Just updating the deals, I guess now that Amazon got all the pre-orders out of the way they've dropped the price to be competative. It's now 37% off just like every other Photoshop book they sell so the total price is $37.79.
That's actually less than B&N with the 25% coupon assuming you aren't a member and are charged some sales tax.
Ken
P.S. Santa is delivering mine, hopefully you all won't get too far ahead of me by then
Dispatched from the US on the 1st. Arrived UK this AM (4th). I am Very impressed with Amazon. 3 days including the weekend to deliver the book, with the Christmas rush. Thanks amazon.
I have not had a chance to look too carefully but note that as with the LAB book it has a CD to allow you to play with the same photos as in the book. Just to prove that this is not colour correction by recipe I can follow the steps and spend the rest of thew evening trying to figure out why my example does not match the book.
Just updating the deals, I guess now that Amazon got all the pre-orders out of the way they've dropped the price to be competative. It's now 37% off just like every other Photoshop book they sell so the total price is $37.79.
That's actually less than B&N with the 25% coupon assuming you aren't a member and are charged some sales tax.
Ken
P.S. Santa is delivering mine, hopefully you all won't get too far ahead of me by then
Well, that's irritating......my full-price Amazon order is delayed (should have been here days ago) because of "improper address"... so it's sitting somewhere at UPS, I guess.
Well, that's irritating......my full-price Amazon order is delayed (should have been here days ago) because of "improper address"... so it's sitting somewhere at UPS, I guess.
Its perception really...one can sit & study & perfect something to a degree so far removed from the average user only to discover at a later date that they have missed the entire point of photography.
My 2 bobs worth.
I've been meaning to respond to this. You know, 'Gus, really it's whatever floats your boat. I really enjoyed the darkroom back in the day and now I really love tinkering in Photoshop. I like trying to get everything just so. I even agree with you that sometimes that blinds me to the bigger picture (so to speak.) But that's OK. I'm having a blast.
Once in a while, I get a chance to see just how effective the skills I've built up can be. In my case the ballet pictures really do benefit a lot from fairly complex post processing. I've seen a lot of professional ballet shots by now and I'm happy to compare mine with others shot at real dress rehearsals or performances (as opposed to shots posed under photographic studio lights.)
But, mostly, it's something I do for the pure fun of doing it and learning to do it better.
The situation is different for professional retouchers and prepress guys. I've met quite a few of them through Dan by now. They are competing for their jobs and need to make their clients and bosses happy. People really expect a lot from a glossy magazine advertisement, from a greeting card, whenever they are paying a lot of money to see something in print.
Among great photographers, there is sort of a division between the Ansel Adams school who spent uncounted hours in the darkroom and the Henri Cartier-Bresson school who hated the darkroom and had partners to do their printing for them (Avedon was one of these.)
In short, learning what Dan has to teach is not for everyone. But not learning it is also not for everyone. That's why they make chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry.
My book has arived. I read the first few pages, and this book is exactly what I wanted. I can't wait to get stuck into it. I also got "Digital Photography" by Kelby.
My book arrived from Barnes and Noble today. The book that I paid 33.00 for since I am a member, smile.
I can report that the cover looks great. Well, actually, it looks OK. Five photos and some type. Something for everyone that way.
I was working up a daily photo so I went to try to devise a recipe for Hiraloam sharpening, which I realize is not the way one is supposed to do things. Considering the lack of sharpness and contrast in my photos taken as the light completely died in my great outdoors, well, I am very happy with whatever chapter I got the info from that I used.
And, like I said, I am sure each of you will enjoy the cover. An example photo for everyone and it for sure says that it is the fifth edition (in blue type). Actually I think it is a bit busy, but then again...........I sharpened a couple of photos, with very little knowledge at all, that I expected to use (the photos), but did not expect to see the degree of sharpness that I got.
Uh, pages 149 and 150. If you really want to learn this stuff, I would not advise that you do what I did. But if you have a soft photo and really want to use it, well, it won't hurt. Just underline the numbers that Dan used, note that he was in CMYK (I didn't notice that and had to redo), try his numbers, adjust for your photo................and don't tell anyone. I didn't tell anyone. I would be ashamed to let others know the levels to which I will stoop with a kind of soft photo and a new book/toy.
ginger (my photo is on Daily Community and another one on dGrin Community. Warning, they started out even softer. It was dark out!!!)
AH HA!!!! Rutt's Photo On Cover
I thought that was his last night, I swear I had seen it before. Don't think it looked that good then????? (We are old timers at this dGrin!) Smile!
It is the photo in the top right corner. I just researched Dan's book to find that information. On page 90, it is seen in the final making!!!!
Gorgeous, Rutt!!!!
Congratulations! Are you now published???
above, daily photo, sharpened using just a tad, and could have been wrong, but it sure sharpened nicely, from what I could read rapidly last night.
Below, further photos, showing the one on dGrin Community first. Remember, these were taken in the dark. (shhh, hand held) we tried to set the tripod up. Need to learn the tripod in the light.
That is not featured on dGrin or Dailies, but it is in my work gallery that is on dGrin. Just to show............well, you can at least see that it is a fiddle.
There is little to "no" detail in the face, hence the need for that sharpening technigue. No delineations.
