Lr.
-
That would mean that the function itself is included into Lr6, but the slider are not available, so Lr can identify and interpret the settings, but you cannot alter them unless you send the image back to ACR.
So Lr 6 and CC have to be updated at the same time ? Or, and this would be more intersting, all new functions will be there from the beginning and are made visible in Lr at the 'flavor' of Adobe's product manager for Lr.
This is all based upon the assumption that Ps CS6 will continue to receive updates to ACR. I have no information on this ... but I seriously doubt Adobe will continue this policy much longer ... it's been over two years since the CC only pathway was adopted.
-
This is all based upon the assumption that Ps CS6 will continue to receive updates to ACR. I have no information on this ...
PS CS6 can already use ACR 9 and I'm pretty sure Adobe will continue allowing CS6 users to use updated ACR 9.x at least for as long as Adobe keep selling CS6. On that issue, I don't how long they will continue to do so.
-
When he says that it will be in LR CC I'm sure what is meant is that it will be in ACR with Photoshop CC and therefore it will come to LR CC....
It's all about marketing. Adobe doesn't seem interested in selling copies of LR6 as they want us all to drink the CC Kool-Aid, so they specifically only mention LR CC and choose not to mention availability in LR6. If it becomes available in LR CC, those of us still using LR6 will get it in some future update (LR6.x), no doubt.
-
It's all about marketing. Adobe doesn't seem interested in selling copies of LR6 as they want us all to drink the CC Kool-Aid, so they specifically only mention LR CC and choose not to mention availability in LR6. If it becomes available in LR CC, those of us still using LR6 will get it in some future update (LR6.x), no doubt.
No, they've been pretty clear...Lightroom CC (2015.1) will get Dehaze, LR 6.x will not. You'll have to wait till LR 7. It's the difference between subscription vs perpetual licenses. I guess some people seem hellbent on disbelieving the fact that subscription can get new features and perpetual can not.
-
No, they've been pretty clear...Lightroom CC (2015.1) will get Dehaze, LR 6.x will not.
Well that's pretty clear then, with the lack luster performance of the few additional features that were added since 2 years of LR5 updates, LR6 perpetual licence version is not very interesting to upgrade to.
You'll have to wait till LR 7.
Well that may be a long wait, if it ever materializes (given Adobe's attempts to not sell LR6).
It's the difference between subscription vs perpetual licenses. I guess some people seem hellbent on disbelieving the fact that subscription can get new features and perpetual can not.
Wasn't it you, who told us that it was too inconvenient for Adobe to run 2 build versions of maintenance/bugfixes/updates, with a subscription and a perpetual license model, and that that was the reason Adobe dropped perpetual licenses (rather than generating more money for less innovation due to a mature product)? If that's still the position, then it suggests that LR6 is the last version with perpetual license, which makes it even less interesting to upgrade to (hardly any new features and none to come) and invest time in ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Wasn't it you, who told us that it was too inconvenient for Adobe to run 2 build versions of maintenance/bugfixes/updates, with a subscription and a perpetual license model, and that that was the reason Adobe dropped perpetual licenses (rather than generating more money for less innovation due to a mature product)? If that's still the position, then it suggests that LR6 is the last version with perpetual license, which makes it even less interesting to upgrade to (hardly any new features and none to come) and invest time in ...
Yes, I explained why subscription vs perpetual versions were different regarding the Creative Suite. But Adobe decided to bite the bullet and do a dual code for Lightroom. Are you complaining about that?
While they could not do a dual code for each and every Creative Suit (cause there are a lot of CS apps) the fact that they did do a subscription and perpetual licenses for LR is now somehow a bad thing?
Again, Adobe has stated over and friggin' over that there is no plan to cease doing a perpetual license of LR but the fact that they have kept to their promice is now suspect? Really?
Just how anti-Adobe are you?
-
Yes, I explained why subscription vs perpetual versions were different regarding the Creative Suite. But Adobe decided to bite the bullet and do a dual code for Lightroom. Are you complaining about that?
While they could not do a dual code for each and every Creative Suit (cause there are a lot of CS apps) the fact that they did do a subscription and perpetual licenses for LR is now somehow a bad thing?
No, but unlike most sheeple I tend to plan ahead, and contingency planning is getting more and more important when commercial parties try to gain control over the abilities to operate one's activities (by remotely enabling/disabling the use of e.g. software, either intentionally of accidentally).
