Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: bretedge on June 26, 2015, 11:57:28 pm
-
Today I discovered that Lightroom's new Dehaze tool is fantastic for locating dust spots on your photos. Crank it up to 100 and every blasted dust spot on your image is instantly highly visible. Clone/heal them as you normally do, then reset the Dehaze tool to whatever setting is desired and proceed with processing your image.
Yes, I realize that LR has a tool just for this purpose but I'm not a big fan of it. I find using the Dehaze tool to be much more effective. Just thought I'd share this discovery as some of you might find it useful.
Carry on...
-
Thanks very much for sharing this finding - could be most useful. I'll try it after I download the latest LR-CC - (I'm still waiting for "reasonably safe" time to be free of installation, transitional and operational glitches). But there is one point I don't understand" where you say "LR has a tool just for this purpose" - what purpose are you talking about - is it discovering the spots or cleaning them up? The one for cleaning-up I know, but any for discovering it I am not familiar with. And using de-Haze as you suggest to identify the spots, would we not still need the healing brush to eliminate them?
-
The tool he means is the mask that you can display by hitting the letter A when you're dust spotting.
I've seen this idea for highlighting spots with Dehaze suggested in a couple of places and doubt it's much more than a placebo. To the extent it's useful, it's no better than whacking up Clarity, and you can easily track down as many spots using the dust spotting mask and its slider. You might also run into performance issues if you mess with Dehaze when you're healing lots of spots.
-
OK thanks John. I can see that visualization tool generating as much confusion as insight. When I need to look for spots I crank the image to 1:1 and simply inspect it block by block on the display, sometimes temporarily increasing or decreasing exposure of very dark or very bright areas respectively to help reveal underlying spots, then eliminate them. This very simple approach has been completely successful at catching what needs to be fixed without mistaking image detail for spots.
-
The built-in visualisation tool (the mask) is just fine, Mark, and works well with the block by block method which I also use. I'll sometimes press A and switch to the mask, then continue spot-correcting in that mode, or just hold and release A if I want a quick review. As soon as the mask was introduced in Lr5 it greatly increased the number of spots I healed, and I just don't think there's much benefit from messing around with Dehaze for that job.
-
The built-in visualisation tool (the mask) is just fine, Mark, and works well with the block by block method which I also use. I'll sometimes press A and switch to the mask, then continue spot-correcting in that mode, or just hold and release A if I want a quick review. As soon as the mask was introduced in Lr5 it greatly increased the number of spots I healed, and I just don't think there's much benefit from messing around with Dehaze for that job.
To each his own, John. Cranking up Dehaze works better for me. If using the mask works better for you, that's great - use it. I was simply sharing what works for me as I thought others might find it useful. And, for what it's worth, I have had zero performance issues using this method.
-
As I say, I don't think it's much more than a placebo. Not something I'd recommend others spend much time on.
-
As it takes so little time to find out for oneself, I'll just give it a whirl once I download and install the update. It is the latter that is more concerning right now.
-
A similar idea is to whack up clarity and go beyond the 100% with a bunch of grad filters (saved to a preset). It used to go higher, but I think it now tops out at 200% effect. I just don't think any of these voodoo methods is as good as toggling the mask and setting the tool overlay to auto - you just mvoe the cursor in and out of the image to see the healing spots.
-
A similar idea is to whack up clarity and go beyond the 100% with a bunch of grad filters (saved to a preset). It used to go higher, but I think it now tops out at 200% effect. I just don't think any of these voodoo methods is as good as toggling the mask and setting the tool overlay to auto - you just mvoe the cursor in and out of the image to see the healing spots.
Call it a placebo, or voodoo, or whatever you want, John. Just because it isn't YOUR way doesn't mean it's the wrong way. I couldn't give a crap what you think or how you clean dust spots. If it works, it works. Get over yourself.
-
I couldn't give a crap what you think or how you clean dust spots. If it works, it works. Get over yourself.
I think a bit of decorum would be helpful to the discussion. Let's keep it technical.
-
I think a bit of decorum would be helpful to the discussion. Let's keep it technical.
I don't think calling my method "voodoo" and a "placebo" is keeping the discussion very technical. I quickly lose patience with those who claim the only right way is their way.
-
The difference is that he was attacking a method, while you were attacking the person. Let us end this agreeing that any method which gets the job done is fine. We all know there are umpteen ways of doing almost anything editing photos and no-one has a monopoly on truth.
-
Does this work to find dust spots on scans of film?
-
Does this work to find dust spots on scans of film?
The thought crossed my mind, but I can't test it till I download the upgrade, which I'm not doing for the time being. One aspect I would want to watch for when I get to it is whether it provides a reliable distinction between grain clumps and spots. Normally I recommend - for those with scanners providing an IR channel, to use SilverFast's iSRD tool which very efficiently and correctly identifies and removes blemishes right at the scanning stage.
-
The reason I asked Mark is because I find the Epson ICE does not remove all the spots during the scan. So I have to go through it after the scan anyway. And the ICE scan (similar or IR) triples the time for the scan at least. So now I keep ICE off and just go through the scan at 100% zoom and hit each spot. It takes about 10 minutes for a 6x7. But you only have to do it once. And I'll only spot photos that are keepers.
There was another adjustment someone once told me that brings out the spots in Lightroom. But I forget what it was.
-
ICE is very dated, and relatively limited technology. You wouldn't need to redo it if you were using up-to-date software such as iSRD in SilverFast. One of the reasons why Epson bundles SilverFast with a number of their scanner models.
-
Call it a placebo, or voodoo, or whatever you want, John. Just because it isn't YOUR way doesn't mean it's the wrong way. I couldn't give a crap what you think or how you clean dust spots. If it works, it works. Get over yourself.
Looks like it is you who needs to get over yourself, Bret. Have I called anything "my method"? How does describing all the built-in tool's features become "my" way? Where do I supposedly "claim the only right way is [my] way"? Voodoo, which I apply equally to "my" old >100% clarity idea, conveys the psychological aspects of such methods, while placebo by its nature is harmless but makes you feel better....
-
Sometimes a picture tells more then a thousand words, why argue?
Zeroed import:
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/i-ds7mD4X/0/O/i-ds7mD4X-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/Testbank/n-jwmWc/i-ds7mD4X/A)
"Official" (=A during clone/heal brush)
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/i-RV6qJrQ/0/O/i-RV6qJrQ-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/Testbank/n-jwmWc/i-RV6qJrQ/A)
"Voodoo" (=200 clarity)
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/i-93SH4Z4/0/O/i-93SH4Z4-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/Testbank/n-jwmWc/i-93SH4Z4/A)
"Placebo" (=100 dehaze)
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/i-DHSFddP/0/O/i-DHSFddP-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/Testbank/n-jwmWc/i-DHSFddP/A)
All are crops of about 1 MP from a total 16 MP capture
Take your pick, but for me the placebo seems to be a pretty potent medicine to locate dust spots in even areas, so thanks for the tip Bret ;)
-
Yes many methods. I have been using dehaze to find spots for the past weeks. Works quite well except for one thing. After using dehaze LR becomes quite slow to respond to various tools. I tend to jack up the dehaze to get a feel for where the problems are then zero it.
I have found several slightly odd uses for dehaze actually.
-
Yes many methods. I have been using dehaze to find spots for the past weeks. Works quite well except for one thing. After using dehaze LR becomes quite slow to respond to various tools. I tend to jack up the dehaze to get a feel for where the problems are then zero it.
I have found several slightly odd uses for dehaze actually.
I agree Martin, you need to zero dehaze before many other operations, and really apply it for its intended purpose (dehazing) as the last step before export or printing. Especially setting the colour temperature becomes grindingly slow, even with minimal dehaze amounts.
What other "odd" uses have you found? I'd be interested in those as well.
-
ICE is very dated, and relatively limited technology. You wouldn't need to redo it if you were using up-to-date software such as iSRD in SilverFast. One of the reasons why Epson bundles SilverFast with a number of their scanner models.
And to add for completeness, VueScan (http://www.hamrick.com/) also does a fine job on IR detection/removal of dust and scratches on filmscans.
It also supports other scanners with an IR channel, not only Epson, supports over 2500 scanners in total, and the Pro version offers free unlimited upgrades (so purchase once, never have to pay again for the latest version supporting any of the latest scanners). I have been using it on all my scanners over the years, since I purchased a license a little over 14 years ago, and have been upgrading for free since. Some of the best spent money ever, since the quality of the scans (which is very well tweakable) is very good.
