Photoshop LAB color worth it for newbie?

Frost

I'm not necesarily a new person to photography, but somewhat new to digital. I've taken photos since I was 10, and that was back in 1963. I've have view cameras, medium format, Nikon F3, and did darkroom B&W, color and transparencies... it's just the newness of Adobe Photoshop I'm concerned about.. newness to me that is. I saw this book of Dan Margilis at Barnes & Nobel tonight and was VERY tempted to buy it but I wonder if such a book is too deep for me at this time. I'm still learning about using ink dropper, cloner, and other settings in Adobe Photoshop CS. I even bought a book just on CS "In Easysteps".

What's the thought? Is this book better for later after I've learned some of what Photoshop can do?
Many thanks in advance for opionons.:D

Shay Stephens

It's your call of course. But you can go your whole life without using LAB and not really miss anything. I think LAB is really over rated here on dgrin.

Not to say it can't do things for a photographer who wants to use lab, but you don't have to use LAB to get to the same places.

Richard

Frost wrote:

What's the thought? Is this book better for later after I've learned some of what Photoshop can do?
Many thanks in advance for opionons.:D

Photoshop is complex, so you have a lot to learn in any event. I picked up the Margulis book after using PS for about a year. For color correction and manipulation, I find LAB much easier to understand and use than RGB. It has speeded up my PP work quite a bit. I was starting from zilch, so if you already have a good grasp of RGB you may not gain much. But you need a good understanding of channels, layers and blending modes to use it to its fullest advantage. You will need that knowledge in RGB as well, of course. I guess the best approach might be to play with it a bit and come to your own conclusions. There is certainly no "right" answer here.

Cheers,

edgework

Frost wrote:

I'm not necesarily a new person to photography, but somewhat new to digital. I've taken photos since I was 10, and that was back in 1963. I've have view cameras, medium format, Nikon F3, and did darkroom B&W, color and transparencies... it's just the newness of Adobe Photoshop I'm concerned about.. newness to me that is. I saw this book of Dan Margilis at Barnes & Nobel tonight and was VERY tempted to buy it but I wonder if such a book is too deep for me at this time. I'm still learning about using ink dropper, cloner, and other settings in Adobe Photoshop CS. I even bought a book just on CS "In Easysteps".

What's the thought? Is this book better for later after I've learned some of what Photoshop can do?
Many thanks in advance for opionons.:D

I've used Photoshop since Version 2.5, in a professional prepress environment. In my color work, I've relied on proven techniques for YEARS. They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Margulis' LAB book proved different. I don't know if it's over rating a book to say that it's altered my entire workflow, but it's certainly true.

LAB can't do everything. It's no substitute for fine tuning skin tones in RGB or CMYK. It's difficult to achieve in LAB the subtlty of a contrast curve to the black channel. And for certain kinds of blending operations, it produces odd results that would never fly.

But the things it's good for cannot be replicated in other spaces. As such, it's become an indispensible addition to my arsenal. And my images look better because of it.

DavidTO

Shay Stephens wrote:

It's your call of course. But you can go your whole life without using LAB and not really miss anything. I think LAB is really over rated here on dgrin.

Not to say it can't do things for a photographer who wants to use lab, but you don't have to use LAB to get to the same places.

There are good reasons why LAB doesn't fit into Shay's workflow. Shay doesn't use LAB. I'm not even sure that Shay understands LAB and what it's benefits are. One thing is for sure, LAB can do some things better and more easily than RGB. There are things you can't do in RGB that you can do in LAB. Or if you can do them in RGB, it is much more difficult to do so than in LAB.

Now, having said that, I'm going to add: Shay has WAY more experience with processing images than I do, or more than most of those who post here do. WAY more. So for me to challenge what he's saying is a bit presumptuous. I would also say that for Shay to say that RGB can get you to the same places as LAB is presumptuous as well, since I haven't seen any evidence that he has more than a passing understanding of it.

Is LAB overrated here on dgrin? Maybe. Certainly by some, probably by me. But take a look at Edgework. He's a professional retoucher, not a photographer. He won't work without LAB these days. Maybe that's the difference, Shay's interested in getting more shots (he gets paid by the shot, in essence), and Edgework's looking for better results in a shorter period of time (LAB is much faster with certain kinds of work). The kind of work that Edgework does is different than what Shay does, hence their different takes on LAB.

