Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: uintaangler on August 29, 2016, 03:07:18 pm
-
Where in the Develop Module can I find the Dehaze slider in LR 6.6.1?
Thanks,
-
Where in the Develop Module can I find the Dehaze slider in LR 6.6.1?
Almost all the way to the bottom.
Jim
-
In Effects
-
Dehaze is available to LR CC only, unless it's recently been added to LR 6.
-
Dehaze is available to LR CC only, unless it's recently been added to LR 6.
Oh, sorry. I use CC.
Jim
-
I am on CC
Is it on the left side or right side?
I can't find it!!!
-
Right hand side when in Develop module, in the "Effects" group (image attached). It is active only when you chose process 2012
-
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=113168.0;attach=148998;image
Mine looks just like this, except it ends before the Dehaze slider and I am in 2012?
I am processing some Grand Canyon images and would like to see how the Dehaze might help
What should I do?
Thanks!
-
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=113168.0;attach=148998;image
Mine looks just like this, except it ends before the Dehaze slider and I am in 2012?
I am processing some Grand Canyon images and would like to see how the Dehaze might help
What should I do?
When you launch LR, does the window say Lightroom CC or does it say Lightroom 6? What you describe sounds like you have Lightroom 6 installed. I’m not sure LR CC will install automatically if you already have LR 6 installed.
-
When you launch LR, does the window say Lightroom CC or does it say Lightroom 6? What you describe sounds like you have Lightroom 6 installed. I’m not sure LR CC will install automatically if you already have LR 6 installed.
Exactly. Your Lightroom should be "Lightroom CC 2015.6.1". As you said it is "6.6.1" it means you are not using Lightroom CC and that is the reason you don't have the dehaze slider.
-
Is Dehaze a worthy enough tool to make jumping onto the CC worthwhile for a Lightroom only user?
-
Yes Dehaze is a very interesting algorithm and can give impressive results.
There is a way to use it in LR 6.x.x without having to switch pay anything extra. The only drawback is convenience in so far as using a preset instead of a slider. Check here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55998101
Of course it goes witho0ut saying that you need to be a little computer savvy to be able to do the edits etc. And work carefully in order not to mess up anything!
-
There is a way to use it in LR 6.x.x without having to switch pay anything extra. The only drawback is convenience in so far as using a preset instead of a slider. Check here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55998101
Of course it goes without saying that you need to be a little computer savvy to be able to do the edits etc. And work carefully in order not to mess up anything!
Thanks for that link. Within that thread is a link to the free Prolost dehaze presets that are dead simple to install and don't really require any serious degree of being "computer savvy".
In the past I've used another strategy which just involves round tripping to Photoshop Elements 14 which allows a basic use of dehaze, but the preset route within Lightroom is more elegant.
-
Within that thread is a link to the free Prolost dehaze presets that are dead simple to install ...
Not as free as he makes it seem - it'll cost you at least $0.99 (his minimum).
So who is screwin' who ? The cheapskates who'll try anything to save a buck albeit for crippled functionality or Adobe who are purposefully disabling their stand-alone Lr when (a) there's patently no need to and (b) it's not a question of new feature updates being only part of the CC software development cycle ?
Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.
... the preset route within Lightroom is more elegant.
Hmmm ... 'elegant' but within the EULA ?
-
Not as free as he makes it seem - it'll cost you at least $0.99 (his minimum).
I've just downloaded them entirely free. Just put zero in the box and carry on.
Probably not the most ethical thing to do, after all the author has gone to trouble of writing the presets and making them available for download. I might go back and make a donation for his efforts now I've seen how well they work.
within the EULA ?
No one is altering any code here. I can't see why using a home made preset could cause a problem.
-
Is Dehaze a worthy enough tool to make jumping onto the CC worthwhile for a Lightroom only user?
only if your photos are hazy ... also - once you shift dehaze slider some other operations become slower (as they need to repeat dehaze each time to redraw the image for you - for example spot corrections become slower)... so you want to use dehaze closer to end of your adjustments if that is the situation.
