Sorry, but I beg to disagree. I always assumed that the photo filter was redundant to other filters/blend modes, though I never really used it. But obviously there is more to it, that means that you can do things with the photo filter that you cannot do otherwise. That should be a reason to use it. And that you don't understand it, is a weak argument, or do you really understand the hard mix filter? You simply have used it so often that you can predict the results. So, I guess you should change your mind, experiment as you always love to do and find solutions that the photo filter provides that you cannot get by other means.
I've been in Photoshop for 22 years and never really liked the effect I get from it. It's kind of redundant. I place a lot of weight on predictability and reliability matched with quantifiable results. I don't get that from the photo filter, for all the reasons mentioned in the video. At the end of the day it's personal preference 😁
I guess some people like the scientific approach to arts, which is fine but it's not for me, although I do like some of Eric Satie's work, he apparently used math when composing.
Thank you once again, Blake. I wouldn't be at all surprised if one day someone makes up a game of the goings on in Blake Rudis' mind. What a lot of fun that would be and it seems as if the options are endless.
Loved seeing how you learn how different PS works. I agree, predicabilities very important versus the surprises. Watching the video my mind went off the rails again; I kept thinking about Thomas Dolby's song, Science!
I'll have to look into that! Sometimes I wish I'd gone to school for marine biology or something. But then I guess I wouldn't have met awesome people like you!
I used to use Photo Filter a lot in the past but now not much. It's funny though that you brought this up because... just yesterday I was working on a photo (remake of an old one) and I've used Solid Color, Color Balance, AND Photo Filter in the process; Each to its purpose kinda. One of the uses of Photo Filter, I would say, is to quickly adjust the WB in the photo (after the effect, like, if you don't have the RAW that is).
Awesome video -- as always. I still sometimes use a physical orange filter when making a monochrome portrait because I sometimes like the look of the skin. It is for me a monochrome thing that filters light before it even hits the sensor-- not change ('color cast') the saved pixels with a color cast after the fact. When I hear "filter" the closer simulation to me is the black&white adjustment layer that you can change "color" luminosities on a monochrome layer. Your explanation is so SPOT ON. I hate not knowing, as well. The entire "Neural Filters" section causes me anxiety. :-)
I also never use that feature. This is beside the point but maybe try the multiply method, put a duplicate original photo on top, and set It's blending mode to luminosity? I think that's what it does. 🤔
Your video illustrates the difference between you, Blake, and normal mortals: You can predict what will happen to color and tone of images with every tool and every single blend mode, while most of us rely on trial and error by experimentation to get the look we envisage. In this case, the photo filter is as useful as solid color is.
Haha, I'm. Human, I promise. It's all personal preference. I feel like I have more control with solid color so I don't see a need for the photo filter if it doesn't have a value add for me.
What a weird problem to have; I'm not gonna use it because I don't understand the science behind it. I sometimes add the warming filter as a finishing touch, I use my eyes to judge whether or not I like the result, and hopefully the people looking at my photos also use their eyes :)
If I were Blake Rudis (who probably has an always open line of communiction with Adobe) I'd ask the software engineers at Adobe what's exactly happening with that photo filter. Because now I'm just as curious as Blake about it! 😎
I love your videos, and i love to learn Photoshop..... but you teach soooo many ways to color grade, like this last one..... Hard mix...... that now i am so confused..... which one works best??? what is better and no destructive??? what is better practices?????? I am confused :(
Experiment :) Hard Mix will give your image a boost in tonal contrast while boosting the color. Linear Light is a much more tame version on contrast but still gives good color. It's a game of experimentation and knowing what to move to operate the blend mode. I do have a course where I go in depth on every blend mode in Photoshop. Much of what you find here is surface level stuff, on f64elite.com I go a mile deep.
I’m confused- what do you mean you don’t know what at highlight is or what a shadow is? On the surface it makes it sound like you can’t see what light room is affecting when you adjust the highlights and shadows. Is that what you are saying?
In a way, yes, you can't actually tell what exactly the highlight slider is affecting. I know its the highlights, but I can't press Alt or Option while clicking it to see what it is targeting in the image, I just have to trust that it knows what the highlight is, does that make sense? I do know the difference between a highlight and a shadow, I just want to SEE what is being affected. I only know what is going to happen based on patterned behavior.
@@f64Academy You have more experience than me in PS, but in ACR but if you press alt while moving the slider in highlights and shadows you can see what parts of the image are being dodge and burn. It shows you colors that are being corrected excessively. if you use luminance gamma masks you can target specific areas, which would be coincidental with shadows, medium and light tones. Regards.
I do... Trust me I do. But as artists, feeling is important, yes, but so is predictability with it tools. I teach many ways to help people "feel", this is just a different approach for different people.
