Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: dreed on May 05, 2017, 07:45:35 am
-
Why are Adobe's fortunes doing so well since it released the "cloud" versions and monthly rental payments for its software?
Look here:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/05/creative-cloud-keeps-getting-more-expensive-in-australia/
Year 1: $359.88 (2014)
Year 2: $599.88
Year 3: $695.88
Year 4: $871.07
-
That is one of the basic problems of the new system.
Final cut pro-x is very low cost if you need video software.
As a photographer i see other software coming up on the level Photoshop at low cost.
In the mean time i stay on CS6; with that i can do everything i want.
Only the lack of support of new cameras is making it difficult so maybe i end up buying a perpetual version of Lightroom- as long it exists.
-
Why are Adobe's fortunes doing so well since it released the "cloud" versions and monthly rental payments for its software?
Look here:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/05/creative-cloud-keeps-getting-more-expensive-in-australia/
Year 1: $359.88 (2014)
Year 2: $599.88
Year 3: $695.88
Year 4: $871.07
Yes, it's been obvious all along why they changed to a subscription model. Get the people hooked/dependent on the product at a reasonable level, then start milking the already mature products with price increases beyond innovation rate.
And an often used excuse is exchange rate, but that's just a distraction because the exchange rate has not changed as much as the prices have (see attached), and inflation has been low.
Cheers,
Bart
-
This is why I am using CS6 as long as possible, which will be until it is no longer compatible with my OS.
In reality, Adobe stopped producing upgrades that actually made a difference to me years ago. The last one I remember that actually made a difference was from CS3 to CS4 where they improved the Vanishing Point filter.
On top of this, Capture One is a much better RAW processor then Lightroom.
-
The photography subscription (Ps, Lr, Br, Cr) is AUD14.29 a month on the new pricing from June (but if your plan is current it won't go up until the end of your 12 months - so mine goes up in August, as an example).
A$171.48 p.a. including local taxes (GST is 10%, so Adobe is getting (AUD155.89). That's less than A$0.47 a day. For a pro, the cost would be one of the lowest input costs for the business. As an enthusiast, it's one of the cheaper aspects of the hobby of photography.
If you want the whole package, which consists of 29 desktop and 21 mobile apps, plus cloud storage and so on, you pay more but presumably you're either extremely keen as a hobbyist (in which case it's still pretty cheap for an annual hobby cost for tools), or you're pro in which case it's still a tiny fraction of your input costs because you would be making money by using those apps.
I'm not saying you have to like it and use it, but objectively it's not expensive. If you're as student or teacher, you get 70% off.
And, no, I don't work for Adobe. Yes, it's important to watch pricing and review it and discuss it and make decisions about what suits you, but Adobe is a company trying to make money - that's the point of them - and you either find their products worth the cost or you don't, but if you think these are expensive for what they are as a hobby or a pro, I think you have a very distorted view of the cost of things.
-
...
If you want the whole package, which consists of 29 desktop and 21 mobile apps, plus cloud storage and so on, you pay more ..
That is another aspect: it is photography or all...
If you would only like to use Premiere than you have to take the whole package... expensive i think.
I used to have premiere + photoshop is an affordable small package with a perpetual license.
And you are right; for photography it is not much money; leaves me the renting model that i do not want to be addicted to; and as said nothing really new after already some years of photoshop CC...
ultimately- as this thread begun- you do not know how the price of renting it will evolve over the years...
For me there is just no reason to take the step.
-
This is why I am using CS6 as long as possible, which will be until it is no longer compatible with my OS.
In reality, Adobe stopped producing upgrades that actually made a difference to me years ago. The last one I remember that actually made a difference was from CS3 to CS4 where they improved the Vanishing Point filter.
Yes, same with me. CS6 Extended (which had some additional features that mattered to me) is doing fine for editing, although I'm using Affinity Photo more and more as I've noticed. While things work mostly similar, it's also more cleverly designed in several aspects. And despite its young age (the Windows version was introduced in December 2016), Affinity Photo already becoming very stable and feature-rich.
On top of this, Capture One is a much better RAW processor then Lightroom.
Yes, although LR is more than simply a Raw conversion application. But LR's development does look pretty stagnant, where Capture One's is growing, and becoming better in Editing functionality as well, and its DAM functionality is improving.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think the Adobe Photoshop subscription model is great and I don't find the cost is really any more or less than buying regular upgrades in the past.
