[Steven Dent]

I (and many colleagues) use them because they’re lightweight and easy to tote. It’s too bad Matrox doesn’t make a USB key, just for encoding, because I don’t need any of the other features for the web, and it’s size and cost make a non-starter for what we do.

[Steven Dent]

Did you buy that box, and if so, how do you like it? We’re thinking of getting one.

[Steven Dent]

Sorry I wasn’t clear, yes, I was using levels instead of curves, and also realized that all the main cc tools could be done through adjustment layers using the “mask” function for tonal range.

I don’t mind having multiple layers, as long as it doesn’t degrade the image or anything. That makes it clear (to a non-tweaker), that we’re “increasing overall contrast here”, “increasing mid-tone blue gamma by 20% there”, “pumping up the highlight gain”, etc.

That gives me my numerical “gamma” like I wanted.

It’s easier to explain than “match this curve shape”. “Oh, and while you’re at it, take this 10 hour course so you know what you just did.” 🙂

By the way, how much feather, if any, do you use on those masks?

[Steven Dent]

Ummm… it’s not working for me. If I copy the adjustment layers from my portrait-shaped image onto my landscape image, I get a portrait looking rectangle with the adjustment on it. Outside the rectangle is unadjusted.

I assume it’s because I’m using a “mask” in order to do shadows or midtones as you advised.

I tried resizing the portrait image to landscape shape, hoping that would resize the masks, and then I copied them over. However, that produced a a really random looking result, with ghosts and weird lines going on all over the place.

I must be missing a step.

[Steven Dent]

Hi Theo

Thanks for taking the time to help.

The only challenge with using curves is that they’re not numeric – By using levels I can do gamma changes numerically. Same with my Hue/Sat and B/C controls.

It just makes it easier to explain to another person, who wants a certain look for his pictures without noodling around too much.

His photos are always the same pixel size, just landscape and portrait, so it’s no big deal to set up two templates and then just plug in each photo as needed.

[Steven Dent]

Thanks Lars 🙂 I didn’t know about the adjustment layers. My PS knowledge is out of date. Your information was helpful, and not condescending and insulting.

Having said that, it’s still not quite as simple as I was hoping for the benefit of the person I’m trying to help, as I’m trying to make it easy. Transferring those adjustment layers to another image is only easy if it’s the same pixel dimension. In Combustion, I can save a CC setting and apply it to a completely different image, size being irrelevent. Also, in PS I have to create multiple layers to do what I need, one for levels in shadow, midtone, saturation and contrast. All those controls are available in one cc in Combustion(the Discreet colour corrector), so I can tweak everything at once without multiple layers.

For everyone else, the personal attacks are a bit shocking. I was commenting on how I felt about features on a software program, which is a thing. I do it all the time if I’d like to see features added to a program. It doesn’t mean I think there’s something wrong with you if you use it.

I mentioned that I’m a colourist, to help you baseline my knowledge and ability, but that didn’t stop people from making some of the following comments:

“my thought process when doing so is far removed from what you can do in a three way color corrector “blunderbuss”. I am looking at the histogram (which a 3 way does not show) to make specific adjustments. I know that you will not really grasp what that means.”
Yep, I sure wish I knew about those curves and hist-a-mo-gram thingys. They don’t have any of those on Lustre…

“It’s a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”
That’s a good all-purpose comeback to stop anyone who ever asks for a feature to be added to software…

“I could go on, but most of what I would say would probably go right over your head.”
I’m… speechless at that comment. That’s just kind of not nice.

[Steven Dent]

Sorry, let me see if I can boil down the essence of this so there are some discussion points. I apologise if my use of the word “hokey” offended anyone. Obviously, Photoshop is an extremely deep and sophisticated image editing tool, however:

1) My premise is that the colour correction tools available in photoshop are more primitive than those available in dedicated colour grading programs, or even compositing and/or editing programs such as Premiere Pro or Final Cut.

2) I base this premise on the fact that the above mentioned programs have 3-way colour correctors, and/or colour warpers, colour suppression or other tools that *seem* to give more fine-tuned controls over colour and luminance information in the picture.

3) Photoshop has control over levels and curves, but not to the same detail as the above mentioned programs. For example, there’s no fine-tuned way to alter gamma on the highlights only of an image.

Now let me see if I have the other side of the discussion correct.

1) You don’t know how to use Photoshop or you wouldn’t be making such ridiculous statements.

2) You should take tutorials to learn the fine points of using colour correction in Photoshop, then you would be able to do the same things as those other programs.

3) We have a great understanding of how those colour correction tools work in those other programs you’re talking about; that’s how we can intelligently compare them to Photoshop’s.

Let me know if I’m missing something.

I don’t need to use PS for my image editing, I’m just trying to help someone who does use it, and probably won’t use something else. So I’m just trying to find a way to get a higher level of control over the image than I can see in the PS controls; I’m not trying to start an argument.

[Steven Dent]

No, a poor craftsman is someone who continues using a handsaw, when a sliding compound mitre saw will do a much better job.

[Steven Dent]

I’m a lustre colourist and former telecine operator, trying to help a photographer to get the same level of control I have, out of photoshop.

Perhaps you can google “colorist, grading, DI” 🙂

Compared to the level of control I’m used to, the Photoshop curves and levels are, again, hokey. Unless there are hidden controls that I’m missing.

I’d like to have something that gives me gain, gamma and offset overall and per RGB channel control over midtones, highlights and shadows, at a minimum.

On the level control, what Photoshop is hokily calling “midtones” is actually “overall gamma control”, the middle slider on the histogram. That changes the overall gamma curve, not just the gamma curve for the mid-tones.

Also, a decent colour corrector will let you change, for example, the offset in the midtones, while also allowing you to do an overall picture offset adjustment (at the same time).

I thought there might be a mini-lustre type plugin for photoshop – if anyone knows one, please let me know.

[Steven Dent]

I haven’t received the system yet, I’m scheduled to receive it tomorrow. My software is still in the box but I’ll have it installed shortly after I receive the system, hopefully. I’ll give you an update at that point.

I’ve heard that PP CS4 works great with Windows Vista Ultimate 64. I’ve heard that although it’s not 64 bit native, it makes good use of the extra ram available in Vista 64.

I’ve also heard that configurations with my ATI card have been more stable than those with the Nvidia card.

Some people have indicated that it’s been working well for them, and some (many) have indicated that PP CS4 is a buggy mess. Hopefully that’s not the case. I’ll soon find out!