As you are using PL ver 2, the colour wheel is out, so one way to change the sky is to use Viveza. As well as modifying saturation, hue etc, you can use the same tool for completely changing the colour of the sky.
I do a lot of handheld shots (so I can’t exposure bracket) in places with quite high contrast, so I tend to focus on the rest of the image and then sort to sky in post processing.
You can grab a copy of the still free Google NIK plugins if budget is tight.
i think you mis understood me. I have v3.3 and use those options in PL to re-color the sky.
as you did it in Viveza i was in the assumption that that worked better then plv3.3 toolkit.
As i told i am not very often in NIK collection (i have the dxo free version installed)
Because the slightly different way the controls are in upoints/controlpoints i got confused which command does what, i am faster in dxoPL getting what i want then clicking in the large amount of filters choices searching for that look i like.
I thought you have found a easy quick filter “bluesky” which you just apply,
export tiff to viveza apply filter return to PL export tiff in Pl to jpeg done.
it’s more contained in the selection circle. and i can’t see how much sliders for adjusting are available.
But yes i understand your point.
If DxO create a controlpoint which outer circle can be made oval and the feathering can be controlled, (how much it spread outside the circle/oval) then this tool get much more versatile.
Bit the same as the luminance masking showed/discussed in Selective Tone tool working.
sometimes a narrower field of selection is preferred and then luminocity/luminance masking selection by hand is needed.
(As i am just a hobby photographer i think i can without it or work around it.But now i know it’s possible…)
work in progres for DxO staff.
Every time about this time of year I do a re-evaluation of my current photo tools and what is new and improved on the market or just some I haven’t investigated.
The results this year is that PL3 Elite still wins hands down in terms of the Prime noise reduction. No other RAW processes even comes close in produce fine detail at a substantially reduces noise. I have done heavy “pixel peaking” several paid and open source products and PL3 still provides the highest (and natural) detail of any. All the others I have tested all produce quite similar “out of the camera” results. With many, you can’t even achieve the sort of noise reduction that even PL3’s HQ reduction (some of them were price alternatives to PL3).
Now, these results were with a Nikon and maybe some of the other apps might be “friendlier” to other brands.
There are a few additions and tweaks that would make the successor to PL3 a real plus for any photographer and I think that is where the focus should be is in the core function of the product, RAW conversion.
The circle is the extent of the masked area. You do not need to go beyond the circle, just extend the circle and adjust the internal feathering. Feathering within is dealt with by the feathering control in the tool. Also remember that range masking (colour or luminosity) is available on the masking brush as well as the gradient or radial tool. And don’t forget that parts of the mask can also be erased/reduced in density with the erase brush. The masking in Lr has become very powerful.
Should add that after adding a mask of any type it is possible to adjust the overall opacity of the effect.
[quote=“tilltheendofeternity, post:29, topic:14912”]
I got off the Apple software renting scheme long ago and do not regret it one bit. (not an Apple ‘hater’ either, have had Macs since 1997 and used PS, Lr etc since then and even taught it in FE).
What has Apple got to do with it? Lr is nothing to do with Apple incidentally. This is about specific functionality and not one piece of software versus another. So whilst Lr is mentioned C1 has the same functionality. It is a comparison between control points and equivalent masking. It shows, in my view, that whilst control points are great and useful the tech has moved on and continues to do so. I love PL but disagree that it is easier to use than Lr. There are of course pluses and minuses on both sides but as I said this thread is not about that.
Changed they in DxO. Ment with they dxo.
The change can be made in dxo localcontrolpoints.
Same as masking in general it become more and more a basic( everyday used) editing tool so the versatility needs to be monitored and changed during the releases of versions.
Keep ahead needs changing and upgrading every year of the toolset.
[quote=“Tilmann, post:33, topic:14912”]
If I need a non-circular control point shape, I simply use multiple (overlapping) control points belonging to the same set of sliders. That’s pretty flexible in selecting the wanted areas…
The point I was making at the start of all this was that the Lr radial filter is really a control point on steroids. Yes we can all use workarounds but Lr, as does Capture One, makes it easy and offers a greater range of editing options. A control point is taking its reference from a specific target point whilst the Lr radial filter can work on several points within the created area, be those points driven by colour or luminosity. Or indeed it can work without a specific reference point, treating all variants in the selected area the same. Add to that the ability to erase parts of the mask via a brush with optional edge aware tech and you have a very powerful tool indeed. I do not expect to see this stuff arriving in PL any time soon but I do think it illustrates where modern apps are going and DxO need to be aware of that, as I am sure they are. None of that means I do not like or use control points, but I do find myself using Lr more for the colour range and luminosity type masking.
But controlpoints can be evolving, must be evolving.
HSL tool inside the local adjustments for instance.
And a more control on the way a controlpoint feathered along the selection and the opacity slider is a step forward but not the same.
Oval forms are a way to force this selection control have more punch. More detailed nailing on the right spot.
An other thing is a layer which can be adjusted in a luminosity range and a color. So a hue is exact selected.
Look at the HSL, that color selection system but then as luminance/brightness. That circle is a black to white. 0-255. And the three sliders as uniformity, saturation, lumination turned in uniformity, black-----white(aka exposure),saturation/contrast.
So you don’t select a color range but more a brightnes range with all colors inthere in that hue. And has the oppertunity to lower, exposure, brightness, bring more contrast in that tone range, dehaze/clearview?, and uniformity is then a form of feathering.
I don’t want or need a monsterus overloaded option package of tools. (get lost in options so to speak.)
So every added tool needs to be adding something to the excisting tools and not overlapping excisting tools.
Also dxo don’t need to be a clone of LR. But acknowledge good things so you can create you own is a good work ethos.