Comments on: Stupid Tone-Curve Tricks: A Half Dozen Develop Presets for Lightroom http://regex.info/blog/2010-03-27/1482 Not a photo blog. A personal blog with photos. Wed, 23 May 2012 20:38:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Lisa Woods http://regex.info/blog/2010-03-27/1482#comment-44491 Lisa Woods Sat, 05 Nov 2011 02:55:30 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2010-03-27/1482#comment-44491 I'm trying to play with the custom tone curve but can't seen to set the curve to custom? When I click on the little box it only gives me the options of Light, Medium, and Strong Contrast. I'm not able to adjust the slider of the inverse scale. Please help. <span class='jfriedl'>Click the little box again to get into the view without the Light/Medium/Strong, then grab the curve itself and drag to whatever custom configuration you like. —Jeffrey</span> I’m trying to play with the custom tone curve but can’t seen to set the curve to custom? When I click on the little box it only gives me the options of Light, Medium, and Strong Contrast. I’m not able to adjust the slider of the inverse scale. Please help.

Click the little box again to get into the view without the Light/Medium/Strong, then grab the curve itself and drag to whatever custom configuration you like. —Jeffrey

]]> By: luc http://regex.info/blog/2010-03-27/1482#comment-38732 luc Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:57:08 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2010-03-27/1482#comment-38732 I used the monochromatic filter to produce this <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/renambot/4521827529/in/photostream/" rel="nofollow">photo</a> thanks. I used the monochromatic filter to produce this photo
thanks.

]]> By: Lyle http://regex.info/blog/2010-03-27/1482#comment-38623 Lyle Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:52:50 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2010-03-27/1482#comment-38623 Nice examples of this new curve in LR3. Nice examples of this new curve in LR3.

]]> By: parv http://regex.info/blog/2010-03-27/1482#comment-38597 parv Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:22:42 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2010-03-27/1482#comment-38597 By "correct", I meant if my understanding of "Vibrance" control was correct; no worries. Thank you for the Clairty on "Virbrance". By “correct”, I meant if my understanding of “Vibrance” control was correct; no worries. Thank you for the Clairty on “Virbrance”.

]]> By: parv http://regex.info/blog/2010-03-27/1482#comment-38596 parv Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:19:34 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2010-03-27/1482#comment-38596 (i haven't used Lightroom, or have an appropriate environment to run a copy.) From the differences in adjustments alone, of grass+leaves image, it seems "Vibrance" had reduced the contrast. Just looking at the two images (not the adjustments), it seems change was in reduction of both saturation & brightness. Which version is correct, or is there something else going on? Higher contrast snow-on-branches image certainly looks more appealing. I have found myself that compressing the shadows in low contrast scene (in GIMP; or increasing the black point during raw conversion in ufraw) alone some times saves an image from deletion. I have not tried nothing as drastic you have shown here, but I see now that there is no harm at least trying that. <span class='jfriedl'>I don't think either of the two is "correct", though "Normal" is certainly closer to reality. Overall contrast in the "vibrance" one was greatly reduced, but local contrast in the mid tones was greatly exaggerated... that's the whole point of the tone-curve preset. On many images the result is worthless, but with a few extra adjustments I think the result here has some value. —Jeffrey</span> (i haven’t used Lightroom, or have an appropriate environment to run a copy.) From the differences in adjustments alone, of grass+leaves image, it seems “Vibrance” had reduced the contrast. Just looking at the two images (not the adjustments), it seems change was in reduction of both saturation & brightness. Which version is correct, or is there something else going on?

Higher contrast snow-on-branches image certainly looks more appealing. I have found myself that compressing the shadows in low contrast scene (in GIMP; or increasing the black point during raw conversion in ufraw) alone some times saves an image from deletion. I have not tried nothing as drastic you have shown here, but I see now that there is no harm at least trying that.

I don’t think either of the two is “correct”, though “Normal” is certainly closer to reality. Overall contrast in the “vibrance” one was greatly reduced, but local contrast in the mid tones was greatly exaggerated… that’s the whole point of the tone-curve preset. On many images the result is worthless, but with a few extra adjustments I think the result here has some value. —Jeffrey

]]>