Again, Adobe has stated over and friggin' over that there is no plan to cease doing a perpetual license of LR but the fact that they have kept to their promice is now suspect? Really?
Absolutely. Their current attempts to deliberately obstruct people from finding the perpetual license version, but rather force them into using the subscription version is telling. This change in policy of not maintaining LR6 in the same way as LR CC, is also not good news. I'm not talking about mobile capabilities (they won't work anyway without their cloud support), but feature enhancements. It's Adobe who are feeding the suspicion, not the users of perpetual licenses, let's be clear about that. We can only observe what they are presenting us, and based on that the writing seems to be on the wall ...
Just how anti-Adobe are you?
Since you asked, I'll answer you, I didn't bring it up. I use some of their products on a daily basis, in fact I processed more than a thousand images last weeks with Photoshop, and have many more thousands to be done. It's Adobe who began to irritate and obstruct me in my endeavors and cut into my bottom line. Remember the requirement for users to upgrade to CS6, which I did) or otherwise a future upgrade to CS7 perpetual license would not be possible? That's when they started getting unbelievable and untrustworthy. Then the increased cost for a subscription (even more for Europeans who at the time had to pay some 30% more for a software download due to the exchange rate), compared to a sensible upgrade cycle (I've now paid 1/3rd for my latest purchased licenses than a subscription would have cost me). Subscribing for 3x the price it would have otherwise cost, is not a good deal (even if monthly payments, which cost more, would seemingly ease the pain a bit).
And now this deliberate obfuscation for those who want to buy a perpetual LR6 license, and a change in policy to no longer maintain identical versions of LR6 (except cloud related functionality) for the different license versions, which adds cost to their own operation (and why does ACR have support for the 5Ds/5DS R and Lightroom not)? Let's keep the facts straight, please, it's Adobe who began dealing me (and those who I advise and many others) bad cards, not the other way around.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And now this deliberate obfuscation for those who want to buy a perpetual LR6 license, and a change in policy to no longer maintain identical versions of LR6 (except cloud related functionality) for the different license versions, which adds cost to their own operation (and why does ACR have support for the 5Ds/5DS R and Lightroom not)? Let's keep the facts straight, please, it's Adobe who began dealing me (and those who I advise and many others) bad cards, not the other way around.
Well said, Bart. In fact the only reason I'm still using Adobe at all is because of the time investment I've made in thoroughly learning LR and the legacy of images I have with LR-generated XML files. I try my utmost NOT to need PS as I refuse to buy into a license that perpetually ties me to Adobe. When I do need PS-like work done, I'm using Affinity beta - it's not quite a mature product, yet, but it's coming close. Go Serif go!
How much do I "hate" Adobe - well, now you know.
I respect your views, Jeff, and the position you are in as an advisor to Adobe, but Adobe's business model, while sound from a business perspective, sucks for us small guys. The problem is that many people still think of large corporations as serving the needs of their public, when the underlying reality is that they serve themselves first, as their shareholders/owners would expect. Sometimes that self-serving bit rises to the surface as it has with CC, no matter how Adobe wants to paint it (or, in this case, Photoshop it) as better for faster updates. They could do the same thing by releasing a 6.x version, but they won't because they want to frustrate all of us into converting to CC. Shameful obfuscation.
-
How much do I "hate" Adobe - well, now you know.
Then your solution is easy, stop using any/all Adobe products and provide them income. Simple.
For those who don't hate Adobe and have no such issues, again, the solution is simple.
If bitching and moaning makes you feel better, you did so, happier?
-
Then your solution is easy, stop using any/all Adobe products and provide them income. Simple.
For those who don't hate Adobe and have no such issues, again, the solution is simple.
If bitching and moaning makes you feel better, you did so, happier?
Why do Adobe apologists keep missing the point? Terry didn't say he hated the Adobe products, but he (like myself) doesn't like their policies to get more (of my) money for less benefits, and the deliberate harassment of loyal customers who simply want to buy a (perpetual) license.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why do Adobe apologists keep missing the point? Terry didn't say he hated the Adobe products, but he (like myself) doesn't like their policies to get more (of my) money for less benefits, and the deliberate harassment of loyal customers who simply want to buy a (perpetual) license.
