Photoshop LAB color worth it for newbie?

mercphoto

I understand what Shay is trying to get across, but I'm not sure if everyone does. He isn't saying Lab isn't useful, he's just saying its over-hyped. And it very well might be. Shay's truck and barn was rather impressive, but Edgework's a bit more so. I've been slowly reading the Lab Color book, and it is a lot to digest. Dan himself points out that some shots are much better suited to Lab than others, and some problems cannot be fixed in Lab but can in RGB. Lab does not appear to be a magic bullet to fix all photos, but it does seem to have its place. Dan specifically points out that vivid colors can be a problem in the Lab space, and a lot of my racing photos start out with vivid colors, for example. (think about it, nobody paints a race car a drab color...)

I need to get Dan's other book on color correction. If there is one thing that appeals to me about Dan more than anything, it is his mathematical approach to photography. Not only am I very strong mathematically, but I have color vision issues. It can be hard for me to identify certain types of color problems, or to visually when I've gone too far at times. Doing things by the "numbers" has an obvious appeal to someone like me.

pathfinder

colourbox wrote:

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.

This is an excellent article - trying to get folks to understand just how much data is lost by centering a histogram can be difficult, but this article really does it well.:):

As for Margulis and LAB, he knows there are 10 different color channels - LAB- RGB- CMYK - and he uses whichever will work the best and the easiest. His book is also a very sneaky way of teaching Photoshop commands that many of us did not use or understand well previously. :

Shay Stephens

Ok, good, some examples

edgework wrote:

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

So here is my version done in RGB



The steps needed to reproduce the results:
copy original layer
paste image and set blending to "color dodge" with 20% opacity
levels 30,110,190 [edit note, I changed it from 180 to 190 it looked a little too bright (reload image if needed)]
saturation +15

Now I do notice what little sky was in the original is now pretty much gone. I would have to move to spot editing to bring it back, but I am limiting myself to global editing here. So one point for curves

DavidTO

What I've learned is to not go up against Shay in PS, since like I've said so many times, he has WAY more experience than me.

No one here that I know of has more experience in PS than Edgework, and his result is much better to my eye.

Now the question is: is it LAB, or is it Edgework? After all, that's what he gets paid for, retouching. Shay gets paid for shooting first, processing second.

Shay Stephens

Ok good, we are starting to get somewhere.

And just for the record, this is not a us versus them debate. It's LAB vs RGB.

So what specifically do you like better in Edgeworks version? Is there anything concrete you can point to?

DavidTO wrote:

his result is much better to my eye.

DavidTO

Shay Stephens wrote:

Ok good, we are starting to get somewhere.

And just for the record, this is not a us versus them debate. It's LAB vs RGB.

So what specifically do you like better in Edgeworks version? Is there anything concrete you can point to?

Well, the sky, obviously, but you already conceded that point.

For me, it's the grass, it's a deeper green and a more believable green to me.

The reds in the barn and the rust is the other big difference, and I know that Edgework could easily boost his a bit. In yours the reds are probably closer, but are a bit much. If 100% on the reds is perfection, yours is 110% and Edgeworks is mebbe 85%. To my eye, at least.

I would also like to see the contrast somewhere between the two. I think you went too far and Edgework not far enough.

Overall, Edgework's looks like the nice, safe treatment you'd give a pre-press image (makes sense, since that's what he does), and yours is a bit more brazen with highlights and contrast.

dandill

Shay Stephens wrote:

... It's LAB vs RGB.

What I have been grateful to learn from the Margulis LAB book and the posts by edgework, rutt, and others on the reading group threads is that, rather than "versus", some things are better done in RGB, some in LAB, and some in CMYK. For me, having this flexibility is the gift of those ten channels.

Shay Stephens

You're right.

dandill wrote:

some things are better done in RGB, some in LAB, and some in CMYK. For me, having this flexibility is the gift of those ten channels.

DavidTO

I think that part of what's going on is that this extremely powerful color space (LAB) has been largely ignored for so many years. Look at Edgework and the shift in his workflow once he read Dan's work. Changed it forever. It's a big shift for many of us, and perhaps the pendulum is going too far...I don't know. But yes, 10 channels. CMYK is the one space I know the least about and need to dig into. I also need to get better at RGB. Well, LAB for that matter, too. It's a never-ending learning curve.

Shay Stephens

Good question. Who is the intended audience

Overall, Edgework's looks like the nice, safe treatment you'd give a pre-press image (makes sense, since that's what he does), and yours is a bit more brazen with highlights and contrast.

That is a good point. My output focus is usally for cutomer viewing and not machine reproduction (other than photolab output of course). My output target would be closer to the typical dgrin user I would think since they are looking to get a nice image to look at.

DavidTO wrote:

I would also like to see the contrast somewhere between the two. I think you went too far and Edgework not far enough.

I think so too. I already pulled the brightness back about ten, but I could probably go more and still keep a nice zippy look that the masses would enjoy looking at. But I do tend to err on the side of zippy

Shay Stephens

Yay!!! Balance

DavidTO wrote:

I think that part of what's going on is that this extremely powerful color space (LAB) has been largely ignored for so many years. Look at Edgework and the shift in his workflow once he read Dan's work. Changed it forever. It's a big shift for many of us, and perhaps the pendulum is going too far...I don't know. But yes, 10 channels. CMYK is the one space I know the least about and need to dig into. I also need to get better at RGB. Well, LAB for that matter, too. It's a never-ending learning curve.

Thusie

DavidTO wrote:

Well,
For me, it's the grass, it's a deeper green and a more believable green to me.

But see I'm the opposite, I like the grass color is Shay's best. Looks quite natural for the time of year, going into fall, for my neck of the woods anyway.

I know enough about any of this to be in one camp or the other and I like both corrections. BUT to me Edgeworks looks like a picture, and a fine one, Shay's looks like what I would see if I was standing there.

pathfinder

Highly saturated images look good on the web, but are going to be desaturated by rendering them to paper and ink, via the Rendering Intent chosen at the time of printing.

Maybe Edgework will comment on this fact also.

rutt

There really are two different issues:

1. What is LAB good for vs RGB and CMYK.
2. How to teach color enhancement to beginners.

I'm very interested in both these issues, but I thought this tread was about teaching beginners. That's what I was thinking about when I wrote the tutorial and since it's the title of the thread, I wanted to mention the tutorial.

The intended audiance of the tutorial was beginners. I wasn't even trying to make the best possible edit of that image, just one that illustrates the technique and serves as a starting point for future learning. Should a beginner start with LAB? A beginner has to start somewhere, after all. When I wrote the tutorial I was trying out the concept that LAB might be a good place to start, at least for some people.

Since Shay is obviously NOT a beginner, the tutorial wasn't aimed at him. Shay wants to know what can be done in LAB but not in RGB. Frankly, this isn't a topic that I'm that interested in. Can't say why exactly. Maybe it's because I never had a workflow I was satisfied with before I learned about LAB from Dan (in a class long before he published the LAB book.) Now my workflow is LAB centric, but I use the other color spaces for specific purposes, such as getting deep shadows without plugging them (CMYK), and first order color balancing for mixed casts.

On the other hand, Dan Margulis is VERY interested in this topic. Almost every chapter in the LAB book takes pains to explore the difference between what can be done in LAB vs the other color spaces. If you want to read a very strong presentation on this topic, read Dan. He has spent 20 years thinking deeply on these topics. I can't do better.

In the fall Dan is going to publish a new edition of Professional Photoshop. It will include NO LAB techniques. Dan says he will make references to the LAB book where appropriate, but he won't recapitulate content. The books will complement each other. I intend to read that book very carefully and I'm sure I'll learn a lot and probably have a more balanced view and be a better retoucher at the end.

As to comparing the Shay's version, my version, and Edgework's, well the main thing I see is that they are all three a lot better than the original. I'm traveling right now, and have to look at them on my notebook, so it's hard to do a very detailed comparison.

Frost

Personally, I liked the contrast snappy image of Shay, but do concur it could tone down just a wee bit. That said, what happened to the tree limbs in the upper right of the photo? Before, in LAB there were tree limbs, and lots of small flimsy limbs and branches. In the version of Shay (last 2 pictures posted) the limbs seem to have dissapeared.

