I have in mind to have another reading group for the new edition of Professional Photoshop, which Dan is sure will be out this year.
I the mean time, don't be afraid to post questions. Some of us do know the current edition of Professional Photoshop pretty well.
Was a reading group ever established for this book?
Yep. Read the first post in this thread. There's a link for each chapter discussion posted thus far.
David, I think he's talking about Professional Photoshop, not Photoshop LAB Color.... There is reading group for the LAB book and David's right: look at the first post in this thread.
There is no reading group PP. I'd like to have one, but I'm waiting for a new, drastically revised, edition due by the end of the year.
If I were you, I'd read the LAB book now and wait for the new PP.
BTW, I am distinctly female. ; )
...but I am a total NOOB to CS2 and LAB, having just migrated from PSE3, so I am limiting myself to the contents of the first 4 or 5 chapters....
I send DM an e-mail last evening asking how to get the triple curves window (see bottom of page 7 in "Conundrum"). If this is available in CS2, how to get it? Or is it part of some plug-in? Or it is something hacked into existence by Dan? Or is it just some fancy "chopping" just for the printed volume?
Mike Lane wrote:
Just fancy screen grabbing methinks. But damn, it would be handy to have all 3 of them show up with the little reminder color blocks wouldn't it???
Hi Rutt and everyone! I just bought a copy of the "Photoshop LAB Color" book and I'm currently reading it. I just stumbled across your thread and I think it's an excellent idea to have our discussion for each chapters based on the summary assigned to a certain person.
I am curious if anyone is working on the summary for the following chapters:
10 - TBD
11 - Pathfinder?
15 - TBD
Mike Lane wrote:
That looks interesting but yeesh it's $80! :nah
Tom K. wrote:
I LOVE using LAB and this thread is phenomenal from top to bottom.
The only problem that I have using LAB on my photos right now is that the Reds frequently get so over-amplified that they can destroy a photo. For example I took a photo and there was a red ice chest in the background. It turned a radioactive red and I had to mask out that color because it stood out like a sore thumb.
How can I eliminate this Red overkill problem. If you fine folks can solve this one for me then I'll be one very appreciative and happy camper.
Thanks again for such a fine thread.
I am almost finished with chapter 7 and I have a question. When I use shadow/highlight tool on the L channel, I noticed that the histogram changes (degrades) dramatically. Should I be concerned?
The histogram should change when you use shadow/highlights on the L channel. You're changing the luminance of some parts of the image - that should change the histogram.
Now, when you say that it "degrades", I'm not sure what you mean. If you can post a before/after screen shot of the histogram, we could definitely help you understand what's going on. Absent that, my advice is that there are only a few undesirable characteristics of a histogram. First, you usually shouldn't see pixels crammed up against either edge because this means that some tonal values were clipped (either forced to black or forced to white) and detail has been lost. Second, you probably don't want large empty spaces at either end of your histogram. These large empty spaces either mean your image is overexposed, underexposed or it's just really, really low contrast and thus doens't fill the whole tonal range. This second issue might just be the way the tonal values of your image are in nature or it might be an opportunity to mprove the image in post processing by "stretching out" the tonal values to fill the whole range.
Beyond these, the histogram is what it is, a view of how the tonal distribution of your image occurs in nature, nothing good or bad about it.
So, to offer any more advice, we'd have to know why you think the histogram has "degraded" and a picture would be worth a thousand words.
Here are two good sites to read on interpreting the histogram:
actually, the histogram "degrades" after I do my things in LAB and then convert to RGB. I said degrades but maybe I am wrong. Maybe I should have said the image degrades accoding to the histogram.
Please take a look at the histograms
original image right after RAW conversion
right after LAB conversion
back to RGB after I made my LAB adjustments
In the original histogram, I see a fairly broad distribution of tones that fills the tonal range. There aren't many shadows, but the few shadows that there are have lost detail. I don't see any blown highlights.
The LAB histogram always looks quite a bit different. I presume you're showing the thing they call the "composite" histogram from LAB mode. I have many images that have a histogram that looks like this in LAB mode. To tell you the truth, I don't know quite how to read the composite histogram. I think what you're seeing is that because LAB is a much, much larger color space, you're seeing a bunching of tones in the center of the color space.
The final histogram looks fine to me. Your edits pushed a few more tones into the shadows which, depending on the image, might be adding some pop, there are still no blown highlights and the overall tonal range is fairly evenly distributed. It looks like Photoshop may have changed the scale on the histogram too since it shows so much flatter and lower. I don't see anything wrong with this histogram. Looks fine to me.
I think this is all we need the histogram for. Nothing bad happend from the histogram point of view. Now, you just have to concentrate on what moves would make the image appear visually better. Did it get better? If not, then post the before/after image and tell us what you did and you're likely to get a range of different ideas here.