-
I think the Adobe Photoshop subscription model is great and I don't find the cost is really any more or less than buying regular upgrades in the past.
I disagree. I used to skip an upgrade if the new/improved features were not relevant enough to impact my work. And I've not upgraded since CS6 and LR5.7, so I've saved a lot of money and not missed much innovation that I could also get elsewhere. It also used to force Adobe to come up with improvements/innovations that mattered for a new release.
Since the subscriptions, I've seen some improvements, although very few, and lots of updates that created new bugs (as if users are paying beta-testers). That means accumulating cost for very little progress.
The whole SAAS model is good for shareholders, not for stakeholders/users, IMHO of course.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I disagree. I used to skip an upgrade if the new/improved features were not relevant enough to impact my work. And I've not upgraded since CS6 and LR5.7, so I've saved a lot of money and not missed much innovation that I could also get elsewhere. It also used to force Adobe to come up with improvements/innovations that mattered for a new release.
Since the subscriptions, I've seen some improvements, although very few, and lots of updates that created new bugs (as if users are paying beta-testers). That means accumulating cost for very little progress.
The whole SAAS model is good for shareholders, not for stakeholders/users, IMHO of course.
Cheers,
Bart
This is absolutely true, I have seen very little in terms of features added that do anything for me. The only reason I will have to eventually upgrade is when CS6 no longer is compatible with my operating system.
The real issue at hand here is that Adobe Photoshop is virtually the only image editing software. Sure, insofar as RAW editors, we have options. Photoshop is the only game in town for image editing, so, as with the Post Office, it doesn't really matter to Adobe what they do.
Eventually though, this is going to catch up with them and we will start to see other products that compete.
I just now started to explore motion and I am amazed at all the softwares out there that do virtually the same thing, and the pricing is not that high.
We need more competition in the image editing market.
-
We need more competition in the image editing market.
I'm surprised with all the anger towards Adobe that there is not a Crowdsource movement to create new software.
-
Yes, same with me. CS6 Extended (which had some additional features that mattered to me) is doing fine for editing, although I'm using Affinity Photo more and more as I've noticed.
I too am staying with standalone Photoshop (CS5.1, in my case) and standalone Lightroom, latest version in order to be able to develop RAWs from recent cameras. That version of Photoshop does all I need.
I looked into Affinity, it looked great at first, but the lens library they're using (lensfun) does not include many professional-grade lenses, and almost none of those I use. I find the possibility to quickly and automatically correct for optical defects a very pleasant option, even if I don't always use it (and sometimes only partly), and therefore I gave up on Affinity, at least for the time being.
I talked to the Serif team but they have no plans to move to another, more comprehensive lens library for the foreseeable future.
-
I think the Adobe Photoshop subscription model is great and I don't find the cost is really any more or less than buying regular upgrades in the past.
The Adobe subscription model is great for some users, and a nuisance and unnecessary cost to others.
Adobe by not providing a perpetual version of their software is giving away a sizeable portion of the potential market. A telephone user can elect whether he wants to rent the phone or own it outright. Image editing user should have the same choices.
Fortunately, the competing products are getting more numerous and much better, so as Hank Williams Jr sings, they (Adobe) can kiss our a$$.
-
One plus: with the subscription model your software always is up to date. I'm loading the latest Photoshop update as I write this. I've used Photoshop for -- don't know, more than a decade -- and I've used Lightroom since it first came out. It's been my experience that the cost of keeping my "permanent" versions of Photoshop and Lightroom up to date was more than what it's costing me to keep my Photoshop/Lightroom subscription up to date, and with the subscription they're always more up to date. But I agree: there's always something to bitch about. If Photoshop/Lightroom were free we'd find something else.
-
One plus: with the subscription model your software always is up to date. I'm loading the latest Photoshop update as I write this. I've used Photoshop for -- don't know, more than a decade -- and I've used Lightroom since it first came out. It's been my experience that the cost of keeping my "permanent" versions of Photoshop and Lightroom up to date was more than what it's costing me to keep my Photoshop/Lightroom subscription up to date, and with the subscription they're always more up to date. But I agree: there's always something to bitch about. If Photoshop/Lightroom were free we'd find something else.
The problem with PS and LR is they do not really provide many updates that actually matter to a professional. I mean the progress in improvements over the last few years has been pretty slow.
If you compare LR to Capture One, C1 has jumped leaps and bounds over the last few generations.
