![]() If the auto-crop can be disabled in Photoshop, or if it is manually adjustable within the tool, then that reduces this benefit, but it is still only a small gain over using the separate tools. ![]() In terms of my preference for separate perspective and crop tools, from what I can tell in the descriptions I have found of the tool (and please correct me if I am missing something), Photoshop is determining the cropped area automatically after fixing the perspective, in order to chop off the "missing" parts of the picture? Assuming that is the case, if I am not using the entire area that results from having performed the perspective correction, it may be that parts of what get removed could have been left in as I would have been selecting a different portion of the resulting image anyway (which might not even be a rectangular area if I am masking the photo or placing part of it behind something else within a design) - so separating those tasks means I have the flexibility to keep more of the image than I might have been able to with an auto-crop. the other if the tools have equivalent capabilities. I don't know either that there is a technical benefit to doing it in one tool vs. It also allows me to do what should be a basic part of the development process earlier within the sequence of programs I am using. In terms of doing it in the RAW developer rather than in Photo, I prefer that mostly because I happen to have a more advance perspective correction toolset available using DxO Viewpoint and because Viewpoint is integrated into OpticsPro, so I can do one-stop-shopping, making it more convenient. Can you help me understand the benefits of that approach? I wouldn't have thought it would make much difference when one did the perspective correction, or the cropping.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |