Not at all. Adjusting gamma is not the only objective of a false profile move.
Consider this; If an RGB image comes to me and it's too dark, it's also going to be too gray. The first thing I do is Edit>Assign Profile and choose a profile which will lower the gamma and boost the colors. This will bring the image into a range where subsequent corrections will be much easier, if they're needed at all.
In an 8bit RGB file, there are only 256 brightness levels per pixel per channel. This holds true whether one is working in sRGB, Adobe RGB, or Wide Gamut RGB. I am using these three profiles here because they all have the same 2.2 gamma.
1. Applying false profile IS applying a curve; think of it as a predefined curve, rather elaborate, probably not easy to better with your own version;
2. Changing the middle lever in Levels IS changing gamma, but like a different curve then the false profiles, and obviously the authority himself prefers the effect of the latter;
3. The effect of false profiling is 'smooth', which probably means shadow detail; where did the color saturation boost therory originate?
4. It would be quite useful, if someone can write a plug-in with a single lever and instant preview to allow us to tune gamma visually (with maybe 8-16 data points) - superior to Levels / Curves in both image result AND degree of non-destruction.
1. Applying false profile IS applying a curve; think of it as a predefined curve, rather elaborate, probably not easy to better with your own version;
2. Changing the middle lever in Levels IS changing gamma, but like a different curve then the false profiles, and obviously the authority himself prefers the effect of the latter;
3. The effect of false profiling is 'smooth', which probably means shadow detail; where did the color saturation boost therory originate?
4. It would be quite useful, if someone can write a plug-in with a single lever and instant preview to allow us to tune gamma visually (with maybe 8-16 data points) - superior to Levels / Curves in both image result AND degree of non-destruction.
Boy, that's quite a link to a mailing list discussion about the false profile concept (mostly in 2001). Thanks for posting that. As can sometimes happen in these discussions, there is a lot of religious and semantics arguing, but if you just read the posts by Dan, you can get some pretty good stuff out of that conversation thread.
Here are a few quotes, I found useful:
First quote:
"If the image is so disastrously dark that I have to use 1.0 gamma to save it, I don't at present know any alternate way of doing this. OTOH, if the image is a bit washed out and colorless, I can certainly get what I want with curves. But assigning an Adobe RGB profile seems to make the process less painful, and only takes a second."
My interpretation of this is that a gamma correction is the best way to recover a very dark image and that curves (for some technical reason), do not work as well. But, for images that are off a smaller amount (I'm guessing <2 stops), curves can work just as well and it's really up to the retoucher which method is faster or easier.
Second quote:
">>I don't understand why this should be the case-- I thought gamma was just a curve with a specific shape, and that Photoshop curves could be any arbitrary shape. What prevents you from making a curve that shape in Photoshop?>> It's not that easy to make a curve with 5 or 6 accurate points in that tiny dialog box. For the same reason, it's hard to write a curve that exactly duplicates what changing the gamma settings in Levels does--there's a fudge factor there, too."
This says to me that it's easier to make large brightness adjustments using gamma instead of curves. It doesn't say that curves can't, just that it's easier with gamma.
Third quote:
"A false profile is the use of the Image: Mode>Assign Profile command to assign color and gamma values that are known to be incorrect, in an effort to make further color correction easier. In my August column I suggested that users whip up half a dozen of these false profiles to have around in case they are needed.
One example showed an RGB image that was extremely dark and colorless. I assigned one of these stock false profiles to it, using Wide Gamut RGB primaries with a gamma of 1.0. It was still far from being an acceptable image but I was able to get a pretty decent result out of it after some further moves. I was not immediately able to get similarly good results without starting with the false-profile gambit."
Again I note that he's working on an "extremely dark" image and he makes reference to the convenience of having a bunch of different false profiles lying around that you can just quickly apply to get an image in the ballpark for further adjustment.
My summary take-away so far:
False profiles are pre-canned methods of doing a set brightness and/or color correction/modification. They are non-destructive and quick to apply. Reasons to consider using false profiles:
For seriously dark images, they may be able to do things that a big curve can't (I don't claim to understand why, but this is a theory).
False profiles are easy to store and have a library so they can be very quick to apply - quicker than other ways to do the same thing.
If you get good with false profiles, they can be a faster or easier tool than apply several points on a curve. They are not meant to be a final adjustment, only to get an image in the right ballpark for finer adjustments.