The other thing I kind of hate about PS & LR, is that they seem to have abandoned the professional and pay too much attention to hobbyist. LR is a nice raw processor, but has no tethering capabilities, something a professional really needs and something that has been asked for for years by pros.
Sure, Phase One caters a little too much to the (rich) hobbyists too, but they also understand the professional.
-
Like some here, I am using standalone LR for 98% of processing with Affinity Photo for the other 2% and refuse to go down the lifelong path of CSS. While I detest the subscription model, I understand the business model behind it.
When ever faced with questions about the sensibility of costs like these and others associated with photography, specifically for non-pros (who cannot "write off" costs), I try to put photography into perspective by comparing it to the game of golf. CSS subscription fees are like the annual dues one pays to belong to a club, but, from what I understand, significantly cheaper. If you want to play at Club Adobe, you must pay the fees. The name even carries the same cachée as some of the better golf clubs.
By the way, I also say the same thing to photographers who enjoy a "free" day out in a public place/park or on a volunteer-run trail, like the Bruce Trail here in southern Ontario: pay your "green fees" and help support these free days out with a donation or membership equivalent to the cost of a round of golf.
I used the same analogy in a situation where the spouse of a photo-hobbyist was complaining "You never make any money from his photography!" I asked if she expected him to make money when he went golfing? At first she was confused, but then she got it.
And, after a poor day of shooting, I think, "Yup, just like golfers we have good days and bad." And my friend Kerry Little reminds me, "Even a bad day of photography is better than a good day at the office."
-
If you compare LR to Capture One, C1 has jumped leaps and bounds over the last few generations.
Only because it needs to catch up with LR which still has far, far more to offer most photographers.
The real issue at hand here is that Adobe Photoshop is virtually the only image editing software.
Affinity Photo does most things you'll ever need from an image editor at a very low cost, similarly Photoline is very well respected, even the Gimp is quite capable too.
-
The problem with PS and LR is they do not really provide many updates that actually matter to a professional. I mean the progress in improvements over the last few years has been pretty slow.
Right, all the content aware stuff doesn't count? The changes to Liquify don't count? Lightroom's Reference View? etc. Maybe the problem is that it's hard to show the value of new, better tools to those who make their living from taking pictures? After all, their old ways aren't actually broken.
The other thing I kind of hate about PS & LR, is that they seem to have abandoned the professional and pay too much attention to hobbyist. LR is a nice raw processor, but has no tethering capabilities, something a professional really needs and something that has been asked for for years by pros.
If you had said C1 does tethering better, that would be a fair statement. But no tethering capabilities in LR? That's simply wrong, and shooting into a layout was a feature added specifically because of studio photographers' requests.
-
Only because it needs to catch up with LR which still has far, far more to offer most photographers.
Affinity Photo does most things you'll ever need from an image editor at a very low cost, similarly Photoline is very well respected, even the Gimp is quite capable too.
To me, color and grading is the most important aspect of a RAW processor, and LR doesn't hold a candle to C1.
Also, something many photographers do not need to worry about, but I also need to preform Lens Cast Corrections with my technical cameras. C1 is very good at doing this; LR I believe requires a plugin that does not work all that well. (As pixels get smaller and we move into mirrorless, I think this overall is going to become more of an issue with most cameras.)
I will give you that LR's HDR feature is pretty nice though. Also, if you're a wedding or event guy, the presets in LR are probably better then in C1, and that fact that layers in LR can be preserved as layers in PS is nice I guess. (Here though I am not sure if I agree in the end; the beauty about RAW processing is that you are editing the data, not the image. If you keep your layers active, they become image editing, not raw data editing, which degrades the IQ faster.)
Insofar as my other comment, Photoshop is the only really well-know image editing software. I think we need a little time and a great disappointment for the others to take where we will have well-known options.
-
Right, all the content aware stuff doesn't count? The changes to Liquify don't count? Lightroom's Reference View? etc. Maybe the problem is that it's hard to show the value of new, better tools to those who make their living from taking pictures? After all, their old ways aren't actually broken.
If you had said C1 does tethering better, that would be a fair statement. But no tethering capabilities in LR? That's simply wrong, and shooting into a layout was a feature added specifically because of studio photographers' requests.
I never found the content aware tool to work that well, even when it came to editing simple things like repetitive patterns. Try using the content aware tool to remove outlets on walls with wall paper; it fails miserably. Insofar as the Liquify tool, what am I going to use that for as an architectural and studio photographer?
