I have never touched the FXTree, I will start now with this comp :) What do you mean transform the image ?
::Christopher:: [email protected] wrote: > better not ask my opinion on any adobe product – at least I can see > some use for Photoshop – but compositing it aint. > > I whish I could recommend FXtree without caveats – as you have it > right there in XSI and to a degree it will work - quite well even. > But there are some pitfalls. Clipping is one of them – and it doesn’t > have display gamma afaik – so you’ll have to resort to adding a 2.2 > gamma in the end of the comp (not on the luma but on R G B each!) > Last I did a multi-channel-comp in FXtree compared to beauty render – > I got it almost perfect. For a simple case that is. > If you don’t intend totally transform the image it’s probably fine – > and by any means, much less of a headache than Photoshop. > > *From:* Christopher <mailto:[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, June 03, 2013 6:07 PM > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Compositing Levels > > For a program that cost $1K such as Ps it's quite restricted for this > type of work, I still wonder why I have a zillion color profiles in > Photoshop. I imported the levels as linear gamma, but upon import in > photoshop I let photoshop apply sRGB (2.2 gamma), I suppose I > shouldn't. You make it sound as though I will fight will Ps to get > things right, although you probably are right :) > > I'm going to do the comp all in linear, see what results I get. I > need to find an alternative to Photoshop, Nuke I don't use here. Is > AE more better then Ps, or more of the same ? > > ::Christopher:: > > [email protected] wrote: >> > If the above is correct, what is ticking me off is it is so dark, >> when I render in the renderer, it's nice,... >> >> are you looking at it with proper gamma correction? >> oh right it’s photoshop... >> >> well, in XSI you are probably seeing the linear image with a gamma >> correction added (which is the desired way to work) – but most other >> software will show it without gamma - So if you add a gamma of 2.2, >> chances are it will look like what you expected. >> But here’s the twist: you should not be using that gamma – first do >> the comp and add it in the end. Or actually – better not add the >> gamma at all and rather export the image to the correct target color >> space. >> >> > Photoshop 'add' blend mode doesn't work in 32-bit color space, what >> is the correct alternative ? >> >> Nuke. >> >> Really – you can’t expect to use Photoshop for a comp like that and >> have the same result as in the renderer – it has the maths all wrong >> and doesn’t even know how to handle an alpha. >> What you’re trying to do will work correctly the first time around >> you try it in nuke (ok – perhaps that’s wishful thinking) >> >> Add (or Plus in Nuke terms) is the one and only proper blend mode to >> use - it’s called linear dodge or something senseless like that in >> Photoshop I think. >> >> Screen is not correct - though handy at times, it will never give you >> the same result as in the renderer. (except for the speculars in the >> mr skin shader – but that’s another story) >> >> Seriously – photoshop isn’t worth all the pain for this kind of >> thing. I know it might sound harsh but that’s just how it is – >> photoshop will not work the same way as the renderer. >> If you just want to mess around with some layers and make something >> whatever – I guess you can use photoshop – but if you want to get the >> same, correct result, as in the renderer – don’t use photoshop. >> If your client wants to receive a layered photoshop comp... then >> though luck.