If you need to go to CMYK for some particular reason, but it isn't your final destination and you are worried about losing some colors, you can go to a non-standard wide gamut CMYK, still have most of the adjustment advantages of CMYK without the small gamut problems.
Assigning a larger color space profile to an image will increase the saturation of the colors and is very quick.
I got lost again
So, false profiles are for major changes with machete, and curves are for small one with eye scalpel?
If so, can ACR's sliders replace the false profiles (but in far more controllable way), or there is still a major difference?
There's no such thing as a false profile. Profiles only define the scale of the color numbers within a color space (actually the big mongo color space of human vision).
G255 is numerically the most saturated green we can define using an 8-bit system. G255 is NOT the same color in sRGB as it is in ProPhoto RGB yet its the same number. These colors fall within a different scale of human vision which you can plot and see (that horseshoe shaped plot represents the numbers within the color space we can see). Numbers without a color space don't provide the scale we need to fully define the color.
Profile simply provide the numbers a scale. When you assign sRGB to an image then ProPhoto RGB, the numbers do not change, but you've told Photoshop the scale has, it updates the preview based on this new information. Just as if you told someone, "no, I'm working in ounces, not grams". The number in front of that scale now plays a different role in what you get.
Assign profile doesn't change the numbers, it changes the scale of the numbers. So what's the result? The image appears differently. And, when you now convert (and unless the image is only being viewed on your display, you'll have to), the new resulting numbers are altered based on this assignment.
You're not changing the gamma or anything at all when you assign a profile however, when you then subsequently convert those sets of numbers to a new color space (to print or maybe to upload to the web; you need sRGB), then a new set of numbers will be made based on the profile used. So there's no free lunch, you then change the numbers the net result is if you didn't Assign the profile and just used Photoshop to change the numbers. There's nothing magical here, just a different way to get a new net result.
So, the profile either defines the numbers and produces a color appearance you wish or it doesn't. How is this fales? If I provide an untagged document, you have RGB or CMYK mystery meat. Photoshop makes a guess as to the correct scale of the numbers (using whatever you've got set currently in your color settings). Assign profile changes that assumption. Its either correct or its not. Its correct when it appears as you wish although all this could have been avoided if someone down the food chain had just originally assigned the correct profile to the numbers.
I didn't realize you're a member of Dgrin, too!
It's awesome that you can participate in this discussion.
Let me ask you this... My biggest grudge with the "profile" approach is its total un-intuitiveness and uncontrollability. Basically, you're dealing with a set of mathematical formulae that will interpret some numbers stored in file to a (possibly) different set of number onscreen and to the third one on print. I personally find this approach arcane and obscure.
I do understand that for a person who's dealing with those profiles by hundreds on a daily basis they can present a quick way of getting from (the vicinity of) point A to (the vicinity of) point B, just like 777 would take you from LAX to JFK. Yet you still need to get to LAX and then map your way from JFK. And if you are already in the general area you need, you can probably just drive or even walk.
And, of course, I do not deal with hundreds of images on a daily basis. So naturally, I don't have a library of the profiles, and judging by the way the things are going, not going to have to in any foreseeable future.
So my question is: what good are those profiles from a purely practical standpoint for a person who does limited amount a shooting (500-5,000) pics a month) and is not a stranger to a heavy-weight post processing?
So my question is: what good are those profiles from a purely practical standpoint for a person who does limited amount a shooting (500-5,000) pics a month) and is not a stranger to a heavy-weight post processing?
Thank you!
ICC profiles only serve one role; the give RGB and CMYK numbers a meaning as I discussed above and allow you to produce new RGB and CMYK numbers from existing ones. As I said, G255 without a profile defining its color space isn't enough information to describe that color. With a profile, you can.
There are a zillion different color spaces. Imagine all the LCD displays and consider they are all a bit (sometimes a lot) different. If you profile them, you build a description for their behavior. If you want to view a set of RGB numbers in say a colorspace called sRGB, the only way for all the various LCD users to see those numbers the same way is to use a profile (actually two). One defines the numbers scale. They are in sRGB. The 2nd is a profile of the individual display. Now everyone can see the same numbers the same way. Not so without the use of profiles. Profiles give the numbers meaning. Everything we do on a computer, be it retouching photo's in Photoshop or surfing the web is just a big pile of numbers; 1's and zero's. That's all computers understand. They have no idea what "Green" means. They do understand how to show you the most saturated green on your display when you tell Photoshop that you're working with G255 in sRGB!
