Any opinions on Dan Margulis's book, Professional Photoshop?

Baldy · January 14, 2004

I heard from a couple of pros I respect that Dan's book was the one, so I bought it and immediately fell in love. It has an authoritative tone, compelling examples, and the author has quite an impressive history. I hightlighted, made notes in the margins....

But...every now and then I'd get stuck somewhere thinking, "yikes, I didn't think that way about color. How do I get my head around this?" And after a day or two I found I still couldn't.

By a wonderful stroke of luck, I had the food fortune to work with Bill Atkinson and spent an afternoon in his home. I asked him about Margulis and the parts I didn't understand, and he winced. "Some of his stuff is wrong. And besides, some shots have no white, etc. Go get Photoshop Artistry from Barry Haynes."

Your thoughts.

(A little eye candy from Bill's site:)

wxwax · January 15, 2004

Wow, beautiful.

Thanks for adding another Photoshop book to my stack Baldy.

Tuesday · January 15, 2004

Baldy wrote:

Your thoughts.

(A little eye candy from Bill's site:)

Beautiful.
Love the rose. So sharp.
The lighting is great.

Baldy · January 16, 2004

Tuesday wrote:

Beautiful.
Love the rose. So sharp.
The lighting is great.

He told me about the lighting on that shot. 3 flash heads. He adjusted the one high and behind so that it was just intense enough to show the translucence of the petal.

He has a favorite nursery in Half Moon Bay that let's him strobe away.

wxwax · January 16, 2004

Did he Photoshop the black background, or did his lighting help create it?

Baldy · January 16, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Did he Photoshop the black background, or did his lighting help create it?

You need some monitor calibration, dude. :dood

It's dark green and natural. The other flower back there is natural too.

zero-zero · January 16, 2004

I feel your pain about the Margulis book, Baldy. His approach is certainly controversial and has rubbed some people the wrong way. But there is a critical aspect to consider: Margulis is not a photographer, he is a color guru from the print world. A lot in his book is aimed at prepress pros and can be safely ignored by photogs - I happen to work on both sides and that's why that book helped me so much.

Rule of thumb: if you have to read it twice, there's a lot to be learned there. But if the veins in your forehead are starting to throb and smoke is coming out of your ears, it's time to step away!

wxwax · January 16, 2004

Baldy wrote:

You need some monitor calibration, dude. :dood

It's dark green and natural. The other flower back there is natural too.

patch29 · January 16, 2004

Baldy wrote:

You need some monitor calibration, dude. :dood

It's dark green and natural. The other flower back there is natural too.

Sid, I think Photoshop has (once upon a time it had?) a simple calibration program that should get your monitor somewhat in line.

If only you knew someone

who owned an Eye-One spectrophotometer that could calibrate and create a profile for your monitor.

wxwax · January 16, 2004

Yabbut, what I'm saying is that I'm not the exception.

Actually, I tried the Photoshop on my home machine, scared the hell out of me. I ended-up manually adjusting the monitor until I saw the various shades that I figured I was supposed to see at ADVRider.

fish · January 16, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Yabbut, what I'm saying is that I'm not the exception.

And you know this how, exactly?

If you are having trouble discerning among the shades of gray in the forum, your monitor is in need of more than simple fine-tuning. You can get a really good Viewsonic 19" CRT for about $300 or a Sony 19 CRT for about twice that. I can't recommend flat panels at this time. I tried a couple and didn't like the inflexibility. If you've got a modern video card (DVI), then maybe a FP will work for you.

There's no point in having a good camera (input device) if you've got a crappy monitor (output device).

wxwax · January 16, 2004

Dude, keep up. My work monitor. w-o-r-k. They buy it and supply it.

pathfinder · January 20, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Dude, keep up. My work monitor. w-o-r-k. They buy it and supply it.

wxwax - A simple way to help dial in a monitor at work is to go to www.easyrgb.com and follow the links on their site through their little monitor calibration routine - It is not a replacement for a colorimeter, but will get your monitor closer than you can eyeball it. It is free too! Give it a try and see if it is any better. They make no changes to your existing profiles so what's to lose?

DoctorIt · January 20, 2004

patch29 wrote:

Sid, I think Photoshop has (once upon a time it had?) a simple calibration program that should get your monitor somewhat in line.

If only you knew someone who owned an Eye-One spectrophotometer that could calibrate and create a profile for your monitor.

Um, I know someone with an Eye-One Display , and I don't see another flower back there???

DoctorIt · January 20, 2004

DoctorIt wrote:

Um, I know someone with an Eye-One Display , and I don't see another flower back there???

Nevermind, calibrate all I want, still have glare. Its faint, but down at the bottom, just to the left of center, right?

wxwax · January 20, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

wxwax - A simple way to help dial in a monitor at work is to go to www.easyrgb.com and follow the links on their site through their little monitor calibration routine - It is not a replacement for a colorimeter, but will get your monitor closer than you can eyeball it. It is free too! Give it a try and see if it is any better. They make no changes to your existing profiles so what's to lose?

Pathfinder, I'll try that. Thanks for the link.

rutt · January 25, 2004

Thoughts of a Margulis fan
Dan seems to be associated with these controversial ideas:

"By the numbers" color correction. This is the technique of knowing what colors the numbers imply in each color space. The idea is to get the numbers "right" instead of trusting one's eyes and monitor calibration. (But right is actually more subtle; Dan actually means "not wrong". There is a huge emphasis on avoiding impossible colors -- purple horses, brown tuxedos, green skys, &etc.)
Finding/choosing a highlight and lowlight and making them neutral black and neutral white, respectively.
Using CMYK for most color correction. (But he might be changing his mind about this due to some features of Photoshop CS that I don't understand.)

In fact, this (along with sharpening) is the emphasis of the first 6 chapters of "Professional Photoshop". After this the book gets into plate blending, LAB color, working with multiple color spaces at once, and other even more
arcane topics. But just because these techniques are arcane, doesn't mean they are not extremely useful at times.

Dan's book is always very well written and even fun to read (compare to the usual book about photoshop), but it goes from square 1 (the first 6 chapterss) to outer space. After the first 6 chapters the book is aimed at prepress professionals and really isn't very accessable to someone without quite a lot of experience.

I found Dan's book a little more than a year and a half ago. It was the first organized description of digital color correction that made any sense to me. As Dan predicted in his introduction, I was able to follow and apply the first 6 chapters pretty easily and the techniques discribed worked well for a majority of shots.

Last spring, I took Dan's intro seminar. It was an intense and exhausting two days, but now I can use LAB color and some plate blending. I can correct photos that don't have neutral shadows and highlights. There is still plenty I cannot do, but many more of the techniques from the book are available to me and I can read the later chapters without getting completely lost. I now find the LAB color space often very useful.

Like any really good craftsman or artist, Dan doesn't limit himself to a single technique or methodology. No single approach is right for all pictures. And no even for the same picture, there may be no "best" approach, just as there is no "best" way to shoot a particular subject or scene.

Having said all of that, I don't think that Dan knows everything there is to know about how to correct/enhance colors digitally. I don't think he claims to. During his course, he was always on the lookout for new ideas. And if Dan is humble on this topic, I have far greater reason for humility.

So I'll look forward to reading "Photoshop Artistry". I hope it's as well written as "Professional Photoshop".

Baldy · January 27, 2004

Great stuff, Rutt, and good to see you here. I have to say, when he showed images with things like Nissan Pathfinders where the actual CMYK values of the paint are known, his method seems awesome. I shoot cars a lot with real blacks, real whites, and known paint colors and for that stuff it's by the numbers for me.

rutt · January 27, 2004

Color correction by the numbers with no high/low light
After I first read Dan's book, I found pictures with no white or black point to be a real problem. The simple techniques of the first 6 chapters rely on finding both a neutral white and a neutral black point. Fortunately, many good photos do have these and it does make things really easy. Some professional studio photographers even include an artifact at the edge of the shot (where it can be cropped out) with reall black and real white.

Sometimes there are known non-neutral colors. You alluded to cars. One of my fellow students in Dan's class works for an advertising agency. Many times her client will specify exactly what colors logos, clothing, and other products are supposed to be. Another fellow student is the chief photograppher for the Cleveland Museum of Art. He shoots pictures of the museum's collection for catalogs, posters, and also for archival records. There isn't much room for artistic interpretation here -- he has to try to capture the true colors.

