pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Making Images Better by Topaz - clarity  (Read 11035 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tab62

« on: May 27, 2013, 11:44 »
0
Has anyone tried this filter-

http://www.topazlabs.com/blog/topaz-clarity-released


Could this over process the images thus getting rejections?

Thanks

T


tab62

« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2013, 11:49 »
0
Just spoke to a friend of my mine and he told me that the majority of filters are for folks that don't know how to use Camera Raw or Photoshop very well. He feels that these filters are useless for the most part thus I will not purchase the Topaz...


« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2013, 12:09 »
+1
Just spoke to a friend of my mine and he told me that the majority of filters are for folks that don't know how to use Camera Raw or Photoshop very well. He feels that these filters are useless for the most part thus I will not purchase the Topaz...

Your friend speaks nonsense.  Or to be fair, there may be plenty of filters that can be replaced easily, but I have found many that can not.  I rely on Imagenomic Portraiture for my people shots; a light application softens the harsh effects of studio strobes and reduces my skin touchup work dramatically.  As far as Topaz filters go, I like Topaz Adjust for making scenic images pop, and I rely on Topaz ReMask to separate objects from their backgrounds.  I have a couple of others that I play with on occasion, but those are the ones that get the most use.  And I defy you to get an equivalent result in twice the time without them.

tab62

« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2013, 12:31 »
0
I will try the 30 days eval on these filters to mention to see how much time I take - I know I spend a lot of time on processing images thus could raise my production level. Thanks

T

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2013, 12:41 »
0
I will try the 30 days eval on these filters to mention to see how much time I take - I know I spend a lot of time on processing images thus could raise my production level. Thanks

T
I have acquaintances who think that the only people who use e.g. PS (etc) are those who can't 'take a decent photo with their camera'. It's what Michelle Obama calls 'a conversation'.

tab62

« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2013, 12:43 »
0
I know I try my best to get as much possibility done right in the camera since I suck in photoshop lol  :)


« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2013, 18:43 »
0
I use Topaz.
I have made a series of photoshop actions that use many topas filters in small amounts in different layer blending modes.
So I just press the button and the action comes up with a suggestion, of which I take some percent.

I have a clarity/ pop action that I use all the time: levels, contrast, topaz, topaz, blending modes. The pictures end up bright and shining, sometimes too much, but then I just adjust the transparency.

My images are not rejected.
Not for that. That is.

... and yes, there are always some idiots that claim that photoshop is for correcting photos, and a photo should be done right in the camera.
They even endorse flaws, because, "thats the way the light was at the day".
Mostly it is because they cannot handle photoshop.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 18:49 by JPSDK »

dbvirago

« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2013, 20:13 »
0
I need to learn to use the Topaz filters the way that JPSDK does as I think that would give some good, quick results.

For me, it's more often a case where I look at one of my images and can 'see' it using a particular filter. For instance, when I saw  this one, I knew I wanted to give it a watercolor look, so I applied the Painting - Venice filter. I don't use it often, but like most tools, it has it's uses.




Beppe Grillo

« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2013, 00:50 »
+1
Generally I find the filters from the Topaz series a little too much aggressive.
I think that a good trick is to apply the filter(s) on a copy of the original layer, and then blend the transparency of this layer, as you need, to balance the result keeping it more "natural".

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2013, 01:07 »
0
agree. I use topaz from time to time, and usually only apply the filters to certain parts of the image (so make a new duplicate layer, convert to smart filter...). For a while it was my go to place for black and white conversions too.

« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2013, 03:38 »
0
Topaz denoise and remask are nice tools, remask might just be the best masking app out there...  I don't really care about the rest.

« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2013, 03:44 »
0
Just spoke to a friend of my mine and he told me that the majority of filters are for folks that don't know how to use Camera Raw or Photoshop very well. He feels that these filters are useless for the most part thus I will not purchase the Topaz...

... I rely on Imagenomic Portraiture for my people shots ...


That's is what he wrote. Imagenomic Portraiture was created exactly to target those who are at loss on what to do with a portrait in PP.

« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2013, 10:40 »
0
i've all Topaz filters and they're great, not as great like NIK but still great.

i see no reason to do it all by hand, no matter what he PS freaks say.

they're just angry because their skills are becoming more and more worthless.

let them bark at the moon and try Topaz or NIK, there's nothing better than these two companies in the PS arena.

« Reply #13 on: May 28, 2013, 10:42 »
0
I have acquaintances who think that the only people who use e.g. PS (etc) are those who can't 'take a decent photo with their camera'. It's what Michelle Obama calls 'a conversation'.

yeah and i've friends who disdain anything not shot a medium format film camera.
and then you look at their super boring images, technically perfect, but booooring.


« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2013, 11:05 »
+1
I have acquaintances who think that the only people who use e.g. PS (etc) are those who can't 'take a decent photo with their camera'. It's what Michelle Obama calls 'a conversation'.

Haha, and those people obviously must believe that the cover images on Vogue etc. are straight out of the camera.

They also believe that celebrities never age or have any wrinkles.

 ::)

aspp

« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2013, 11:13 »
0
I have acquaintances who think that the only people who use e.g. PS (etc) are those who can't 'take a decent photo with their camera'.

Probably the sort of people who used to get their snaps processed at the mini-mart !

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2013, 11:24 »
0
I have acquaintances who think that the only people who use e.g. PS (etc) are those who can't 'take a decent photo with their camera'.

