just cut ~15% off my processing time

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

months ago I started using Quick Select Tool;

it improved results but added time;

today I discovered Object Selection Tool;

it will improve selections AND reduce time selecting...

[MDM]

Here's where I say I told you so. 😎

 

 

Edited June 3 by MDM

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

mein gott my bad !!

I thought MarkC Youtube link in

"blending multiple exposures"

thread was where I saw crystal clear

use of Object Selection Tool first time...

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

mein gott my bad !!

I thought MarkC Youtube link in

"blending multiple exposures"

thread was where I saw crystal clear

use of Object Selection Tool first time...

 

Better late than never. You could probably knock 30-50% off your post-processing times if you listened to the stuff I've been telling you over the last year or so Jeff. Never mind the other local expert here who questioned my qualifications in advising you on workflow efficiency given that you have vastly more images on Alamy than me - a rather school-boyish, illogical and ill-considered statement but that's a story for another thread. I'm always happy to help and gently nudge - any sign yet of that new computer 😃?

 

Anyway these new AI selection tools are the modern way of making very fast selections so well worth becoming familiar with. The really big deal is that you can do this and a lot more on the raw image in ACR (or Lightroom even better for speed) so you don't need to go into Photoshop at all except in rare cases such as image blending and compositing. When you get that new computer, throw in a bit of Denoise, AI selection tools and masks, you will be flying - 200,000 images in no time. 

 

 

Edited June 3 by MDM

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

the wifey's under-1-yr-old Lenovo handles

AI Denoise in very reasonable time;

my 2017 Lenovo handles all else well;

at some point when it starts burping

I'll get the latest greatest, eg., maybe best of these:
https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpadp/lenovo-thinkpad-p14s-gen-5-(14-inch-intel)-mobile-workstation/len101t0106

 

 📈___ 📈___ 📈___ 📈___ 📈

 

 

(must be 14" to fit most hotel room safes;

first just for the AI-Denoise, then

slowly transfer ALL to it...

[geogphotos]

21 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

 

 

 

(must be 14" to fit most hotel room safes;

 

 

 

I wouldn't make that a top priority myself.

 

But I do not do any work on images while travelling - I wait until I get home

[M.Chapman]

On 02/06/2024 at 22:02, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

months ago I started using Quick Select Tool;

it improved results but added time;

today I discovered Object Selection Tool;

it will improve selections AND reduce time selecting...

Have you discovered Photoshop Actions? They can also be great time savers. Record your most frequent sequences of PS commands and assign to function keys (or key combo of your choice). I only recently started using them. PS has so many features.

 

Mark

[MDM]

56 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Have you discovered Photoshop Actions? They can also be great time savers. Record your most frequent sequences of PS commands and assign to function keys (or key combo of your choice). I only recently started using them. PS has so many features.

 

Mark

 

I used to use actions a lot way back in the day before Adobe introduced the ability to customise one's own keyboard shortcuts so it was necessary to assign a function key to a simple command that didn't have its own shortcut. I had a set of simple one stop actions for that. The other main use I had for actions was to run a batch on something like opening a set of images, converting to 8-bit and saving as JPEG. However, nowadays I would do that as a Lightroom export (also possible from ACR if one is so inclined). I used to have a set of my own actions that would follow me around when I upgraded my computer but no more. Lightroom/ACR presets do that now. 

 

It all comes down to the huge advances made in LR/ACR, so editing images in Photoshop has become a fairly rare event for me - something i didn't imagine I would be saying a few years ago. My philosophy, both from workflow and image quality perspectives, is to do as much as possible on the raw image and in the majority of my images now that means everything. Syncing a set of images to the same edit is so simple now along with presets. If I need to spot images I still use Photoshop but even that is becoming unnecessary as the kit I am using is much more resilient to allowing dust on the sensor when changing lenses. 

Edited June 6 by MDM

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

11 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Have you discovered Photoshop Actions?

oh yes

way way back

prolly since mid-2003

shortly after buying first digital

& using Photoshop ?7? first time...

Canon 10D...

[M.Chapman]

On 06/06/2024 at 09:43, MDM said:

My philosophy, both from workflow and image quality perspectives, is to do as much as possible on the raw image and in the majority of my images now that means everything. Syncing a set of images to the same edit is so simple now along with presets. If I need to spot images I still use Photoshop but even that is becoming unnecessary as the kit I am using is much more resilient to allowing dust on the sensor when changing lenses. 

Yes, LR keeps getting better and better. I still make extensive use of PS though because I find it much more responsive on my old iMac 2017, especially when using the healing and cloning tools. I used to think PS’s healing tools did a better job than LR too, but now I’m not sure. I also user layers in PS to combine frames sometimes. But, if looking to maximise throughput on batches of images, LR wins and I often use it to preprocess batches of images before finishing in PS.

 

Mark

[MDM]

54 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Yes, LR keeps getting better and better. I still make extensive use of PS though because I find it much more responsive on my old iMac 2017, especially when using the healing and cloning tools. I used to think PS’s healing tools did a better job than LR too, but now I’m not sure. I also user layers in PS to combine frames sometimes. But, if looking to maximise throughput on batches of images, LR wins and I often use it to preprocess batches of images before finishing in PS.

 

Mark

 

I still use the healing and cloning tools in Photoshop in preference to Lightroom but I seem to use them a lot less than I used to do - a lot to do with keeping a clean sensor so not having to deal with dust spots as much as before. Trying to remove dust spots from video is an awful lot more difficult than from stills. 

[M.Chapman]

12 hours ago, MDM said:

 

I still use the healing and cloning tools in Photoshop in preference to Lightroom but I seem to use them a lot less than I used to do - a lot to do with keeping a clean sensor so not having to deal with dust spots as much as before. Trying to remove dust spots from video is an awful lot more difficult than from stills. 

I've never really had problems with sensor spots (I don’t change lenses that much), but I often do quite a bit of retouching to remove unwanted elements from images (e.g. litter,  small bugs on flowers, damaged leaf foliage, distant figures in landscape scenes and sometimes dust and scratches from copied transparencies). I find PS is much faster than LR (on my old iMac) for doing this. I look forward to trying it in LR on an M3 or M4 Mac. However I wonder if LR healing always uses an intelligent clone so there has to be an area in the image it can clone from to do the healing, whereas PS seems to use a content aware fill. Maybe it’s done that way because it's easier for LR to record details of a clone with just a few parameters in LR catalogue or xmp sidecar?

 

Mark

Edited June 8 by M.Chapman