As for using DeHaze to detect spots, it looks like a creative use for the tool but, as has been reported by users, it will slow down image updates for anything that happens earlier in the hardcoded sequence of parametric events. I'm not sure if it's more effective that cranking up the clarity or other local contrast adjustments (which are applied much later in the pipeline, and thus should be fast).
I think that LRs Dust visualisation tool is pretty neat, when you concentrate on the circular ring patterns. On filmscans it might get confused by some grain or dye-clouds that seem to clump together in the 3D projection of the emulsion on a flat plane. So I prefer the IR cleaning if possible (i.e. on chromogenic film, so without silver or silver-residue in improperly processed film like sometimes happened with Kodachromes). The IR approach also removes scratches, which stand out by having a different IR signature due to a different refraction angle in addition to a density difference with visible light.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sometimes a picture tells more then a thousand words, why argue?
For a fair comparison you need more than one "official" image to reflect how the the visualisation slider affects the image detail, and you can change its value without the performance impact both you and Martin have observed. The clarity method is also less effective than it used to be - IIRC it used to top out at 400%.
-
For a fair comparison you need more than one "official" image to reflect how the the visualisation slider affects the image detail, and you can change its value without the performance impact both you and Martin have observed.
You're right, feel free to add other and/or better examples ;)
-
I agree Martin, you need to zero dehaze before many other operations, and really apply it for its intended purpose (dehazing) as the last step before export or printing. Especially setting the colour temperature becomes grindingly slow, even with minimal dehaze amounts.
What other "odd" uses have you found? I'd be interested in those as well.
OK. But this is really obscure. I recently shot a number of rock art images painted by the Natal Bushman. Dating has shown some of these paintings are 3500 years old so some of them are quite faded and or dust covered. Over the years I have found a number of ways to make these images visible but none as quick and easy as dehaze.
I am a commercial photographer and do a lot of product catalogue photography. Dehaze helps a lot with glassware where colour saturation isn't so important as I usually heavily desaturated these images anyway. Also works well when shooting items behind plastic that I may not be permitted to remove. Obviously for this I use dehaze selectively by visiting photoshop.
Not sure about this but I suspect dehaze will be a big help with underwater photography. It sure helps shooting koi fish in a pond.
Dehaze helped a lot with an image I shot in Tibet with light streaming into a monastery. Really popped the light beam. Also used selectively.
Dehaze strengthens faint rainbows very successfully. I was converting this particular image to B/W and the rainbow is hard to make at all visible. I did mange using other tools in the past but gave it a try with dehaze. Much easier.
Obviously there are other ways to do all these things but sometimes a tool makes something easier and that's still a valid use.
Pretty sure I have forgotten something else. I sat for about 4 hours when I first looked at the tool and played with a wide range of images to get an idea how else it could help me.
Oh yes. To replicate shooting through glass move the slider to the left. Then apply it through a layer mask with a gradient on it.
-
I have found several slightly odd uses for dehaze actually.
Me, too. Among the first things I did was experiment with combining max dehaze and min clarity and vice versa.
Looks like Bret wins the voodo/placebo wars. Thanks, Bret.
-
Looks like Bret wins the voodo/placebo wars. Thanks, Bret.
No wars, Peter, just Bret throwing abuse. And his post was about using it to find dust spots, not whether it's useful as a general effect, which it obviously is.
-
Just slide the Black Point on the Tone Curve up to a point about halfway between the midtown point and the highlight point and boost clarity to 100. As a bonus you get to see all of the banding noise in the red channel of the Canon sensor!
You can make a preset to do this temporary edit.
Or do it however you want.
kirk
-
Just slide the Black Point on the Tone Curve up to a point about halfway between the midtown point and the highlight point and boost clarity to 100. As a bonus you get to see all of the banding noise in the red channel of the Canon sensor!
You can make a preset to do this temporary edit.
Hi Kirk,
And how does the dust visualisation tools show the dust?
IMHO, the benefit of the dust visualisation tool is that it also works in shadows and in other parts of the scene, not only in smooth skies. We humans are pretty good at recognizing patterns, and a ring is easy to spot, as is often an odd shape that doesn't look like it's part of the scene.
It also doesn't create entries in the editing history list.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks for the tip Bret
Mike
-
Hi Bart,
Based on this screenshot of the same area in the above example, I'd say pretty poorly. Maybe there is a way to control this tool and its sensitivity, but I don't use LR enough to know.