However, I am only doing the cover.
And that is a Damn FINE photo on that cover, Rutt!!!!!! Did you think I would remember???
I learned an awful lot from the LAB book. In fact LAB has become why workspace of preference. I think in LAB.
In addition, I learned a lot of peripheral things such a curves, channel masks, layer options (sliders), etc.
I've gone through almost the whole LAB book. Never more than a couple of pages at a time and then some read several times over. One or two chapters left at the end.
Funny thing. I own the book but never get around to reading it at home. I read the store copy lunchtime at Borders. Then play at home with what I learned lunchtime. Maybe I should be a nice guy and exchange my brand new copy for their "used" copy. After all, I'm sure I'm the only one reading it.
I ordered the new Margulis book and it should arrive from Borders/Amazon within a week or so.
I learned an awful lot from the LAB book. In fact LAB has become why workspace of preference. I think in LAB.
I read the store copy lunchtime at Borders. Then play at home with what I learned lunchtime.
That's a great memory, I have to read infront of Photoshop, or I forget the Gist.
Like you I think in LAB. But, always remember that in the book Photoshop LAB Color, Page 7, last paragraph;
And just as LAB does extremely well on certain classes of image, it does poorly on others.
That sentance always makes me wonder if I am using the wrong class of image. Even having read the whole thing over and over. I loved what I learned, and look forward to learning more. You can only use what you know, but If you don't know, you can't use it.
I would like to thank Rutt for all the work he put into Beta reading this book, if the introduction is to be believed, that was no small undertaking. I would be intrigued to understand where a colour blind Beta reader was working. That input would be very interesting.
OK, Ginger, open the book and read it. Look, I just did the basics I've learned form Dan and taught here for a couple of years.
1. Use the green channel as a luminosity blend layer. Flatten. Repeat. Now he has a face:
2. Gotta fix that horrible yellow cast and use open up the highlights to use the full range of contrast. There are lots of ways to do this, but I think the easiest is with L.A.B. curves.
Writing these curves is really really easy. Click here and there, read off the numbers. Way too yellow. So push toward blue. No white point, so push in the light end of the L curve. Presto.
3. OK, so we ended up with a blue cast in the shadows. But that's really easy, as it turns out. Duplicate. Convert to CMYK. Now use the inverted K (black) channel as a layer mask for another set of curves and neutralize that hat. While we're at it, steepen the dark side of that L curve to bring out the shadow detail:
Here are the curves. Remember, the layer mask for this curve layer contained the inverted K channel from a duplicate converted to CMYK, so they only impact the very darkest parts of the image:
It's not rocket science. Really it isn't. I just ran down the check list.
I didn't do anything fancy here. I didn't even sharpen (Ginger says she did that.) I just fixed the three most obvious problems with the most appropriate tools in the tool box I've learned from Dan. Tha green layer luminosity blend should be the first thing you try with faces. Period. The yellow cast was obvious from measuring the jeans which need to be blue not yellow and from the imbalance of the face tones. A light and dark point should be the first things you look for. That was 90% of it. Then I fixed the cast in the shadows. Again, that was obvious from measuring his beret.
Follow along. Do your homework. Don't be afraid of technique. I don't have anything that you don't.
Thanks Rutt. I will file that and may redo.
But I am having a problem these days that I didn't seem to have before.
The problem has to do with preferences!
You decided to get rid of the color cast. Yes, I had noticed the jeans, and that is a handy hint. Even noticing the jeans, I did not know what I wanted to do because, one, at the time the photo was not that important to me. my time was running out late at night, my Daily was done. But in all those photos, and others, I am deciding...........do I want the cast, or do I not. That is the second part of the quandary. As light shifts, so does my perception of it. I tend to shoot at, before and after sunset (I guess I just like a difficult life and love to go w/o dinner, tv and good books). I plan to do it again this week, same place. Hope to find something. But I plan to get there earlier to get the setting sun directly on a bldg I have in mind. Planning for a big time color cast, smile!
But I am running into these decisions a lot lately. I loved that photo with a cast last night. Now do I love it more w/o a cast? I don't know yet. I love that you gave me a recipe and the curves. I need that. That is the way I learn. I am a recipe person, as bad as that might be. Thank you for that.
The hint re the jeans (obvious as it would appear, but a muddle sometimes to me), well it will come in handy at some time I am sure. Probably many times.
But the problem of "To Cast" or "Not To Cast" is a real one for me.
Thanks again, ginger (I thought you would be glad (pleased) that I noticed your photo on the cover. That was a long time ago. At the time I was not crazy about the photo, couldn't figure out why you were. After the application of LAB, I can see what I think you saw and it is gorgeous!)
(I was so fixated on the cast situation, I did not check out if I followed the "face" thing. I can have real problems with this stuff.) And really, I am not having more time to solve things. Real life is not even getting done.)
Ginger - You've Got to Start at the Beginning
Before you start working, you've got to do two things; determine what you have and then what you want to do (goal).
If you determine that you have a yellow or blue or green cast, that's only the first step in the planning process. If you like the cast, then you like the cast. Decide if there's anything else you can improve. Improving a photo (technically) but creating one you don't like (visually) is useless.
Once you have decided on what you have and your goal, you can plan the most appropriate steps to acheive that goal.
oh, god, where do I find the info, either book would be fine, to interpret your sentence: "use the green channel as a luminosity blend layer".
I hate to "out" my ignorance, but I am definitely a person who loves to shoot. I run on little sleep. And my brain hurts trying to figure this stuff out. I know if I concentrated, read slowly, practiced, used that discipline, that I would learn more. OK, I am outed as totally not a "nerd", just an idiot. Oh would I be a nerd, I so am not. And I hate to admit gross ignorance, so just point me to the bk, the page, and I will try to figure out how to interpret your sentence.
OK, I have the photo in lab. (Just a few minutes ago, I put your IF blend thing in my fave places. I assume that is used here.) Now how to I get a separate layer with just the green channel??? Maybe that is my problem? But it is a basic question from which I might be able to follow other instructions. I even suspect that it is so basic that it would be assumed even an idiot would know the answer, but How Do I Get A Separate Layer With Just The Green Channel?
me
(That was a really nice Yellowstone photo you did way back then. I was trying to decide last night if I liked the yellow in there or not. But w/o it, it does not WOW.)
That's a great memory, I have to read infront of Photoshop, or I forget the Gist.
Like you I think in LAB. But, always remember that in the book Photoshop LAB Color, Page 7, last paragraph;
That sentance always makes me wonder if I am using the wrong class of image. Even having read the whole thing over and over. I loved what I learned, and look forward to learning more. You can only use what you know, but If you don't know, you can't use it.
I would like to thank Rutt for all the work he put into Beta reading this book, if the introduction is to be believed, that was no small undertaking. I would be intrigued to understand where a colour blind Beta reader was working. That input would be very interesting.
Stan
= = = = =
Stan,
You are correct. LAB isn't always the most appropriate space. However, even if it's not the most appropriate, you can probably acheive 90% (instead of 100%) improvement in LAB.
I'd rather get 90% improvement and understand what I'm doing than fumble around in what's appropriate and not know what I'm doing.
If you look at some of the photos in the LAB book in Chapter 14 (I believe), I actually like some of the LAB results than the curves he created in RGB. Even if you determine the RGB is better than the LAB approach, they're both substantially better than the original and the RGB is only marginally better than the LAB.
I've developped an LAB workflow and have gotten used to it.
1) L channel "S" curve. More if the photo is dull. Less if there is already much contrast.
2) Increase the slope of A and B. "A" more for scenery with a lot of greenery. "B" more for earth tones or faces.
3) Highlights/Shadows. Select the "L" layer and bring back detail lost in higlights and shadows.
4)Sharpenning. Select the "L" layer and do some sharpenning. Noticible but not overly.
So, by understanding what I'm doing, I can selectively increase or decrease any of the above.
At my age there's a limit as to how many new things I can fit into my head. The "Kelly Bundy" syndrome. If you push in too much, stuff starts to come out the other side.
Really looking forward to getting into the new book when it arrives. Still have a couple of finnishing chapters in the LAB book.
Oh yes. You mentioned having to sit in front of PS when you read the LAB book. That's probably why I never read (and reread) more than a couple of pages at a time. I found it an advantage for me not to be in front of my computer (this is unusual for me) while reading. I was able to point at LAB values and convince myself at each stage what I was doing. I did however take notes sometimes.
How Do I Get A Separate Layer With Just The Green Channel?
Duplicate the background layer.
Set the blend mode of the layer to luminosity.
Go to Image - Apply Image
In the Channel drop down, select the Green channel
In the Blending drop down, select Normal
Click OK.
Voila. That's all there is to it. Often you will find that you have better detail in one channel than the others, and you can use this method to use the contrast of a single channel to replace the overall RGB contrast.
oh, god, where do I find the info, either book would be fine, to interpret your sentence: "use the green channel as a luminosity blend layer".
I've covered this on dgrin a lot of times. It's in chapter 16 of the LAB book. It's near the end of chapter 7 of PP, 5th edition and I'm sure Pathfinder will be getting there.
In your fiddle shot, just examine the separate RGB channels of the original. Which is the best B&W? Which has the worst face. There is no detail in his face in the red channel. The blue channel is very dark and noisy. They both stink! Forget them. Start with the green channel and use for a luminosity blend. Problem solved.
Ginger: learn this trick. Try it first thing with every portrait where a face is important. You may end up doing something else, but it should not be because you don't know how to do this.
Thanks Rutt. I will file that and may redo.
But I am having a problem these days that I didn't seem to have before.
The problem has to do with preferences!
This is a lot like painting, writing, music, all art in fact. Sometimes breaking the rules works. More often it doesn't. It is most likely to work if you know the rules and also know how to obey them. Matisse and Picasso were both competent realist painters before they started to be Fauvists and Cubists. Dizzy Gillespie has a classical music background before he becane the cofounder of bebop. Don't confuse mistakes with art. Use a cast if you like, but know that you are doing it, know why, and know how to not use it so you can make an intelligent decision, make an intermediate decision, or decide to go even further. Don't do it by accident.
If we take a poll on the fiddle shot, I'm sure that the overwhelming percentage of people will prefer after my corrections. We could do that if you like, but in this particular case, we don't really need to. Does anyone prefer the original that Ginger posted to my final? Good, I'm glad that's settled.
Here is one of my favorite examples of an image with a deliberate cast:
It's Hopper's Nighthawks. Because we are standing outside looking into, we see the yellow tungsten light which we would not see if we were indoors. In this case the cast adds greatly to the realism and mood of the image. But it works because the artist knew exactly what he was doing and because the warm yellow cast in the cafe contrasts with the cool night colors outside.
I agree with almost everything you are saying, and if I had to choose between the original and your correction, I would take your correction.
On the other hand, I think its a mistake to try to univerally apply the rule that the eye turns ambient light into white. Your Hopper painting is one example. Take a look at some Rembrandt self-portraits, or any group of portraits by him. The warm casts abound, even when the source light is not apparent.
At night, the "ambient light" is darkness. Thus, when showing a nighttime scene, its much easier to get away with casts, because people are actually accustomed to seeing these casts at night. Also, the frame of a photo is not the entire scene. People are aware that a photo is frames, and the way that you cast the light in the photo will have a bearing on the scene.
In this case, the yellow cast makes me believe that the fiddler was busking somewhere at night, under the light of streetlamps. Take away all of the cast, and he is playing in daylight, as far as I can tell. That may be what you want, and I'm not sure what the actual original was. But I am willing to bet that the shot was taken at dusk or later. In that case, I would preserve some of the cast. (Again, others might disagree here, but from what I've seen, I think Rembrandt would have agreed.)
So, if I were to do the image again. I would take the original image and put it on top of your correction. The set the blend to color and dial back the opacity to taste (about 70% when I tried it). If I thought about it some more, I might go even further and add some artificial vignetting to the shot. Normally, I balk at that sort of thing, but with this shot I think it might be nice.
Need to drink my own kool-aide. That final version of mine looked too magenta and too red overall. A little blending to rebalance and cool a the flesh.
uh, Rutt, that one is green. (added, later on I mention that I think my monitor has turned everything green. Will leave this part, but I don't know what is going on). I had a bit of time at the dr's today to read a part of ch 1. The info I came away with going as far as I did was that green and blue are NEVER good, well, unless it is an ocean somewhere, but as a cast get rid of them. That is what the Man said.
Also, he said that the warmer colors, the red and the yellow (hey, someone is already doing this ch, sorry........I am not saying much), but the warmer colors can be tolerated and left in as a preference, or decision, but that Green had to go.
As I see it, my fiddler is now green. (or my monitor, or my eyes)
I don't know, he might have been in the beginning, but I was seeing him as a "take off" on one of the old masters (maybe the paintings were just tarnished with time), but that is one reason I liked him so much, because he looked to me like a very old fiddler, from a century or so ago.
Yes, he was shot at dusk. I think it was 1600 ISO, f 2.8 and 1/4 sec, hand held. 200mm I kind of memorized that as I knew it was dark, but I didn't know it was that dark. Or that I could be that steady.
That was why I quickly made the decision to leave the color alone. There was a street light somewhere around us, plus stop lights, all sorts of things. I thought the lamp light (street light) might have accentuated the color shift, and I let it go. I am not sure which I like better.
The part of that fix up that you did, Rutt, the part I really liked was the face. I liked that a lot. Obviously the light was not strong, the pixels were few. Plus I wasn't sure that there was a spot in that whole photo that was not OOF in some way. That was another reason I did not do more. I went that far to see if it would grow on me, or not. It was the last thing I worked up and I do that until I literally cannot go on. And that was one where I literally was through for the night. It took me awhile to like it. Someone else mentioned the "old master" effect. It just grew on me.
But I sure would like to get that face to show like you did. That part is important to me. I am not going to do it tonight. I will either work up a bad photo from today (they were all bad, or go to sleep.......I am dead. I just came on to turn it off). I am not going to do any thinking, but I did want to respond as to my thoughts on this.
This whole screen looks green, maybe it is just me.
Oh, I did have a problem, it was the background. Some backgrounds do not clone well, and that happened to me there, in two places. If you take another look it will be obvious. Any thoughts on that would be helpful, I do like this photo........in some color, and I hope to have it printed sometime.
This is as it came from the camera before any RAW corrections. This is the link to it as the original is available.
It was in cloning those brighter areas on the wall that I felt totally inept. And I do not think I was successful.
This is the photo I worked up originally:
And something happened to the monitor, everything looks green, and I am sure it is green on my monitor. I will look at it again in the morning after the monitor and I have had some rest.
Anyway, I wrote what I was thinking. Where my problems were, etc. This gallery was linked to dGrin. Thusie found this photo along with the one I had featured for dGrin Community. This is my working gallery, this photo was just there. Thusie found it and thumbed it onto dGrin community along with the featured one. That is how this photo even got noticed by me, smile.
Night all, going to post a strange daily and go to bed.
Interesting. One of the key moves in Rutt's correction was to neutralize the hat. In the original, it turns out that the hat was probably brown, and almost matches the jacket in color, if not tone. The face is significantly more yellow than the hands. That leaves a choice.
The other strange thing is that there is too much red in the right side of his lap. The jeans there are purple, not blue. I'm not sure what is causing the extra red there.