Like I said, the Vanishing Point Filter was a great improvement going from CS2 to CS3, and then CS4. When I jumped to CS6, which was after Club Adobe was announced, I found nothing of great improvement for things that would actually matter. Sure, the layout of the sidebar was a little better, but that is a moot point.
As for tethering is LR, can you control the camera through LR? Does LR have a live view mode? You mention an additional layout; does this mean you need to operate in another window to use its tethering capabilities? Can you apply adjustments to your last captured image and have those automatically applied to the next captured image? (My knowledge may be a little outdated on this.)
-
Your sweeping statement that Lr has no tethering capability is simply wrong. There is a tethering feature, and it can easily apply adjustments to successive images. If you are shooting into a magazine or other layout, it can do that by overlaying a transparent image on the photos (like the C1 equivalent). You can also automatically sync new photos to remote screens for client approval and annotation (imagine shooting for a client who can't get to the shoot). But it does not have live view or other features that make me say C1 is better at tethering. As I say, my main problem was with your sweeping statement which was simply wrong.
If you don't use Photoshop's newer tools daily, it's always going to be hard to appreciate their value. Just thinking of the tools I mentioned, content aware is a range of tools and I can think of one client who uses CA transform to squeeze photos of stages (performing arts) into the dimensions required for posters. In his portrait work, he uses Liquify's new face aware feature to tweak eyes, noses etc. That's just a couple of features. Yes, you can do them in CS2 or whatever, just not as quickly or as well.
-
Try using the content aware tool to remove outlets on walls with wall paper; it fails miserably.
That's because you need to use the patch tool for that, Joe. Maybe spending some time with a Photoshop book like Kelby's might help. The tools are there. You just need to learn what they are and how to use them.
-
That's because you need to use the patch tool for that, Joe. Maybe spending some time with a Photoshop book like Kelby's might help. The tools are there. You just need to learn what they are and how to use them.
Actually no, that is what the Vanishing Point filter is used for, because the patch tool does not take into account perspectives.
I can assure you, my knowledge of PS is more then up to speed, I am going to bet, better then yours. This is why I know the improvement of these tools has be slow in the past couple of generations.
-
Your sweeping statement that Lr has no tethering capability is simply wrong. There is a tethering feature, and it can easily apply adjustments to successive images. If you are shooting into a magazine or other layout, it can do that by overlaying a transparent image on the photos (like the C1 equivalent). You can also automatically sync new photos to remote screens for client approval and annotation (imagine shooting for a client who can't get to the shoot). But it does not have live view or other features that make me say C1 is better at tethering. As I say, my main problem was with your sweeping statement which was simply wrong.
If you don't use Photoshop's newer tools daily, it's always going to be hard to appreciate their value. Just thinking of the tools I mentioned, content aware is a range of tools and I can think of one client who uses CA transform to squeeze photos of stages (performing arts) into the dimensions required for posters. In his portrait work, he uses Liquify's new face aware feature to tweak eyes, noses etc. That's just a couple of features. Yes, you can do them in CS2 or whatever, just not as quickly or as well.
Okay, well, yes then LR does have tethering capabilities, just not at the level most pros would expect.
Liquify is a very specific tool used mainly on people. Architecture and produce work just does not have too much of an application, aside from my splash work. However, the time spent using the liquify tool is nothing compared to the time spent editing you selection of images down to find the ones that will merge together seamlessly.
-
Actually no, that is what the Vanishing Point filter is used for, because the patch tool does not take into account perspectives.
Sounds as if that's a problem you need to take into account when you set up the shot.
-
Sounds as if that's a problem you need to take into account when you set up the shot.
Aside: I should have used the phrase "perspective distortions."
How do you take into account that whenever you look at a wall on an angle, the straight lines of the wall, along with the rest of the wall, converge to a point? You can't.
It's impossible, even with One-Point Perspectives since you are usually looking at another wall not parallel to the image plane and is therefore skewed or angled.
The patch tool does not take into account the changing shape of a pattern dependent on your perspective. Only the Vanishing Point Filter does that.
-
Okay, well, yes then LR does have tethering capabilities, just not at the level most pros would expect.
Just not as good as the C1 capabilities, but adequate for most pros. Most people just don't push the envelope.
Liquify is a very specific tool used mainly on people. Architecture and produce work just does not have too much of an application, aside from my splash work. However, the time spent using the liquify tool is nothing compared to the time spent editing you selection of images down to find the ones that will merge together seamlessly.
No, it's a general use tool. Certainly it's more useful on people, and its capabilities in that area have advanced significantly since you last used it. My point about CA transform was more relevant to architecture-type work.
-
How do you take into account that whenever you look at a wall on an angle, the straight lines of the wall, along with the rest of the wall, converge to a point? You can't.
Of course. So if you can see a wall outlet is going to be a problem you move something in front of the outlet, or you move to a different vantage point. People have been shooting the kind of picture you're talking about since long before there was a Photoshop. We've reached a point where the default approach is to bang away and fix it all in post-processing. Post-processing was a lot harder in darkroom days, so people worked hard to minimize problems during the shoot.
-
Just not as good as the C1 capabilities, but adequate for most pros. Most people just don't push the envelope.
No, it's a general use tool. Certainly it's more useful on people, and its capabilities in that area have advanced significantly since you last used it. My point about CA transform was more relevant to architecture-type work.
If you can't control the camera or use live view, it's just not that great. Using live view is a great help when setting up an interior shot or a table top. Sure, you have a run around; have the camera control software open too, but then you switching back and forth.
I know Adobe does not produce any cameras, and Phase One started off having their camera control panel in their Raw processor, so maybe they had an advantage with the thought process. But it is now 2017, and camera controls and live view should be part of LR.
Like I brought into the conversation above, and probably should have from the beginning, I will contest that LR is probably better for wedding and even shooters. The presets are nice and you can do effects in LR you can't in C1 that are applicable to that type of work. Actually C1 does not really have any presents, aside from recipe presets, but that is more about file output, not look.
On top of that, LR does not do LCC corrections (I know they have a plugin, but last I checked it does not work so well), something which I need due to my camera of choice. (I know it's a negative on my camera, but the other positives inherent with tech cameras for my work far out weight it.)
I still can't see a use in architectural work with the liquify tool; maybe to remove lens distortions. However the built-in presets in Capture One do a perfect job even with the wide Rodenstock lenses. Maybe I should check out CA Transform.
To be honest though, I hate retouching. I enjoy the color grading and tone adjustments, and feel that is part of my vision. But the nitty gritty stuff, like remove outlets and wires, I'd rather just send to a retoucher.
-
Of course. So if you can see a wall outlet is going to be a problem you move something in front of the outlet, or you move to a different vantage point. People have been shooting the kind of picture you're talking about since long before there was a Photoshop. We've reached a point where the default approach is to bang away and fix it all in post-processing. Post-processing was a lot harder in darkroom days, so people worked hard to minimize problems during the shoot.
Yes, you can do that, sometimes, if the client lets you, and I surely do. However, if you're working for a minimalist, or if it just does not look good and too cluttered, you're stuck.
And sometimes it is not avoidable, like wires in front of the building, and you can't always capture a true elevation shot in a city.
Anyway, back to the initial point, the Vanishing Point Filter does a better jump at removing objects when perspectives are taken into account then what you recommended, the stamp tool. Lets not suddenly introduce a red herring to distract from which is the best tool.
-
How do you take into account that whenever you look at a wall on an angle, the straight lines of the wall, along with the rest of the wall, converge to a point? Hint, you can't.
It's impossible, even with One-Point Perspectives since you are usually looking at another wall not parallel to the image plane and is therefore skewed or angled.
The patch tool does not take into account the changing shape of a pattern dependent on your perspective. Only the Vanishing Point Filter does that.
FWIW, Affinity Photo also allows the use of "Inpainting" (or Cloning or Healing or Blemish removal) in Live Perspective Projection mode. Works very good, and a similar tool is also usable to correct 360 degrees VR images (Nadir/Zenith, or in other spots of the image).
Also Cloning from other images is possible, and Clones can be resized and rotated as they are cloned in.
Cheers,
Bart
-
FWIW, Affinity Photo also allows the use of "Inpainting" (or Cloning or Healing or Blemish removal) in Live Perspective Projection mode. Works very good, and a similar tool is also usable to correct 360 degrees VR images (Nadir/Zenith, or in other spots of the image).
Also Cloning from other images is possible, and Clones can be resized and rotated as they are cloned in.
Cheers,
Bart
That is awesome, and something I now need to check out.
Another thing that always annoyed me about the vanishing point filter is that it takes into account all layers that are on, not just the ones below. So if you have color, curve and level adjustments above the layer for the vanishing point filter that are turned on, it applies those to the fix and then those are applied again outside the window.