Maybe the Adobe engineers developed the algorithm so that, if the visualization tool does not accentuate it, it is not worth addressing.
kirk
-
Based on this screenshot of the same area in the above example, I'd say pretty poorly. Maybe there is a way to control this tool and its sensitivity, but I don't use LR enough to know.
As I pointed out before, you use the tool's slider. Depending on the image area's detail, it can quickly reveal more spots. Set the tool's option to Auto too, so you can hide the healing pins by moving the cursor in and out of the image, and use the A shortcut to quickly toggle the visualisation mask and judge your work based on the image's intended image appearance (rather than on its appearance after being crappified by Dehaze or another method).
-
I just tested quickly using A key mask versus Dehaze at 100 and vastly prefer the later. I can see what I'm spotting and the toggle on and off with the A key is slow on this end.
-
As I pointed out before, you use the tool's slider.
Which slider is that? None of the 3 sliders in the spot removal tool window have any effect on the mask.
EDIT: found it, it's at the bottom of the screen below the picture.
-
I just tested quickly using A key mask versus Dehaze at 100 and vastly prefer the later. I can see what I'm spotting and the toggle on and off with the A key is slow on this end.
I agree with this, I really like seeing the image, even if it is pretty strange instead of the weird mask offered by the visualize tool. Sometimes in skies with weird cloud formations, I get false indications of spots, so I am constantly toggling visualization with the A key, using deHaze works quite well.
However, on my IQ180 files there is definitely a performance hit. For just spots it’s pretty minor, noticeably longer but not annoyingly so. But if I need to click and drag, the lag is extreme, to the point as making it unusable. But pretty easy to use a combination of the two when cleaning things up.
-
Here is the same area from the previous, with the dust spot slider set to something that shows spots and does not show noise (about 85-90% of full slider). If you don't mind having to toggle back and forth to see your spots and then check the auto-heal, then have at it. Seems like a lot of hassle compared to just healing on the color image with contrast added, however you choose to add the contrast. Also, for my test, it is a lot easier to see the spots (and fewer false-positives) in boosted-contrast color (when compared to the visualization tool) when zoomed to fit the width of the image, or anything other than 1:1.
kirk
-
Seems like a lot of hassle compared to just healing on the color image with contrast added
It isn't a hassle at all, it's just pressing the A button on the keyboard and saving the effort of reversing out whatever contrast damage you've done. But if that's the way for you, why not treat yourself to "The SLR Lounge Lightroom 4 & 5 Presets System’s Advanced Dust Correction System (http://www.slrlounge.com/disappointed-with-lightroom-5-dust-correction-features/)" preset bundle - a true bargain at just $149....
-
Or use Nik Tonal Contrast over a clone layer in PS and have no buttons to push.
-
While on the subject PS heal tool and spot heal tool are vastly improved.
-
It isn't a hassle at all, it's just pressing the A button on the keyboard and saving the effort of reversing out whatever contrast damage you've done. But if that's the way for you, why not treat yourself to "The SLR Lounge Lightroom 4 & 5 Presets System’s Advanced Dust Correction System (http://www.slrlounge.com/disappointed-with-lightroom-5-dust-correction-features/)" preset bundle - a true bargain at just $149....
What contrast damage? Just reset the temporary tone curve when you are finished your spot healing and get on with the edit.
kirk
-
What contrast damage? Just reset the temporary tone curve when you are finished your spot healing and get on with the edit.
Whether one calls it damage or whatever, you're still working on an image whose appearance is way different from what you intend, and so you are obliging yourself to reset the curve afterwards. That's hassle - even more so if you've already set a custom tone curve before doing some spot correction. The A toggle means you're only ever one key press away from seeing the visualisation or your image's intended appearance.
-
Spot removal should be done before you start making the image look nice. Just like any cloning or healing. Click once for the TC adjustment, click again to reset it. If that's a hassle, then I suppose one should use a different technique. I find going back and forth between a high contrast black and white image and the actual color image I am working with an unnecessary distraction.
If the shots you are correcting are all taken in sequence or reasonably close in time, you can correct a blank frame (a shot of the sky at some small aperture, for example - aka a "Dust Map") and then sync the Spot Removal, saving time on correcting all of the images you edit. Because you can sync **just** the Spot Removal edits across images, you won't overwrite all of the adjustments you may have made to your images already, like a custom tone curve.