We're not Adobe apologists, we're Adobe customers by our own choosing. Why do admitted Adobe haters keep missing the point? I don't like some of the policies of Comcast or Verizion or Adobe, it doesn't stop me from using the products because for me, the benefits far outweigh my dislike for certain policies. If you don't feel that way, no one is forcing you support those companies with your hard earned money. Move on. Bitch and moan and get it off your chest and do something about it besides bitching and moaning. Continuously and endlessly.
-
To keep it on topic instead of arguing about policies...
When are we likely to see this feature being available?
-
When are we likely to see this feature being available?
Perhaps... http://prodesigntools.com/new-adobe-cc-2015-release.html
-
Why do Adobe apologists keep missing the point?
Yeah, ya know I was all set to lash out about this until I realized, I'm not sure if you were lumping me into this category...in case you weren't, never mind.
If you were then may I point out that I'm not an "Adobe apologist" but somebody who actually knows what's going on and tries to explain it to regular people. I've been critical of Adobe's policies (something some find convenient to ignore or forget), but it seems when I try to explain what Adobe's policies are and why they are, I'm somehow labeled an "apologist"? Really?
You may want to get into a different line of work cause FUD isn't a good long term employment strategy. Just sayin'
-
Yeah, ya know I was all set to lash out about this until I realized, I'm not sure if you were lumping me into this category...in case you weren't, never mind.
Correct, I'm not lumping you into that category.
If you were then may I point out that I'm not an "Adobe apologist" but somebody who actually knows what's going on and tries to explain it to regular people. I've been critical of Adobe's policies (something some find convenient to ignore or forget),
Exactly, and that's why you do not fit in that category.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here (attached) are some examples from already available DeHazing solutions. I used the landscape image from Kolor's Neutralhazer plugin (http://www.kolor.com/neutralhazer/#start) as comparison, under the fair use / review assumption. The Topaz Labs Clarity plugin is not specifically designed to dehaze, but it can still do a pretty decent job if one uses specific settings to address the haze.
The Photoline Dehaze function that was added to version 19 also looks promising, but I need to get a bit more familiar with Photoline to create a representative sample of its capabilities.
When the Adobe Dehaze feature is available, it would be nice if an example from the same image can be added to this comparison.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Correct, I'm not lumping you into that category.
Just the Adobe apologists who know they are Adobe apologists by your definition?
-
Here (attached) are some examples from already available DeHazing solutions. I used the landscape image from Kolor's Neutralhazer plugin (http://www.kolor.com/neutralhazer/#start) as comparison, under the fair use / review assumption. The Topaz Labs Clarity plugin is not specifically designed to dehaze, but it can still do a pretty decent job if one uses specific settings to address the haze.
The Photoline Dehaze function that was added to version 19 also looks promising, but I need to get a bit more familiar with Photoline to create a representative sample of its capabilities.
When the Adobe Dehaze feature is available, it would be nice if an example from the same image can be added to this comparison.
Cheers,
Bart
The one distinct advantage Lr/ACR (I'm assuming the tool will be in ACR as well) will have with the Dehaze tool is it is applied as a parametric setting to the RAW file. If I am not mistaken, the other options you mention, a derivative tiff or psd file would need to be created to apply the adjustment.
I'm not apologizing for Adobe, but I am a very big fan of any solution I can apply to the RAW file and not have to churn out a mountain of derivative files over the course of a year. I quite often shoot sports in heavy rain, fog and humidity and a simple solution like this will be a nice option in the toolbox.
While I wouldn't run out and buy Lr just for the Dehaze adjustment ... a single slider solution is looking real good and just put a notch in the plus column for me with CC ... and if you go back, I wasn't always a fan of CC.
-
Just the Adobe apologists who know they are Adobe apologists by your definition?
No, just whom ever the shoe fits.
They may know it themselves (if not then it's hopeless anyway), I do not have to point them out.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The one distinct advantage Lr/ACR (I'm assuming the tool will be in ACR as well) will have with the Dehaze tool is it is applied as a parametric setting to the RAW file. If I am not mistaken, the other options you mention, a derivative tiff or psd file would need to be created to apply the adjustment.
That's correct. It's nice to have a one slider solution (and parametric as well), although I prefer to tweak things like this more carefully (with layers or smart objects) to avoid killing the 'atmosphere' of the image (pun intended), and still be able to adjust after more edits are done.
