Use THIS TRICK to CREATE LIGHT in Lightroom Classic!

[@theovv4591]

I love how you bring this directional light in a flat image. Really wonderful result, thanks for sharing this with us!

[@alank378]

A real masterclass in how to take a dull image that has potential turn it into an interesting and vibrant image by emphasizing the potential light that was hidden in the initial image. Thank you.

[@441greenleaf]

i remember back in 5-6 years , i was struggling so hard to select subject and mask it manually in lightroom. :D ... software tech is awesome. now its only 1 click..

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

It has gotten sooo much better indeed!

[@orlandojonesphotography]

What an amazing tutorial. Thank you for sharing!

[@audreyrice996]

Great video. Thanks for sharing these techniques. I can't wait to try them out in my photos.

[@LeventYucetin]

perfect

[@jaylogendra]

thank you

[@frankdeblon5507]

As usual, impressive tutorial, thank you Christian

[@Chrsly]

Wow - that's impressive. I learned a few things, and now I need to practice with HDR merges.

[@GusMcCrae01]

Excellent LRC work

[@dariofagotto095]

Fantastico!!!!!! 👏👏👏👏👏

[@Mikegaryhouse]

Incredible work as always. Bringing a lot of artistry into your photography!

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Thanks a lot!

[@spirithealershamanism]

This is just plain excellent. I learned a lot. Thanks ~!

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Thank you very much!

[@scomart]

I really like the way you manipulate the masks!

[@tnhoenen]

What a professional you are, I enjoyed your video again....super!!!

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Thank you!

[@barkleyc]

Thanks for sharing. great job,

[@laurenceranking810]

Love your masking. I'm learning a lot 🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Thanks a lot!

[@bharath700i]

thanks for the incredible video. Most of the channels doesn't show these many details. I learnt a lot with this. thanks again

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Thank you so much!

[@Airborneaway]

Beautiful result! 👏

[@vishwanathparanjpe5784]

Fantastic . loved it. your tutorials are really precise and to the point . Bravo.

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Thank you!

[@RobertoSilva-qd2ov]

Wonderful ! I am trying your workflow on my images and they look awesome.

[@Flomilio108]

great, thank you!

[@NickNoblePhotography]

Nicely done! I think I got lost in your adjustments but enjoyed watching!

[@Dolbz102]

Great video as always Christian

[@mickue]

Awesome 💪

[@randelltuttle143]

I love it! I would like to see a subtle light inside the middle window.

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Thanks a lot! I actually tried adding light in there, but it didnt look convincing haha

[@imagingArts]

I very much enjoy your work. Near the end of the video you moved over to photoshop because Lightroom was overloading your system. This is an issue I thought would make for a good discussion. Are the system demands (system overhead) of using LR masking greater then doing the same masking in PS? I believe it is. These days I do my file management and raw processing in LR but move to PS to do everything else. I do use the TK plug-in so I can Add, subtract and intersect masks. This gives me the same control as I would have in LR with far better memory management.

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Thanks for commenting! I have the same feeling, LR ffels slower compared to the camera raw editor of Photoshop, especially when using things like sky masks. This can be really, really annoying when working with lots of masks :(

[@SergNikiforovGordeev]

Thanks!

[@allanpennington]

So how were the set of photos taken? Is it a camera setting which takes a series of photos at varying exposure or something else. Id like to take some photos of local scenery to try this technique. I assume you use a tripod too? Also Ive been playing around with PS Generative AI to try and add Rembrandt style lighting to portraits. Is there an easier way to do that manually in either LRC or PS?

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Thanks for the comment! I shot this from a tripod and let the camera do the exposure bracketing. Most modern cameras come with settings to automatically shoot the bracketing sequence which you then take into LR or PS to merge to an HDR!

[@RalfSonntag]

Great and helpful Video. Thank you. Ist this the Haldenbergkapelle?

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Thanks for commenting! It is indeed the Haldenbergkapelle :D

[@drumprof]

Christian...Could you please explain your reasons for always bring the Radius in the Detail panel to zero. You seem to always do it.

[@LaggerGG7]

Usually you do that because want the “detail” to be the finest as possible. Usually, you should put details at 100 and reduce the radius to 0 to enhance the micro detail without creating the grainy effect, try and test it with 200% magnification 😁

[@fabienb]

@@LaggerGG7Details to 100 may be incorrect in several situations, and even destroy the image if you shoot with Fujifilm (but you would only really notice in prints). The way the Detail slider works in Lightroom can be summed up this way: - when the slider is at 0, it is the equivalent of the Unsharp Mask filter in Photoshop - when the slider is at 100, it is the equivalent of a full Deconvolution approach Unsharp Mask works by finding the edges of every element in the image and ‘sharpening' them, without increasing noise. It basically enhances the contrast between adjacent elements. We use this in Photoshop as a form of Creative Sharpening. Deconvolution is a form of sharpening designed to offset the RAW softness caused by camera and lens limitations. It uses very complicated maths and assumptions to help restore detail. It is, in theory, a more refined approach than Unsharp Mask, and it is often part of Capture Sharpening. But it does bear different results depending on gear. I wrote a long article on my blog about Sharpening (mainly for Fuji shooters but still very thorough). Regardless of Detail, Radius helps if you find yourself increasing the Amount considerably, but both are often a matter of creative taste.

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Hey, thanks for commenting and sorry for the delayed response @LaggerGG7 summed it up nicely. Applying these settings in my experience gives the best results in sharpening. Radius defines the areas around edges that get sharpened, so 0.5 radius means 0.5 pixels around edges will be "sharpened". Details controls the amount of sharpening on edges. Both radius and details combined that way gives a beautiful sharpening effect. (Of course in the end it always comes down to personal preferences)

[@LaggerGG7]

@@ThePhlogPhotography I'm very flattered about your comment, at least, seems that I learnt something hehehe Keep the great work up Sir

[@Hannemanneke]

👍👍

[@galanonim8137]

Ich habe mich immer gefragt wie es ist, dass Profi-Fotografen wie Albert Dros und andere immer so ein wunderbares Licht und Fotos haben, wenn sie on Location sind und ich Doofnase hab immer Pech. Das ist die Antwort darauf :) Auch wenn Du etwas Licht am Horizont hattest, so ist die Wirkung des DNG-Files dennoch eine andere, als das fertige Bild. Verstehe es nicht als Kritik, denn das meine ich damit nicht. Es zeigt aber, dass Menschen die Kreativ sind , etwas Kenntnis von Licht, Farbe und Gestaltung haben, mit einfachen Mitteln die Lichtstimmung eines Bildes in beliebige Richtung drehen können. Ist Albert nicht auch Grafikdesigner/Motion Art Artist hauptberuflich? Die Grenzen der Fotografie werden dadurch massiv verschoben und Fotos die heute aus der Masse von wirklich gute Fotografen herausstechen, sind intensiv und teils sehr aufwändig editiert. Heute reicht es nicht mehr ein gutes Foto zu schiessen, wenn man es nicht bearbeiten kann. Ob in Zeiten des Films und der Dunkelkammer auch das Editing in dem Maße über den Erfolg eines Fotos entschied wie heutige Bearbeitungstechniken in PS/LR?

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Vielen Dank fürs Kommentieren! Albert Dros ist wirklich hervorragend in der Bildbearbeitung, aber man muss auch dazu sagen das seine Fotos ohne Bearbeitung schon wirklich, wirklich gut sind. Heißt er ist immer zur richtigen Zeit am richtigen Ort (das sieht man häufig bei seinen Nebel-Fotos), das lässt sich nicht mit Bildbearbeitung erzeugen :-) Für richtig gute Fotos braucht es beides: gute Bildbearbeitung aber auch richtige Komposition / Kameraeinstellungen / Wetter-Bedingungen. "Künstliches Licht" wie in dem Beispiel aus dem Video kann man ab und zu erzeugen, aber in dem Fall ist es wirklich ein sehr einfaches Foto :-)

[@galanonim8137]

@@ThePhlogPhotography Natürlich, ich möchte Albert weder sein künstlerisches oder fachliches Können absprechen, noch das Glück, welches ihn on location zu begleiten scheint in Frage stellen:) Ich hab mir mal ein Tutorial-Pack von ihm gekauft und auch er wendet ähnliche Techniken an. Ein technisch gutes Bild zu machen ist nicht schwer. Egal ob perspectiv-, panorama-, focus-stacking etc. Wenn man die Techniken und Grundsätze der Fotografie kennt, ist das rein mechanische und technische eigentlich das geringste Problem. Auch der Bildaufbau und Komposition ist keine schwarze Magie, auch wenn sich hier oftmals schon die Spreu vom Weizen trennt und gute Fotografen es schaffen doch interessantere Perspektiven zu finden. Dann kommt der wohl wichtigste Part, an dem viele scheitern. Die richtige Zeit und das Wetter/Licht. Hier scheinen einige besonders viel Glück zu haben oder sie haben eine Fähigkeit das Wetter besser zu lesen als andere. Wenn ich überlege, wie viele Reisen ich schon unternommen habe, um vor einem grauen farblosen Schleier zu stehen oder mit Schlafentzug und Übermüdung irgendwo hin zu klettern, nur um den langweiligsten, sonnenlosesten Sonnenaufgang der Welt zu bestaunen. Hier kommen solche Techniken gut, wenn man etwas Licht am Himmel hatte und ein brauchbares Foto so interessant gestalten und aufwerten kann, ist zumindest das gefühlte Scheitern vor Ort, zumindest was mich betrifft besser verkraftbar :) Ich denke, dass sich mit solchen Techniken durchaus das eine oder andere Foto dem man es anfänglich evtl. nicht bescheinigen würde, doch hervorragend aufwerten lässt und man dennoch sein Herz daran erfreuen kann, wenn man es im Anschluss sieht. Der Unterschied von der Belichtungsreihe bis zum fertigen Bild ist schon immens. Was ich so erstaunlich finde, dass Du während der Bearbeitung Manipulationen vornimmst, die ich so nicht vorgenommen hätte oder sie als sehr gering ansehe, die am Ende ein Ganzes ergeben, das wirklich überzeugend wirkt während bei mir alles schnell aussieht, als ob es in den Farbtopf gefallen wäre. Es ist also nicht die Technik, sondern auch die Fähigkeit schon vorab zu sehen und einzuschätzen, wie ein Ergebnis am Ende der Bearbeitung aussehen wird. Ich überlege ob es etwas ist was man überhaupt lernen kann, oder ob es von der künstlerischen Kreativität des Bearbeiters abhängt. Aber es ist schön und interessant Dir dabei zuzusehen. Vielen Dank!

[@iqueque]

I’m surprised that Lightroom is stressing your computer. I have a M1 iMac with16 gb of ram and haven’t had any issues

[@galanonim8137]

I also work on a Mac M1 Mini with 16GB RAM, which has never been pushed to its limits by running Lightroom and screencast software alone. Although I am a Windows power user, with experience dating back to MS-DOS and Windows 3.11 for Workgroups, I generally prefer to handle my photo, video, and music projects on a Mac.

[@Marquess271]

Hi to both of you! Since you have experiences using Lightroom with the Apple Silicon. My current workstation is a windows desktop, GeForce GTX1070, 32 GB DDR 4 4000Mhz, I5 8600k overclocked to 4,3 GHZ on 6 Cores. I’m planning to change to the new Mac Mini M4 Pro with 24 Gig’s of Ram. Do you think it will handle Lightroom and Photoshop editing with several layers? I’m talking about heavy editing, even lots of masks in Lightroom. Right now even the 32 GB of memory on my desktop are getting maxed out sometimes and I don’t have any comparison regarding the Mac Silicons. Thanks in advance.

[@galanonim8137]

@@Marquess271 I can handle large TIFF or PSB files exceeding 5GB on my Mac Mini M1 with 16GB of RAM without any issues. The new M4 Mac Mini is significantly faster and more powerful than the M1 model. If you want to future-proof your setup for the coming years, it could be worthwhile to consider the M4 Pro or Max, as they offer more processor and GPU cores. However, this may be overkill and less cost-effective compared to the standard M4 Mac. My basic Mac Mini M1 with 16GB of RAM is already much faster than my mid-2015 4K Retina MacBook Pro, and I have never heard the fan kick in. The internal design of the CPU, GPU, and RAM provides better performance than anything I’ve used before. Additionally, thanks to Thunderbolt connectivity, an external dedicated GPU like the RTX 4090 can be connected to the Mac Mini using an external enclosure, making it suitable for tasks that demand maximum GPU power, such as video editing and 3D rendering.

[@Marquess271]

@ Wow! Thank you so much for your detailed response. That helps me tremendously. I think I do want to make a future-oriented investment, even if it might be a bit of overkill at first. I’m definitely glad to hear that even the M1 can already handle such large files, so the M4 or even the M4 Pro shouldn’t have any trouble with them. Thanks again!

[@galanonim8137]

@@Marquess271 You are welcome. I believe that for a small budget, the Mac Mini M4 is currently the fastest and most efficient option, offering impressive performance, low power consumption, and outstanding quietness.I would also never opt for Macs with large internal drives, as the costs are disproportionate to the available storage size. I have a NAS that allows me to mount an 8TB drive as a network drive. This makes the smallest variant of the Mac Mini M4 unbeatable in terms of price and performance. A used NAS and two large hard drives are likely less expensive than a Mac hard drive upgrade to 2TB.

[@spirithealershamanism]

Thanks!

[@ThePhlogPhotography]

Thank you so much for the support!