But sometimes there is no obvious high or low light. Chapter 6 describes the process of makig complex inferences to choose among competing possibilites for neutral white or dark point. This chapter is worth more than one reading.

This still doesn't address what to do when there really is no high or low light. During Dan's class I began to get the hang of these situations. Really doing this requires a deep and intuitive understanding of the colors that result for channel values in each of the color spaces (I don't have this.) Roughly, the idea is that even though there may be no white point, there might be a green point (for example.) That point should have a magenta level of 0 (well, 2, but that's a different story) since magenta doesn't reflect green. This cannot be taken out of context. Forcing any point in the image to a particular color value with curves has global effect. That's really the point of chapter 6.

And, of course, sometimes CMYK curves aren't the right tool or are only part of a more complex process.

mercphoto · May 13, 2004

Color Correction and your Eyes
I was drawn to Dan's book (which I have not bought yet) and this color correction by the numbers scheme for one very important reason -- I am slightly color blind. Often I can tell something is wrong, and see that changes occur, but cannot tell if it is better or more accurate. So the idea of color correcting in an analytical sense has an obvious huge appeal to me.

I am very good with composition, technique, and I have an eye for this stuff. Is there any reason why a slightly color blind person like me can't succeed as a photographer? Would Dan's system be of great benefit to me?

Thanks, Bill.

rutt · May 14, 2004

mercphoto wrote:

I was drawn to Dan's book (which I have not bought yet) and this color correction by the numbers scheme for one very important reason -- I am slightly color blind. Often I can tell something is wrong, and see that changes occur, but cannot tell if it is better or more accurate. So the idea of color correcting in an analytical sense has an obvious huge appeal to me.

I am very good with composition, technique, and I have an eye for this stuff. Is there any reason why a slightly color blind person like me can't succeed as a photographer? Would Dan's system be of great benefit to me?

Thanks, Bill.

I can't say for sure, but it would have to be better than a system that requires you not to be color blind. Dan says he can teach a "color blind gorilla", but having worked with his methods and taken his class, I don't think that's really true. You still have to be able to eveluate the result.

Baldy · December 21, 2004

One year later....

This book has really stood the test of time for me. I've probably handled 500 print color complaints by very good photographers who genuinely felt EZ Prints had missed the color, only to delve into the numbers and find the problem.

We have a skin tone help section now based on Dan's stuff that has completely removed the mystery from getting prints right for so many of our photographers.

http://www.smugmug.com/help/skin-tone

The book is tough to thoroughly understand, but after the hard work of groking it, it's pure gold in my opinion.

DavidTO · December 21, 2004

Baldy wrote:

One year later....

This book has really stood the test of time for me. I've probably handled 500 print color complaints by very good photographers who genuinely felt EZ Prints had missed the color, only to delve into the numbers and find the problem.

We have a skin tone help section now based on Dan's stuff that has completely removed the mystery from getting prints right for so many of our photographers.

http://www.smugmug.com/help/skin-tone

The book is tough to thoroughly understand, but after the hard work of groking it, it's pure gold in my opinion.

Groking...

takes me back to my Heinlein days....

GREAPER · December 21, 2004

All this color talk makes me feel like a stranger in a strange land...

wxwax · December 22, 2004

Baldy wrote:

One year later....

This book has really stood the test of time for me. I've probably handled 500 print color complaints by very good photographers who genuinely felt EZ Prints had missed the color, only to delve into the numbers and find the problem.

We have a skin tone help section now based on Dan's stuff that has completely removed the mystery from getting prints right for so many of our photographers.

http://www.smugmug.com/help/skin-tone

The book is tough to thoroughly understand, but after the hard work of groking it, it's pure gold in my opinion.

That's a terrific Help section, Baldy, nice job.

lynnma · December 22, 2004

wxwax wrote:

That's a terrific Help section, Baldy, nice job.

I'm printing it out.. Rutt tried to help me sooo many times with Dan but I find him very hard to read.. Dan that is.. I will try again as this is pretty critical.. I've been using Scott Kelby's curves adjustment system and it's sorta ok but not perfect.. thanks Baldy.

rutt · December 22, 2004

Yes, I still carry it around with me and am still learning from it. I think the special thing about Dan is that he teaches color theory and not just photoshop recipies. Once you get your mind around the theory, there are zillions of ways to put it to use. Dan has some suggestion for how to do that, but his implementations are the only ones that work, and he'd be the first to admit that.

