|
Post by michelb on Jan 8, 2019 21:28:01 GMT
Last news from the user I was trying to help:
That means he had to uninstall and reinstall his Elements version. Copying the files from a second installation did not work.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Jan 1, 2019 10:59:30 GMT
I would not trust a Windows restore, but a restore made by my Acronis backup system should work. The trouble is that I don't backup regularly, only at intervals or when there has been some OS or software updates. I may have to reconsider the backup frequency. I have taken care to keep only the OS and software files on my C: drive and to move what I can on other drives: documents (OneDrive and Dropbox...) That way I can keep my C: drive in a 150 GB partition which is backed up in about 45 minutes. I also keep my catalogs elsewhere. Those are saved after each editing session together with my library through Microsoft Synctoy.
Anyway, since that is not my personal issue, I am still waiting for some feedback from the user I was trying to help.
Thanks to all for your contributions and a happy new year to everybody .
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 29, 2018 21:06:04 GMT
The deleted effect was not mentioned.
I just got an answer (in the Adobe forum in French) that deleting also the ThumbDatabase did not succeed either. He deleted two effects.
I won't get an answer before tomorrow. Seems he wants to install anew on a second computer and try to copy the data of the FR_fr subdirectory in the first computer after taking copies for safety.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 29, 2018 14:51:32 GMT
Thanks Sepiana. I have passed that info over... I am not yet ready to test myself by deleting effects .
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 29, 2018 9:52:51 GMT
I tried to help someone who had deleted an effect by error. My suggestion to delete and rebuild the mediadatabase.db3 did not help .
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 18, 2018 11:58:58 GMT
I have been prompted to update to ACR 11.1 this morning.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 9, 2018 22:14:25 GMT
Another personal challenge: Old style print effect using exclusively 16-bits tools in ACR and the editor:
Michel, I love this old style print effect! I noticed your layer stack shows two Gradient Map layers. Would you be kind enough to elaborate how you customized/edited the Gradient Maps to fit your project? And how they integrate with your use of the Equalize filter?
Sepiana, You mean my history panel, not layer stack, since 16-bit editing is not supported with layers...
Unfortunately, I have not kept the temporarty tiff version, so I can't recover the gradient settings. The gradient maps (in the filters menu) are used for more flexibility than levels or curves and also to add the final sepia toning. I wanted to: - set the white and black points not to max values - flattening the brightness of the darker parts (to keep the focus on the lighter parts (the snow) by simplifying the extreme shadows.) - Enlarging the tone range of the highlights by moving the middle tab to the right
Something like this:
I must say that I am puzzled by the look of the histogram with those two sharp peaks on the left. Probably the result of different settings in my two gradient maps steps.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 8, 2018 10:42:25 GMT
Another personal challenge: Old style print effect using exclusively 16-bits tools in ACR and the editor:
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 7, 2018 13:29:31 GMT
Thank you for allowing us to download your dng file michelb FWIW, this is what I came up with just some quick editing of the dng file in ACR with no other processing. Obviously I wasn't there when you took the photo but hopefully this is close to what you saw in real time. Yes, we can agree that it is a 'true' view, dull, flat and not too bright. In a way, our eyes do adapt to the luminosity as happens with the camera meter. The difference is we are 'scanning' over different parts of scene to perceive details both in shadows and highlights. We are combining different pieces in our minds with our own 'HDR' builtin feature... I am sure that in reality I did not see the additional depth in the snow parts extracted from the equalize filter. It was what I felt was missing and what I wanted to render. In the same way, there is no texture in most of the snow parts, and I miss that. That would mean adding noise or texture. However the interesting fact about the equalize filter is that it does not add or create anything, it reveals and enhances very slight differences present in the scene.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 7, 2018 10:57:08 GMT
michelb , I appreciate your detailed response and your interest in experimentation. I suppose it would depend upon how you intended to use the image whether you would take the multiple layer route or try the equalizer filter which might work well enough for image sharing via the web. I have been out today or I would have responded sooner. As a matter of fact, it's good not only for web. The example show that there is no artifacts or banding. Another reason to prefer it to layer works blending is that it has a strong effect on colors. If you don't want it, you can desaturate or use the layer copy in luminosity mode.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 7, 2018 10:53:50 GMT
How do you adjust the strength of the Equalize filter? You are right, Peter... There is no way to do that other than adding a layer copy and changing the opacity or blend mode.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 6, 2018 19:40:31 GMT
I was unaware that I had such a filter; thanks for bringing it to light. Concerning Posterization and Banding, I often see these terms used simultaneously; are they just two ways to say the same thing, or two different meanings ? I often see the abrupt "steps" in color when trying to darken a too-bright sky, at which point I usually just replace the whole sky. Also, why the DNGs as opposed to camera RAW ? Banding is the visual effect you are describing. There are those steps instead of smooth gradients.
