You said everything that needed to be said. I always said to the people crying about getting copied from other photographers "If your style is only defined in post-production, maybe that's the issue"
I did tests where i took a shot someone else took at the same time i did. Same subject, same lighting, same time/location, similar framing. Just a different camera/lens and different person edited it (edited only in capture one). I found that match look clearly tried to do something, just wasn't what we wanted. I did a black and white conversion of one of my shots, exported it, and used it as the reference and tried match look on the raw (color) file. Match look got close, but it wanted to do all kinds of tweaks it didn't need. There's 100 different ways to get to the end, like you said, but i find it interesting how the tool just isn't what i expected. If all it really needed to do was check the black and white box, but it wants to play with every other slider too, i can't really tell what its trying to actually 'match' in its algorithms.
I took one of my edited images, created a new variant of it, set the edited variant as a source for match look and applied it to the new variant. The result did not really match. But honestly that was about what I expected.
Thanks for that, so glad I'm not the only one that has found sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't! Out of all the tools C1 has released this one has required the most thought about its use in my opinion. It will be ideal for the situation you point out - a client produces an image and say they want the same look. However I have also found that it can be used very creatively even when not expected! For example I did a shoot at a Beach at sunset time but there was no golden sunset. I had previously edited a woodland shot to be very autumn in appearance, I used that as the reference and the beach shots all of a sudden had a great sunset in them! I think it's a great addition to the software, will be very useful for clients and brands, and room to explore creativity with personal shots. Cheers for the honest reviews.
Paul Reiffer did a video on (among other things) "Match Look" just after the release and one of the things he demonstrated, was to take an image with just a collection of rectangular colour swathes to give a colour palette. Then he demonstrated how you could use that to colour grade an image to match the colour pallette you selected. So you're not taking another photo as input, but a selection of colours and tones. I hope the way I'm trying to explain makes sense. Would this be a way of working that would be useful to you as a professional photographer, when you need to achieve a certain look or fit in with a certain colour pallette?
Love the Channel Love the videos... you have so much valuable info and I really appreciate you sharing. It has helped give me more confidence as a professional. That being said I am also here for conversation and further understanding of other peoples points of view, I am really curious why you think people shouldn't get paid for things like presets? I know personally it took my years to learn the nuances of grading my images and have come up with with some really cool presets my self... all which took a ton of time and knowledge. So again I am honestly super curious why you think people shouldn't get paid for time put into creating unique looks and grades?
Thanks Jason! That’s a great question, that deserves more than a simple comment. In a nutshell, I think the information should be free, not paywalled. Presets are wrongly portrayed as a golden ticket to get the exact result you want, no matter the original image, when the only be-all answer, is editing every image uniquely.
@@sergiopstudio Ahh now I can totally get that... So you feel if a preset was marketed as a base and came with a how to edit and apply to quicken your work flow. Then maybe? I personally have never purchased presets but find huge value/enjoyment in making my own. Thank you for the reply =)
remember vsco presets? ppl started slapping them on everything! But you're right u need to shoot for the look to get the most out of a shoot at the end of the day. Thats what will stand out in the market
What is the goal of such a tool? If the end goal is to make everything super easy to achieve in 1 click, then what's left for us ? (This is a broader debate on ethics of IA, not only photography) For me, IA is acceptable as a tool for non-creative tasks like detouring a subject. Not color grading +Thanks for the video!!
After testing it lays down a decent base for most things but really struggles with more complex tonal looks. I didn't think it really unlocks any secrets that aren't already easy to figure out. The real use case though is that it can work better than copying and pasting styles across your own set especially in natural light when things are shifting around constantly. I used to copy paste adjustments and then go back and manually adjust each to the main but now this tool has almost eliminated that entirely.
the probkem is that this is sold as something which works magically without any knowledge and in reality, it is magically if you really understand what the tools are doing what works how in an image, light etc. This tool with editing knowledge is spectacular, can work wonders. But what I see for people who don't have much knowledge it is frustrating, and they don't even have any clue what the problem is and why it is not working. Btw If you use more than one image for the matching it is even better. I used it for a job with mixed flash and ambientlighting from outside to match the look closer even when parameters changed a lot and it was extremly helpful. nothing spectacular to show, because normal people won't even notice the problem but it cuts of a lot of editing time
@@sergiopstudio man-made in the beginning, sure, but isn't it an automated process just as much once you start selling your "looks" to other people who simply apply them to their images with a single mouse click?
I feel bad that it's so hard to make a living as a photographer these days. And this isn't a "they deserve it for being dumb" statement at all. My take here is that folks who sell presets being upset by this existing are justified. HOWEVER, it also was an inevitability. Any time folks are allowed to make money via a large company's product, be it C1 or Adobe, they are at risk of having their income source either outright taken away (rare) or more typically eroded slowly over time. These companies want to squeeze every last penny out of not only the consumers but any revenue opportunities they may have missed (such as stock images made by ai trained on your creative work, this, etc) and they're going to expend massive money and effort to claw those dollars away from the folks making presets. I would bet some actual money that Adobe has an even scummier version in the pipelines, if they didn't already then when they saw C1 release this they probably got right on it.
You said everything that needed to be said.
I always said to the people crying about getting copied from other photographers "If your style is only defined in post-production, maybe that's the issue"
this person gets it
I did tests where i took a shot someone else took at the same time i did. Same subject, same lighting, same time/location, similar framing. Just a different camera/lens and different person edited it (edited only in capture one). I found that match look clearly tried to do something, just wasn't what we wanted.
