Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: affu933 on March 21, 2015, 08:42:47 am
-
I want to learn different Photoshop tricks, so please post your best tricks here
-
I want to learn different Photoshop tricks, so please post your best tricks here
#1 Trick: Find Photoshop icon on your desktop, drag it to the trash.
-
Well, my trick is related, but a bit different.
Use LightRoom for almost everything. When LR can't do something you really need (like maybe "Content-aware fill," for example), then go to PS briefly and then back into LR.
-
I don't often disagree with Eric, but I'd suggest using Lightroom to catalog your stuff and Photoshop to do the post-processing. Lightroom is a terrific cataloging program, but there's a lot you can't do in it, and once you're over the Photoshop learning-curve hump you're home free.
But "tricks?" You don't want to destroy your photographs with "tricks." You want to get them to end up being what you saw.
-
I don't often disagree with Eric, but I'd suggest using Lightroom to catalog your stuff and Photoshop to do the post-processing. Lightroom is a terrific cataloging program, but there's a lot you can't do in it, and once you're over the Photoshop learning-curve hump you're home free.
But "tricks?" You don't want to destroy your photographs with "tricks." You want to get them to end up being what you saw.
It's unusual for me to disagree with you, Russ, but I'm with Eric on this one...use LR for as much as you can before even thinking about PS. I'm using LR5.7 and am at about 99.9% of my needs for post-processing being met. Now that panos can be stitched with LR6, I may never use PS again. [Note: Having been a PS user for about 15 years now, I am completely familiar with PS and ACR and realize there are some advantages in some situations, but with my work - natural light colour and B&W landscapes, nature, sports, and some indoor sports - I see no advantage to switching to PS in my workflow.]
With regards to "tricks", you and I are in complete agreement.
-
This (http://members.photoshopuser.com/) ought to keep you busy. If not, pay $, join and have access to hundreds of videos and articles.
-
Here you go. If you can get past the first minute of the presenter being a twat, there's some handy layer mask hints.
http://digital-photography-school.com/5-photoshop-layer-mask-tricks-video-tutorial/
-
#1 Trick: Find Photoshop icon on your desktop, drag it to the trash.
On the other hand, if Photoshop won't start, the problem may be a corrupted Preferences file.
To repair it (actually delete it and create a new one), do the following:
Holding down the Alt, Ctrl, and Shift keys (Command, Option, Shift on Mac) while starting up Photoshop will cause a dialog box to appear. You will be prompted to delete your Photoshop settings file. Keep in mind that resetting the preferences will initialize them with default values, so you may need to change some of those settings.
-
The thing about PS is that it has a lot of depth and breadth. I guess the best advice I have is to have an idea ahead of time of what you want your pictures to look like. Then, start searching for demos on the web to figure out how to use tools to get the "look" you want. I've read about five different PS books over the years. I've learned something from everyone of them and I've also gotten very confused many times. A lot has to do with what type of learner you are. I've been using PS since 1998. I'm still learning things all of the time. The biggest breakthrough for me was learning how to use layers, masks, and select tools.
-
The thing about PS is that it has a lot of depth and breadth. I guess the best advice I have is to have an idea ahead of time of what you want your pictures to look like. Then, start searching for demos on the web to figure out how to use tools to get the "look" you want. I've read about five different PS books over the years. I've learned something from everyone of them and I've also gotten very confused many times. A lot has to do with what type of learner you are. I've been using PS since 1998. I'm still learning things all of the time. The biggest breakthrough for me was learning how to use layers, masks, and select tools.
+1 to all of the above.
Approach PS with some definite goals - stuff you want to achieve: Don't just 'play around' or 'explore' it's to big & too deep & you'll get lost & waste a lot of lifetime.
I've been a PS user since 2000 & a Lightroom user for about 3 years. Like some of the other posters on this thread I try to do as much of my photographic processing as possible in Lightroom. It's a 'broader brushstroke' tool than PS which encourages me to concentrate on the aspects of a photo which really matter. These days, I often find that photos which I've taken into PS look overworked.
& for the sake of your sanity, if you have the choice print from Lightroom not PS.
Have fun.
Graeme
PS I'm not dissing PS here: It's a wonderful tool but people forget that it's not specifically aimed at photographers.