I find Dan fun to read; he is a very good writer. His information is technical and there is a lot of it, so I'm not sure it could be made any easier to read. The trick is to take your time as you read and not to worry if you don't get it all the first time. The first time through, be happy if you get the big ideas, like the fact that people dont' really agree what color pigs are. This is a book you need to think about when you are not actually reading it.

Anyway, I'm glad that Baldy has come to appreciate this book. I wondered what was going on when I saw his HOWTO for EZPRINTing.

Baldy, I think Dan would appreciate a citation in the HOWTO. Seriously.

ginger_55 · December 23, 2004

On this flower thing: are you all kidding.........re the background color, right?

I see a green so dark, it would appear to be black if that was what was expected.

I have never calibrated my monitor, I brightened it just on hear say. The only gage I have is that my prints from Lulu, in the proof copies, were exactly as they are on my monitor.

Also the colors print out fine on my cheap printer.......junk in, junk out. I try not to let that happen and thought I was seeing close to what others were.

Just asking,
ginger

rutt · December 23, 2004

ginger_55 wrote:

On this flower thing: are you all kidding.........re the background color, right?

I see a green so dark, it would appear to be black if that was what was expected.

I have never calibrated my monitor, I brightened it just on hear say. The only gage I have is that my prints from Lulu, in the proof copies, were exactly as they are on my monitor.

Also the colors print out fine on my cheap printer.......junk in, junk out. I try not to let that happen and thought I was seeing close to what others were.

Just asking,
ginger

Ginger, Ginger. The whole point of Dan's work is that you shouldn't trust your eys or your monitor. Trust the numbers. I download the rose and used the color sampler in PS. The background is:

R 0, G 41, B 38
L 14, A -14, B -3

We know this color isn't black because it has positive G&B values and becaue it has a positive L value. But these numbers also tell us it's pretty dark. We know it's green (actually green-cyan) because it has 0 red and positive G & B with G slightly higher. The negative A and B values tell us the same thing. So if your monitor doesn't show that background as dark green, it's wrong.

ginger_55 · December 23, 2004

Well, it does show it as dark green. However, it is like that thing that was going around where you count the number of "fs" in a sentence and most people get it wrong.

Since I read backwards I knew that there were 6 Fs, and was not tricked, they were in the word "of".

Our minds cannot be trusted, and that is one more reason for technology and the people who interpret it for us.

I also, along with lynn, printed out the info on how to get the yellow in the faces. That part is interesting. I have known, from Baldy, for some time that the yellow should be more than the magenta, but sometimes I have had trouble getting it there. So that was quite helpful.

When I read Margulis, I find him "fun". Along with reading about the dark holes that may, or may not, exist.........up there, you know. Also that thick Bryson book. Margulis might be best on this stuff. That is one thing about geeks, they have more fun than anyone, IMO.

I started out an art major and switched to biology. The science dept was where the fun and the joy were. (I couldn't go with math, I had already had analytical geometry and calculus..............25 yrs before, don't know if those people are fun or not)

Margulis is a good read with very good input. I am glad I have his book. The background is green with the flower, but if I expect it to be red, my eyes might see it that way.

(There is a front coming through, darn.......grey, a southern cold front, you know them when you feel them. I may have to close the door tonight.)

g

Baldy · December 23, 2004

rutt wrote:

Baldy, I think Dan would appreciate a citation in the HOWTO. Seriously.

I've been seriously tempted to do that and probably will. The only thing that has stopped me is he is controversial among some big names like Bruce Fraser, who thinks by the numbers workflow is inefficient.

I can tell you this for certain: after seeing 250,000 prints go through the lab this month from some very good pros, and seeing a few hundred color complaints over the last few months, the words of death are:

"It looked good on my calibrated monitor."

Of those few hundred color complaints, I'm only aware of two where the print didn't agree very closely to the numbers measured in Photoshop.

So I'm evaluating these books before recommending Margulis, only because the one consistent complaint about Dan's book is it's a lot of work to get through it:

1579905439.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Any opinions on Dan Margulis's book, Professional Photoshop?

Comments