But all in all, the original is pretty close to being ok. A slight move in the Blue curve in RGB can bring the face into line without killing the hands too much. I don't know yet what I would do about the redness in his lap, but I would probably leave it, or try to squeeze it out some with a LAB curve. (It would be easy to get rid of it by doing a layer that cuts back on Red, and then a Blend If on the B channel.)
The main thing I wanted to point out here though, is that Rutt's correction worked pretty well. He bet the image on the hat being neutral. It wasn't, and he still came up with something that was pretty darn good.
BTW, I hadn't heard before of the Inverted K channel as a mask for highlight correction. Pretty clever trick, if you ask me.
The main thing I wanted to point out here though, is that Rutt's correction worked pretty well. He bet the image on the hat being neutral. It wasn't, and he still came up with something that was pretty darn good.
Actually I bet the image on the color balance of his face and jeans. The move for the beret was done last through the inverted K channel layer mask so it only affected the shadows.
More Cover Review
There is a photo on the left top side of the cover that I know I have seen before. That means it was done by Rutt! But I can't find a credit. So, I "think" it was done by Rutt.
In the summer, perhaps. It is used as a teaching tool starting on page 190 of the Fifth Edition Marguilis book.
Is it your brother, Rutt? I just know I have seen it before. And I think it was family. At a summer gathering. Probably posted on Dailies...............
I have this kind of memory as to where something was, but not other information.
So, you all, Rutt has TWO PHOTOS on the COVER of the new Marguilis book. I think. Both are really good, though of very different types of subjects. Rutt is really good, he has worked hard at it, at portraits. And that Yellowstone shot stands out in my memory.
Congrats to our double published, local LAB expert, smile!!!
Comments
That's actually less than B&N with the 25% coupon assuming you aren't a member and are charged some sales tax.
Ken
P.S. Santa is delivering mine, hopefully you all won't get too far ahead of me by then
I have not had a chance to look too carefully but note that as with the LAB book it has a CD to allow you to play with the same photos as in the book. Just to prove that this is not colour correction by recipe I can follow the steps and spend the rest of thew evening trying to figure out why my example does not match the book.
I look forward to brain ache.
Stan
Well, that's irritating......my full-price Amazon order is delayed (should have been here days ago) because of "improper address"... so it's sitting somewhere at UPS, I guess.
They sent it to Stan by mistake.
I've been meaning to respond to this. You know, 'Gus, really it's whatever floats your boat. I really enjoyed the darkroom back in the day and now I really love tinkering in Photoshop. I like trying to get everything just so. I even agree with you that sometimes that blinds me to the bigger picture (so to speak.) But that's OK. I'm having a blast.
Once in a while, I get a chance to see just how effective the skills I've built up can be. In my case the ballet pictures really do benefit a lot from fairly complex post processing. I've seen a lot of professional ballet shots by now and I'm happy to compare mine with others shot at real dress rehearsals or performances (as opposed to shots posed under photographic studio lights.)
But, mostly, it's something I do for the pure fun of doing it and learning to do it better.
The situation is different for professional retouchers and prepress guys. I've met quite a few of them through Dan by now. They are competing for their jobs and need to make their clients and bosses happy. People really expect a lot from a glossy magazine advertisement, from a greeting card, whenever they are paying a lot of money to see something in print.
Among great photographers, there is sort of a division between the Ansel Adams school who spent uncounted hours in the darkroom and the Henri Cartier-Bresson school who hated the darkroom and had partners to do their printing for them (Avedon was one of these.)
In short, learning what Dan has to teach is not for everyone. But not learning it is also not for everyone. That's why they make chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry.
Trent.
Brisbane Property Photos
My Commiserations,Saurora, I hope it arrives soon
Stan
Hey well, he will probably be able to digest more of this book than I can. Stan can break it down and send me his own version of Cliff Notes on it!!!
I can report that the cover looks great. Well, actually, it looks OK. Five photos and some type. Something for everyone that way.
I was working up a daily photo so I went to try to devise a recipe for Hiraloam sharpening, which I realize is not the way one is supposed to do things. Considering the lack of sharpness and contrast in my photos taken as the light completely died in my great outdoors, well, I am very happy with whatever chapter I got the info from that I used.
And, like I said, I am sure each of you will enjoy the cover. An example photo for everyone and it for sure says that it is the fifth edition (in blue type). Actually I think it is a bit busy, but then again...........I sharpened a couple of photos, with very little knowledge at all, that I expected to use (the photos), but did not expect to see the degree of sharpness that I got.
Uh, pages 149 and 150. If you really want to learn this stuff, I would not advise that you do what I did. But if you have a soft photo and really want to use it, well, it won't hurt. Just underline the numbers that Dan used, note that he was in CMYK (I didn't notice that and had to redo), try his numbers, adjust for your photo................and don't tell anyone. I didn't tell anyone. I would be ashamed to let others know the levels to which I will stoop with a kind of soft photo and a new book/toy.
ginger (my photo is on Daily Community and another one on dGrin Community. Warning, they started out even softer. It was dark out!!!)
OK.
I thought that was his last night, I swear I had seen it before. Don't think it looked that good then????? (We are old timers at this dGrin!) Smile!
It is the photo in the top right corner. I just researched Dan's book to find that information. On page 90, it is seen in the final making!!!!
