I use FilmPack a lot with PhotoLab and have come to really like some of the film emulations for nature scenes. One of the other advantages of FilmPack is selective contrast adjustments. On one photo, I also gave split toning a try.
_1087051.RW2.dop (9.4 KB) _1087063.RW2.dop (10.3 KB)
Hmmm, in my browser these images look flatter and less saturated than they do in PhotoLab. I wonder why.
There are so many ways to process a file … many good answers. I gave a try to the one with bracketing, using only the middle one _1087051.RW2. I processed the image just for optical corrections and DeepPRIME using PL4. Continued using Nik collection Color Efex.
Restarting from the processed image just for optical corrections and DeepPRIME, made a version within PL4 alone, without using NIK Color Efex.
Hi Barb - - Check your ICC Profile setting in the Export dialogue … It should be sRGB for web usage.
John M
i like the first… i have NIK free version but don’t use it much. same as filmpack emulators by the way. not enough patience to search and look which i like at that moment.
(
then i know never which i like…)
Here’s my attempt, on the first scene (also using the “middle” image, like others have).
Man - Something you may wish to to consider is use of Spot-Weighted Smart Lighting (instead of the Tone Curve, which is global in its application - without ability for “finesse”). To use it, draw a rectangle on the image, and then move it around - especially over high-contrast areas - to see the result you get. You can draw multiple rectangles to have influence applied from different tones in the image (tho, one or two is usually sufficient).
Also, I see that you’re applying Unsharp Mask (perhaps 'cos you’re coming from a LR background?) - - which, again, has a global impact … whereas, you’ll most likely be better off relying on PL’s Lens Sharpness correction (which understands the specific characteristics of your {body+lens} combination). If you’re not happy with sharpness of the exported result, try Interpolation = Bicubic Sharper (especially if you’re resampling to smaller image size - as I did in the image above).
HTH - John M
Thank you, that’s interesting. I checked it and it had been left on As Shot - which I would expect to be sRGB on my cameras, but it is not my camera, so that might make sense.
I see you also commented on Unsharp Mask above. This is something I keep meaning to look into to see if there are any tutorials. I never use it - I am from a Lightroom background, but I’ve felt so far, that the sharpness was enough without it. I just seem to do less processing overall with Photolab 3.
Now trying again with the sRGB profile - thank you so much for mentioning this, and I’m glad I said they were a bit flat. So much to learn!
Very nice conversion
If my camera is supported but there is no profile for my lens, I will use unsharp mask right ?
Or do you guys use another technique to bring some overall sharpness ?
Yes, that then becomes your only option, Marc - - and that’s why Unsharp Mask is provided.
John M
Thanks a lot for those tips John, very useful. I’ll give a try with smart lighting.
Regarding unsharp masks, i know it can bring noise to the whole picture, but on my screen i find that it gives a little more sharpness. Do i use not properly sharpness lens correction ?
Great interpretation !
thanks all, learnt a lot by reading your comments and looking at your .dop !
Yes, you were using Lens Sharpness correctly. Note, tho, that you will not be seeing the actual results of Lens Sharpness (nor of Unsharp Mask) unless your zoom rate is 70% or greater.
And, generally, Lens Sharpness will provide a “smarter” result than will the global impact of USM.
John M
I agree. Lens sharpness is generally more subtle, while USM often leaves bothering edge artifacts.
Here are my propositions
I have made some minimalist process
When I see the pictures I have just posted, I see them smaller than their full définition and have a smoother rendering.