Now to your question: is LAB right for a n00b? Shay's right, it's up to you. LAB's a lot of fun and very, very powerful. But, especially for a n00b, you don't need it. Will you get better results faster with LAB? Sometimes to often. It really depends on your temperament. I like the way LAB works, it works in a way that my mind can understand more easily than RGB. That's the main reason I use it. And I've seen measureable results where LAB is better than RGB in certain instances. But it's not enough for anyone to say you HAVE to learn it and use it.

Frost

Nothing teaches us better than experience, and experience has failures that guide us to know what will or won't fly... at least for the moment. I decided to go ahead and buy the book when I found a printed piece of paper on my desk that had it listed at Amazon.com for $34.64 inlucing the shipping. I'll have it so I can refernece it and hopefully learn a bit more about layering, overlays, and the Luminance and A and B channels.

Film only had one thing. Latitude and lack thereof. How you developed was sometimes more important than how you shot. I could expose for the hightlights and then develop for the shadows, but with digital, it's a matter of recorded pixels and rendering of colors within the pixel structure. Kind of reminds me of building a composite with different overlays.

Lots of nice little tools or concepts or even recipies for doing something, but you can't burn the cake unless you turn on the oven.
BTW I'm the chief cook at home, besides being an Associate winemaker here in Michigan. Think I'll do a little Photoshop cooking and at least if I flub, I don't have to scrub the pan

MarkR

Good job! My first Photoshop book was Katrin Eismann's Photoshop Restoration and Retouching, 2nd ed. It was hard going, but they say the easiest way to learn to swim is to start in the deep end...

Having said that, the LAB should be only part of your arsenal. Check out also Professional Photoshop and Katrin's books as well. Good stuff.

Antonio Correia

Shay Stephens wrote:

...I think LAB is really over rated here on dgrin.
...

Do you think that Margulis is among us undercover ?

Shay Stephens

Fire bad

DavidTO wrote:

I'm not even sure that Shay understands LAB and what it's benefits are.

I also don't like or use curves. And I mostly don't like the history brush. And, um, all those special sharpening plugins, I don't like those either.

DavidTO

Shay Stephens wrote:

I also don't like or use curves. And I mostly don't like the history brush. And, um, all those special sharpening plugins, I don't like those either.

A simple man. I can respect that. You're missing out on curves, though, I gotta say....

(BTW, LAB could fix that pink sky of yours )

Shay Stephens

DavidTO wrote:

You're missing out on curves, though, I gotta say....

That's what they tell me

rutt

There's a very simple way to tell if this book is going to pay off for you. Try my LAB pop tutorial. Or look at the reading group threads for this book. I wrote this with the newbie in mind, at least as much as possible. If you can't follow, you probably won't be able to follow the book. If you can follow and it works for you, then, yes, you should buy the book. You won't be able to sit down and read it in one sitting. But it's an instant classic and teaches a revolutionary and very powerful way to think about color enhancement.

Shay Stephens

See, here's my problem. You can get almost the same results by just upping the contrast by 20 and the saturation 10 on the original truck/barn image. And it only takes two steps and all of 15 seconds.

LAB may be powerful, but you don't need "the jaws of life" to open a beer can

rutt wrote:

There's a very simple way to tell if this book is going to pay off for you. Try my LAB pop tutorial. Or look at the reading group threads for this book. I wrote this with the newbie in mind, at least as much as possible. If you can't follow, you probably won't be able to follow the book. If you can follow and it works for you, then, yes, you should buy the book. You won't be able to sit down and read it in one sitting. But it's an instant classic and teaches a revolutionary and very powerful way to think about color enhancement.

edgework

Shay Stephens wrote:

See, here's my problem. You can get almost the same results by just upping the contrast by 20 and the saturation 10 on the original truck/barn image. And it only takes two steps and all of 15 seconds.

LAB may be powerful, but you don't need "the jaws of life" to open a beer can

Bumping up the saturation does not have the same effect as steepening the a and b curves in LAB. That's not an opinion. It's verifiable. Increasing saturation simply removes the contaminating colors: cyan from reds, yellow from blues and magenta from greens. Since those are the colors that help provide detail, you quickly reach a brightly colored mess.

Lab curves do something very different. They pull colors apart and increase and define the subtle variations in tone and hue, as well as intensifying them. It's an effect not possible in RGB or CMYK.

Using curves in Luminosity mode in RGB will still result in a red shift as you darken shadows for contrast. There is no corresponding shift in a contrast move to the lightness channel.

All sharpening moves are cleaner in LAB.

Color cast removal is much more precise in Lab due to the fact that you can target neutrals without ruining the more vibrant colors. In RGB or CMYK, a color imbalance in shadows, with, say, magenta too high, will impact true reds as well, if you try to lower the magenta in the shadows.

Adjustment layers can be more precisely targeted with Blend If sliders in LAB using the Red, Green, Yellow and Blue ends of the scales.

The list goes on. These are not obscure, arcane operations. These are the types of normal production moves that make any image better. They work better in LAB.

Shay Stephens

That sounds impressive I'll grant you that, yet, the results from bumping the contrast and saturation of the original image look nearly the same as going through all the LAB hoops.

Here is the original image:


Here is the image with the LAB editing:


And here is the RGB image with the contrast +20, saturation +10, USM (75, .5, 0)

edgework wrote:

The list goes on. These are not obscure, arcane operations. These are the types of normal production moves that make any image better. They work better in LAB.

rutt

Shay, I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone as smart as you and who I respect as much as I do you.

LAB is a colorspace not a single technique that uses that colorspace. The technique from chapter 1 of Margulis' book (and my tutorial) is something that's easy to teach, helps a lot of pictures, and serves as a nice introduction a large body of knowledge and techniques, of which Crawford listed just a few. Not everyone will enjoy having and employing this knowledge. But it is knowledge and many people, beginners and experts both, have found it very useful.

Shay Stephens

Compare the photos
I don't want this to be a "gee Shay is pretty dim" debate. So please, look at the posted photos and compare them. Hopefully the posted images will show that you can do the same thing in RGB for a majority of the images out there.

I'm not saying LAB has no place in a workflow. But I do believe it is being promoted in an unbalanced way here at dgrin.

rutt wrote:

Shay, I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone as smart as you and who I respect as much as I do you.

David_S85

Shay's version looks better to me than the LAB'ed version.

rutt

Shay, I don't even know what we are arguing about here. I said you are smart. I said I respect you. I said that my tutorial and chapter 1 of Dan's book are intended as introductions to LAB for beginners. They both present this single technique, the tip of the LAB arsenal. Many have found it a useful introduction to Dan's LAB techniques. Many have found those techniques useful. You don't happen to be one of them. To each his own.

Are you actually upset that we've used this forum to try to discuss and teach the techniques from Photoshop LAB? Are you upset that others have found it useful?

Shay Stephens

Look at the photos
Rutt, please read what I posted. I don't want this to be about me or about you or anyone else. It's simply an RGB vs LAB example. I am trying to point out the differences in the photos processed in LAB and RGB. Could you comment about those differences in the posted photo I linked to?

I am not arguing that LAB can't be useful. I am arguing that RGB can do (faster and easier) a lot of things LAB is (in my view) overly promoted for.

I am providing here, hopefully, a balance, and offering evidence that I hope people will look at and come to their own conclusions as to whether or not they need LAB for most situations.

rutt wrote:

Are you actually upset that we've used this forum to try to discuss and teach the techniques from Photoshop LAB? Are you upset that others have found it useful?

rutt

Shay, you did a very nice job with this image. It looks really good to me. There are differences between yours and mine, but both look lots better than the original.

There. I hope that settles that issue.

For me, though, the real point was to answer the original question. Should Frost buy Dan Margulis' book. There was a lot of debate, probably not that useful to Frost. I pointed to my tutorial as an easy way for Frost to get a taste and make a decision. The book is likely to appeal to beginners who like the tutorial and want to find out more.

Why turn it into a huge debate?

Antonio Correia

Lab

rutt wrote:

... and many people, beginners ..., have found it very useful.

I absoletely agree with this.
It helped me improving my pictures even before I began to study the book itself.
And I am only at the begining...:):

edgework

Shay Stephens wrote:

Rutt, please read what I posted. I don't want this to be about me or about you or anyone else. It's simply an RGB vs LAB example. I am trying to point out the differences in the photos processed in LAB and RGB. Could you comment about those differences in the posted photo I linked to?

I am not arguing that LAB can't be useful. I am arguing that RGB can do (faster and easier) a lot of things LAB is (in my view) overly promoted for.

I am providing here, hopefully, a balance, and offering evidence that I hope people will look at and come to their own conclusions as to whether or not they need LAB for most situations.

At the risk of stepping in it bigtime, I'm going to weigh in on precisely the terms you request, with this stipulation up front: I don't suggest that these versions are better than yours, given that I have no access to your vision or your intent. They do, however, demonstrate what can be done in LAB that cannot be done in RGB.



This image is without question over the top. I pushed it farther than would normally be expected, but it makes the point. Note the detail that has shown up in the tree covered hills in the background, the suddenly interesting lawn colors and patterns, the leaves in front of the barn and the barn itself. All simple moves, all straight out of the LAB book, not possible in RGB. No sharpening, just blends and curves.