To be very honest, I did not even know there was another color scheme besides RGB until I came to this forum. I found out that there is the Cyan Magenta Yellow and Black AND there is the Luminence, A color chanel and B color chanel. So that all three or any of them can be adjusted to help a picture. I am kind of purist and try to make the images out of the camera the least they need to be fiddled with. I have shot images that needed some work and some that needed nothing. Also I have worked with scanned images of old color photographs that defnitely improved with some post processing. How to accomplish this is of great interest to me. Grandma Ettie should have gray hair, not blue, and her skin should not look like she spent the summer on some beach in Bermuda, basking.:D

I cook a lot and have a lot of things in the kitcen. I have a great assortment of knives. a couple I rarely use. I'm not about to throw them out because they get used so little. There are times I'll cook a roast in the oven over long periods, and other times I cook it in this crock pot. The end result is pretty tasty but I still preferr to "burn the gas!"

I might find the RGB a better use on some items, but then if I don't know about LAB or the other CMYK, I sort of deprive my photo editing abilities to trying to cook with 2 paring knives and the grill outside. I'll eat, but hope you all like steak!! So what I can take it that LAB can be overated, but has it's place for learning.. and that RGB can do some things and do them well, considering the indiviual print.

BTW here's the winery cat, straight out of the camera, and just resized.
No PP.

Frost

The barn picture
Downloaded the original and played with it a bit on my computer. I miss the clouds in the high contrast. Also I didn't want to loose the small branches. The ice box and car behind it needed to be part of the picture. Never noticed the VW until I looked at it really well. The front bumper on the pickup needed help. I hope it doesn't look too gaudy to you all. I'm just starting out.



Vern

edgework

DavidTO wrote:

Overall, Edgework's looks like the nice, safe treatment you'd give a pre-press image (makes sense, since that's what he does), and yours is a bit more brazen with highlights and contrast.

Now, now. Let's be fair about it. If you refer back to my original post, http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=255634&postcount=23 you'll note that the "nice, safe" version you're referring to is the dumbed down version, where I reduced all the LAB moves to 50% intensity, trying to keep it in line with the original fairly conservative moves Shay posted.

If it's intensity you're after, look at the original in my post.

XO-Studios

(I know I replied to Edgework, but this reply really needs to go in this thread)

I am somewhere between beginner, and semi-pro in Photoshop, that is, I am well above average in certain things, and barely passable in others.

One of the things I have noticed about myself is that I have a bad eye for colors and color cast. While I can do lots of these things in RGB (or CMYK although I seldom use CMYK except to check if my skin color is believable), I have also learned to do these things in LAB. What appeals to me as an engineer, is that I can look at numbers, and the fact that a neutral color is 0,0 (a,b) or close there to. If I put an eye dropper on a white, black or a neutral, LAB will guide me the right way, as often I can not tell.

For me while I can also do these things in RGB, I simply do not have a good eye, and LAB often gives me better results faster as it steers me away from my unreliable eyes, towards numbers that my engineering brain likes (a lot)

Another issue to mention, and I have been there myself, is that Shay is likely to get way better results out of camera than the majority of us, I know I am one of those people that should learn to be better in camera, and reduce my pp.

So in conclusion as a beginner, you should check out some color spaces, and see if it fits. My biggest peeve with LAB was that it is NOT intuitive, but once over the hump, it is pretty darn good.

FWIW,


XO,

Frost

Newer barn picture
I'm sorry. I thought I had the original picture, but what I had downloaded was a resized small jpeg of the original. AFTER I found the original and downloaded that large megapixel sized jpeg, I adjusted a bit. I did note in this picture that who ever took the picture originally, "rutt?" that there was a small speck of lint on his image sensor. It can be seen in the sky almost directly above the jutting hill on the left. That is not a cloud, it is a "blotch" It really shows up when shutting down the luminosity and is very prominent. However, here is my rendition so far of the barn. I've seen these FORD trucks before and looks to be in the 1950's vintage, say a 1955 or so. Looks like thre is a Ford Mustang in the barn behind the truck as well.

Frost

Sensor lint
The lint on the sensor. Dust it could be said, but more like very fine thread. It shows in the dark imaging I did.:uhoh

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.

Just to set the record straight, Shay has changed his tune a little on the subject of LAB.

Shay Stephens wrote:

You should. This was the first time I saw a LAB result a couldn't match or top in RGB. I tried a quick edit last night by cloning in RGB, it turned out ok, but not as good as what you got. I am going to try it in LAB. The results you got in a few minutes were superior.