Gorgeous, Rutt!!!!
Congratulations! Are you now published???
ginger
http://upacreekphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/1842481
above, daily photo, sharpened using just a tad, and could have been wrong, but it sure sharpened nicely, from what I could read rapidly last night.
Below, further photos, showing the one on dGrin Community first. Remember, these were taken in the dark. (shhh, hand held) we tried to set the tripod up. Need to learn the tripod in the light.
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/2162557/1/114878178/Large
That is not featured on dGrin or Dailies, but it is in my work gallery that is on dGrin. Just to show............well, you can at least see that it is a fiddle.
There is little to "no" detail in the face, hence the need for that sharpening technigue. No delineations.
However, I am only doing the cover.
And that is a Damn FINE photo on that cover, Rutt!!!!!! Did you think I would remember???
ginger
In addition, I learned a lot of peripheral things such a curves, channel masks, layer options (sliders), etc.
I've gone through almost the whole LAB book. Never more than a couple of pages at a time and then some read several times over. One or two chapters left at the end.
Funny thing. I own the book but never get around to reading it at home. I read the store copy lunchtime at Borders. Then play at home with what I learned lunchtime. Maybe I should be a nice guy and exchange my brand new copy for their "used" copy. After all, I'm sure I'm the only one reading it.
I ordered the new Margulis book and it should arrive from Borders/Amazon within a week or so.
Look forward to the comments here. Good stuff.
Looks interesting, way over my head, and fun.
That's a great memory, I have to read infront of Photoshop, or I forget the Gist.
Like you I think in LAB. But, always remember that in the book Photoshop LAB Color, Page 7, last paragraph;
That sentance always makes me wonder if I am using the wrong class of image. Even having read the whole thing over and over. I loved what I learned, and look forward to learning more. You can only use what you know, but If you don't know, you can't use it.
I would like to thank Rutt for all the work he put into Beta reading this book, if the introduction is to be believed, that was no small undertaking. I would be intrigued to understand where a colour blind Beta reader was working. That input would be very interesting.
Stan
1. Use the green channel as a luminosity blend layer. Flatten. Repeat. Now he has a face:
2. Gotta fix that horrible yellow cast and use open up the highlights to use the full range of contrast. There are lots of ways to do this, but I think the easiest is with L.A.B. curves.
Writing these curves is really really easy. Click here and there, read off the numbers. Way too yellow. So push toward blue. No white point, so push in the light end of the L curve. Presto.
3. OK, so we ended up with a blue cast in the shadows. But that's really easy, as it turns out. Duplicate. Convert to CMYK. Now use the inverted K (black) channel as a layer mask for another set of curves and neutralize that hat. While we're at it, steepen the dark side of that L curve to bring out the shadow detail:
Here are the curves. Remember, the layer mask for this curve layer contained the inverted K channel from a duplicate converted to CMYK, so they only impact the very darkest parts of the image:
It's not rocket science. Really it isn't. I just ran down the check list.
I didn't do anything fancy here. I didn't even sharpen (Ginger says she did that.) I just fixed the three most obvious problems with the most appropriate tools in the tool box I've learned from Dan. Tha green layer luminosity blend should be the first thing you try with faces. Period. The yellow cast was obvious from measuring the jeans which need to be blue not yellow and from the imbalance of the face tones. A light and dark point should be the first things you look for. That was 90% of it. Then I fixed the cast in the shadows. Again, that was obvious from measuring his beret.
Follow along. Do your homework. Don't be afraid of technique. I don't have anything that you don't.
But I am having a problem these days that I didn't seem to have before.
The problem has to do with preferences!
You decided to get rid of the color cast. Yes, I had noticed the jeans, and that is a handy hint. Even noticing the jeans, I did not know what I wanted to do because, one, at the time the photo was not that important to me. my time was running out late at night, my Daily was done. But in all those photos, and others, I am deciding...........do I want the cast, or do I not. That is the second part of the quandary. As light shifts, so does my perception of it. I tend to shoot at, before and after sunset (I guess I just like a difficult life and love to go w/o dinner, tv and good books). I plan to do it again this week, same place. Hope to find something. But I plan to get there earlier to get the setting sun directly on a bldg I have in mind. Planning for a big time color cast, smile!
But I am running into these decisions a lot lately. I loved that photo with a cast last night. Now do I love it more w/o a cast? I don't know yet. I love that you gave me a recipe and the curves. I need that. That is the way I learn. I am a recipe person, as bad as that might be. Thank you for that.
The hint re the jeans (obvious as it would appear, but a muddle sometimes to me), well it will come in handy at some time I am sure. Probably many times.
But the problem of "To Cast" or "Not To Cast" is a real one for me.
Thanks again, ginger (I thought you would be glad (pleased) that I noticed your photo on the cover. That was a long time ago. At the time I was not crazy about the photo, couldn't figure out why you were. After the application of LAB, I can see what I think you saw and it is gorgeous!)
(I was so fixated on the cast situation, I did not check out if I followed the "face" thing. I can have real problems with this stuff.) And really, I am not having more time to solve things. Real life is not even getting done.)
Before you start working, you've got to do two things; determine what you have and then what you want to do (goal).