Whatever works for you.
kirk
-
Spot removal should be done before you start making the image look nice. Just like any cloning or healing. Click once for the TC adjustment, click again to reset it. If that's a hassle, then I suppose one should use a different technique.
No, people can work in any order, and there's no need to box yourself into doing one task before another. I couldn't care less if you work as you do, but you really shouldn't underestimate the built-in tools' effectiveness.
-
If the shots you are correcting are all taken in sequence or reasonably close in time, you can correct a blank frame (a shot of the sky at some small aperture, for example - aka a "Dust Map") and then sync the Spot Removal, saving time on correcting all of the images you edit. Because you can sync **just** the Spot Removal edits across images, you won't overwrite all of the adjustments you may have made to your images already, like a custom tone curve.
I do know how Sync works, you know.... And apart from presuming one has this blank frame, that all frames are sufficiently close in time for the dust not to move, and that all the frames have similar aperture, Sync adds extra steps. Just work in AutoSync mode - it's the quickest way to work.
-
It's just too bad the A key doesn't toggle the DeHaze-like overview and it were faster toggling. Toggling with that kind of preview would be less necessary too.
-
I've not seen any delay with A - it's immediate even on my little Mac Air. If you want to use Dehaze you could just toggle off the Effects panel, but I just don't see any benefits using it in this context.
-
No, people can work in any order, and there's no need to box yourself into doing one task before another. I couldn't care less if you work as you do, but you really shouldn't underestimate the built-in tools' effectiveness.
I hope I have not offended you by suggesting an alternative. That was not my intention. Equally, it was not my intention to imply that you do not know how to use Syncing. You brought up criticism of the alternative and I tried to point out how the alternative method addresses those criticisms. I am not underestimating anything. Hell, I don't even use Lightroom. Just trying to add to the discussion. Do whatever makes you happy!
kirk
-
If I have more than a VERY few spots, I find it much quicker and far more effective to do my de-spotting and healing on a separate retouching layer in Photoshop itself.
-
If I have more than a VERY few spots, I find it much quicker and far more effective to do my de-spotting and healing on a separate retouching layer in Photoshop itself.
+1. Much of my work is restoring badly stored photos for museums, and Photoshop just handles spotting and cleanup tasks generally better than Lr. Especially as it seems the Content Aware-ness gets better with each release, although that may just be my impression. I find that Lr often makes really bad choices in where to pick up the filling pixels. In any case, although spotting is drudgery, recent releases of Ps seem to make it less so.
-
+1. Much of my work is restoring badly stored photos for museums, and Photoshop just handles spotting and cleanup tasks generally better than Lr. Especially as it seems the Content Aware-ness gets better with each release, although that may just be my impression. I find that Lr often makes really bad choices in where to pick up the filling pixels. In any case, although spotting is drudgery, recent releases of Ps seem to make it less so.
Not exactly surprising, Tim. PS is a fully featured cloning tool, while Lr is intended for a typical digital workflow. While its dust spotting tool can clone and heal, there's a big clue in its name.
As for making wrong choices, yes, though the mistakes aren't too frequent. However:
- If it makes a wrong guess, you can tell Lr to guess again - use the shortcut "/" key (or right click the healing circle)
- When you dab a spot but know where you want it to source pixels, you can hold Cmd (Mac) or Ctrl (PC) and drag to the source area
John
-
I hope I have not offended you by suggesting an alternative. That was not my intention. Equally, it was not my intention to imply that you do not know how to use Syncing. You brought up criticism of the alternative and I tried to point out how the alternative method addresses those criticisms. I am not underestimating anything. Hell, I don't even use Lightroom. Just trying to add to the discussion. Do whatever makes you happy!
As you say, you don't even use Lightroom and it's a common mistake to shoehorn techniques from other programs rather than squeeze the most out of its built in tools. Bemused rather than offended - you reminded me of Nikon's nightmare solution of dust spotting frames and Nikon Capture.
-
I'm not going to get into the which method is best debate, but I will thank the OP for sharing the tip. I'm always willing to listen and learn new ways of doing something.
Regards Wayne
-
I'm always willing to listen and learn new ways of doing something.
Same here, Wayne, but should one just accept them without questioning their merit? The built in tools are a lot more effective than some would have you believe.
-
I think this thread has reached the point of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
-
Maybe, but if you don't like it no-one's forcing you to read it, Mark.
