Photo Editing

[Ysarex112 106]

The remove with Generative Fill is the same in LR & ACR as in PS. I do a lot of cleanup in LR because its faster. Composits are still the realm of PS, the addition of a new composite layer is not a part of the original image file. However converting a composite layer to a Smart Object makes any adjustments made to that layer fully editable.

Generative Fill is not the tool I need. LR can't do what I did in that photo previous post and I'd be forced to PS. Converting a retouch layer in PS to a Smart Object makes it fully editable but not automatically updateable. It still won't update a change made back in ACR and it remains as such destructive.

As you mentioned earlier "different workflow/priorities" . C1 is a competitive product to Adobe that I seriously considered but coming back to my earlier comment "does it really matter".

To me it really matters. It was reason enough for me to switch raw processing software 12 years ago, and were I faced with the same situation now using LR/PS I would switch now over that same reason. It doesn't really matter to you and that's fine for you. (I use C1 predominantly but also use DXO PL which is what I used in the photo above.)

To you the ability to edit nondestructive "forever" is a major sticking point, but if you look at the numbers, roughly 37 million CC users vs 260,000 C1 users it isn't a big deal.

Most of them are unaware of what they're missing, and I agree if they did know it probably wouldn't matter much to them. I'm not them. Volume use is a poor yardstick. As a general rule the largest group of users do not select the very best option. There's more Ford and Toyota drives than Audi drives, There's more cell phone camera users than Nikon or Pentax users, etc. etc. it's a long list.

Now had you talked about C1's supposedly better color control or tethering then you'd have my attention.

Yep, In addition to better retouch tools than LR C1 is overall an excellent raw processor. Having used it now for over a decade and being very familiar with LR I would stick with C1 now for numerous reasons.

 

[smoke665]

Generative Fill is not the tool I need. LR can't do what I did in that photo previous post and I'd be forced to PS. Converting a retouch layer in PS to a Smart Object makes it fully editable but not automatically updateable. It still won't update a change made back in ACR and it remains as such destructive.

Sorry go back and look at the edit of my previous post, I just did the same thing you did using LR & PS in a proper workflow.

As to not being aware of what I'm missing, that's not true, just like you my priorities are not the same, it's not a big deal in my book. As to the analogy people drive more Fords/Toyota than Audi's because they're more dependable, cheaper to service and have more service locations available. LOL

 

[Ysarex112 106]

Sorry go back and look at the edit of my previous post, I just did the same thing you did using LR & PS in a proper workflow.

No you did not do the same thing I did. When you get your first Smart Object into PS use the clone stamp and healing brush tools (not Generative Fill) to remove the patches of grass in the foreground in front of the tractor and then return the base Smart Object to ACR and change the color profile.

As to not being aware of what I'm missing,

I didn't say you I said them.

that's not true, just like you my priorities are not the same, it's not a big deal in my book. As to the analogy people drive more Fords/Toyota than Audi's because they're more dependable, cheaper to service and have more service locations available. LOL

 

[smoke665]

When you get your first Smart Object into PS use the clone stamp and healing brush tools

You're using the tools/workflow incorrectly. Adobe CC is a "collection" of apps designed to seamlessly integrate with each other or use independently. You no longer need clone stamp or healing brush to remove objects. You "remove" objects using AI remove (Generative fill) in LR before you go into PS. Now with the AI sophistication of masking in LR that sets it up for you, most of your other edits are done before you go to PS. I will say it still prefer to dodge and burn in PS.

Just like your birdhouse, I removed an element, and added an element with a nondestructive work flow that allowed me to go back and change individual elements without re-editing the whole image. Including restoring the original image in the stack.

 

[Ysarex112 106]

You're using the tools/workflow incorrectly. Adobe CC is a "collection" of apps designed to seamlessly integrate with each other or use independently. You no longer need clone stamp or healing brush to remove objects. You "remove" objects using AI remove (Generative fill) in LR before you go into PS.

No, absolutely, definitively not. I do need the clone stamp and healing brush. AI remove is not sufficiently precise or controllable or refinable for detailed work which is what I usually require. Adobe has not removed the clone stamp and healing brush tools from the software and they are the best tools for the job I need to do.

Photo on your left -- how will your AI tool in LR clone, move and seam the calyx and stem down closer to the flower -- photo on your right? You can do it in PS and it will be destructive.

Now with the AI sophistication of masking in LR that sets it up for you, most of your other edits are done before you go to PS. I will say it still prefer to dodge and burn in PS.

Just like your birdhouse, I removed an element, and added an element with a nondestructive work flow that allowed me to go back and change individual elements without re-editing the whole image. Including restoring the original image in the stack.

 

[smoke665]

No, absolutely, definitively not. I do need the clone stamp and healing brush. AI remove is not sufficiently precise or controllable or refinable for detailed work which is what I usually require.

You remind me of Old Governor Charles Durning doing a little "side step". Let's go back to your earlier post "

cloned the birdhouse to a different location, tilted it and shrunk it and then removed the original.

I did that, I removed the man and added birds-----with a nondestructive workflow. Now you're changing the parameters. I was going to go in and add your birdhouse, but TPF now squashes all images to Webp files, and the resolution is terrible.

