Jump to content

coranda

Members
  • Content count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About coranda

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Australia
  1. Is the black layer you have created a pixel layer or a fill layer?
  2. coranda

    -

    Yes, the problem is you're using a fill layer which isn't rasterised. I made the same mistake when I first tried to do this. Either rasterise a fill layer or just create a new pixel layer and fill it with 50% grey.
  3. I'm not being flippant here but it seems to me that the easiest way to do this is to take a photograph of a torn piece of paper and composite it in.
  4. Herbert is right, there's no substitute for a built in chromakey plugin. They include defringing tools because it's such a common problem. The issue is whether or or not it has the resolution you need. If you're processing 50 (or even 20) megapixel images I'm not sure how many video editors can handle that.
  5. Green fringes are very common with green screen images particularly on hair. In the case of hair it's usually because the screen is partially visible through the hair. On other parts of the body it can be caused by the lighting setup. There is often lots of green light reflecting off the screen and bouncing around the room. Have you tried. Using the de-fringing filter?
  6. In AP soft proofing is an adjustment layer. Add one on top of your layers and select a profile in the dialogue for the adjustment.
  7. If you go to Preferences... in iPhoto, on the Advanced tab, there is an option to edit in another application. I haven't tried it (I don't use iPhoto) but it might be worth playing with.
  8. Lock, The jpeg you get from your camera will be heavily processed and designed to look, at least superficially, good. Most raw convertors I've used seem to do some default processing to also make most images look good, AP for example has, by default, the assistant turned on and so does some tonal correction. My pet gripe is that Lightroom performs highlight recovery by default which can't be turned off. Personally, I find this annoying as I'd rather have a minimalist conversion and hence have full control over post processing. I don't use the raw convertor in AP for two reasons: It is still a relatively new product with a number of shortcomings. Affinity, to their credit, acknowledge that they have work to do and intend to improve it. But most importantly, AP's raw convertor cannot save your conversion settings in a space efficient manner but needs to save the whole, processed file as afphoto, tiff or some other format. These files are huge compared to the xmp sidecar files of ACR or the database entries of Lightroom and Aperture. If I'm creating a special image for printing then that overhead would be fine but if I take 500 shots of my grandsons playing cricket or granddaughters at calisthenics then I need a way to process raw files that isn't going to consume gigabytes of extra storage.
  9. coranda

    RAW file conversion

    When you look at them in Bridge or Apple preview I'm pretty sure you are looking at the jpeg preview that your camera saved rather than processing the raw files themselves. What do they look like in a raw convertor like ACR or Aperture?
  10. I was taught never to use the highlights slider in a raw convertor. Best practice, I'm told, is to use the exposure slider to recover highlights. This will likely make the shadows (and possibly mid-tones) too dark but that's a separate issue to be dealt with - usually with some form of manual or automated double processing.
  11. Lock, Have you tried using Adobe's DNG convertor? If that supports your camera then convert your raw files to dng and I think AP will probably support them - although I haven't tried it.
  12. Tethering, in applications like Lightroom, allows you to control the camera configuration from the computer, view the live image on screen and take the shot. The file is then immediately uploaded into the programme for editing. It's arguably more appropriate for a DAM programme rather than a photo editor like AP.
  13. This is just a guess but I suspect Serif is just being progressive. The idea of 3 a character file extensions harks back to the memory/storage limitations of very early microcomputers where the standard was 8.3, that is, file names of no more than 8 characters followed by a 3 character extension. Modern operating system long ago ditched the 8 character name limitation but, for some reason, the 3 character extension has lived an artificially long life. Also, 3 characters is very limiting in terms of creating a unique file type identifier that is also mnemonically meaningful. The extensions .ade and .aph, for example, have already been used by other software.
  14. So, as I had assumed, it's not an intellectual property issue but an unknown file structure that would have to be reverse engineered? I can see why users would see AI export as a very valuable asset for AD to have. However, having myself reverse engineered file formats (that were far, far less complex than I imagine AI would be) I suspect that putting that effort into AD would mean substantially holding back the development of other functionality in both AD and AP (as they seem to be largely integrated code bases). It's a developers call but I can certainly see why they have chosen not to support AI export. Remember that every time the AI format is changed or augmented by Adobe Serif would have to make another reverse engineering effort that, if it failed, would render all previous efforts essentially worthless.
  15. Leigh, When Tony says the AI format is "private" is he saying there is some intellectual property limitation on its use or just that the format is not published and reverse engineering would be too difficult?
×