Probably the sort of people who used to get their snaps processed at the mini-mart !

Not at all; all wildlife photographers, not interested in celebs or snaps.
I only made the point to say that people have opinions which work for them. Doesn't make them right for everyone else.

aspp

« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2013, 11:49 »
+1
I have acquaintances who think that the only people who use e.g. PS (etc) are those who can't 'take a decent photo with their camera'.

Probably the sort of people who used to get their snaps processed at the mini-mart !

Not at all; all wildlife photographers, not interested in celebs or snaps.
I only made the point to say that people have opinions which work for them. Doesn't make them right for everyone else.

In the film era, wildlife photographers would definitely have taken great care over exactly how their film was processed. Having first chosen which film they wanted to use for a particular look. Then when you had come all the way back from an expensive foreign trip you would definitely make sure to get a few rolls tested first and then processed at a lab you trusted. And maybe you would want some of it pushed or pulled a little or the contrast adjusted. And the same when it came to making prints - bringing out different parts of the image etc. You would want them to be just so - carefully choosing the right papers etc.

Post production today is completely analogous, just less messy.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 12:34 by aspp »

CD123

« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2013, 01:27 »
0
I do not own a top range camera, so my pictures does not always  come out 100% the way they should. Different lighting conditions creates different "flaws" in pictures. I use filters in Photoshop to get get the image to reflect at best what I saw through my viewfinder and to liven up the image if and where needed. Some filters can be harsh, but most are adjustable to your taste.

I normally use a 2 layer approach with the original image as bottom layer and apply the filter to the top layer. After that I change the filtered layer's occupancy to just use enough of the filter's effect to suite my taste or mask where I need it. 

If I had a $3000+ camera I would probably use the filters less. But I don't, so I do...  ;)
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 01:35 by CD123 »

« Reply #19 on: May 29, 2013, 05:24 »
0
Quote
If I had a $3000+ camera I would probably use the filters less. But I don't, so I do.

This is not a question of camera but primarily a question of  lenses. And like Yuri Arcurs said once: "It's all about around the camera". I often use NIK filters.  I think, NIK filters are the best on the market. You can use these filters perfectly selective and save a lot of time.

Veneratio

« Reply #20 on: May 29, 2013, 05:28 »
0
The camera records what you saw, the processing - with or without filters - is what YOU WANT people to see.

CD123

« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2013, 05:57 »
0
The camera records what you saw, the processing - with or without filters - is what YOU WANT people to see.

Riiiight!!!!  :o  So the sensor, type of lens, etc, etc. has no effect. We should all be shooting with little instant cameras and save a bundle on expensive equipment then.

CD123

« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2013, 05:59 »
0
Quote
If I had a $3000+ camera I would probably use the filters less. But I don't, so I do.

This is not a question of camera but primarily a question of  lenses. And like Yuri Arcurs said once: "It's all about around the camera". I often use NIK filters.  I think, NIK filters are the best on the market. You can use these filters perfectly selective and save a lot of time.

You are obviously right (except perhaps for the quality of the sensor) - referred to camera but meant equipment (I use the kit lenses).

Veneratio

« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2013, 07:01 »
0
The camera records what you saw, the processing - with or without filters - is what YOU WANT people to see.

Riiiight!!!!  :o  So the sensor, type of lens, etc, etc. has no effect. We should all be shooting with little instant cameras and save a bundle on expensive equipment then.

Yeah, that's what I said wasn't it?  ::)

Camera produces the quality, the processing gives it the aesthetic appeal. Mind you, don't photographers say that a good photographer can take a great picture with any camera? The best camera is the one with you at the time?

The point I was trying to make Charl, was that the treatment applied in processing is not dictated by the image, or quality of it. A "look" can be applied to an image whether it was captured on a Hassy or Nikon Coolpix. We use expensive tools because they produce the quality and size we want, not the "look" we want.

CD123

« Reply #24 on: May 29, 2013, 07:59 »
0
The camera records what you saw, the processing - with or without filters - is what YOU WANT people to see.

Riiiight!!!!  :o  So the sensor, type of lens, etc, etc. has no effect. We should all be shooting with little instant cameras and save a bundle on expensive equipment then.

Yeah, that's what I said wasn't it?  ::)

Camera produces the quality, the processing gives it the aesthetic appeal. Mind you, don't photographers say that a good photographer can take a great picture with any camera? The best camera is the one with you at the time?

The point I was trying to make Charl, was that the treatment applied in processing is not dictated by the image, or quality of it. A "look" can be applied to an image whether it was captured on a Hassy or Nikon Coolpix. We use expensive tools because they produce the quality and size we want, not the "look" we want.

Only photographers who do not sell their images as stock will make that statement about "any camera", as their images does not get rejected for out of focus, etc. which is caused by sub standard equipment.

It also depends which filter you are using, as some are merely intended to improve picture quality and others add effect or both. 
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 08:05 by CD123 »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2383 Views
Last post March 03, 2008, 17:39
by scrappinstacy
21 Replies
6930 Views
Last post November 26, 2008, 10:32
by helix7
8 Replies
4080 Views
Last post May 13, 2012, 21:45
by [email protected]
3 Replies
3234 Views
Last post October 09, 2015, 10:44
by Alamy
24 Replies
5223 Views
Last post August 30, 2017, 01:45
by Semmick Photo

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle