I2E Image Editor Discussion

[Andy]

It's that time of year, folks. Many of us will be gathering in our homes, celebrating the holidays. Out come our cameras, and our flashes. Wouldn't you like to get great shots like this?
http://mom.smugmug.com/photos/112516839-L-1.jpg http://Mom.smugmug.com/photos/112516218-L.jpg

Let's hear from an expert in this situation, our Very Own Baldy (http://cmac.smugmug.com), and find out how he gets such great exposure, and color. Whether he's shooting zillions of fancy classic cars at the Concours d'Elegance (http://concours.smugmug.com), or a cattle call with Santa (http://heritageoaks.smugmug.com/gallery/2221572/1), Baldy gets it right, at shoot and in post. Hours of Photoshop? Not.

I'm hoping that if we shout loud enough, Baldy will come to this thread, and talk about how he sets up at time of shooting, and then what he does afterwards. Camera settings, and what about gear, flash, flash technique, shooting style (composition, etc.)? What do you use in post :ear Yo, Baldy!!

:1drink :eat

Enjoy (fun and well-exposed) photography,

[saurora]

I'm subscribing to this thread...I'm always bummed at how holiday photos turn into ....well....something you throw in a drawer or box! :scratch

[sirsloop]

git r duuunnnn :rambo

[Baldy]

Hahaha... Thanks, but I'm awed with your photography a lot more than by my family snappies.

Tip #1: Cheat. You too can get the exposure, shadows, and skin right in post with a cheat no one will know about except us, and I might not tell (although I can tell you cheated at a glance).

The cheat is to use i2e: http://www.colour-science.com

You can buy it pretty cheaply online and whip through lots of photos fast. I still use Photoshop for special things, but these snappies with just flash mounted on camera got passed through i2e in the blink of an eye and I threw them online with no Photoshop.

Andy is a major convert and fan too and can give all the latest about how to get it.

I'm on the run at the moment but when I get a chance I'll show those shots before and after i2e.

Why has no one heard of i2e? Must be marketing, because the product rocks.

[Andy]

Hahaha... Thanks, but I'm awed with your photography a lot more than by my family snappies.

Tip #1: Cheat. You too can get the exposure, shadows, and skin right in post with a cheat no one will know about except us, and I might not tell (although I can tell you cheated at a glance).

The cheat is to use i2e: http://www.colour-science.com

You can buy it pretty cheaply online and whip through lots of photos fast. I still use Photoshop for special things, but these snappies with just flash mounted on camera got passed through i2e in the blink of an eye and I threw them online with no Photoshop.

Andy is a major convert and fan too and can give all the latest about how to get it.

I'm on the run at the moment but when I get a chance I'll show those shots before and after i2e.

Why has no one heard of i2e? Must be marketing, because the product rocks.

http://blogs.smugmug.com/great-prints/2005/06/24/the-sweetness-that-is-i2e/

There's more to it than that. You also use the flash well, at time of shoot. You provide great light. Bounced. Diffused. Not much evidence of the nasty harsh flashy thing.

i2e? You guys should really give it a try. It's quite amazing. See the link Baldy gave.

[Zanotti]

I can find the site and how to download a sample software, but no place to actually buy.

Do you buy from the manufacturer or an outside vendor? Must you use the 20 day trial first then be contacted?

How's this work? Can we run them through smugmug's license?


OK,OK I found it under software - not an especailly easy way to find it......

[Andy]

I can find the site and how to download a sample software, but no place to actually buy.

Do you buy from the manufacturer or an outside vendor? Must you use the 20 day trial first then be contacted?

How's this work? Can we run them through smugmug's license?


OK,OK I found it under software - not an especailly easy way to find it......

Click "image editor" on the left hand side. Send them an email and you'll get a demo license key.

There's also a plugin to Photoshop (win only).

[Zanotti]

This is very cool stuff. The interface is a little clunky, but the quality of the result is outstanding!

One issue I have is that the interface truncates off the bottom third on my 12" laptop. I cant scroll down and do not have access to the bottom 10% of the screen or the individual adjust buttons.

I did a work around by putting some photos in a folder and pushing adjust all, but that isnt as precise as I would like.

Think this is a trial issue or just more of a clunky interface?

[Baldy]

You also use the flash well, at time of shoot. You provide great light.I'll come back to i2e, but it turns out I just hate the look of light straight from a camera-mounted flash.

So the first thing I always do is look for surfaces I can bounce off of, meaning a white wall or ceiling that's close enough to where I'm gonna take the pic. I was lucky in this house because it had a fairly low white ceiling.

The second thing is I don't like the flash to be brighter than the room lights. Then it casts a big shadow and the rest of the room looks dingy. So I always go around and turn on every light in the room, light candles, shoot towards windows, etc. And I keep the flash output around the level of the house lights if I can.


http://mom.smugmug.com/photos/112512638-L-1.jpg

I just think it adds a lot of good cheer to see light flowing in from outside the room and to have no dark corners.

[Shima]

ie2 and graininess

Is it just me or do the pictures get a bit grainy after some fixes? Been playing with the trial and it seems some look grainier after color alterations. Do I need to change a setting?

[Andy]

Do I need to change a setting? Yes, don't use too much shadow recovery. In Image Editor, I have it at the next-to-lowest-setting.

[Baldy]

ie2 and graininess

Is it just me or do the pictures get a bit grainy after some fixes? Been playing with the trial and it seems some look grainier after color alterations. Do I need to change a setting?The preview image goes horribly grainy instantly, but when you click the save image button, it does a much better job of processing before saving and should give much better results.

One of the things i2e does is bring up the shadows, and as Andy says, it usually brings them up too much for my tastes. As a default, I bring up the shadows half as much as their default setting.

Outside on sunny days when shadows are harsh and the ISO of your camera is turned low, I bring up shadows much more and it really helps. I'll post examples later.

[Shima]

The preview image goes horribly grainy instantly, but when you click the save image button, it does a much better job of processing before saving and should give much better results.

One of the things i2e does is bring up the shadows, and as Andy says, it usually brings them up too much for my tastes. As a default, I bring up the shadows half as much as their default setting.

Outside on sunny days when shadows are harsh and the ISO of your camera is turned low, I bring up shadows much more and it really helps. I'll post examples later.

What percentage is best? I lowered it from 100 down to 50 in the options where you can set defaults and that seems a bit better, would this still be a bit too high or just about right? Thanks :)

Any other defaults I should tweak differently?

[Zanotti]

I too noticed this instant grainieness, but then see it much smoother after saving.

I am using their Image Editor as a beta trial and I must admit to being very impressed - but mostly impressed with people shots. I did a bulk revision of a bunch of indoor basketball, that I had pushed to iso 1600 and -3/4ev to stop motion blur and I was very pleased with the bulk corrections.

This program is in my stable for a while - I will purchase a home license after the trial period.

The result:

http://zanotti.smugmug.com/photos/116707553-M-1.jpg

Before:

http://zanotti.smugmug.com/photos/116521572-M-1.jpg

[Shima]

I too noticed this instant grainieness, but then see it much smoother after saving.

I am using their Image Editor as a beta trial and I must admit to being very impressed - but mostly impressed with people shots. I did a bulk revision of a bunch of indoor basketball, that I had pushed to iso 1600 and -3/4ev to stop motion blur and I was very pleased with the bulk corrections.

This program is in my stable for a while - I will purchase a home license after the trial period.

The result:
Before:


Wow! awesome results :) I'll post some of mine later

[ziggy53]

There are times that bounce flash isn't practical, even though I prefer it.

The following images are all using a homemade "scoop" reflector on a Sigma 500 Super flash in ETTL-II mode, attached to a "flip" bracket and using a Canon off-camera cord. Exposure was manual at f2.8 and f4, with 1/200sec shutter, ISO1600. These are at night, in my father's print shop. Ambient light was about half of the flash exposure. Camera was a Canon XT with Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX lens. Post-processing was reasonably minimal, and I used Picassa and Neat Image (demo).

These are from last weekend, when we celebrated my mother's birthday.



My mother:
http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/116991264-D.jpg

Her cake, furnished by my sister:
http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/116991241-D.jpg


My sister Kate:
http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/116991247-D.jpg

Will, one of my nephews:
http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/116991254-D.jpg


My Aunt Zelma, with Will's dog:
http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/116991233-D.jpg

My daughter Whit, with her dog Deisel:
http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/116991227-D.jpg

The cost of materials for the "scoop" was less than $5USD, so I'm pretty pleased with the results. The reason I didn't use bounce is because the room has very high ceilings, and a fairly sharp angle.

ziggy53

[ChuckWC]

...
The result:

http://zanotti.smugmug.com/photos/116707553-M-1.jpg

Before:

http://zanotti.smugmug.com/photos/116521572-M-1.jpg
That IS impressive! Not only did it improve the brightness and contrast, it also moved the players around! :D

[Khaos]

While it is more expensive, I use Pixel Genuis Photokit Color 2.

http://www.pixelgenius.com/color2/index.html

One option allows for you to adjust up or down by quarter stops and it also makes burning and dodging much easier with autmation along with a ton of other color techniques. Fantastic product. I already used their fantastic sharpener product before purchasing this one.

[ivar]

That IS impressive! Not only did it improve the brightness and contrast, it also moved the players around! :D:lol3 :lol3

[Zanotti]

:lol3 :lol3

Man, you guys have good eyes!

Nice catch!

[Shima]

A little fustrated w/ that program now...

I went to options and set it to save originals in a subfolder... instead I had two copies of the modified ones, which really sucked since it added too much grain for my tastes into a lot of my darker ones and I wanted to revert but couldn't...

Oh well... guess I'll have to wait until tonight to reshoot my Hanukkah shots....

[Zanotti]

Hard to blame the program for operator error!:rofl :rofl

BUT, as I indicated earlier, its a clunky interface and you need to be careful to watch your folders. I have two, input and output and put those on the screen before I say adjust all.

Good luck.

[Shima]

Hard to blame the program for operator error!:rofl :rofl

BUT, as I indicated earlier, its a clunky interface and you need to be careful to watch your folders. I have two, input and output and put those on the screen before I say adjust all.

Good luck.

Do explain how "save originals in /original subfolder" would result in it *not* doing this. That's the part I don't get.

[Andy]

Do explain how "save originals in /original subfolder" would result in it *not* doing this. That's the part I don't get.
:dunno I just save my originals in another folder that I create and specify.

[Baldy]

What percentage is best? I lowered it from 100 down to 50 in the options where you can set defaults and that seems a bit better, would this still be a bit too high or just about right? Thanks :)That's a very good question...

i2e comes with the default at 100. At SmugMug for our autoadjust default, we use 50.

For my own shots, if I'm in a hurry I pick 100 for outdoor shots and either 0 or 50 for indoor shots, depending.

Outdoors, it's really great for making shadows less deep in faces.

On this group of shots where some were outdoors, some indoors, and I didn't have time to go through each shot independently, I just set it at 50. Here's what the different levels look like on the shot Andy posted earlier:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/117825594-O.jpg

You'll notice i2e identified Ann's hair as a shadow area and kept bringing it up. I don't particularly like that and maybe would have preferred this shot to have no shadow adjustment. That's one of the downsides of having to pick one number for autoadjust. If I did this for 10 other shots, you might pick a different shadow amount for each, but in our experience 50 is the best compromise.

I also bring up the overall brightess by 10 points by default.

[Shima]

That's a very good question...

i2e comes with the default at 100. At SmugMug for our autoadjust default, we use 50.

For my own shots, if I'm in a hurry I pick 100 for outdoor shots and either 0 or 50 for indoor shots, depending.

Outdoors, it's really great for making shadows less deep in faces.

On this group of shots where some were outdoors, some indoors, and I didn't have time to go through each shot independently, I just set it at 50. Here's what the different levels look like on the shot Andy posted earlier:



You'll notice i2e identified Ann's hair as a shadow area and kept bringing it up. I don't particularly like that and maybe would have preferred this shot to have no shadow adjustment. That's one of the downsides of having to pick one number for autoadjust. If I did this for 10 other shots, you might pick a different shadow amount for each, but in our experience 50 is the best compromise.

I also bring up the overall brightess by 10 points by default.

Yeah in that case I like the no shadow... thanks for the advice on percentages :) Helps alot.

[DoctorIt]

So before this turned into an i2e discussion, it was about getting good simple and impromptu shots at the holidays....

It's after the holidays, how'd everyone do? Paying more attention to my flash bouncing this year and snapping away a little bit more got me this:

http://doctorit.smugmug.com/photos/119074067-M.jpg

Almost no work in post, and this wasn't even in RAW. Just some good technique (and a bit of luck :D). Even the little black dog, who is impossible to photograph as those of you with black pups know, came out nicely!

Thanks to this thread for the inspiration. :wave

[saurora]

Well, this year the pressure was on. Everyone else forgot to bring their camera or their memory card, so capturing photos was all on me!!! I've only used my flash a couple of times so it was pretty confusing. I wanted to bounce the flash and use for catch lights and fill. Walls were painted green so stayed away from them. I neglected to remember a very minor detail... that the ceilings were 2 stories high and vaulted! Ok...so a little under-exposed, except in the kitchen where the ceilings were low and tops of heads were a little hot. I have lots to learn still with flash, but hey, I have pictures unlike the rest of my family! Had some major issues with skin colors, especially on this first shot taken outside on the patio at night with a light that caused some weird colors. I re-worked it tonight after re-reading the skin tute and I think it looks much better. If things look "off"...let me know!!! Other big issue for me...low light made it tough for auto-focus and tough for my lousy eyes to manually focus. Here's a few of my favorites. We celebrated Feliz Navidad style!

http://saurora.smugmug.com/photos/118617578-M-2.jpg

http://saurora.smugmug.com/photos/118703629-M.jpg

http://saurora.smugmug.com/photos/118712614-M.jpg

http://saurora.smugmug.com/photos/118756372-M-1.jpg

http://saurora.smugmug.com/photos/119002781-M-2.jpg

Of course, one of the kids is invariable OOF....
http://saurora.smugmug.com/photos/118669495-M.jpg

And one of the adults invariable blinks their eyes!!!
http://saurora.smugmug.com/photos/118707791-M.jpg

[DoctorIt]

Look's like Saurora's xmas was quite the fiesta! :lol3

[pathfinder]

I wrote about using off camera flash for family candids here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=49999)

Here is a result of that exploration, shot in a room that was too dark to read in

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/118657736-L.jpg

[Shima]

My pregnant sister-in-law (7 months along):
http://shima.smugmug.com/photos/119497066-M.jpg

Obviously I didn't take this one (though it was done on my camera), but gotta throw it in, the husband, me, and his parents dog:
http://shima.smugmug.com/photos/119498322-M-3.jpg

My husband unwrapping the Pirates Monopoly I got for him (he collects monopoly sets)
http://shima.smugmug.com/photos/119500318-M-1.jpg

Read the shirt and understand this man, my father in law, is a pastor. His oldest daughter got it for him :)
http://shima.smugmug.com/photos/119500959-M-1.jpg%5C

Guess she liked the ornaments (my mother in law)
http://shima.smugmug.com/photos/119501581-M-1.jpg

Not a fan of the shadows, but my in laws look happy:
http://shima.smugmug.com/photos/119520381-M-1.jpg

[dmcreations]

Hi Andy/Baldy,

Is there a chance you guys could post the settings you do use for I2E to auto correct the images before they get printed? Would be great to be able to see how the shots might look when printed by you guys.

Thanks!

[troutstreaming]

I noticed several 'we should start a I2E thread' replies in the Flea Market Huge Discount Thread, but did not find the new thread here. That said, let's start one.

I currently have no clear thoughts on settings and have been using the defaults or smugmugs either with or without preprcessing for underexposure enabled.

In my mind I could see developing the following scenarios based on the type of shots that I most want to batch reprocess entire galleries of (obvious sports shooting bias to this list):

Indoor high Iso - no exposure correction - likely with color cast issues.
Indoor high Iso - exposure correction (for when 3200 is still underexposing at the minimum shutter speed) - likely will have color cast issues to go with the underexposure and severe noise.
Outdoors - high contrast, mixed subjects - think mid-day shooting with sunlight - usually consitant white balance/cast - think automatic shadow and highlight rescue, with lower iso's and no noise.
Outdoors - low contrast, mixed subjects - think cloudy days - usually mid-ISO with some noise and may have some color cast issues, overall exposure probably OK without extreme shadow/highlight issues.

Indoor portraits with flash - mostly a memory color correction thing, may have highlight/shadow issues if I was lazy or halfhazardly firing off candids.
Indoor portraits with ambient light - memory color, color casts, noise, hopefully exposures are good though.

Anyway, as noted I have no settings to add currently, but have now run hundreds of images using the default and smugmug settings under the first three exposures scenarios and thought that they looked better than what I could achieve in 15-30 seconds of hand work per image (and with a huge reduction in my effort to boot) and so purchased the product. I think that with 5-15' to spend per image that I will continue to hand process with a Dan Margulis inspired workflow.

Does this help jumpstart the I2E settings thread?

Andy (not that one.)

[wxwax]

I used the program for the first time this weekend.

I processed the same file twice: once with Digital Photo Pro, and once with i2e, both shot in RAW and saved as Tiffs.

When I opened both in Photoshop, the 12e file was considerably smaller than the DPP file. I had hoped to layer them, but couldn't.

:scratch

[gchappel]

With i2e the output size is set under channel settings. I don't remember what the default was, since I changed everything. If you choose no downsizing the original file size seems to be maintained.

[gchappel]

I have used the program for a couple of weeks- and just purchased the pro version as I like the ability to save multiple channels. I have been playing with the SHE shadow enhancment. I find it changes darker colors as it increases shadow levels- so I will often dial it down to 0-10 rather than the default of 100- especially on indoor shots. I find that looks a lot better.
Let me know your experiences.
gary

[wxwax]

Three versions of the same shot (crops slightly different.)


Through Canon's Digital Photo Pro. I didn't change the warm cast the camera's auto white balance, and DPP, gave the image. Curves and sharpening and saturation.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/138414745-L.jpg




Using Photoshop's raw processor, and setting black and white points in Photoshop's Levels. Also a Lightness channel pop. Curves and sharpening and saturation.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/138519201-L.jpg



Using i2e. I set the Shadows to their second lowest setting. (The normal setting didn't look very good, IMHO.) Other than that, I used the i2e auto settings. No other processing in PS, just a crop. No sharpening.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/138519196-L.jpg

[Andy]

Three versions of the same shot (crops slightly different.)

And? :ear

[wxwax]

And? :ear
:dunno

It was an interesting exercise for me. I recognized the warm cast of the DPP version, and decided to change it with both PS and i2e. Last night I was OK with the warm cast of the DPP version. Today I see that the PS processed version is the best of the three.

I was surprised at the difficulty i2e had with the young woman's face. I tried different levels of shadows, highlights, messed around with other settings. I'm not skilled enough using i2e to make it work for this particular image.

[DavidS]

That's a very good question...

I also bring up the overall brightess by 10 points by default.

Forgive my ignorance. Do you bring up ABE to 110 from the default of 100 or do you bring up Brightness Correction to 10 from the default of 0?

[Andy]

Spun off from Nik's post, here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=58191

Hrm. Well, there's some oddness about the sky in the posted JPG by Nik. But here's a 5second one-button push of i2e (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=51034) :)

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/141834611-L.jpg
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/141834590-L.jpg

Rutt, why are the pants of the guy just to our right of the pipe-smoker, dirty in your shot?

[Mike Lane]

Hrm. Well, there's some oddness about the sky in the posted JPG by Nik. But here's a 5second one-button push of i2e (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=51034) :) You got that in 5 seconds? :wow I'm going to have to take up that deal on i2e! :clap :deal

[Nikolai]

Hrm. Well, there's some oddness about the sky in the posted JPG by Nik. But here's a 5second one-button push of i2e (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=51034) :)


Wow, that's impressive! :thumb Mebbe I need to reconsider this s/w...

[Andy]

Hrm. Well, there's some oddness about the sky in the posted JPG by Nik. But here's a 5second one-button push of i2e (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=51034) :)

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/141834611-L.jpg
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/141834590-L.jpg


New i2e version, from Nik's raw file.

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/141886730-L.jpg

[rutt]

New i2e version, from Nik's raw file.

Pretty good for an algorithm, eh? But none of us has really rung the bell on this image. I want to see the folds and other details on those uniforms and I also want that deep blue. I'm thinking it's a CMYK thing. Could be sort of like the Labrador retriever treatments which involve false false separations into CMYK and extreme steepening and sharpening of the K. Maybe with HIRALOAM K?

Meanwhile that sky has a green cast and the faces are too magenta...

[Andy]

Pretty good for an algorithm, eh? But none of us has really rung the bell on this image. I want to see the folds and other details on those uniforms and I also want that deep blue. I'm thinking it's a CMYK thing. Could be sort of like the Labrador retriever treatments which involve false false separations into CMYK and extreme steepening and sharpening of the K. Maybe with HIRALOAM K?

Meanwhile that sky has a green cast and the faces are too magenta...
Yes but it's pretty darn good considering the extremes of the image :rutt

[Andy]

I reckon I'm slowly improving at processing these images. For the first time, I did all of the following: used Levels to set black and white points, used separate Curves for Luminosity blending and Color blending, then Saturation, and Sharpen. I'd never before used a Curve using the Luminosity blend mode, nor the Color mode. I can see how much more control this gives you. OK, so I'm a slow learner. :lol3

I think the technique really helped me bring out the first baseman's face.

So, waxy sent me the raw file. And then I plopped it into i2e - then uploaded and here it is.

Waxy's first, i2e second:
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/142205654-L.jpg
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/142390514-L-1.jpg

:bow

Of course, I could have made it a tad less light, with one more click - but still, not bad :thumb

[wxwax]

I'm glad you did this, Andy. :thumb

I'll need to look at it on my better monitor this evening to make a fair assessment. My first instinct is that out of the box, i2e seems to work better on indoor images. I say that, because of the wonderful results you and Baldy get with it. I'm less pleased with its results on outdoor images. I wish I were better at manipulating it.

[Andy]

I'm glad you did this, Andy. :thumb

I'll need to look at it on my better monitor this evening to make a fair assessment. My first instinct is that out of the box, i2e seems to work better on indoor images. I say that, because of the wonderful results you and Baldy get with it. I'm less pleased with its results on outdoor images. I wish I were better at manipulating it.No doubt, one can do better in photoshop. But for a one-button adjustment, this is, IMO, a more than acceptable result.... point being, that if you had to process 1000 of these images, you'd be well off using such a tool :thumb

[wxwax]

No doubt, one can do better in photoshop. But for a one-button adjustment, this is, IMO, a more than acceptable result.... point being, that if you had to process 1000 of these images, you'd be well off using such a tool :thumb
Roger that. :thumb

[RogersDA]

Is it me or is there no way to save a file in a resolution higher than 72 dpi using the stand-alone i2e program?

[Nikolai]

Can PS plug-in work in batch mode? Or do I need to get a certain edition of the standalone exe?

[Mike Lane]

I must be doing something wrong. I just downloaded the i2e standard so I could edit straight from my raw files. But editing straight from raw doesn't produce good results for me. I'll upload the raw file to the wiki in a bit so anyone can have a go at it if they want. EDIT: Here is the Raw file (http://smugmug.jot.com/WikiHome/PhotoshopSampleFiles).

So here's an example pic using i2e to process straight from the raw file:
http://wlane.smugmug.com/photos/143840897-L.jpg

Now I put the raw file through ACR and saved it as a jpg in photoshop and got this:
http://wlane.smugmug.com/photos/143840930-L.jpg

Then I put the one that went through ACR into i2e to get this.
http://wlane.smugmug.com/photos/143840976-L.jpg


So I like the 3rd one the best and I dislike the raw from i2e the most. But it seems like a fairly annoying workflow to go from raw -> ACR -> i2e -> photoshop (if you've got extra things you want to do with the pic). So the question is what am I doing wrong? How can I get good results from i2e with the raw file straight from i2e?

Gallery is here (http://wlane.smugmug.com/gallery/2713652/1/143840897). Uploading raw shortly... Here it is (http://smugmug.jot.com/WikiHome/PhotoshopSampleFiles).

[gchappel]

Is it me or is there no way to save a file in a resolution higher than 72 dpi using the stand-alone i2e program?
There really is no relationship in a digital file itself between resolution and dpi. It does get confusing and DPI is important when you go to print.
For example a 4X6" file at 300 dpi is 1200x1800 pixels.
The exact same file is 16X25" at 72 dpi- again 1200x1800 pixels.
No pixels were harmed or changed in this calculation. So what size is it really- looks like Einstein's theory of general relativity- there is no absolute answer. The lower the dpi, the larger the image- but the file size is the same. :barb
ie2 can save in many formats- look under channel settings, output format and folder. Check no downsizing and at least for me my file size remains unchanged. Again at this point dpi doesn't play a real role- check the pixel dimensions and go from there.
Hope that helps
Gary
gchappel

[wxwax]

I So the question is what am I doing wrong? How can I get good results from i2e with the raw file straight from i2e?

Did you try Baldy's suggestion of different shadow settings?

I find the second and third versions to be overexposed. I think the first is a good starting point, but needs a little bit of tweaking. If I can, I'll take a stab at using your RAW file, using i2e.

[rutt]

So I like the 3rd one the best and I dislike the raw from i2e the most. But it seems like a fairly annoying workflow to go from raw -> ACR -> i2e -> photoshop (if you've got extra things you want to do with the pic). So the question is what am I doing wrong? How can I get good results from i2e with the raw file straight from i2e?

Beautiful baby, Mike. Is he (she?) yours. I would guess so.

I find your reaction to the three different versions of this shot pretty interesting. In some strict sense, the first shot is best. Better detail Better contrast. But of course that's not at all what you want from this shot. You want soft skin and sharp eyes. At least. No wonder i2e was fooled.

Let's forget about the details of how i2e or a photoshop rat would do it, but let's start with the third version and so if and how much we can improve it. At each step, I'd like to know whether you think there was a real improvement, or perhaps a degradation of some sort.

Skin tone balance Do you really want your baby that magenta? Looks like he's been crying or cold. Is this an improvement?

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/143892461-L.jpg

Find some more shape and depth I understand that you don't want a lot of skin texture or blotches or to see the veins. But I'd think you'd like to see some more depth and shape in the face if it doesn't bring out the skin texture. Is this an improvement?

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/143898457-L.jpg

Get some color into the extreme highlights Now what about that blown out patch on the left side of his head? Highlights are good but I like to see some flesh tones even in the extreme highlights. This needs to be extremely subtle, but I've never come across anyone who didn't think it was a good idea once s/he saw it. Is this an improvement?

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/143898698-L.jpg

Color and contrast Now I think the baby is a little too pale. We can't give him a sunburn because after all, this is a baby. But we'd like so healthy color. In the first step, we reduced the magenta for the sake of losing the unhealthy looking magenta flesh tones. Now we'd like some healthy pink cheeks. While I'm was at it I added a little more contrast through the face. Is this an improvement? [My guess is that this will be the most marginal of these moves.]

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/143898237-L.jpg

Sharpen I2e sees to have done some, but also left something on the table. I want those eyes to look gleam and look sharp. I also want a lttle more shape in the face. I got both by very careful sharpening, limiting conventional sharpening to the non-yellow parts of the image and blending in a very little HIRALOAM to the yellow parts. Is this an improvement?

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/143898807-L.jpg

Cool just a bit Looks like I got him just a little too, so cool off the highlights just a little. I think this is a clear improvement. Agree?

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/144050096-L.jpg

So, lots of little change, but together they do add up. Maybe too much?

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/144053588-L.jpg

So what's the point? I love the idea of i2e. What I do can be very time consuming. I think there is a lot to learn about what i2e is good at and where it can be improved.

[Mike Lane]

Rutt first thanks for replying and thanks for the compliments about William (that cute little bugger there). Maybe my problems with i2e have more to do with my eye than with i2e's various renderings.

When I look at the first pic in your post:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/143892461-S.jpg

I don't see too much magenta. From the sounds of it, you see much more magenta in his face than I do. It isn't until the end of your post after you've fixed up the pics and you compare the two side-by-side that I see that there is indeed more magenta in there than I'd like. (My monitor is calibrated with a huey btw, not saying it's right or wrong just giving all the info)

I've tried working with the CMYK formulas that are in the smugmug help files. Using those I've found that I end up with too much yellow. Of course, I don't really notice it until someone else points out the jaundiced baby I've got.

Maybe it's just a matter of training my eye. Well it's either that or ignoring my eye and learning how to interpret the photoshop info box better. This may be beyond the scope of this thread, but what can one do to train one's eye to see these things? Or should I simply get used to looking at the color values and forget what I'm seeing almost entirely?

[rutt]

When I look at the first pic in your post:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/143892461-S.jpg

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/2791546-S.jpg
Maybe I wasn't clear. My first post already was corrected for magenta/yellow balance. I was going to post side by sides of each step, but it was too much work.

Anyway, you can't really train your eye. You have to measure. Your visual system tries really really hard to make things look right. In real life, it will correct for some pretty weird light. Do you notice how yellow incandescent light is? Do you notice how blue daylight is by comparison? Can you tell whether someone looks sick, well, tired, etc under various different lights? Of course you can. There's at least a billion years of evolution that enables you to do so.

Monitors are much less immersive than reality but much more so than prints. This is the part of color collaboration which is fallacious. No matter what the spectrometer says, the monitor is never really going to look like a print. Things will always look right on your monitor that don't look right in print, even if the spectrometer says they should look the same.

I've posted this image too many times but it never fails to be relevant. Squares A and B are the same exact same color. Your spectrometer will tell you that. Photoshop will tell you that. Load the image into Photoshop and start painting brush strokes from A to B using that color. At first it looks as if the brush strokes change color in the middle. Erase the cylinder. The illusion is amazingly robust. In fact, under some perfectly reasonably subjective definition of the word "color" there is no way A and B are the same color. Nobody would say that they are unless he used a spectrometer to measure them.

Anyway, as you noted this is all kind of a highjack. My real points were:

You are really asking a lot from i2e here. As Sid noted, you prefer a soft, almost overexposed version of this image, sort of a baby glamor look. I knew that from your comments and because I am a person not an algorithm. Without that knowledge, my result would have looked a lot more like i2e's first version,
Even so, I was able to improve on i2e starting with the result you liked the most, though I have to admit it took me longer than it took i2e.
For some reason, on this particular image, all your i2e results have what I would consider unacceptable skin tones. Perhaps this is some sort of pilot error and not really an i2e issue? But look at the difference when I correct your first image with just a little less blue in the quarter through midtones where the baby lives:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/144233223-L.jpg

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/144234342-S.gif

In fact with this correction, perhaps the first i2e version looks much more acceptable? What do you think, Mike?

[dandill]

I've posted this image too many times but it never fails to be relevant. Squares A and B are the same exact same color. Amazing! Details from Edward Adelson are here (http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_proof.html).

[Terrence]

A few questions I hope someone can answer. The Colour Science web site is not too helpful answering these, which is why I am asking here.

1. Does i2e leave the original RAW file unchanged or is it a destructive change process?

2. If it is destructive, are people running i2e on TIFF or JPEG after doing some processing of RAW in say Lightroom, DPP or something similar?

3. Is i2e a replacement for or augmentation of the processing one can do in Lightroom, DPP or other similar "just short of Photoshop" packages? I totally "get" the improvment in color correction and enhancement, but I don't clearly see the other uses and/or benefits.

[Andy]

A few questions I hope someone can answer. The Colour Science web site is not too helpful answering these, which is why I am asking here.

1. Does i2e leave the original RAW file unchanged or is it a destructive change process?
unchanged

3. Is i2e a replacement for or augmentation of the processing one can do in Lightroom, DPP or other similar "just short of Photoshop" packages? I totally "get" the improvment in color correction and enhancement, but I don't clearly see the other uses and/or benefits.
It is for color and exposure issues only. It does not do anything selective, only global.

I use it as needed. I have CS3, Lightroom, and i2e.

[raebrown]

I just downloaded the i2e Image editor. After editing some images I get a "Save image error" when trying to save. I have Windows Vista on this machine and can find no info on the webpage regarding Vista. Anyone have this same problem or able to run the program with Vista?:scratch


Problem Solved :clap :clap :clap

Under Windows Vista install as administrator and it works fine.

[Andy]

I just downloaded the i2e Image editor. After editing some images I get a "Save image error" when trying to save. I have Windows Vista on this machine and can find no info on the webpage regarding Vista. Anyone have this same problem or able to run the program with Vista?:scratchSend email to Colour-Science - I run it on XP, sorry I can't help.

[hawkeye978]

Forgive me if I am going off topic, but I just found this thread on i2e. I had seen it referenced throughout the forums but couldn't figure out what it did. Now I realize it's a batch processor. I have been using something similar which is DxO Optics. I did a search on dgrin and didn't find any reference to DxO. Does anyone use this software for batch processing or did I just miss the reference? What I like about the application is that they have models of individual cameras and lenses and can correct for optical aberrations present in the cameras and/or lenses. I have a Sony DSC-H1 and the starter version has the models for that camera and it can correct for barrel distortion at the wide end of the lens among other corrections. The higher end versions have models for many of the dslr's and lenses.

Here is a link to the website

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo

[mrcoons]

Forgive me if I am going off topic, but I just found this thread on i2e. I had seen it referenced throughout the forums but couldn't figure out what it did. Now I realize it's a batch processor. I have been using something similar which is DxO Optics. I did a search on dgrin and didn't find any reference to DxO. Does anyone use this software for batch processing or did I just miss the reference? What I like about the application is that they have models of individual cameras and lenses and can correct for optical aberrations present in the cameras and/or lenses. I have a Sony DSC-H1 and the starter version has the models for that camera and it can correct for barrel distortion at the wide end of the lens among other corrections. The higher end versions have models for many of the dslr's and lenses.

Here is a link to the website

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo

I use DxO Optics Pro but not for batch conversions as it is way too slow. i2e has it beat hands down in the speed category. I only use DxO to do lens corrections on specific photos. If DxO ever figures out a way to speed their processing up and improve their documentation they could have a serious contender to Lightroom.

[hawkeye978]

I agree the processing is slow and there is basically no documentation but I did like how it could pre-process my camera and take out the major aberrations and do reasonable color correction in a single step. I should take a look at i2e.

[mrcoons]

I agree the processing is slow and there is basically no documentation but I did like how it could pre-process my camera and take out the major aberrations and do reasonable color correction in a single step. I should take a look at i2e.

Color wise I think i2e does a better job but I need to experiment more with it to find out. Or maybe there is something in DxO I am missing. I recently downloaded the new ACDSee Pro beta and it is still a dog. DxO is a lot faster than it is. (Plus it still has all the workflow problems from the previous version.)

[pat.kane]

I noticed that my GPS-embedded photos weren't showing up where I expected them to after running them through I2E. I sent a message to Frank Grossmann from Colour-Science AG and after a little research he confirmed that the third party, polysys library they use to import and export images in image editor has a rounding error when dealing with GPS data in exif tags.

Here's some info from an e-mail he sent me today: "They were rounding minutes to 1/100th which is not exact enough for GPS coordinates. I will integrate the next version in Image Editor, but this will probably need another month to be ready."

[EcoJam]

I'm testing both IE & Q-hancer.

It's not clear to me if IE has red-eye correction (I sent them a note and they said you can only "test" it in Q-hancer). Did that, did not work.

Anyone with the IE Pro version see Red Eye correction there? Other than PS, anybody know of a batch red-eye correction tool?

thks, ed

[wolfejm]

...DxO Optics... Does anyone use this software

I'm definitely no pro, but I use DxO and absolutely love it. The localized lighting and contrast, as well as geometric corrections are great. The white balance works like a champ, and the noise reduction is amazing. I'm very please with what I get, especially for what I paid.

That said, their color corrections are extremely manual and I just don't use them. There are features to make the image look like it came from another camera body and a zillion other things, but I just don't find them that useful. I wish it did some of the automatic color corrections that i2e seems to have, because these are the things I tend to screw up the most :)

[ebwest]

Hope somebody is still watching this thread.

I looked at I2E and bought it, now I'd like to ask some questions tha I don't think were covered earlier.

In your workflow, do you go staright from raw and save it to jpg or tiff in i2e or do you convert first and then open it in i2e for adjustments. If you go straight from raw through i2e how do you see, out of all your raw files, which ones you want to process.

As far as I can tell, there is no way to look at thumbnails in order to chose the ones to process. I'm assuming the demo version has everything working, I haven't gotten the activation code yet so I'm still in demo mode.

[ebwest]

Well, the RAW question was answered when I looked at their site again. I just got the Home version, so when I activate it I won't have the raw support to worry about since the demo is of the Pro version.

[ivar]

Hey guys,

I've been playing around with i2e for a bit, but I seem to be losing all the EXIF details when I process my RAW files with it.

I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the raw-settings for the channel.
The only thing that I knew to change were the dimensions. All the others stuff I have no clue about :scratch

If anyone knows if I should change something with regards to the RAW settings, I'd love to hear it :ear The help pages from i2e are not so helpful to me.
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/180579605-L.jpg

[Andy]

but I seem to be losing all the EXIF details when I process my RAW files with it.

FrankBug.

I've reported it to Colour-Science about 2 months ago. Frank's on Summer Holiday...

[ebwest]

I recently bought the home version and, because I didn't read enough, found that it didn't support RAW. I've written to them twice about just reverting to a plug-in license. It's been about 2 weeks now and I've received no reply, not even a "live with what you bought" answer, which I would understand.

I know this isn't a support forum for them but I was wondering if anyone knew if the company took a vacation and there is no one there right now or what.

[Milner]

I recently bought the home version and, because I didn't read enough, found that it didn't support RAW. I've written to them twice about just reverting to a plug-in license. It's been about 2 weeks now and I've received no reply, not even a "live with what you bought" answer, which I would understand.

I know this isn't a support forum for them but I was wondering if anyone knew if the company took a vacation and there is no one there right now or what.

I sent an email to them about upgading from the plugin to the standard version. They responded very quickly and we went back and forth a few times. Very helpful....
Are you using the support address fron their website?

[Andy]

I recently bought the home version and, because I didn't read enough, found that it didn't support RAW. I've written to them twice about just reverting to a plug-in license. It's been about 2 weeks now and I've received no reply, not even a "live with what you bought" answer, which I would understand.

I know this isn't a support forum for them but I was wondering if anyone knew if the company took a vacation and there is no one there right now or what.
write Frank again and he'll answer I'm sure.

[ebwest]

I sent an email to them about upgading from the plugin to the standard version. They responded very quickly and we went back and forth a few times. Very helpful....
Are you using the support address fron their website?

Tried the address on the person who sent me the unlock code and then I tried the support address from the site. I'll try again.

[ebwest]

write Frank again and he'll answer I'm sure.

I'll give it a try, thanks.

[ivar]

new version 2.5.0 is out. (http://www.colour-science.com/IE/ImageEditor.htm) Now with red-eye-removal option.

When installing it will override the channels, so if you have custom settings, you may want to write those down before installing. You may also need to reinstall the RAW support.

[mrs.jgpunk]

Does anyone have an opinion or comparisson of i2e vs adobe lightroom? also, I am trying to find a good image database software and am looking for recommendations.

[Pupator]

new version 2.5.0 is out. (http://www.colour-science.com/IE/ImageEditor.htm) Now with red-eye-removal option.

When installing it will override the channels, so if you have custom settings, you may want to write those down before installing. You may also need to reinstall the RAW support.

E-mail from I2E received this morning:


Dear Image Editor User

As our valued customer we want to inform you about some changes/enhancements in Image Editor

- Price reduction for the Standard Edition (now 90 Euro / 115 US$)
- The Standard Edition includes now RAW support
- All versions includes now red-eye reduction
- The Professional Edition allows now to run up to three instances in the same network

For more details please visit www.colour-science.com (http://www.colour-science.com/), Image Editor download page

The new pricing for the Standard Edition allows now Home Edition users to upgrade to the Standard Edition to a very low upgrade price (35 Euro / 50 US$), and to take benefit of the RAW support. To upgrade please go to 'Online Registration of the Image Editor'.

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any questions you might have

Sincerely yours

Doris Koller

Colour-Science AG
Bettswilerstrasse 2
CH-8344 Bäretswil/Switzerland
Phone +41 44 979 10 70
Fax +41 44 939 27 32
Email koller@colour-science.com (koller@colour-science.com)

[ebwest]

E-mail from I2E received this morning:

[/font]

Good for you! I haven't heard from them yet.

[Zanotti]

Does our old license work with this version?

[Andy]

Does our old license work with this version?
It should, but the place to ask, is at Colour-Science :thumb

[Pupator]

Does our old license work with this version?


Mine did. I just installed the new version and when I opened it I saw it was already registered with my existing license.

[Andy]

Well, the redeye removal, it does a pretty nice job! These are some olde p&s shots:
Remember, this is "one-click" fixing of a whole batch of photos - no selecting, no brushes, no tools.

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/185328189-S.jpghttp://www.smugmug.com/photos/185328218-S.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/185328287-S.jpghttp://www.smugmug.com/photos/185328327-S.jpg

a few more, here:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/3328576#185327856

[Andy]

Another update here:

http://www.colour-science.com/IE/ImageEditorSetup.exe

NEW for this version:

- Possibility to correct general density (gamma) or selective shadow or highlight density.

- Faster screen update when using the mouse wheel for manual density or color correction

- Red eye removal

- possibility to add a string to the image name to show that an image has been enhanced

I've not used this stuff yet.

[Milner]

Does anyone know if they have support for 40D raw files? I am seriously considering an upgrade to a 40d and I love my i2E!!

WOW, Got an email right back from Frank. According to him the latest canon raw support dl on thier page supports 40d raw!!

CS have been very fast and great to deal with. Thanks for bringing them to us, Andy!

[luc]

How are your experiences?

I have tried the iE2 RAW conversions but almost always the images have a slightly grainy appearance , which is annoying espcecially in the sky parts.
Accordingto their description the program is not supposed to sharpen sky colors? Or do I misunderstand something?
Are there some settings regulating this?

thanks in advance!

[Andy]

How are your experiences?

I have tried the iE2 RAW conversions but almost always the images have a slightly grainy appearance , which is annoying espcecially in the sky parts.
Accordingto their description the program is not supposed to sharpen sky colors? Or do I misunderstand something?
Are there some settings regulating this?

thanks in advance!Hi, did you write Colour-Science? Let us know what Frank says, thanks!

[mrcoons]

How are your experiences?

I have tried the iE2 RAW conversions but almost always the images have a slightly grainy appearance , which is annoying espcecially in the sky parts.
Accordingto their description the program is not supposed to sharpen sky colors? Or do I misunderstand something?
Are there some settings regulating this?

thanks in advance!

I agree, I have been particularly displeased with the way my skies come out.

[ivar]

I agree, I have been particularly displeased with the way my skies come out.is this on the 'preview' in the i2e software itself? Or did you save it, and open it in another program? The 'preview' is pretty bad in certain situations, grain/sharpening wise I've noticed, and the actual image looks a lot better.

[mrcoons]

is this on the 'preview' in the i2e software itself? Or did you save it, and open it in another program? The 'preview' is pretty bad in certain situations, grain/sharpening wise I've noticed, and the actual image looks a lot better.

It looks better in the preview than it does after I save it and view it in ACDSee.

[ivar]

It looks better in the preview than it does after I save it and view it in ACDSee.:lol3 interesting

[luc]

I did get a reply from Frank Grossmann regarding the grainy sky - I have not tried his recommendations yet. The "local sharpening" control is apparently off by default.

"In the default configuration Image Editor will do a normal unsharp masking of strenght 50. You can change this in the channel settings and use thelocal sharpness enhancement. Only this one will not sharpen sky.If you have a noise problem in the highlights then it may be also good to set highlight enhancement to 0 because this will try to enhance details inthe highlights and accentuate also grain a little bit."

How are your experiences?

I have tried the iE2 RAW conversions but almost always the images have a slightly grainy appearance , which is annoying espcecially in the sky parts.
Accordingto their description the program is not supposed to sharpen sky colors? Or do I misunderstand something?
Are there some settings regulating this?

thanks in advance!

[mrcoons]

I did get a reply from Frank Grossmann regarding the grainy sky - I have not tried his recommendations yet. The "local sharpening" control is apparently off by default.

"In the default configuration Image Editor will do a normal unsharp masking of strenght 50. You can change this in the channel settings and use thelocal sharpness enhancement. Only this one will not sharpen sky.If you have a noise problem in the highlights then it may be also good to set highlight enhancement to 0 because this will try to enhance details inthe highlights and accentuate also grain a little bit."

Thanks for sharing this, luc! I'm not sure I understand it but I'll give it a try.

[cwdiaz]

Hey You'll,

I just crusied through this thread and didn't see anything about the question I have so I apologize if this has been covered before.

Does the I2E Plug In for Photoshop work with Elements 5.0 or amy I better off getting one of the stand alone programs? :dunno

Thanks.

Chuck

[Milner]

Hey You'll,

I just crusied through this thread and didn't see anything about the question I have so I apologize if this has been covered before.

Does the I2E Plug In for Photoshop work with Elements 5.0 or amy I better off getting one of the stand alone programs? :dunno

Thanks.

Chuck

Not sure if it works with elements, but I would get the stand alone anyway. I started with the plug in, but the preview window was just too small to make accurate adjustments.

[Andy]

Hey You'll,

I just crusied through this thread and didn't see anything about the question I have so I apologize if this has been covered before.

Does the I2E Plug In for Photoshop work with Elements 5.0 or amy I better off getting one of the stand alone programs? :dunno

Thanks.

Chuck
The plugin does not work with Elements.

[luc]

From my tests I did get the impression that the program could use some additional workflow options for working with RAW files. Currently it is just very, very slow (concerns only RAW).

The speed could hopefully be improved if the next image in the directory could be already loaded and demosaiced in the background and be held available in a cache. It would be great if one could delay the final processing itself for a batch process, to be run after one has gone through all the images and potential adjustments.

At the moment the working with RAW files itself is so slow, that I can only see me using it as a fully automatic process, converting all the images with identical settings and then picking winners and losers from the resulting jpegs.

When working with JPGs as input files indivual adjustments are feasible without problems.

[xris]

It looks better in the preview than it does after I save it and view it in ACDSee.

I suggest you check your colour profile settings in the channel setup area. This programme lets you control both input and output profiles. Screwed me up for a while. Now I'm getting nice results.

Slow sometimes though.

Xris

[charred_water]

I have been using the ASF (Applied Science Fiction) ROC (restore, balance, correct color) and SHO (shadow highlight) PS plugins for years. They are reasonably fast and work well, but I'm not aware of a batch mode (other than using PS batch automate feature).

I'm wondering whether anyone has used both i2e and the ASF filters and can comment on the relative merits of these filters. I've used the ASF filters to perform very similar correction to the examples on this thread. But the batch mode is an attractive feature, especially since i2e is said to be fast.

[nvtuan]

Hi there

I've downloaded and installed the demo version of ie2 on my machine (2GHz Athlon single core, XP Pro SP2, 3GB RAM). The trouble is that every time I tried to run the program, XP kills it because of memory violation. Has anyone else experienced this problem? If yes, what's the fix?

Many thanks in advance.

Tuan

[Andy]

Hi there

I've downloaded and installed the demo version of ie2 on my machine (2GHz Athlon single core, XP Pro SP2, 3GB RAM). The trouble is that every time I tried to run the program, XP kills it because of memory violation. Has anyone else experienced this problem? If yes, what's the fix?

Many thanks in advance.

Tuan
Please write Colour-Science, they'll answer your question, I'm sure :D

[mrcoons]

I suggest you check your colour profile settings in the channel setup area. This programme lets you control both input and output profiles. Screwed me up for a while. Now I'm getting nice results.

Slow sometimes though.

Xris

I finally got back to this Xris and I see what you mean. Thanks that's a lot better! :barb

[mrcoons]

Does anyone know if the Colour-Science i2e Photoshop plug-in works with Adobe Lightroom?

Thanks.

[Andy]

Does anyone know if the Colour-Science i2e Photoshop plug-in works with Adobe Lightroom?

Thanks.
Your best bet, is to write Colour Science (http://www.colour-science.com/).

[mrcoons]

Does anyone know if the Colour-Science i2e Photoshop plug-in works with Adobe Lightroom?

Thanks.

Just in case someone else has this question, here is the response I got from Colour-Science:

It works with Photoshop Elements but not with Lightroom. Lightroom can not use normal Photoshop plugins.

Best regards
Frank Grossmann

[Codogg]

I have the no downsizing box check but the Image Editor still resizes them from 3888 x 2592 to 1936 x 1288. Any suggestions on keeping the same file size?

[rcawth]

Just got this program and I'm having a little trouble figuring it out. I wondered if someone could give me the best way to auto correct a large number of photos at once?

[Pupator]

Just got this program and I'm having a little trouble figuring it out. I wondered if someone could give me the best way to auto correct a large number of photos at once?

First, I suggest you change the default settings. You'll only have to do this once:

1) Open the application and click on "Channel Settings"
http://paulsclicks.smugmug.com/photos/267024990_iy2Gp-L.jpg

2) Click on the "image enchancement tab" and use the settings in the picture here (from top to bottom: 50,50,100,60,100,15,0,0,-20,0,0,0,0)
http://paulsclicks.smugmug.com/photos/267024982_Pguxo-L.jpg
2b) While in "settings," you may also want to change the input and output folders - you can change these each time you use the app within the main window, but it's easier to set the defaults here, particularly if your images are saved on a separate hard drive. You can also change the "Save Format" if you like to save in tif rather than jpeg.

3) Click on "save" at the top. Click "Okay" on the popup box and "Exit" the settings page.


Normal operation:

1) Using the file browser on the left ("input side") choose the images you want to convert, or if you want to convert all the images in a particular folder, just choose the folder. On the right hand side, choose where you want the images to be saved. (I create a subfolder called "i2e" where I save the finished images.)

2) If you selected individual files for conversion, click on "Process Selected Images." If you're converting an entire folder click on "Process All Images." Sit back and watch, it'll stop when it's finished.

http://paulsclicks.smugmug.com/photos/267024960_VNfAk-L.jpg

Of course you'll want to look carefully at the results and adjust the specific channel settings to your liking - what I've provided is a good place to start.

[jsmiley]

I have a question I've been looking into the I2E and have downloaded the plug-in for CS3 and install it (demo only). Which would be the best, plug-in or standalone??:dunno

[luc]

What would you like to do with it?
I believe the plugin is not usable for batch processing and the preview is quite small there (for me I2E makes the most sense as a mass image optimizer).

I have a question I've been looking into the I2E and have downloaded the plug-in for CS3 and install it (demo only). Which would be the best, plug-in or standalone??:dunno

[Milner]

I have a question I've been looking into the I2E and have downloaded the plug-in for CS3 and install it (demo only). Which would be the best, plug-in or standalone??:dunno


Plug in only allows a small preview. I found it difficult to represent the adjustments I was making. Stand alone is better. I have both, but have not used them since I started using lightroom.

[jsmiley]

Thanks for your help. I went ahead and bought the CS3 plug-in. I will give it a try and see how it works for me.

Does anyone know if anyone has written an action that will work with bridge.
Thanks again for all your help:thumb

[pspphotos]

I purchased about a month and a half ago - I entered my email with my purchase info. They charged my card, but never sent me the license. What do I do? Is there a contact for the US?

Lorrie Prothero

[Andy]

I purchased about a month and a half ago - I entered my email with my purchase info. They charged my card, but never sent me the license. What do I do? Is there a contact for the US?

Lorrie Prothero
http://www.colour-science.com/ click on "contact" in their navbar. Email them they will sort you out in no time, I'm sure.

[jtbarrett]

I really like i2e, but I'm having a problem finding the right settings to address a specific issue.

My son has -very- blond hair that tends to create overblown highlights in the sun. While I don't expect i2e to recover highlight detail that isn't there, it seems to consistently make the problem worse. Processed images look great in general, but the top of my son's head becomes a featureless white blob, losing what limited detail existed in the original photo.

I've tried adjusting the brightness and highlight settings/sliders, but they don't seem to have a significant effect on this particular problem. Turning off both the color and brightness enhancement checkboxes entirely does preserve the original level of highlight detail, but obviously that severely limits what i2e can do regarding the rest of the image.

Can anyone point me to the right i2e settings that will allow it to "do its thing" but still preserve highlights?

Thanks!

[DrDavid]

I own i2e Pro 3.0.07 and noticed that 3.1.x is out. But, their ClubSmug pricing doesn't have a price listed for "minor" (3.0 -> 3.1) upgrades, just "major" (2.x -> 3.x).

I wrote to them asking for a price. They said it was $200 (no, that's not a typo) to do a MINOR upgrade. The MAJOR upgrade, as a smugmug price is only $45..... Seems odd that:

1) The upgrade price for a MINOR version is more than the ClubSmug price for a brand new purchase ($150).
2) The upgrade price for a MINOR version is more than four times as expensive as for a MAJOR version upgrade.

Disappointed in the customer service :(

David

[rutt]

How does it do on this problem image (http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=131037http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=131037)? Note that the full sized original is available here (http://clicks.smugmug.com/photos/539163154_a9kLK-O.jpg).

[swcolleen]

I own i2e Pro 3.0.07 and noticed that 3.1.x is out. But, their ClubSmug pricing doesn't have a price listed for "minor" (3.0 -> 3.1) upgrades, just "major" (2.x -> 3.x).

I wrote to them asking for a price. They said it was $200 (no, that's not a typo) to do a MINOR upgrade. The MAJOR upgrade, as a smugmug price is only $45..... Seems odd that:

1) The upgrade price for a MINOR version is more than the ClubSmug price for a brand new purchase ($150).
2) The upgrade price for a MINOR version is more than four times as expensive as for a MAJOR version upgrade.

Disappointed in the customer service :(

David


I had actually done the same thing-emailed them a few months ago and was given the same answer $200 upgrade. I emailed back to ask more specifically if they knew what I was trying to upgrade from and inquired about smugmug and never heard from them. In the past they had been very good at responses. I would love to know if anyone from Smugmug has more info on this because the upgrade sounds nice but honestly, not at that price for what I do with it.

Thanks!

[aktse]

How does it do on this problem image (http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=131037http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=131037)? Note that the full sized original is available here (http://clicks.smugmug.com/photos/539163154_a9kLK-O.jpg).10 second adjust -- I just had to try before I had to leave for work...


http://clicks.smugmug.com/photos/539163154_a9kLK-M.jpg


This was the one button adjust with two slider changes (10s max) using the previous version of the software (haven't upgraded yet) and I might try the B&W when I get home. I think if i spent a minute on it, the results would be better. My conclusion of the software remains -- PS will provide better results for individual images, but for bulk adjustment for a large quantity of photos (e.g. family gatherings) and when "good enough" is required, I2E works just fine.

http://aktse.smugmug.com/photos/541450592_ZkkNT-M.jpg

And Colour-Science did respond: -- answered here (http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1095084&postcount=154)

As for being "disappointed", "bad customer service", for not lowing the price for smuggy customers, etc. -- remember -- Colour-Science was being generous with their discount. And a discount is just that -- a discount and a decrease in cost is not a given right. Any company has the option of taking away a benefit...

Do I want the discount? YES! Do I want the price cheaper? OF COURSE!

But I'm willing to pay for a software that *works* and don't forget that it's still cheaper than Photoshop. If they provided a discount for the upgrade, I might have jumped on it, but without it, I'm still deciding if the current version is sufficient for my purposes. I probably will upgrade one of these days...

[DrDavid]

As for being "disappointed", "bad customer service", for not lowing the price for smuggy customers, etc. -- remember -- Colour-Science was being generous with their discount. And a discount is just that -- a discount and a decrease in cost is not a given right. Any company has the option of taking away a benefit...
You're right.. They can do what they want. But, when a MAJOR upgrade is 25% of the cost of the MINOR upgrade, something's wrong.

When repurchasing the entire program ($150) is cheaper than an upgrade, something is wrong!

Just my 2-cents....

David

[Pupator]

You're right.. They can do what they want. But, when a MAJOR upgrade is 25% of the cost of the MINOR upgrade, something's wrong.

When repurchasing the entire program ($150) is cheaper than an upgrade, something is wrong!

Just my 2-cents....

David

I got to a page at some point (can't find it at the moment) that had a table with much more reasonable prices for us (including minor upgrades). I'll see if I can track it down and if it's still valid.

[aktse]

I got to a page at some point (can't find it at the moment) that had a table with much more reasonable prices for us (including minor upgrades). I'll see if I can track it down and if it's still valid.
Was it this page? (http://www.colour-science.com/IE/IEregister2.htm)

http://aktse.smugmug.com/photos/541535419_M57nV-L.jpg

I don't know if this pricing applies to the latest update.

edited: added standard pricing for comparison.
http://aktse.smugmug.com/photos/541539572_AqAvJ-L-1.jpg

[DrDavid]

Was it this page? (http://www.colour-science.com/IE/IEregister2.htm)That's the exact page I sent to them.. Notice it's only $45 for the MAJOR upgrade.. Minor apparently isn't included. Or, at least, they won't say it if is... I don't want to spend $45 only to be told that it's only good for a 3.0.x license, not to upgrade to the 3.1.x license.

It's just bad customer service..

David

[Pupator]

The page I was on was like the second picture (had a column for minor updates) but had the discounted pricing.

[UPDATE]Found it. It's not longer valid/not for us/no longer live. So, uh, nevermind.