If you determine that you have a yellow or blue or green cast, that's only the first step in the planning process. If you like the cast, then you like the cast. Decide if there's anything else you can improve. Improving a photo (technically) but creating one you don't like (visually) is useless.
Once you have decided on what you have and your goal, you can plan the most appropriate steps to acheive that goal.
I hate to "out" my ignorance, but I am definitely a person who loves to shoot. I run on little sleep. And my brain hurts trying to figure this stuff out. I know if I concentrated, read slowly, practiced, used that discipline, that I would learn more. OK, I am outed as totally not a "nerd", just an idiot. Oh would I be a nerd, I so am not. And I hate to admit gross ignorance, so just point me to the bk, the page, and I will try to figure out how to interpret your sentence.
OK, I have the photo in lab. (Just a few minutes ago, I put your IF blend thing in my fave places. I assume that is used here.) Now how to I get a separate layer with just the green channel??? Maybe that is my problem? But it is a basic question from which I might be able to follow other instructions. I even suspect that it is so basic that it would be assumed even an idiot would know the answer, but How Do I Get A Separate Layer With Just The Green Channel?
me
(That was a really nice Yellowstone photo you did way back then. I was trying to decide last night if I liked the yellow in there or not. But w/o it, it does not WOW.)
= = = = =
Stan,
You are correct. LAB isn't always the most appropriate space. However, even if it's not the most appropriate, you can probably acheive 90% (instead of 100%) improvement in LAB.
I'd rather get 90% improvement and understand what I'm doing than fumble around in what's appropriate and not know what I'm doing.
If you look at some of the photos in the LAB book in Chapter 14 (I believe), I actually like some of the LAB results than the curves he created in RGB. Even if you determine the RGB is better than the LAB approach, they're both substantially better than the original and the RGB is only marginally better than the LAB.
I've developped an LAB workflow and have gotten used to it.
1) L channel "S" curve. More if the photo is dull. Less if there is already much contrast.
2) Increase the slope of A and B. "A" more for scenery with a lot of greenery. "B" more for earth tones or faces.
3) Highlights/Shadows. Select the "L" layer and bring back detail lost in higlights and shadows.
4)Sharpenning. Select the "L" layer and do some sharpenning. Noticible but not overly.
So, by understanding what I'm doing, I can selectively increase or decrease any of the above.
At my age there's a limit as to how many new things I can fit into my head. The "Kelly Bundy" syndrome. If you push in too much, stuff starts to come out the other side.
Really looking forward to getting into the new book when it arrives. Still have a couple of finnishing chapters in the LAB book.
Oh yes. You mentioned having to sit in front of PS when you read the LAB book. That's probably why I never read (and reread) more than a couple of pages at a time. I found it an advantage for me not to be in front of my computer (this is unusual for me) while reading. I was able to point at LAB values and convince myself at each stage what I was doing. I did however take notes sometimes.
M
Duplicate the background layer.
Set the blend mode of the layer to luminosity.
Go to Image - Apply Image
In the Channel drop down, select the Green channel
In the Blending drop down, select Normal
Click OK.
Voila. That's all there is to it. Often you will find that you have better detail in one channel than the others, and you can use this method to use the contrast of a single channel to replace the overall RGB contrast.
Duffy
I've covered this on dgrin a lot of times. It's in chapter 16 of the LAB book. It's near the end of chapter 7 of PP, 5th edition and I'm sure Pathfinder will be getting there.
In your fiddle shot, just examine the separate RGB channels of the original. Which is the best B&W? Which has the worst face. There is no detail in his face in the red channel. The blue channel is very dark and noisy. They both stink! Forget them. Start with the green channel and use for a luminosity blend. Problem solved.
Ginger: learn this trick. Try it first thing with every portrait where a face is important. You may end up doing something else, but it should not be because you don't know how to do this.
This is a lot like painting, writing, music, all art in fact. Sometimes breaking the rules works. More often it doesn't. It is most likely to work if you know the rules and also know how to obey them. Matisse and Picasso were both competent realist painters before they started to be Fauvists and Cubists. Dizzy Gillespie has a classical music background before he becane the cofounder of bebop. Don't confuse mistakes with art. Use a cast if you like, but know that you are doing it, know why, and know how to not use it so you can make an intelligent decision, make an intermediate decision, or decide to go even further. Don't do it by accident.
If we take a poll on the fiddle shot, I'm sure that the overwhelming percentage of people will prefer after my corrections. We could do that if you like, but in this particular case, we don't really need to. Does anyone prefer the original that Ginger posted to my final? Good, I'm glad that's settled.
Here is one of my favorite examples of an image with a deliberate cast:
It's Hopper's Nighthawks. Because we are standing outside looking into, we see the yellow tungsten light which we would not see if we were indoors. In this case the cast adds greatly to the realism and mood of the image. But it works because the artist knew exactly what he was doing and because the warm yellow cast in the cafe contrasts with the cool night colors outside.
On the other hand, I think its a mistake to try to univerally apply the rule that the eye turns ambient light into white. Your Hopper painting is one example. Take a look at some Rembrandt self-portraits, or any group of portraits by him. The warm casts abound, even when the source light is not apparent.
At night, the "ambient light" is darkness. Thus, when showing a nighttime scene, its much easier to get away with casts, because people are actually accustomed to seeing these casts at night. Also, the frame of a photo is not the entire scene. People are aware that a photo is frames, and the way that you cast the light in the photo will have a bearing on the scene.
In this case, the yellow cast makes me believe that the fiddler was busking somewhere at night, under the light of streetlamps. Take away all of the cast, and he is playing in daylight, as far as I can tell. That may be what you want, and I'm not sure what the actual original was. But I am willing to bet that the shot was taken at dusk or later. In that case, I would preserve some of the cast. (Again, others might disagree here, but from what I've seen, I think Rembrandt would have agreed.)
So, if I were to do the image again. I would take the original image and put it on top of your correction. The set the blend to color and dial back the opacity to taste (about 70% when I tried it). If I thought about it some more, I might go even further and add some artificial vignetting to the shot. Normally, I balk at that sort of thing, but with this shot I think it might be nice.
Duffy
Need to drink my own kool-aide. That final version of mine looked too magenta and too red overall. A little blending to rebalance and cool a the flesh.
Also, he said that the warmer colors, the red and the yellow (hey, someone is already doing this ch, sorry........I am not saying much), but the warmer colors can be tolerated and left in as a preference, or decision, but that Green had to go.
As I see it, my fiddler is now green. (or my monitor, or my eyes)
I don't know, he might have been in the beginning, but I was seeing him as a "take off" on one of the old masters (maybe the paintings were just tarnished with time), but that is one reason I liked him so much, because he looked to me like a very old fiddler, from a century or so ago.
Yes, he was shot at dusk. I think it was 1600 ISO, f 2.8 and 1/4 sec, hand held. 200mm I kind of memorized that as I knew it was dark, but I didn't know it was that dark. Or that I could be that steady.
That was why I quickly made the decision to leave the color alone. There was a street light somewhere around us, plus stop lights, all sorts of things. I thought the lamp light (street light) might have accentuated the color shift, and I let it go. I am not sure which I like better.
The part of that fix up that you did, Rutt, the part I really liked was the face. I liked that a lot. Obviously the light was not strong, the pixels were few. Plus I wasn't sure that there was a spot in that whole photo that was not OOF in some way. That was another reason I did not do more. I went that far to see if it would grow on me, or not. It was the last thing I worked up and I do that until I literally cannot go on. And that was one where I literally was through for the night. It took me awhile to like it. Someone else mentioned the "old master" effect. It just grew on me.
But I sure would like to get that face to show like you did. That part is important to me. I am not going to do it tonight. I will either work up a bad photo from today (they were all bad, or go to sleep.......I am dead. I just came on to turn it off). I am not going to do any thinking, but I did want to respond as to my thoughts on this.
This whole screen looks green, maybe it is just me.
Oh, I did have a problem, it was the background. Some backgrounds do not clone well, and that happened to me there, in two places. If you take another look it will be obvious. Any thoughts on that would be helpful, I do like this photo........in some color, and I hope to have it printed sometime.
This is as it came from the camera before any RAW corrections. This is the link to it as the original is available.
http://upacreekPHOTOGRAPHY.smugmug.com/photos/115280237-L.jpg
It was in cloning those brighter areas on the wall that I felt totally inept. And I do not think I was successful.
This is the photo I worked up originally:
And something happened to the monitor, everything looks green, and I am sure it is green on my monitor. I will look at it again in the morning after the monitor and I have had some rest.
Anyway, I wrote what I was thinking. Where my problems were, etc. This gallery was linked to dGrin. Thusie found this photo along with the one I had featured for dGrin Community. This is my working gallery, this photo was just there. Thusie found it and thumbed it onto dGrin community along with the featured one. That is how this photo even got noticed by me, smile.
Night all, going to post a strange daily and go to bed.
ginger
The other strange thing is that there is too much red in the right side of his lap. The jeans there are purple, not blue. I'm not sure what is causing the extra red there.
But all in all, the original is pretty close to being ok. A slight move in the Blue curve in RGB can bring the face into line without killing the hands too much. I don't know yet what I would do about the redness in his lap, but I would probably leave it, or try to squeeze it out some with a LAB curve. (It would be easy to get rid of it by doing a layer that cuts back on Red, and then a Blend If on the B channel.)
The main thing I wanted to point out here though, is that Rutt's correction worked pretty well. He bet the image on the hat being neutral. It wasn't, and he still came up with something that was pretty darn good.
BTW, I hadn't heard before of the Inverted K channel as a mask for highlight correction. Pretty clever trick, if you ask me.
Duffy
There is a photo on the left top side of the cover that I know I have seen before. That means it was done by Rutt! But I can't find a credit. So, I "think" it was done by Rutt.
In the summer, perhaps. It is used as a teaching tool starting on page 190 of the Fifth Edition Marguilis book.
Is it your brother, Rutt? I just know I have seen it before. And I think it was family. At a summer gathering. Probably posted on Dailies...............
I have this kind of memory as to where something was, but not other information.
So, you all, Rutt has TWO PHOTOS on the COVER of the new Marguilis book. I think. Both are really good, though of very different types of subjects. Rutt is really good, he has worked hard at it, at portraits. And that Yellowstone shot stands out in my memory.
Congrats to our double published, local LAB expert, smile!!!
ginger