-
I personally would not be happy with only Lightroom. In Photoshop I like the different curve modes such as soft light. I also use curves but will apply opacity to them so I can get some subtle effects. I use selective color that is not available in lightroom, and I like to work in layers. As a photographer I wouldn't completely dismiss the power of photoshop. I"m ready to take another workshop from Charlie Cramer who is a wonderful teacher.
-
I don't often disagree with Eric, but I'd suggest using Lightroom to catalog your stuff and Photoshop to do the post-processing. Lightroom is a terrific cataloging program, but there's a lot you can't do in it, and once you're over the Photoshop learning-curve hump you're home free.
Like luxborealis said, use LR to most of your processing and only move to PS for the increasingly few things it cannot do for the photographer. Maybe you need to get over the LR learning hump Russ. So many things that were tricky/slow to do in PS are now dead easy in LR with it's different paradigm. So I'd agree with Eric's PS trick suggestion, use LR.
After that, open your files up into LR as smart objects. That way you can retain your raw editing capability as well as being able to work parametrically for a whole host of things. Smart objects are well named as they are indeed very clever.
-
If I hadn't been using Photoshop since long before there was a Lightroom, Jeremy, I might agree with you and Eric. Lightroom gradually has evolved into a quite powerful processing tool, in large part because it has incorporated Camera Raw. Maybe I'm just too old to change. In any case, I'll stick with Lightroom for cataloging and Photoshop for post-processing. On the other hand, when I think about it, I realize that the majority of my PP is done in Camera Raw followed by tweaks with Nik's filters. If I were just starting out I'd probably be perfectly satisfied with LR and the Nik filters.
-
If I hadn't been using Photoshop since long before there was a Lightroom, Jeremy, I might agree with you and Eric. Lightroom gradually has evolved into a quite powerful processing tool, in large part because it has incorporated Camera Raw. Maybe I'm just too old to change. In any case, I'll stick with Lightroom for cataloging and Photoshop for post-processing. On the other hand, when I think about it, I realize that the majority of my PP is done in Camera Raw followed by tweaks with Nik's filters. If I were just starting out I'd probably be perfectly satisfied with LR and the Nik filters.
ACR and LR's develop module are the same thing. One has a modern easy to use modern interface and the other is creaky and way past its sell by date.
Going to PS from LR to then use ACR on your images is not only a waste of time but unless you open the files as smart objects, you are seriously compromising your ability to process the work as you are no longer working on raw files. If you shoot jpeg, then it doesn't really matter.
Changing to LR is no effort. Rather than use ACR in PS, use the develop module in LR. All the same tools are there but with a far better UI. You'll probably find you work better and faster. Then for the times you need PS, only open into PS after all your basic grading is done. Plus if you open as a smart object you can continue to work on the raw file using ACR from within PS without rendering file as a tiff/psd - this gives you huge flexibility.
-
I am one of the people who learned on Lr and who haven't developed much skill in Ps yet. So that's what smart objects are for! Lr really is effective for the basics.
-
LR can be really effective at things that are quite complex/difficult to do in PS. Don't undersell LR by thinking of it as a basic programme.
-
I don't often disagree with Eric, but I'd suggest using Lightroom to catalog your stuff and Photoshop to do the post-processing. Lightroom is a terrific cataloging program, but there's a lot you can't do in it, and once you're over the Photoshop learning-curve hump you're home free.
But "tricks?" You don't want to destroy your photographs with "tricks." You want to get them to end up being what you saw.
Not necessarily what you saw...but what you envisioned.
-
LR can be really effective at things that are quite complex/difficult to do in PS.
like what?
I am a photoshop user and never saw a good reason to go to LR... ( do not need the catalogue part)
-
Not necessarily what you saw...but what you envisioned.
That would explain all those pictures with blurred water. Not really what they saw, but what they envisioned in their twisted mind.
-
LR can be really effective at things that are quite complex/difficult to do in PS. Don't undersell LR by thinking of it as a basic programme.
like what?
The shot below for example.
Image was exposed to retain sky and fill flash used on my first DSLR 10 years back. However the flash didn't fire properly so Joseph is extremely underexposed. Tried fixing this in PS with lots of tedious and fiddly masking and a lot of time taken, but I was never happy with the results. However working on the raw file in LR a couple years later I got a decent result with a few minutes work, if that.
