My friend told me he’ll pay any price for Photoshop because it has, for instance, tech that will recognize subjects like trees and avoid an issue like pic related.
It’s true that a basic program won’t have solutions for this. But is Photoshop really the only choice? I’m not opposed to using Photoshop, by the way. I was just wondering if all photographers are at their whim.
Other urls found in this thread:
whats the problem?
photographs should remain untouched by software so that God's creation is presented accurately
Photoshop wont do shit for that, get a better camera and learn what HDR is.
I swear, I majored in IT and even I know more than most of these stupid photography students, you people are pathetic brainlets.
imagemagick
my friend is a theology major and a ceo you fucking tumor. we also know what we’re talking about when it comes to the basics of photoshop because we actually use it, whereas you are a robot with a personality disorder.
Photoshop what? Professional photographers edit in Lightroom
Still Adobe though.
it may or may not be realistic, but the contrast between the majority of the picture and the sky that is visible behind the leaves is ugly. more detailed and expensive programs can isolate trees.
I assume there’s a way to do it manually as well, though most people want to take a more casual picture and not sit at the computer a very long time tweaking it.
Affinity is comfy
thanks. very good to know.
I still dont get what the issue is. Why does the program need to identify "trees" ?
Fuckin' what?
He wants to reduce the contrast between the sky and the trees and is too brainlet to do it by hand
to adjust some of the photo without adjusting the rest of it
are you the same idiot who told me to learn what HDR is? you’re like that kid in grade school who could only interact with people by mindlessly pestering them and generally bringing everyone’s life a tad down.
So you want the magic wand tool on literally any image editor?
yes, and one that is capable of working on raw img files without being too fallible or a pain.
this phone camera picture of an owl is nbd to me, but many people spend $800+ on their cameras to capture the details they want, and so just any wand tool in any program won’t necessarily do.
yeah nigga u gotta use that adobe tree tech
(you're a retard)
do the world a favor and kill yourself soon
>theology major
That’s simply wrong. Photoshop is great but it doesn’t do any magic.
The special effects industry uses much more capable although less user-friendly tools to make blockbuster movies.
High-end fashion stuff is also often processed in Capture One and it actually deals better with high contrast scenes like OP’s pic than Adobe.
It’s hard to make computers identify things in pictures, but it isn’t hard to make computers tell things apart, in this case the tree from the sky, because they have a different color, different local contrast, different texture, etc.
Photoshop hides these details behind user-friendly tools and sliders and makes them accessible to stupid people while also making them powerful for skilled people, and they do it so well it looks magic.
so there are much better professional alternatives. anything cheaper and recommended for casuals, but also with a lot of features?
There’s no such thing as an accurate photograph.
There is a lens distorting the light.
There is a sensor with photodiodes that respond to light differently than our biological cones, so you can’t get accurate color reproduction.
This sensor is a different size and shape than our retinas, so the image is distorted here again.
The display or paper you’ll see it will further distort the picture.
The software in the camera or the computer interpolates the sensor data because the layout of photodiodes in the sensor is weird for technical reasons.
You’re better off just accepting that no photo will never be accurate and editing it so that it better represents how you saw the scene.
>2018
>Still believes in mythical being that we have no evidence of its existence
digital photos cannot be untouched by software, they’re generated by software. user was trolling.
leave, manchild
wait how did you magic wand that selection so cleanly
With something complicated like these leaves I think it's better to screw with the white balance to get a higher contrast between the colors for a threshold and then do a threshold. Might have to even refine the edge a bit after doing this since the leaves most likely have little light bands around them that won't get caught by the threshold.
CAW CAW CAW
>theology major
lel
t. low skill Gimp fag
contrastbird
The magic wand tool can be dialed up or down so it captures more or less what you want. If it captures everything you want plus it bleeds into other details, you can dial it back so it's less aggressive.
Like another poster said, you can adjust the contrast to get similar results.
The contrast thing can easily be solved manually with Gimp in much the same way Photoshop would.
Isolate bird with mask, then apply curves/tone adjustment... Both apps will reveal noise in the dark parts of this image to about the same degree. Only thing chipshop wins on (for all practical everyday use) is CMYK and some cloning/patching tools.
With the level of understanding you demonstrate I would advise you install gimp watch some YouTube and save that adobe money for your crack habit.
This board became a parody of itself. I think it's about time to leave this place.
Nothing is easily solved in Gimp. You need tutorials just to adjust brush sizes.