I did a black and white conversion of one of my shots, exported it, and used it as the reference and tried match look on the raw (color) file. Match look got close, but it wanted to do all kinds of tweaks it didn't need. There's 100 different ways to get to the end, like you said, but i find it interesting how the tool just isn't what i expected. If all it really needed to do was check the black and white box, but it wants to play with every other slider too, i can't really tell what its trying to actually 'match' in its algorithms.
I love it. No more paying for presets that need additional work anyways
👏👏 LOUDER
I took one of my edited images, created a new variant of it, set the edited variant as a source for match look and applied it to the new variant. The result did not really match. But honestly that was about what I expected.
Thanks for that, so glad I'm not the only one that has found sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't! Out of all the tools C1 has released this one has required the most thought about its use in my opinion. It will be ideal for the situation you point out - a client produces an image and say they want the same look. However I have also found that it can be used very creatively even when not expected! For example I did a shoot at a Beach at sunset time but there was no golden sunset. I had previously edited a woodland shot to be very autumn in appearance, I used that as the reference and the beach shots all of a sudden had a great sunset in them! I think it's a great addition to the software, will be very useful for clients and brands, and room to explore creativity with personal shots. Cheers for the honest reviews.
Thanks for sharing Steve!
Could this be the end of the style shops or sellers? Once you can download a preview of the style, you can match it...
Paul Reiffer did a video on (among other things) "Match Look" just after the release and one of the things he demonstrated, was to take an image with just a collection of rectangular colour swathes to give a colour palette. Then he demonstrated how you could use that to colour grade an image to match the colour pallette you selected.
So you're not taking another photo as input, but a selection of colours and tones.
I hope the way I'm trying to explain makes sense.
Would this be a way of working that would be useful to you as a professional photographer, when you need to achieve a certain look or fit in with a certain colour pallette?
Love the Channel Love the videos... you have so much valuable info and I really appreciate you sharing. It has helped give me more confidence as a professional.
That being said I am also here for conversation and further understanding of other peoples points of view, I am really curious why you think people shouldn't get paid for things like presets? I know personally it took my years to learn the nuances of grading my images and have come up with with some really cool presets my self... all which took a ton of time and knowledge. So again I am honestly super curious why you think people shouldn't get paid for time put into creating unique looks and grades?
Thanks Jason! That’s a great question, that deserves more than a simple comment. In a nutshell, I think the information should be free, not paywalled. Presets are wrongly portrayed as a golden ticket to get the exact result you want, no matter the original image, when the only be-all answer, is editing every image uniquely.
@@sergiopstudio Ahh now I can totally get that... So you feel if a preset was marketed as a base and came with a how to edit and apply to quicken your work flow. Then maybe?
I personally have never purchased presets but find huge value/enjoyment in making my own.
Thank you for the reply =)
remember vsco presets? ppl started slapping them on everything! But you're right u need to shoot for the look to get the most out of a shoot at the end of the day. Thats what will stand out in the market
Good call! I remember using IG like that over 12 years ago 😅
What is the goal of such a tool? If the end goal is to make everything super easy to achieve in 1 click, then what's left for us ?
(This is a broader debate on ethics of IA, not only photography)
For me, IA is acceptable as a tool for non-creative tasks like detouring a subject. Not color grading
+Thanks for the video!!
After testing it lays down a decent base for most things but really struggles with more complex tonal looks. I didn't think it really unlocks any secrets that aren't already easy to figure out. The real use case though is that it can work better than copying and pasting styles across your own set especially in natural light when things are shifting around constantly. I used to copy paste adjustments and then go back and manually adjust each to the main but now this tool has almost eliminated that entirely.
thanks for chiming in Chris!
the probkem is that this is sold as something which works magically without any knowledge and in reality, it is magically if you really understand what the tools are doing what works how in an image, light etc. This tool with editing knowledge is spectacular, can work wonders. But what I see for people who don't have much knowledge it is frustrating, and they don't even have any clue what the problem is and why it is not working.
Btw If you use more than one image for the matching it is even better. I used it for a job with mixed flash and ambientlighting from outside to match the look closer even when parameters changed a lot and it was extremly helpful. nothing spectacular to show, because normal people won't even notice the problem but it cuts of a lot of editing time
well said!
Ethically there's no difference between this and presets or LUTs
I think most people’s concern is that presets are man-made, and Match Look is AI assisted.
@@sergiopstudio man-made in the beginning, sure, but isn't it an automated process just as much once you start selling your "looks" to other people who simply apply them to their images with a single mouse click?
what software do u use for editing video? or talking head like this
I edit my videos with Davinci Resolve
I feel bad that it's so hard to make a living as a photographer these days. And this isn't a "they deserve it for being dumb" statement at all. My take here is that folks who sell presets being upset by this existing are justified. HOWEVER, it also was an inevitability. Any time folks are allowed to make money via a large company's product, be it C1 or Adobe, they are at risk of having their income source either outright taken away (rare) or more typically eroded slowly over time. These companies want to squeeze every last penny out of not only the consumers but any revenue opportunities they may have missed (such as stock images made by ai trained on your creative work, this, etc) and they're going to expend massive money and effort to claw those dollars away from the folks making presets. I would bet some actual money that Adobe has an even scummier version in the pipelines, if they didn't already then when they saw C1 release this they probably got right on it.