As the Neutralhazer example shows, saturation can go totally wrong. In the TL Clarity example I even added saturation (with the same plugin) because the TL IntelliColor technology tied to avoid saturation changes too much for my taste. It will be interesting to see how LR Dehaze will handle that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's correct. It's nice to have a one slider solution (and parametric as well), although I prefer to tweak things like this more carefully (with layers or smart objects) to avoid killing the 'atmosphere' of the image (pun intended), and still be able to adjust after more edits are done.
That's all rather lofty and presumptuous ... wouldn't you actually have to try the new Dehaze tool to determine if "tweaking" a single slider instead of many would actually kill the atmosphere or is a less "careful" process?
Post processing need not be any more complicated than necessary. Otherwise, why worry about software at all? I have been removing haze in my digital workflow since Ps v2 ... I would hope software engineers could improve upon that task by now without sacrificing final image quality.
Take the Clarity slider for example ... remember all the adjustment layers and "tweaking" we had to use on Ps back in the day to achieve what we can do now in a rather simplified manner? Yes, if you abuse that one slider it can cause unwanted results, however, with judicious application it does a great job that used to be a mundane task.
I invest in software to reduce the quality time I must be in front of a monitor and streamline my workflow to make it easier to serve my clients ... the finished quality of the images I export shouldn't necessarily be a factor of the the quantity of sliders invoked to reach the end result. My time is far too valuable, which is why I expect my tools to ease that burden so as to invest more time in other areas that will reap higher rewards.
Multiple sliders or one, it still doesn't remove the user's careful attention to exactly how far to adjust the tool.
Though, I'll wait until I actually use the tool to determines it's value in my workflow.
-
No, just whom ever the shoe fits.
Again, by your definition.
Hopeless. And pointless.
It's nice to have a one slider solution (and parametric as well), although I prefer to tweak things like this more carefully (with layers or smart objects) to avoid killing the 'atmosphere' of the image (pun intended), and still be able to adjust after more edits are done.
It's got nothing to do with a single and simple slider although that's great (KISS), it's about the data the edit is applied upon and that it is parametric, an advantage.
The new dehaze slider is pretty ground breaking for reasons some of us might explain to you when the product is released.
-
DXO has this feature in their raw converter - called "ClearView." One slider - example attached.
kirk
-
That's all rather lofty and presumptuous ... wouldn't you actually have to try the new Dehaze tool to determine if "tweaking" a single slider instead of many would actually kill the atmosphere or is a less "careful" process?
No Butch, it is not meant as presumptuous but more philosophical/creative, and based on experience with e.g. what happened with HDR tonemapping. Other than a number of pathological haze scenarios (e.g. aerial photography, abundant smog/aerosols obscuring important details), people seem to have difficulty in keeping measure when using these kind of tools.
Removing haze in a scene will alter the 'atmosphere' of a scene, maybe from justifiably hazy/romantic/mysterious and adding atmospheric depth perspective, to harsh and clinical (and everything in between). Few will know how to keep measure, and many won't even grasp that one can also add atmosphere instead of killing it.
Take the Clarity slider for example ... remember all the adjustment layers and "tweaking" we had to use on Ps back in the day to achieve what we can do now in a rather simplified manner? Yes, if you abuse that one slider it can cause unwanted results, however, with judicious application it does a great job that used to be a mundane task.
Correct, and I love improvements that speed up the workflow. But the point is that there are different implementations of a 'Clarity' control possible. I happen to prefer more control than a single slider can offer, however good it may turn out to be. I'm probably spoiled by Topaz Labs' implementation of Clarity which is so incredibly more powerful and tweakable than a mainly mid tone contrast adjustment.
I invest in software to reduce the quality time I must be in front of a monitor and streamline my workflow to make it easier to serve my clients ... the finished quality of the images I export shouldn't necessarily be a factor of the the quantity of sliders invoked to reach the end result. My time is far too valuable, which is why I expect my tools to ease that burden so as to invest more time in other areas that will reap higher rewards.
As always, there are (at least) two sides to the coin (there's also an edge, which makes three). One is productivity, which can also be achieved with presets (which I use a lot when speed is of the esssence), and another is ultimate quality (which is a more subjective/creative approach (trying to get a feeling/sensation across), and (much) slower). I prefer tools that offer both, and I use both approaches with TL Clarity.
Multiple sliders or one, it still doesn't remove the user's careful attention to exactly how far to adjust the tool.
Though, I'll wait until I actually use the tool to determines it's value in my workflow.
Exactly, that's my concern as well (as explained with the earlier reference to HDR tonemapping). It's less about the tool's effectiveness in removing haze (I expect it to do what it should), it's about what it will do to the actual image due to people abusing it. People tend to lose the subtle approach and gyrate toward cheesy Instagram effects, heck some made a business model out of that ADHD type of impatient need to score fast effect for the sake of it, taste doesn't seem to matter anymore. We see the same with the ACR Process 2012 defaults, they severely crush the life out of highlights, unless one moves the highlights slider towards -100. Most people have no idea what they are losing, and just love that their highlights seem to no longer blow out (which by itself is useful if you got your exposure wrong). That's why I prefer control (like that Highlight slider).
Cheers,
Bart
-
If the new tool does anything like the job the Haze Cuuter in PKS has done for me these last ten years or so, and does it parametrically, it'll be a most welcome addition.
And one nice thing about subscribing is it's nice, on a morning like this, to come downstairs and find a nice new "free" (that's kinda how it feels) upgrade to my favourite photo apps awaiting to download...
LR CC (2015) downloading as I write...
Don't wanna sound smug or anything ;D
Jim
-
If the new tool does anything like the job the Haze Cuuter in PKS has done for me these last ten years or so, and does it parametrically, it'll be a most welcome addition.
And one nice thing about subscribing is it's nice, on a morning like this, to come downstairs and find a nice new "free" (that's kinda how it feels) upgrade to my favourite photo apps awaiting to download...
LR CC (2015) downloading as I write...
Don't wanna sound smug or anything ;D
Hi Jim,
Enjoy! If you or someone else could post an example, e.g. the NeutralHazer 'original' example above for comparison, then that would be helpful for others as well. Does it work on JPEG source images, or does it require Raws? What happens if you (as a test) push it too far (does it result in artifacts or just a (un)natural look)?
Cheers,
Bart
-
The new dehaze slider is pretty ground breaking for reasons some of us might explain to you when the product is released.
Well, I'm favorably impressed after an initial test, although I can't figure out how it works. (A lot of blue-channel shifting?)
I just reprocessed a shot I made through an airliner window last month with an oldish compact camera (a Canon S90) during the initial climb-out from Denver International Airport. As we were taking off, a rather impressive late-afternoon storm was brewing on the other side of the airport. Since I was shooting perpendicularly to the direction the airplane was moving, I had to crank up the ISO setting to get an acceptably fast shutter speed. The limited dynamic range of the camera, the less than pellucid airplane window, and the actual atmospheric haze from shooting horizontally toward the horizon at low altitude all conspired against me. My best effort at processing the file with the initial LR 6 release was way too flat and my skills with Lightroom's tone controls were inadequate to the task of fixing that: I found I either had to relinquish shadow detail or settle for a blah result. (I didn't try any other software.)
Today, I reprocessed the shot with a healthy dose of LR "dehaze." Much better. In addition to making the clouds appear as full and ominous as they looked at the time, the individual rain cells that were silhouetted against the sunset are now considerably more visible. Before-and-after images attached.
-
Here (attached) are some examples from already available DeHazing solutions. I used the landscape image from Kolor's Neutralhazer plugin (http://www.kolor.com/neutralhazer/#start) as comparison, under the fair use / review assumption. The Topaz Labs Clarity plugin is not specifically designed to dehaze, but it can still do a pretty decent job if one uses specific settings to address the haze.
The Photoline Dehaze function that was added to version 19 also looks promising, but I need to get a bit more familiar with Photoline to create a representative sample of its capabilities.
When the Adobe Dehaze feature is available, it would be nice if an example from the same image can be added to this comparison.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
Here are the dehazed images from Adobe LR. The first one is the original, the second one is dehaze @ 75% in LR and the third one is white balanced first (manually) before applying 75% dehaze in LR.
EDIT:
I have added a fourth image: DxO 10 dehazing (Clearview) at 85%.
-
Hi Bart,
Here are the dehazed images from Adobe LR. The first one is the original, the second one is dehaze @ 75% in LR and the third one is white balanced first (manually) before applying 75% dehaze in LR.
Hi Cem,
Thanks for the comparison. Apparently Dehaze can also be used on JPEGs, which is nice to know.
As also suggested by Julianne Kost (https://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/2015/06/julieannes-top-5-new-features-in-photoshop-cc-2015-and-lightroom-cc-2015.html), first adjusting the White balance does have a positive influence on the DeHaze result. But it does seem sensitive to boosting the saturation (which is what a dehazing does) if not used with moderation, so an additional saturation adjustment may still be needed to keep things from getting out of hand.