-
only if your photos are hazy ... also - once you shift dehaze slider some other operations become slower (as they need to repeat dehaze each time to redraw the image for you - for example spot corrections become slower)... so you want to use dehaze closer to end of your adjustments if that is the situation.
Just got back from the Grand Canyon, where during fire season at least, all images are hazy
-
I've just downloaded them entirely free. Just put zero in the box and carry on.
Probably not the most ethical thing to do, after all the author has gone to trouble of writing the presets and making them available for download. I might go back and make a donation for his efforts now I've seen how well they work.No one is altering any code here. I can't see why using a home made preset could cause a problem.
It's not at all hard to move 1 slider and save it as a preset.
To me, what's unethical is that some people actually charge money for presets. :o
-
It's not at all hard to move 1 slider and save it as a preset.
You've missed the point. The perpetual version of LR 6 doesn't have a dehaze slider at all, it's only available in CC and PSE
To me, what's unethical is that some people actually charge money for presets.
Nothing unethical about charging for them at all. Someone's gone to the trouble of creating the preset, possibly needing a fair degree of expertise to achieve a specific look, then taken the effort to create a web site to pass it on and has to pay the costs of hosting. No one has to buy them, so no unethicalness about it at all.
-
You've missed the point. The perpetual version of LR 6 doesn't have a dehaze slider at all, it's only available in CC and PSENothing unethical about charging for them at all. Someone's gone to the trouble of creating the preset, possibly needing a fair degree of expertise to achieve a specific look, then taken the effort to create a web site to pass it on and has to pay the costs of hosting. No one has to buy them, so no unethicalness about it at all.
Hoggy's right. In this case, the presets were created by moving a single slider and saving presets. In general, the skill in creating presets lies in convincing people that they're buying the emperor's new clothes.
-
Hoggy's right. In this case, the presets were created by moving a single slider and saving presets.
Yes, but the Prolost dehaze presets from ones are free. Where's the problem ?
-
If (or when) presets are free, there's no problem. :)
-
If (or when) presets are free, there's no problem. :)
Why's there a problem if people create, market and sell them ?
-
Why's there a problem if people create, market and sell them ?
Because in general, they're made by just moving some sliders around.
-
Because in general, they're made by just moving some sliders around.
So ? It's the end results that matter. If someone is happy to pay for the short cut or hasn't the knowledge to get the results, what's the problem ?
-
So ? It's the end results that matter. If someone is happy to pay for the short cut or hasn't the knowledge to get the results, what's the problem ?
You don't have a problem fleecing the gullible then?
-
You don't have a problem fleecing the gullible then?
Who says the customers are gullible ? Some people are happy to pay for convenience. No need to learn it all, just click a preset.
Not my idea of money well spent, but I'll defend the author's right to offer them for sale.
-
Not my idea of money well spent, but I'll defend the author's right to offer them for sale.
It may be their right, but it's dishonest.
-
It may be their right, but it's dishonest.
I'd agree, there's a degree of dishonesty here. Going back OT, Dehaze is a really useful new feature. There are others that are not so easily 'lifted' by those who don't wish to pay for software upgrades hence, we should pay for the efforts of others. That keeps those efforts coming from those who did the hard work.
-
but it's dishonest.
Explain to me why you think it's 'dishonest'
-
Sure, I think "degree of dishonesty" is a good phrase. In this case, those who supply dehaze presets are deliberately helping people circumvent Adobe's sales strategy. Sure, Adobe didn't bother locking that door, but I happen to know that the Prolost preset guy had enough ethical doubts to ask Adobe if they had any objection.
-
Explain to me why you think it's 'dishonest'
it is as 'dishonest' as certain corporations using tax optimization schemes including the one...
-
I happen to know that the Prolost preset guy had enough ethical doubts to ask Adobe if they had any objection.
So as they are available, we can assume Adobe aren't terribly bothered. Adobe might hope it promotes how good the option is to try to get people to buy into the subscription.
-
So as they are available, we can assume Adobe aren't terribly bothered. Adobe might hope it promotes how good the option is to try to get people to buy into the subscription.
similar to piracy which is actually helping Adobe with marketshare - Adobe rather have a pirated LR used by a determined & capable user for free than legally purchased (or freeware/shareware/donationware) product from competition ;D
-
similar to piracy
Yes, but this is not at all piracy.