Reducing the entire set of moves to 50% still gives a significant improvement.

ginger_55

I use it all...................and add tricks as I go! LAB gives me fast results.

Everything I took here: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=28681

I used LAB on all three channels. Nothing fancy, but it was fast, clean, etc. Then I did a few other things. I had it down to a workflow by the time I was through.

And I have that other book on order, the one they are going to do next, or something. I looked at it at Barnes and Noble, ordered it from Amazon. It is expensive, yet looked like a must have book to me.......oh, can't think.

Items Ordered Price 1 : Photoshop Masking & Compositing (Voices That Matter) [Paperback]
By: Katrin Eismann
$38.29
Amazon Prime: Two-Day Shipping is free - 1 item(s) Gift options: None

By waiting I could have gotten another 5% off. But it doesn't have LAB.
So that is a detriment. However if one builds a big enough library.........why argue which book, they are all invaluable! Smile.

Gotta pick and choose. Some books can be bought used pretty cheaply, but they are often "how to shoot" books. I am looking at buying one now, for about 10.00 with shipping.

I think Scott Kelby is best for beginners.............and go from there, but then some people like to skip all that. I do things as needed, so am coming a bit late to the LAB table.

ginger

ginger_55

Shay, I have read in many places that "contrast" should never be touched....... now, when, how do I reconcile that info?

By the way, I loved your version.

Poor skinned cat! Many ways to do it, but I did think that contrast did something terrible. That levels was/is better. Or curves???

I think I read too much, smile. Maybe get one book, author, and stick with that!

ginger (When can I use the "contrast" thing and how did it get such a bad rep?)

dlacouture

Hello all... Been following this forum for some time (and learned a lot from it!), and this is my first post...

Shay, I have to say that although you nailed the colors just right in your RGB version, the sky is slightly burned compared to the Lab version...

I don't know if this is avoidable (surely so).

I'm not advocating for RGB or Lab here (don't quite know how to use them yet!), but just having a look at your photos...

From what I understand, Lab, RGB and CMYK all have their uses, and each one can be better than the others in some precise situation.
Most of the time, what you can do in one can be done in the others...

That's all!

Shay Stephens

Ginger, you read too much

What is contrast? It is bringing in the black point and the white point simultaneuosly. If you didn't want to do it simultaneously, you can use levels or curves to bring in the white point and black point separately as desired.

When you place all your trust and faith in what the experts say, then the problem is one stops experimenting for themselves to see what works best for them. The very fact that contrast has such a bad rap is case in point.

Saying contrast is bad but levels or curves is good is like saying A person should never ever come in contact with dihydrogen monoxide because it kills thousands of people every year. Dihydrogen monoxide is the chemical name for water, and while true that people die from water every year, without it we are in big trouble.

ginger_55 wrote:

Shay, I have read in many places that "contrast" should never be touched....... now, when, how do I reconcile that info?

By the way, I loved your version.

Poor skinned cat! Many ways to do it, but I did think that contrast did something terrible. That levels was/is better. Or curves???

DavidTO

Shay Stephens wrote:

Ginger, you read too much

What is contrast? It is bringing in the black point and the white point simultaneuosly. If you didn't want to do it simultaneously, you can use levels or curves to bring in the white point and black point separately as desired.

I believe she's referring to the PS command "contrast", which is a blunt hammer, and a poor tool compared to curves or even levels.

Shay Stephens

Hi Rutt,
My question was and still remains

Could you comment about those differences in the posted photo I linked to?

Not looking for platitudes. I genuinly want to debate the differences between LAB and RGB for everyday uses. Most are dodging the issue very artfully. So I will assume no one wants to talk about it. Fair enough.

rutt wrote:

Shay, you did a very nice job with this image. It looks really good to me. There are differences between yours and mine, but both look lots better than the original.

Shay Stephens

When I asked "what is contrast" it was rhetorical. And as mentioned, contrast is the same exact thing as moving in the white point and the black point in levels or curves simultaneously.

If you move the sliders the same, then curves and levels will give you the same exact results as that achieved by using contrast. Contrast is just a shortcut to doing it.

DavidTO wrote:

I believe she's referring to the PS command "contrast", which is a blunt hammer, and a poor tool compared to curves or even levels.

colourbox

Frost wrote:

I could expose for the hightlights and then develop for the shadows, but with digital,

Actually, in digital, you still want to expose for the highlights and develop (RAW convert) for the shadows, to optimize signal-to-noise and minimize noise.