-
Maybe, but if you don't like it no-one's forcing you to read it, Mark.
For clarity, my comment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I like it or not - that is a subjective matter which should be of no particular interest to any one else. My comment reflects an objective perception of where the technical character of the discussion now stands. I don't either like it or dislike it, I just think its operational significance has worn thin, and at my age and experience of life I'm capable of deciding whether or not to read, but thanks for the reminder. I think the more options we have the better, each will have its relative merits, the contours of which I think have been exhausted here; hence, I appreciate the OP's bringing his finding to our attention and to each to his/her own. So with that I am disconnecting from this thread. It's been an interesting and useful read up to a point - including for your contributions.
-
Sync adds extra steps. Just work in AutoSync mode - it's the quickest way to work.
Not necessarily - if you forget to turn it off, you end up a whole bunch of screwed up images. >:(
So I prefer to selectively sync afterwards. It's more efficient and less steps for me I find.
-
Not necessarily - if you forget to turn it off, you end up a whole bunch of screwed up images. >:(
So I prefer to selectively sync afterwards. It's more efficient and less steps for me I find.
Or just leave AutoSync on all the time? Once you know that's how it works, you learn not to make mistakes ;)
-
I know exactly how it works John and as I don't always want to sync everything whilst working on one image out of a group, autosync is best left off for me.
I think you need to appreciate different workflows for different needs John. Sometimes autosync is useful, other times it isn't as it creates more and not less clicks.
-
I know exactly how it works John and as I don't always want to sync everything whilst working on one image out of a group, autosync is best left off for me.
I think you need to appreciate different workflows for different needs John. Sometimes autosync is useful, other times it isn't as it creates more and not less clicks.
How exactly am I suggesting there aren't different needs? You complain enough about others not reading what you write....
My first word was "or". You either avoid AutoSync because of you're likely to forget it is on, or you leave Autosync on all the time, in which case you soon learn to keep your eye on which images you have selected. What I don't think works for many people is switching into and out of AutoSync - use it all the time, or completely avoid it.
-
Same here, Wayne, but should one just accept them without questioning their merit? The built in tools are a lot more effective than some would have you believe.
No, one should test the different methods for themself and make a decision based on the results of what suits their images and workflow best.
Regards Wayne
-
What I don't think works for many people is switching into and out of AutoSync - use it all the time, or completely avoid it.
Or consciously switch it on when you need it for multiple images, but make it a habit in your workflow to immediately switch it off when done. There's many ways for many people.
-
Or consciously switch it on when you need it for multiple images, but make it a habit in your workflow to immediately switch it off when done.
I agree - if you really can make it a habit. But what trips up lots of people is that they do forget, so that's why I generally recommend staying with single image mode + Sync, or staying entirely in AutoSync.
-
How exactly am I suggesting there aren't different needs? You complain enough about others not reading what you write....
I'd already said that not using Autosync was easier for me and you still tried to push the use of the tool again, which you'd incorrectly claimed was the quickest way to work. Which seems to indicate a one size fits all mentality re this tool, despite that for some jobs I have found that it isn't the quickest way.
It's useful sometimes and other time it isn't, I use it as and when. Though if you forget to turn AS off, it's a real pain. The AS sync being turned on should make the sync button red, to reduce the chances of that happening.
-
The AS sync being turned on should make the sync button red, to reduce the chances of that happening.
Yes, or green (or purple or whatever). Good suggestion.
-
I'd already said that not using Autosync was easier for me and you still tried to push the use of the tool again, which you'd incorrectly claimed was the quickest way to work. Which seems to indicate a one size fits all mentality re this tool, despite that for some jobs I have found that it isn't the quickest way.
It's useful sometimes and other time it isn't, I use it as and when. Though if you forget to turn AS off, it's a real pain. The AS sync being turned on should make the sync button red, to reduce the chances of that happening.
Some things are objective, and AutoSync is the measurably fastest way to work - it simply requires fewer clicks. Of course, it's not quickest in everyone's hands because you do have to be constantly aware which pictures are currently selected. Not everyone can / wants / needs to concentrate that hard, and why should they?
Other remedies that have been suggested are that the on screen bezel should remind you "spot (other other adj) applied to x images", and improving Undo so you can select x images and take them all back y history steps. There was a ScrewAutoSync plugin that did the latter.