Firstly; the presets have been created by a third party.
Secondly; It's been said Adobe were asked if there were any objections to publishing them.
Piracy is simple theft.
-
It may be their right, but it's dishonest.
In the instance of offering a plugin to circumvent the EULA for Lr 6.x, yes, there is a level of dishonesty present. Paid, donation or free.
While I don't support the sale or purchase of Lr presets in general, I also do not think it is wrong for industrious individuals who took the time to create those presets to seek a monetary gain in offering those presets for sale.
Let's face it, for normal everyday Develop module presets, no one is holding Lr users hostage until they purchase presets. It's purely a merit based system. If the presets don't offer a value to the end user commensurate with the cost to acquire them ... they won't sell.
For myself, I much prefer to create my own and/or use the app as per the EULA I agreed to.
-
similar to piracy which is actually helping Adobe with marketshare - Adobe rather have a pirated LR used by a determined & capable user for free than legally purchased (or freeware/shareware/donationware) product from competition ;D
Absurd, unproven. Explain all the work in software activation by Adobe and other's to cease the pirating of software. Market share from pirated software doesn't equal income let alone profit.
You a pro photographer? I have to ask as you've got zero transparency about yourself. It's OK if I take your images and sell them (assuming they are sale-able) while I keep the profits?
-
While I don't support the sale or purchase of Lr presets in general, I also do not think it is wrong for industrious individuals who took the time to create those presets to seek a monetary gain in offering those presets for sale. It's purely a supply and demand situation. If users were opposed to, or felt it was unfair to purchase presets, they wouldn't sell.
Sadly, the industriousness is directed to convincing people they are being sold something worth paying for. The game's a bit like selling bottled tap water with a fancy label.
So as they are available, we can assume Adobe aren't terribly bothered. Adobe might hope it promotes how good the option is to try to get people to buy into the subscription.
Probably so, but the point stands that the preset author saw ethical issues in deliberately helping people circumvent Adobe's sales strategy and EULA.
-
The game's a bit like selling bottled tap water with a fancy label.
Doesn't all bottled water come out of a tap?
Once again, if the market felt that fancy labeled tap water was not worth the investment, it would not sell. Period.
-
Doesn't all bottled water come out of a tap?
Once again, if the market felt that fancy labeled tap water was not worth the investment, it would not sell. Period.
To repeat, so you don't have a problem fleecing the gullible then?
-
To repeat, so you don't have a problem fleecing the gullible then?
How is it "fleecing the gullible" if the gullible are paying freely? It's not as though these presets we are discussing are necessary for our mere existence or mandated by a higher authority. It purely an optional purchase without any requirement whatsoever.
The same could be said of the very Adobe software you and I use each and every day. Not all end users are capable of or inclined to code their own software solutions. So we pay others to do that for us.
You and I are not only capable of but also inclined to create our own Lr Develop presets ... should that equate to all end users? Not all Lightroom users are willing to go the route of creating their own presets. In fact they are quite likely not to ever use presets at all if they didn't buy them first.
While you and I might prefer and encourage Lr users explore the positive aspects of rolling their own presets, it's not a task everyone embraces.
-
How is it "fleecing the gullible" if the gullible are paying freely? It's not as though these presets we are discussing are necessary for our mere existence or mandated by a higher authority. It purely an optional purchase without any requirement whatsoever.
Hmm.. You mean kind of like that million dollar mansion on a private island in the Bahamas that I sell to people that pay freely?
-
How is it "fleecing the gullible" if the gullible are paying freely?
The gullible pay freely because... wait for it... they are gullible. Does that make it right or honest to fleece them?
-
The gullible pay freely because... wait for it... they are gullible. Does that make it right or honest to fleece them?
That's a question for Donald Trump to answer for us
-
That's a question for Donald Trump to answer for us
Which of the multiple and differing answers should we accept? :o
-
Which of the multiple and differing answers should we accept? :o
Hopefully, we will accept none of his answers ( actually can you even call them answers? )
-
That's a question for Donald Trump to answer for us
Trump Presets, the best, the best. Won't work in Spanish or Arabic, great in Russian. Hey, who cares?