Cheers,
Bart
-
One thing about De-haze that I am surprised by: It hasn't been added to the Adjustment Brush menu, so for right now it only works globally.
-
One thing about De-haze that I am surprised by: It hasn't been added to the Adjustment Brush menu, so for right now it only works globally.
I'm a little surprised by that, too. There are many images that need de-hazing only in certain (distant) areas.
-
I'm a little surprised by that, too. There are many images that need de-hazing only in certain (distant) areas.
I agree, but it works on only specific parts...
As you can see in the examples : it finds the areas with low contrast and boosts only those.
... of course often things may go automatically wrong..
-
As you can see in the examples : it finds the areas with low contrast and boosts only those.
My experience over the past few days with a wide variety of images: portraits, still life, architecture, and a wide variety of lighting conditions - flat to contrasty - tells me it is being applied globally, not only to low contrast areas.
-
I'm finding it is resulting in too blue colour after application. Which I find strange, given most(?) hazy images have a blue cast to begin with.
Oh, and I want it in a brush as well. Often distant mountains are hazy, but foreground is clear. But it is affecting the foreground too. I don't need it in the foreground, though. I hope they add it as an adjustment brush at some point soon.
But overall, I find it quite an impressive tool (after I readjust the white balance and saturation after application). Does with one slider what it used to take multiple sliders to do.
-
I'm finding it is resulting in too blue colour after application. Which I find strange, given most(?) hazy images have a blue cast to begin with. . . .
But overall, I find it quite an impressive tool (after I readjust the white balance and saturation after application).
I've also found it tends to accentuate any existing blue color cast. Adobe recommends adjusting the white balance before you use the Dehaze adjustment. I don't think the final image quality suffers if you reverse that sequence, but changing the color temperature after applying Dehaze seems to cause a lot of processing churn as Lightroom re-evaluates the image pixel-by-pixel, as discussed in this thread (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101294.0).
-
I've also found it tends to accentuate any existing blue color cast. Adobe recommends adjusting the white balance before you use the Dehaze adjustment. I don't think the final image quality suffers if you reverse that sequence, but changing the color temperature after applying Dehaze seems to cause a lot of processing churn as Lightroom re-evaluates the image pixel-by-pixel, as discussed in this thread (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101294.0).
Indeed. In a parametric workflow it won't make any difference to the end result (the sequence in which the processing steps are done is hardwired), but it also means that the later steps (like adding the DeHaze effect) will need to be recalculated if the parameters of an earlier step (like for Whitebalance) are changed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
My experience over the past few days with a wide variety of images: portraits, still life, architecture, and a wide variety of lighting conditions - flat to contrasty - tells me it is being applied globally, not only to low contrast areas.
It is apple globally, but the results are not, let's say, linear (the same strength throughout the image isn't the same).
-
It is apple globally, but the results are not, let's say, linear (the same strength throughout the image isn't the same).
Thanks. I was guessing that for what I have used it for. But does a setting change from 20 to 40 (for example) double the strength all over? I am assuming that it does.
-
Thanks. I was guessing that for what I have used it for. But does a setting change from 20 to 40 (for example) double the strength all over? I am assuming that it does.
I'm assuming the same but I'd rather have solid proof, ideally from an Adobe engineer ;)
-
It was suggested elsewhere that this site is in some way related to Dehaze:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1360671
-
I agree that it would be nice if you could apply, or at least selectively remove, Dehaze in LR via local adjustments. However, something similar can be done using Dehaze as an ACR Filter in PS on a layer, and then masking away the effect where you don't want it. As a qualifier though, I found that the maximum strength of Dehaze as an ACR Filter is lower than what you see when using it directly in ACR, or in LR. (If the extra strength is needed, Dehaze could be applied in ACR/LR to a copy of the original file, and then that copy could be used as a masked layer in PS.)
I'm attaching some files that show the effect of Dehaze on an unremarkable image, except that its distant haze makes it a good test subject.
Image 1: No Dehaze applied.
Image 2: Dehaze of +100 applied as an ACR Filter in PS.
Image 3: Same as 2, but the ACR Filter effect has been masked on a layer, and restricted by a gradient to the upper mountains area.
Image 4: Dehaze of +100 applied in LR (or equivalently, directly in ACR, not as a filter), not masked.