Posterization:
As described in that link, it's a similar visual effect which can be artistic and deliberate... or it can be the result of inadequate processing. If you want to experiment with posterization, use the filter posterize and play with the number of steps you'll keep in your image. You can play with black and white pictures, which have 256 levels (with color it's 256 for each rgb channel) or simply with a simple image of a black to white gradient. If you choose 128 levels (7 bits), your histogram will show combing, but you may not perceive banding. Try with 64, 32, 16, 8 steps to compare and see how the effect becomes visible. If you are after an artistic effect to mimic some poster pictures with few levels, do the same. Usually 256 levels are ok even for black and white work. The issue is with relatively wide gradients (not details). Let's say you use curves to increase the contrast of the sky only (you stretch the brightness range while keeping the same number of original pixels; then banding will become visible. Sometimes, the banding will not appear after such an edit, but successive edits may reveal it later. My advice with such pictures of sky is to make the most of the tonal edits in ACR or in 16 bits to start with. Beware of denoising: on the contrary, you can add noise to mask a slight banding.
About DNG or camera RAW: no difference. DNG files will be read and edited even with older PSE versions, recent Raw files may not be supported.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 6, 2018 17:45:07 GMT
I was able to get close to the same results using PSCC with the Equalizer filter at 40% fill and 25% opacity. I would appreciate a little info as to when and why you would use this filter over other pp choices. Yes, you got the same result.
I have used the equalizer filter intensively a few years ago, not really to improve images, but to experiment with bit-depth (16-bits mode), histograms and posterization. The purpose of the equalizer is to transform a normal histogram (usual bell shape or two peaks...) into a flat one. Lets say you divide your brightness range in ten graduations, the result will be to get the same number of pixels in each of the ten steps. That's rather a mathematician concern than a photographer's one...
If you start with a relatively flat histogram, the result will be less striking than with one with a distinct peak like in my image. Play with the filter and look at the histogram (be sure to click the small icon to refresh the histogram). The new histogram will show 'combing', many vertical lines like in a comb. That 'combing' is a sure warning that there is a risk of posterization, which means that the stretching of tones (the simplification into less graduation steps) will make 'banding'. The eye can discern easily those 'bands'. Instead of a smooth gradient, you get clear different steps. The 'combing' in the histogram is a serious warning, but it does not mean that you'll see banding in your image. In the present example, I don't see any. However, further edits stretching tones (levels or curves for instance) may reveal it later.
In my experience, the equalizer filter is the most prone to combing. It depends on the normal histogram of the image. It proved interesting in images with a flat range of the image to give more depth. Snow scenes on cloudy lighting are typical. Anyway, the equalize filter is generally too strong and needs to be applied to a layer copy in low opacity. It's not the only way to stretch a given flat range. The conversion in ACR already helps, especially the 'auto' choice. The most efficient and flexible way is to work with various layers and masks like in HDR processing. However, the equalize solution is much easier and faster. In this image, there is no 'underexposure'. There is plenty of room in ACR before you get the out of range warnings for whites or blacks. The exposure is voluntarily optimized for highlights. Shadow details are meaningless in the image and noise is not a problem, it's even beneficial to the snow. Less so for the sky where you can mask.
So, the main reasons why this filter is not more used are: - understanding the relation between the change in histogram and the image - the fear of posterization - finding the image where it can be useful.
For advanced users wanting to fiddle with the equalize filter, I would suggest to compare both the histogram and the resulting image in 8 or 16-bits from the original DNG, at 100%. Remember that when there is a risk of posterization, it's better not to use any noise reduction to start with (adding noise is the second remedy to posterization after 16-bits editing). Also, the equalizer alone is not recommended if you want to get final 'low key' or 'high key' images (either no real black or no real white).
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 6, 2018 13:20:29 GMT
Hi Sepiana For the sake of clarification, this post points to the bridge photo I submitted. The link to the DNG file of the bridge (which I have since deleted) in hmca's post is actually the Mega link to the DNG file I uploaded (not hmca) and sent to hmca for the Creative Effects challenge as I mentioned in my previous post. Thanks to you and Sepiana for suggesting Dropbox.
Here is the link:
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Dec 6, 2018 9:35:37 GMT
End of the mystery: The filter is Filter >> adjustments >> Equalize.
The scene is 200 meters from my home in Paris. It's a rare situation, we rarely get snow. That was in February this year.
I wanted to explain my choices but the very interesting comments already received make me want to wait a little for still other comments.
My purpose is to find the best ways to capture a scene and to render it. I have different ideas on the kind of final look I want, so I'll start with the 'natural' look of the scene and my 'enhanced' purpose. To get there, I need to state what camera and software I do use.
- the natural look is dull. No bright whites. No detail in most of the snow or in the sky. Hard to find a color spot. The 'default' view in ACR is the more realistic rendering. The "auto" is already a good choice, albeit too bright. The default with the Equalize filter at 100% is... astonishing.
- This scene can be rendered in a sketchy way but I want to render a good compromise between reality and dream. That means dealing mostly with the wide areas of snow and sky without apparent detail. - I am shooting with a Fuji 100S with good resolution, excellent dynamic range, no issues with noise. - I want to get the most of the ACR module in PSE 2019 and of the editor.
(what would be the best way to post a DNG version in this forum?)
I have much to comment about exposure, ETTR, posterization, banding, histograms, bit depth... but what is important is your personal assessment of the qualities of your 'digital negative' and the rendering you are after. I have other pictures taken the same day, same lighting, which call for very different renderings.
|
|