Just an fyi, your edit on the right is missing the leaf behind the stem. Oops! Didn't have flower handy, but this was processed entirely in LR last year when GF was just getting going good. The first is the original.

And here is the edit. Note how it even worked the truck through the car windows.....without deleting stuff it shouldn't have, and created buildings where none existed before. I could have worked it in PS but the difference in the time was huge.

The improvements have only gotten better.

Good editing requires a knowledge of your tools and when to use them, because image requirements change.

 

[Ysarex112 106]

You remind me of Old Governor Charles Durning doing a little "side step". Let's go back to your earlier post "

I did that,

You did not.

I removed the man and added birds-----with a nondestructive workflow.

You did not. The addition of the birds was accomplished with a separate layer that would not update a change in the original Smart Object. You just had them dark and individually cut out so they wouldn't show failure to update. And I never added an external element and I never do. Replicate what I did. Select an object already in the photo. Move it elsewhere in the photo and both tilt and shrink it. Then remove the original object.

Now you're changing the parameters.

You're the one changing the parameters by trying to suggest the AI remove tool replaces the clone stamp and healing brush tools for what I want to do and it does not. The first photo with the bird house used the clone tool in PL and the second photo with the flower used the clone tool in C1 and I am consistent. I'm not trying to replace objects with made up cr*p that I don't have adequate control over. And I'm not trying to composite photos with elements from other photos.

I was going to go in and add your birdhouse, but TPF now squashes all images to Webp files, and the resolution is terrible.

Just an fyi, your edit on the right is missing the leaf behind the stem. Oops!

I did that deliberately.

Didn't have flower handy, but this was processed entirely in LR last year when GF was just getting going good. The first is the original.
And here is the edit. Note how it even worked the truck through the car windows.....without deleting stuff it shouldn't have, and created buildings where none existed before.

That is not what I want to do and that is not a substitute for what I want to do. It is an inappropriate example of what I have no interest in doing. And it will not work to accomplish what I want to do. And you have not been able to replicate in LR what I did non-destructively with the birdhouse. The AI remove tool won't clone an object in the photo and move it elsewhere in the photo.

I could have worked it in PS but the difference in the time was huge.
The improvements have only gotten better.

Good editing requires a knowledge of your tools and when to use them, because image requirements change.

 

[smoke665]

You're the one changing the parameters by trying to suggest the AI remove tool

Okay Gov side step again.

did that deliberately

Sure you did LOL

. The AI remove tool won't clone an object in the photo and move it elsewhere in the photo

Didn't say it would. The way you keep shifting and adding to your requirements i'm surprised you even found something that works for you.

In any case its been fun, but the ball game is coming on, and we've monopolized this thread enough. Have a good evening!

 

[Ysarex112 106]

Okay Gov side step again.

That is false. You asked for an example of what exactly I couldn't do in LR and I gave you that.
Cloned and moved the bird house (an object in the original photo) tilted the birdhouse and shrunk the birdhouse. Then removed the original.
You have not done the same non-destructively using LR/PS.

Sure you did LOL

Didn't say it would. The way you keep shifting and adding to your requirements

That is false,
Cloned and moved the bird house (an object in the original photo) tilted the birdhouse and shrunk the birdhouse. Then removed the original.
I used the clone stamp and healing brush tools in DXO PL and they are the appropriate tools to likewise use in LR/PS.
You have not done the same non-destructively using LR/PS.

i'm surprised you even found something that works for you.

Apparently you haven't. Your examples of the AI remove tool are inappropriate and that tool can't do what I did do.

In any case its been fun, but the ball game is coming on, and we've monopolized this thread enough. Have a good evening!

 

[Ysarex112 106]

You remind me of Old Governor Charles Durning doing a little "side step". Let's go back to your earlier post "

I did that, I removed the man and added birds-----with a nondestructive workflow.

You did not.

Now you're changing the parameters.

I have not changed any parameters. You didn't do what you claim above.

Here's what you did that you mistakenly think is non-destructive and replicates what I did.

Pass a Smart Object to PS. (On your left) you see the original photo.
The sky needs more birds so I added some more birds in the sky as another SO layer (middle photo). I copied them from the original image ALONG WITH THE SKY BEHIND THEM so there would be content with tone & color.
Decided two of the birds were the wrong color, so I edited the SO layer and changed them.
Then I opened the base SO layer and using ACR changed the color dramatically which gave me the image on your right.

And the SO layer with the birds is a destructive element because it won't update the change to the base SO.

Good editing requires a knowledge of your tools.

 

[Marc Hildebrant]

Ysarex,

Thanks for your comments as they have been helpful to me.

Marc

 

[MontanaDave]

A good photo requires minimal editing, a bad photo cannot be saved by extensive editing.
For example, because of the harsh light, this photo cannot be saved by extensive editing:

Here is a photo with better light and minimum editing:

 

[Ysarex112 106]

A good photo requires minimal editing, a bad photo cannot be saved by extensive editing.

How do you know how good or bad the photo is before you've edited it?

 

[Dale H. Cook137 31]

How do you know how good or bad the photo is before you've edited it?

Experience.

 

[AlanKlein108 24]

How do you know how good or bad the photo is before you've edited it?

The same way you can tell a beautiful woman is beautiful before she puts her makeup on.