I don't know why they designed it like this. Not that it is difficult to remember to turn those layers off before opening up the filter, but it does not make sense.
-
If you can't control the camera or use live view, it's just not that great. Using live view is a great help when setting up an interior shot or a table top. Sure, you have a run around; have the camera control software open too, but then you switching back and forth.
I know Adobe does not produce any cameras, and Phase One started off having their camera control panel in their Raw processor, so maybe they had an advantage with the thought process. But it is now 2017, and camera controls and live view should be part of LR.
As I said, my main point was about your incorrect sweeping statement and I regard C1's tethering as superior. After all, C1 has to support P1's core business. The lack of live view in Lr probably reflects the size of the remaining market, but Adobe have also changed emphasis. Instead of developing the tethering feature in-house, they have now given the camera makers tools to develop their own, given that they have the greater incentive. Fuji did that, but I've not seen if live view was included.
Like I brought into the conversation above, and probably should have from the beginning, I will contest that LR is probably better for wedding and even shooters. The presets are nice and you can do effects in LR you can't in C1 that are applicable to that type of work. Actually C1 does not really have any presents, aside from recipe presets, but that is more about file output, not look.
Presets are a bit of a cheap trick - you can produce the same look with sliders. Their less-hyped benefit is consistency, which is important with a big shoot, and efficiency. So it's 3/4 clicks to produce an entire shoot in B&W, sepia tone, soft focus, vignette etc to include on the disc sent to the happy couple or for multimedia output. It's more the integration of picture management, processing and output that make Lr strong in the wedding and volume markets.
On top of that, LR does not do LCC corrections (I know they have a plugin, but last I checked it does not work so well), something which I need due to my camera of choice. (I know it's a negative on my camera, but the other positives inherent with tech cameras for my work far out weight it.)
Which is important for you, yet most photographers wouldn't care, just like they don't care much about CMYK.
I still can't see a use in architectural work with the liquify tool; maybe to remove lens distortions. However the built-in presets in Capture One do a perfect job even with the wide Rodenstock lenses. Maybe I should check out CA Transform.
Last time I used Liquify was on some curtain material in an interior, but I keep mentioning Liquify with faces because we began with "nothing for pros in the last few versions" and this face feature is new.
To give you an example of CA Transform with something more architectural, I remember we had a shot of a stage set with two groups of people, one on the left in front of a tree, the others on the right in front of a castle. It was roughly 16:9 but they wanted it as a CD cover, uncropped. CA Transform let us squeeze it in from each side - PS compressed the featureless central area, but kept the people/tree/castle normally proportioned. The other CA tools all have uses in particular circumstances, and Adobe have continued improving them in each version.
To be honest though, I hate retouching. I enjoy the color grading and tone adjustments, and feel that is part of my vision. But the nitty gritty stuff, like remove outlets and wires, I'd rather just send to a retoucher.
Now you can ask a few awkward questions beginning with can't we use CA.... :)
-
I'm a hobbyist so I get by with LR, Photoshop Elements and Photoshop Premiere Elements. I don't do a lot of editing other than cropping and adjusting some colors, contrast, etc. Sometimes perspective adjustments which raises a question.
You know how you get the keystone effect when shooting buildings? Well, sometimes when I shoot landscapes with a lake and the shore on the opposite side, I realize I must be getting a horizontal keystone effect so that you can' tilt to correct and level the horizon. After all, horizontal lines are vertical lines on their side. The 3D to 2D causes the same thing. How do you deal with horizontal shores? Does this have something to do with correcting using vanishing points?
-
That is awesome, and something I now need to check out.
There's a link to a tutorial video about the Live Perspective Projection tool on their forum (https://affinity.serif.com/forum/index.php?/topic/10119-official-affinity-photo-video-tutorials-200/), under the Live Projections (360 editing, perspective projection) section. Their examples demonstrate adding features in perspective, but obviously removing features works the same. It can be helpful, once in editing mode, to add a pixel layer to paint the correction on (while sampling that layer and those below), because that also allows correcting and editing edge transparency of the correction on its own layer, or moving it a bit for a better fit, before merging down and exiting Perspective mode.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There's a link to a tutorial video about the Live Perspective Projection tool on their forum (https://affinity.serif.com/forum/index.php?/topic/10119-official-affinity-photo-video-tutorials-200/), under the Live Projections (360 editing, perspective projection) section. Their examples demonstrate adding features in perspective, but obviously removing features works the same. It can be helpful, once in editing mode, to add a pixel layer to paint the correction on (while sampling that layer and those below), because that also allows correcting and editing edge transparency of the correction on its own layer, or moving it a bit for a better fit, before merging down and exiting Perspective mode.