-
The gullible pay freely because... wait for it... they are gullible. Does that make it right or honest to fleece them?
The 'fleecing' of which you speak is purely your subjective view, not an accurate reflection of reality.
There is no arm twisting or extortion involved.
Do I think purchasing Lr Develop Presets is a wise investment? No, I do not. It is also not unethical or dishonest to offer others a solution for a fee which customers feel is a worthwhile investment.
Heck, do you call it 'fleecing' when you are hired to photograph a job that the client could very well do themselves? If you do take on such a task for a fee, are you being dishonest with a gullible customer?
-
Heck, do you call it 'fleecing' when you are hired to photograph a job that the client could very well do themselves? If you do take on such a task for a fee, are you being dishonest with a gullible customer?
Now that.. Would be actual work.
While what so many presets that I've seen do are dead simple quick for someone with even a mediocre understanding of LR's Develop module. They're taking advantage of, IMO, brand spanking new LR users that are wow'd by what LR itself can do. What wouldn't be so bad is giving them away for free, but with an option to DONATE for those that want to do so.
Sure it's subjective, but so are many issues of societal acceptance of morality. But then again, what do I know - taking advantage of people seems to stem from what could be called The American Way - like the bottled water business (although I know it's not only Americans).
That's not to say that there could be some presets that actually are more advanced, but I can't think of any off-hand - although that's probably because I've never boughten any. :)
That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it. 8)
.....
I like the idea of Donald Trump presets.. "Trump's All-American Preset Pack" -- made in China. ;D
-
Now that.. Would be actual work.
Is it really actual work?
Most pros make what they do look drop dead easy to others. Is there really a difference?
Sure, you and I (and John) can create a desired preset with little effort. For other users the task could prove to be more effort than necessary.
Once again, we are discussing a pure commodity product that is not necessary to sustain our earthly existence. If there were no market, there would not be an effort to offer the product for monetary compensation by the producer. The ease of which to produce that product is purely inconsequential to the matter as it pertains to honesty.
-
Absurd, unproven.
now that's an argument (as in reasoning, justification, explanation, rationalization) ;D
Explain all the work in software activation by Adobe and other's to cease the pirating of software.
sure - Adobe makes it reasonably difficult for people who 1) contemplate the stealing, but 2) not too bright ... it is a valid strategy where Adobe strikes the right balance, to gently push sufficient amount of people into buying the product, yet do not create any serious trouble for others
Market share from pirated software doesn't equal income let alone profit.
oh, dear... somebody using a pirated LR is still a good thing, even there is no immediate money to make - first of all it is free advertisement (yes, it is) for Adobe (they are part of ecosystem), then it is a profit denied to competition, then it is usage denied to a free/opensource product, then there is chance that if circumstances will lead to that person buying then he/she will buy Adobe's product, etc, etc -
You a pro photographer?
do I beat my wife also ?
I have to ask as you've got zero transparency about yourself. It's OK if I take your images and sell them (assuming they are sale-able) while I keep the profits?
by all means, I can even assign "C" to you ;D
-
Yes, but this is not at all piracy.
of course not at all
-
do I beat my wife also ?
With your lack of transparency, I'll take that as no, you're not a pro photographer or sell anything you produce. As such, it's not unreasonable that you wouldn't believe in the concept that people who create something deserve compensation for their efforts (and no, making a preset isn't creating something but as illustrated, taking the income from those who did; Adobe).
-
no, making a preset isn't creating something
That could be debatable.
taking the income from those who did; Adobe).
I assume you're talking about the specific case of a chargeable preset that uses CC only features ?
Again debatable. I've downloaded the free Prolost set to see whether they're any good, but in no way will that lose Adobe any income. I will NOT buy a subscription to LR, but I will keep upgrading my copy whilst Adobe offer upgrades (and there's nothing that suits be better).
-
That could be debatable.I assume you're talking about the specific case of a chargeable preset that uses CC only features ?
Yes.