If you open up up your raw files as smart objects into PS then you can do the same things. This is because ACR and LR dev module are the same thing, except that ACR is an aged and clunky design set in stone before it was realised that this initially small part of the process was going to end up being the major part.
I am a photoshop user and never saw a good reason to go to LR... ( do not need the catalogue part)
Used PS since v3 and beta tested it too. But discovered a long time back that you do most of the work i.e. all the grading/developing on the raw file before you even get to PS. As LR/ACR improved then that unless you are doing composite work or using layer blending going to PS was now redundant most of the time. Not having to do selections and masking to tweak individual areas of an image is a huge time saver. Come to think of it even some compositing work is now no longer needed - for example combining several versions of an image with different colour temperature light sources to get a neutral shot. Simply paint correct colour temp on with the brush tool.
As for catalogue part, quickly and easily finding one's work and the usefulness/speed of smart collections is overrated. ;) Not to mention the sheer usefulness of integrating organising one's images and working with them en masse, utterly pointless, much better to do everything one at a time in different programmes. :P
.
-
I personally would not be happy with only Lightroom. I use selective color that is not available in lightroom
You mean doing this sort of [horrible] thing. ;)
Quickly done in LR using brush on -ve saturation and auto mask. Though because of motion blur on the dancer there appears to be a little bit of is blue sky 'fringing' his clothing. Which is is exactly why tweaking this shot in PS using masking was so very difficult. This 'fringing' was actually removed with a little bit more effort on brush or even easier by using defringe eyedropper in Lens correction panel, but when zoomed back out it looks like there is still some there because of interpolation.
.
-
Correcting that shot in Photoshop with the CR filter is about a ten second job, Jeremy. I just did it, so I know. I'm sure it's the same thing in Lightroom since you're using the CR filter without being told that that's what you're doing.
-
Correcting that shot in Photoshop with the CR filter is about a ten second job, Jeremy. I just did it, so I know. I'm sure it's the same thing in Lightroom since you're using the CR filter without being told that that's what you're doing.
Really ACR is the same as LR Dev module, who'd have guessed it? It's not like it was common knowledge or anything or even mentioned in my post you are replying to. Oh wait it is and was. ::)
Not to mention entirely missing the point of the post, which was that you do not need PS for a lot of stuff because LR is so powerful.
BTW ACR as a filter in PS is a relatively new feature. Also applying ACR in PS as a filter is not the same as using ACR or LR before you get into PS, unless opening raw file as a smart object.
Lets see your 10 second effort then Russ. Which cannot possibly be as good because it's a rendered jpeg you are working from as opposed to a raw file.
-
I realize you have a reading problem, Jeremy, but to make it easier for you to grasp the situation, here's what I said in a previous post: "Lightroom gradually has evolved into a quite powerful processing tool, in large part because it has incorporated Camera Raw. . . .when I think about it, I realize that the majority of my PP is done in Camera Raw followed by tweaks with Nik's filters. If I were just starting out I'd probably be perfectly satisfied with LR and the Nik filters."
And, yes, you're right. Working with the jpeg leaves a lot to be desired, which is why I didn't and won't post the result. Nevertheless, the tones were correct. As Churchill said, "Give me the raw file and I will finish the job."
-
Jeremy, thanks for the examples...
I will look into it- as soon as LR6 is out of beta...
I realize i am not using the full potential of the Photoshop-LR combi.
Smart objects i do not use very often - At the moment my workflow is :
I do the basics in ACR and convert it into 16 bit files and continu the work in photoshop CS6.
-
I realize you have a reading problem, Jeremy, but to make it easier for you to grasp the situation, here's what I said in a previous post: "Lightroom gradually has evolved into a quite powerful processing tool, in large part because it has incorporated Camera Raw.
Try not to be such a patronising buffoon Russ. All you do is show how ignorant and not how clever you are.
-
Jeremy, thanks for the examples...
I will look into it- as soon as LR6 is out of beta...
I realize i am not using the full potential of the Photoshop-LR combi.
Smart objects i do not use very often - At the moment my workflow is :
I do the basics in ACR and convert it into 16 bit files and continu the work in photoshop CS6.
Try opening your files into PS as Smart Objects and not as rendered PSDs/Tiffs and see how much work you can do without rasterizing the smart object. Even then only rasterize a copy of that layer.