Cheers,
Bart
I just took a quick look at their website. The price is certainly right at $49.95. I assume one can integrate edits performed in Affinity and still use LR as the Raw Converter, DAM, and the first stage development platform. One would just need to export a developed TIFF to Affinity for further manipulation, correct? As long as the TIFF is saved to the same location, LR should see it.
-
I just took a quick look at their website. The price is certainly right at $49.95. I assume one can integrate edits performed in Affinity and still use LR as the Raw Converter, DAM, and the first stage development platform. One would just need to export a developed TIFF to Affinity for further manipulation, correct? As long as the TIFF is saved to the same location, LR should see it.
Hi Alan,
Yes, if you send a TIFF from LR to AP it should work as expected.
And since this thread is about cost, AP is not expensive at all (for a perpetual license no less). Updates are free until Version 2 arrives, at which time I'd expect a discounted upgrade fee. So running cost is modest for a very capable Photo Editor, that also does pretty decent focus-stacking, HDRI, and Pano Stitching on multiple images. Its Raw conversions are not bad either but they could be improved.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Alan,
Yes, if you send a TIFF from LR to AP it should work as expected.
And since this thread is about cost, AP is not expensive at all (for a perpetual license no less). Updates are free until Version 2 arrives, at which time I'd expect a discounted upgrade fee. So running cost is modest for a very capable Photo Editor, that also does pretty decent focus-stacking, HDRI, and Pano Stitching on multiple images. Its Raw conversions are not bad either but they could be improved.
Cheers,
Bart
Thanks, I think I might give this a try. I'm on the perpetual license of LR and like most of the features. I don't use photoshop much at all (do have CS6 installed). I don't want to be switching the LR part because of the DAM with all the images I have. I did see the exhaustive set of tutorials on their website which is a good thing.
Alan
-
I'm a hobbyist so I get by with LR, Photoshop Elements and Photoshop Premiere Elements. I don't do a lot of editing other than cropping and adjusting some colors, contrast, etc. Sometimes perspective adjustments which raises a question.
You know how you get the keystone effect when shooting buildings? Well, sometimes when I shoot landscapes with a lake and the shore on the opposite side, I realize I must be getting a horizontal keystone effect so that you can' tilt to correct and level the horizon. After all, horizontal lines are vertical lines on their side. The 3D to 2D causes the same thing. How do you deal with horizontal shores? Does this have something to do with correcting using vanishing points?
Yes, you can get horizontal keystoning with lines away from the center of the image. (Well actually the center of the image circle that the lens projects, but, unless you are shifting, the center of the image will be where the center of the circle is.) If the horizon line is close to the center of the image, you are likely just not level.
But anyway, to correct this in post, you use the lens correction filter. If you were to buy a tilt/shift lens or a MF camera with built in shift (which is what I use), you could also correct it in camera instead of in post.
The vanishing point filter is completely different. This is used to edit out objects where you have a repetitive pattern but are looking at the wall on an angle. For instance, if I am photographing a kitchen, looking at it on an angle) with say subway tile as a backsplash and there are outlets I need to remove in post, I can't just use the stamp tool. This is because in the image, the tiles are no longer the same size or shape due to my perspective; they are all kind of angle towards each other. The vanishing point filter takes this into account so you can copy and paste from one area to another with the section you're copying from automatically changing shape and size to fit over the object you are erasing. It does take sometime to get the hang of using this filter though and I do not think it is included in the watered down PS Elements.
Although it is nice, they kind of pepper houses and kitchens with outlets nowadays. Great, since I will always have a place to plug in all my lights, but annoying, and you can't always obscure them since then the kitchen would start to look cluttered. The better kitchen designers usually install the outlets under the cabinets with the under lighting, so they are hidden and even better.
-
Ok. So i use lens correction for both horizontal and vertical keystoning. Thanks.
-
As a hobbyist I use lightroom perpetual licence for 95%of my work and Cs5 for the rest when lightroom goes subscription as I believe it will eventually. I will find an alternative. I don't wish to be held captive to a software model I despise and any price increases adobe may see fit to implement, and trust me when they feel confident the price will go up