M.Chapman Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 The simple thing to do would have been to remove my customary +20 saturation preset. With a defringe it's now much better. Not vanished though and I will try the various PS tips if I can work out how! Thanks all. I really have spent far too much time on this image- hope none of you feel the same way! http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/markrhdunn/DSC01817-3.jpg~original With respect to CA this image (DSCO1817-3.jpg) looks OK to me. Sure there's still some CA, but, in my opinion, not enough to cause a QC fail. Look closely enough (100%+) at any image with high contrast edges you'll probably see the edges are rarely absolutely perfect. I would however still be a little concerned by the purple fringing on the strands of hair of the girl on the right. I use LR4 and find the ticking the CA box does a really good job on raw images. I occasionally also need to use defringing eye-dropper too, but it's rare. Before LR4 I used to use PTLens and found it capable of doing a really good job, providing I used it on images that had been converted from RAW without any sharpening or NR or JPG compression applied during the raw conversion process. If sharpening or NR or JPG compression was applied before CA removal I found the "purity" of the CA was degraded, so the removal wasn't as effective. So my workflow was, convert Raw to Tiff without any NR or sharpening. Manually adjust to remove CA using PTLens in PS. Then apply a touch of sharpening and/or NR and save as a jpg for Alamy. It was however tedious! Now LR4 does it all for me, and automatically apples the corrections in the right sequence for best results. Simples! Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Alamy income doesn't justify upgrades, sorry. That little CA tick box that appeared in LR4 and ACR7 is truly a magic button and, together with producing a 64-bit version of Photoshop post CS4 allowing use of far more RAM than before, probably represents the most time-saving feature for photographers introduced by Adobe in recent years. Well worth dipping into the piggy bank for LR5 for that alone (in other words can you afford to be without it?). Strangely, Adobe never seemed to promote this humble magic tick box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Alamy income doesn't justify upgrades, sorry. That little CA tick box that appeared in LR4 and ACR7 is truly a magic button and, together with producing a 64-bit version of Photoshop post CS4 allowing use of far more RAM than before, probably represents the most time-saving feature for photographers introduced by Adobe in recent years. Well worth dipping into the piggy bank for LR5 for that alone (in other words can you afford to be without it?). Strangely, Adobe never seemed to promote this humble magic tick box. Agree with the above. Plus Mark, for your future sanity, I'm certain it would be worth upgrading your version of Lightroom, both in terms of speed and, more importantly, not failing QC because of CA. John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted September 11, 2014 Author Share Posted September 11, 2014 I'm still using XP so no LR4 for me. Thanks anyway everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I know myself only too well that how it is hard to justify spending money on photo stuff when the returns are small and there's not a lot to spare anyway. However, I would add my voice to those above; if I was able to make just one investment it would have to be Lightroom. The CA removal is absolutely magic and the rest of the RAW processing facilities make processing for Alamy quick and easy. I used to spend hours on a single image removing CA manually, but I've never looked back since getting LR two years ago and rarely use Photoshop, or any other program for that matter. The only caveat is I can't vouch for how good it is if you only shoot jpg. However, you can try it out as there is a full standalone trial version available from Adobe. The upgrade from LR v2 to v5 is currently £57.64 for the standalone version. Go for it if and when you can, I don't think you'll regret it. Sorry - didn't see the comment on having XP until I posted this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted September 11, 2014 Author Share Posted September 11, 2014 Same here re PS with LR2 which I am stuck with until Santa brings me a nice new computer with lots of post-XP software as well. It's one picture out of hundreds so I'm inclined to live with it, or rather without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Alamy income doesn't justify upgrades, sorry. £50 .... really? km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted September 11, 2014 Author Share Posted September 11, 2014 Not all of us are in your situation. As I said, I'm still on XP so it's not just LR but a computer and OS as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulstw Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Lightroom is going to be a lot cheaper than buying a lens that will remove CA. Either way, Alamy will still reject the files until something changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Not all of us are in your situation. As I said, I'm still on XP so it's not just LR but a computer and OS as well. If you're tight on funds, have you considered Linux? I keep meaning to get LR4 running on Linux Mint (a good free OS) on one of my old "XP" PCs. Others appear to have done it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfyA2DQT0J8. I've already installed Linux Mint on it with WINE and MS Office and it runs really well. If you've got some spare space on the HDD, Linux can be installed alongside XP as a dual boot system. Alternatively, you can try Linux without installing if you burn a DVD or put on a USB stick. I suspect LR4 may be a bit slow though on an older PC. Linux Mint User Interface is very easy to adapt to (it's quite like XP), however, installation of Windows applications under WINE is not always straight forward and not for the faint-hearted. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Alamy income doesn't justify upgrades, sorry. As to 400%, whatever happened to images only having to pass at 100%? Have the goalposts not only moved, but been magnified? PTLens -- only $25 last I checked, a real bargain IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Not all of us are in your situation. As I said, I'm still on XP so it's not just LR but a computer and OS as well. I'm on a really tight budget as well. A few months ago, I finally abandoned my trusty XP computer after finding a refurbished Windows 7 (Pro, 64 bit) machine for $300. No problems at all so far, and -- much to my surprise -- all my old XP software is running on it. There are some real bargains out there on PCs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 PTLens -- only $25 last I checked, a real bargain IMHO. John I used PTLens some time ago before switching to LR. You will need to be careful when removing CA, which it does quite well, as after the removal is complete it leaves narrow green/yellow/purple edges around the outside of the images which could cause a fail. I had to carry out a small crop to get rid of the image edges. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 PTLens -- only $25 last I checked, a real bargain IMHO. John I used PTLens some time ago before switching to LR. You will need to be careful when removing CA, which it does quite well, as after the removal is complete it leaves narrow green/yellow/purple edges around the outside of the images which could cause a fail. I had to carry out a small crop to get rid of the image edges. Allan Well remembered, I'd forgotten that little quirk which made it even more time-consuming. LR4 is sooo much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 PTLens -- only $25 last I checked, a real bargain IMHO. John I used PTLens some time ago before switching to LR. You will need to be careful when removing CA, which it does quite well, as after the removal is complete it leaves narrow green/yellow/purple edges around the outside of the images which could cause a fail. I had to carry out a small crop to get rid of the image edges. Allan Haven't used PTLens since I let my camera do CA and distortion correction. PTLens isn't perfect, but it's still a good tool to have in the arsenal IMO, especially when you consider the price. I've used PTL successfully on hundreds of images. It doesn't cure the dreaded "purple fringing," of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian58 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 In many years I have never had a failed batch here, except for now, and only one pic with the comments " artifacts", well it wasn't. the picture was processed Instagram, analog style which is very popular right now. Same shot was accepted at Getty some weeks back and have already sold. Its very important editors are aquainting themselves with the latest trends such as Insta, Vsco, analog processing, these are right now mega popular withing the Ad-world, etc. Don't think I bother with these reviewers anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 In many years I have never had a failed batch here, except for now, and only one pic with the comments " artifacts", well it wasn't. the picture was processed Instagram, analog style which is very popular right now. Same shot was accepted at Getty some weeks back and have already sold. Its very important editors are aquainting themselves with the latest trends such as Insta, Vsco, analog processing, these are right now mega popular withing the Ad-world, etc. Don't think I bother with these reviewers anymore. Have you missed Stockimo while you were away? That seems to be the place for images like that. You will need an Apple device to send your images though. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 . the picture was processed Instagram, analog style which is very popular right now. . . . which, if not done properly, can result in very ugly artifacts. Show us a 100% crop and you'll get the opinions of some very experienced eyes. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian58 Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I don't do them with these silly apps. I do them in PS using various commands, etc and the outcome is light-years better then all these apps, etc. No its more a matter of that editors can recognize these effects and NOT take them for bad technical processing. Big common mistake nowadays. Only a week back I did a Land-Rover shoot, press-ad, etc. The AD, insisted on an old vintage look, full of grain, artifacts, haze, etc. Then I used the film-industies Barco-system which is excellent for stills, the 1947 Land-Rover used looked like something from the 17th century. Turned out great! Anyway, I will not upload stuff like that here anymore, its too time consuming if the technique is rejected by the reviewer in question. best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I don't do them with these silly apps. I do them in PS using various commands, etc and the outcome is light-years better then all these apps, etc. No its more a matter of that editors can recognize these effects and NOT take them for bad technical processing. Big common mistake nowadays. Still worth posting a 100% crop so we can learn from your experience. It always helps to know where Alamy's QC boundaries are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I don't do them with these silly apps. I do them in PS using various commands, etc and the outcome is light-years better then all these apps, etc. No its more a matter of that editors can recognize these effects and NOT take them for bad technical processing. Big common mistake nowadays. Only a week back I did a Land-Rover shoot, press-ad, etc. The AD, insisted on an old vintage look, full of grain, artifacts, haze, etc. Then I used the film-industies Barco-system which is excellent for stills, the 1947 Land-Rover used looked like something from the 17th century. Turned out great! Anyway, I will not upload stuff like that here anymore, its too time consuming if the technique is rejected by the reviewer in question. best. you surely don't believe that just because you use Photoshop you can't generate artifacts in an image? Show us a 100% crop so we can see how QC are getting this so disastrously wrong . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian58 Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I don't do them with these silly apps. I do them in PS using various commands, etc and the outcome is light-years better then all these apps, etc. No its more a matter of that editors can recognize these effects and NOT take them for bad technical processing. Big common mistake nowadays. Still worth posting a 100% crop so we can learn from your experience. It always helps to know where Alamy's QC boundaries are. No certainly not. Of course you get artifacts in PS and sometimes plenty. I do know what it looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 No certainly not. Of course you get artifacts in PS and sometimes plenty. I do know what it looks like. Might I be so bold as to suggest QC know what it (artifacts) looks like too? dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Mayall Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I would like to know what program QC uses if any to check our images with. Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian58 Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 No certainly not. Of course you get artifacts in PS and sometimes plenty. I do know what it looks like. Might I be so bold as to suggest QC know what it (artifacts) looks like too? dd Hehe! of course they do!! I am questioning this particular editors ajour with certain processing techniques, thats all, artifacts or not. Might be easy for me and you because its our job but keeping up with all new stuff, new techniques, etc is a joke nowadays. Just for the record I personally know two editors in the Getty-House who actually went on a course to extend their knowledge. It isnt all that easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.