Thanks Terry,

You said "Because it "brightens" the image but without over-doing the bright/nearly saturated areas."

That explains why Fred said "By way of example, Many of my shots have blue sky and blue water.... (Can't help it! Sarasota Florida) 
So in my case, I don't want my sky or water to get lighter. I uncheck the "B" for Blue, and the "C" for Cyan."

What was fooling me, probably, was the word 'boost'. Over here in the UK we'd think boosting the sky and water would make them bluer - so we would not want to hold back the boosting by removing the tick. The tick lightens as well as boosts.

You saying the software 'brightens the image' explains why some of my shots that needed RAW Fill work without it if I let the new feature work on the image.

In one of my Thursday shots which the booster applied an overall 2.45 increase on were over saturated. When I clicked it again and it dropped back to 2.15 the shot looked lovely - almost certainly better than RAW Fill.

I think what I'll do is to create some Custom Filters with a range of 'boosts'. I'll also use that Custom Filter right click drop down as it gets at the 'boost' icon without a lot of screen rebuilding.

As you say - lots to learn.

Tony

Thanks Terry,

I know you jest about my obsession with batch (!) but the 'smart' only works if I page through file by file. That I can do using CTL + Q.

As you pointed out yesterday running SCB over a batch gets it to be 'smart' over the first frame and then replicates that adjustment over the remainder. If I create filters for, say, 1.15 and 2.15 I can run them over every frame and see what percentage I prefer.

I always have to go back and individually tweak between ten and twenty percent of each batch - but it's a heck of a lot faster than working each one separately.

And, yes, to pick up your suggestion of using the rating facility yesterday. It is great but so much slower than doing my culling in BreezeBrowser. With which....off downstairs to cull Friday's probable 400 shots to forty.

Back soon.

EDIT. And here I am. The SCB is now producing different readings over the files I used it on earlier in the week. Files coming up with readings of 2.15 and 2.45 now show 1.10.

I have produced a named filter with 1.50 in each field other than the bottom one and my PC is running a conversion to jpg whilst I have a coffee. As I said yesterday I have a filter that adds some DFS and contrast of 10+. It'll be interesting to see how many of my 77 (about 350 culled to the recycle bin) shots need a second treatment.

Tony

Thanks Mike,

"If your numbers are changing, you changed one (or more) of the following on those images:
- Curves
- Levels
- White balance
- Raw refine parameters"

I could easily have done. I have accessed the settings so frequently that I could easily have made a change!

"The thing you need to keep in mind is that SCB is not a filter which is why it can't be saved or applied in batch"

But you don't mind if I create a filter based on Sel Colour at, say, 1.75 on each box other than the bottom one and applying it to a batch of files presumably?

I'm of the impression that it might give me the sort of images I prefer. It was Fred who spotted that my Lighroom RAW conversions were suffering from overblown highlights - and what decided me to use QU for RAW work as well as printing. A decision I never regretted. However, I still feel that the QU defaults are a bit 'flat' for me - hence the quest for a pack of filters that suit my (possibly slightly odd) tastes.

For all that, every week I feel my images are getting better - thanks more to QU than anything else these days.

Tony

Thanks Terry.

I'm not using SCB. I am using a filter created by modifying the Sel Colour matrix.

I am finding that I get more hits per batch if I add 1.75 into the Sel Colour matrix (apart from the bottom line) than if I leave each line at 1.0. Yes, I have to revisit some and add some more RAW Fill , but fewer than without the filter. For me that is progress. 

Not once have I ever had to reduce Fill since I started using QU to process my RAWs. That's maybe 250 shots a week for 26 weeks. Not once in 6,500 shots has QU given me too much fill.

I am sorry if I offend the purists 

I'd love to use SCB on every RAW I process but my machine is too slow even though it is SSD, 8 core and so on. Hence my obsession/need for short cuts.

I am still in active contact with photographers processing 250 shots a day (not like me a week) and they are frustrated with Adobe and Lightroom. Give Qimage a try I say! It is too slow for batch work is the most frequent reply. I'm doing it, I say. I am not sure how many migrate to QU but I try!! Look at DPR some time and you'll see what an ambassador for Qimage I am 

Sweet dreams. It is cocktail time in SW6 


Tony