-
Well, watching this thread unfold is 'fun' :(
Thanks Bret for pointing out what seems a good way to recognize dustspots ! Much appreciated.
It's also refreshing to know which site I wouldn't ever need to navigate to if I needed a 'solution' to a LR problem ;)
-
Thanks Bret for pointing out what seems a good way to recognize dustspots ! Much appreciated.
It's also refreshing to know which site I wouldn't ever need to navigate to if I needed a 'solution' to a LR problem ;)
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ;) )
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
-
(there you go Pegelli, I'm not dismissing anything here ;) )
I wasn't thinking of you Sander, it was more of a "reflective" comment.
-
I wasn't thinking of you Sander, it was more of a "reflective" comment.
Ah I see Pieter, perhaps I wás subconsciously feeling guilty of dismissing stuff and it was "fitting the shoe" that made me react ;D
It's too darn hot to think here in the Netherlands right now. Suppose a meditative lunchbreak would be best :D
Best Regards, Sander
-
It's too darn hot to think here in the Netherlands right now. Suppose a meditative lunchbreak would be best :D
Same here in Belgium, > 30 degrees C, only dust spots I'm seeing at the moment is probably black snow ;D
-
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 ;) )
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 when anyone screams "king's new clothes", isn't the general defence always "it works for me", "different strokes for different folks"....
John
PS Some examples, and a hot tip (https://lightroom.adobe.com/shares/f8af21555de4403e833e0bc6c24c9321/albums/5a08aeec42b8744c132935389c18468c)
-
Because if you use the built-in spotting tools properly, the dehaze method is really of negligible value.
Some of us who've tried both options disagree. The issue is the built-in spotting tool overlay isn't as effective as showing actual dust and spots that need attention than Dehaze and it's a bit faster. The built in overlay isn't as effective visually with it's high contrast B&W overlay than Dehaze, as simple as that. Adobe should consider changing the overlay appearance OR better, provide more than one. One poster already indicated an issue with the B&W overlay I see too; it shows areas that are not necessary to edit where the Dehaze doesn't suffer this, it shows us more of the actual image appearance so we're not 'spotting' stuff that doesn't require a lick of spotting!
What isn't proper (ideal) is the the built-in spotting tool overlay while dehaze method is really of usable value.
-
Some of us who've tried both options disagree.
Clearly. So how much should I ask for my 700% Clarity PV2010 Magic Bullet preset bundle? Not a serious question, but it outperforms any other method.
-
PS Some examples, and a hot tip (https://lightroom.adobe.com/shares/f8af21555de4403e833e0bc6c24c9321/albums/5a08aeec42b8744c132935389c18468c)
Thanks for these samples John, very illustrative.
Only problem I see with your 700% clarity/PV 2010 tip is that it will fill the coffers of the sensor swab industry and make people clean their sensor between every shot to remove spots that are never seen in "real life".
I think what I have learned from you in this thread is that the "A" method lets you easily toggle with how the picture will actually look and not concentrate on spots that are invisible. Btw, using 'ctrl' Z for the 100% dehaze achieves the same goal.
On the other hand it's very easy to become blind and miss obvious spots and using a 100% dehaze check just before export (and then don't forget to undo) can reveal spots that were overlooked with the "A" method (or vice-versa). If there's more tools in the box why not use them?
-
I think what I have learned from you in this thread is that the "A" method lets you easily toggle with how the picture will actually look and not concentrate on spots that are invisible. Btw, using 'ctrl' Z for the 100% dehaze achieves the same goal.
You've seen that you can temporarily enable the mask by holding A down? Release A and it vanishes. I do that a lot, or I'll press A and switch on the mask.
I agree it's important to avoid frightening oneself into cleaning spots that just aren't visible, so I'd contend you get diminishing marginal returns from other tools if you've indeed used the built-in spotting tools to their fullest extent. That clarity idea is a bit of a joke, but thanks for suggesting the ideal business partners!
John
-
Some things are objective, and AutoSync is the measurably fastest way to work - it simply requires fewer clicks.
If processing 'identical' images certainly. Otherwise, not necessarily.
If I sync a bunch of images I don't always sync every tweak. Sometimes not only is the subject different, but the camera used is, so I need to be selective with my syncing.
Plus as much as I love to reduce keystrokes, autosync doesn't always do it for me.
However I could modify my overall workflow to make autosync more applicable, but that isn't necessarily faster overall for my creative process.