ICC profiles only serve one role; the give RGB and CMYK numbers a meaning as I discussed above and allow you to produce new RGB and CMYK numbers from existing ones. As I said, G255 without a profile defining its color space isn't enough information to describe that color. With a profile, you can. ...
Being a programmer and - in my prior life - dealing with some insanely abstract mathematical topologies, I do undertand what a profile does.
What I'm not so sure about is their practical applicability in a way it was discussed here. If I understand you correctly one should have very limited number of profiles, namely:
Screen
Printer
Well, that times the number of colorspaces a person uses. For sRGB only two are suffice, but for a person who also uses, say, AdobeRGB and CMYK on a frequent basis, that would be (3 paces) x (2 devices) = 6 profiles.
However, as you said, there are zillions of "imaginary" spaces and devices, hence a huge pile of "artificial" profiles.
My question was: how one can use them to one's advantage?
It appears that some people do, but I can't get a handle on it.
At the very least, you need two profiles to color manage an image. You need a profile that tells the application the color space the numbers reside (sRGB, ProPhoto RGB, Imacon Scanner RGB, Epson 3800 RGB, SWOP CMYK).
The 2nd profile is for the display. This defines device behavior. With those two pieces of data, Photoshop can show you and me the same numbers the same way. Now, I can also move from one color space to another (sRGB to SWOP, ProPhoto RGB to Epson RGB for luster paper). I'm just transforming one set of numbers (one color space) into another.
An Epson is not an sRGB device. There's only one sRGB device, a CRT display. If you want to make a print that looks anything close to what you're viewing on screen, you need to send the correct RGB values for the Epson based on what you saw so again, we need profiles to define these two devices in order to work with the correct set of numbers. Again, it's all numbers. Color management is number management.
PP5E Chapter 18 Summary
I'm willing to do a summary of this.
I think the right approach is to do it in 3 parts: shadow/highlight,
alternate methods of solving the same problem, and creative uses
of HIRALOM sharpening.
www.smugmug.com
7 days trial. Then you decide which one you want and shell out your credit card. If you want to save a few bucks, there is plenty of people with $5 coupons around (I'm one of them).
HTH
www.smugmug.com
7 days trial. Then you decide which one you want and shell out your credit card. If you want to save a few bucks, there is plenty of people with $5 coupons around (I'm one of them).
HTH
I think the right approach is to do it in 3 parts: shadow/highlight,
alternate methods of solving the same problem, and creative uses
of HIRALOM sharpening.
How do I get a smugmug account?
Thanks!
Nik and David's answers are fine, but for the purposes of these chapter summary, we have a special account to use and it's even free. I'll PM you the info to log in.
Here is where we will put deals/info on how to get the book.
Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution.--
Ansel Adams
With all due respect, it's not about readability... It's about entry level vs advanced.
I started with Mr. Kelby's books few years ago and I am extremely glad I did. Yet they lead you only so far, and then you need to read something more challenging if you want to progress....
With all due respect, it's not about readability... It's about entry level vs advanced.
It's all about readability! Teaching complex subjects doesn’t and shouldn’t require reading the text 2-3 times to 'get it'.
I only have one of Scotts books and a few of Dan's. Both are discussing advanced topics. One is a lot easier to digest. But again, lets see what NavyMoose has to say.
With all due respect, it's not about readability... It's about entry level vs advanced.
I started with Mr. Kelby's books few years ago and I am extremely glad I did. Yet they lead you only so far, and then you need to read something more challenging if you want to progress....
I also like both Dan's and Kelby's books. Dan's book is for sure chanllenging to read, which is to be expected not only because the content is 'advanced', but also because so much of it is systematically explained only for the first time, unlike 99% of the photography books on the market that repeat the same ideas over and over.
In modern physics when the breakthroughs of the 20th century first came out, the papers decribing them were impossible to understand save by a few experts. After decades of being taught in college now we have textbooks that are much more 'readable'. I think of reading Dan's book as going to Einstein's original paper instead of a late copy of Physics 101.
I would have thought that the old saying "if you don't have anything nice to say then say nothing at all" would have applied to other authors, particulary one's with a prior negative history with the author in question in this discussion - not to mention in a topic thread such as this, devoted to working through the title in question.
We Adobe shills and calibrationists can't help ourselves....
Try!
I just bought Scott Kelby's "The Photoshop Channel's Book". I see in the acknowledgments he says "he owes a special debt of gratitude to Photoshop color genius Dan Margulis..".and mentions "when it comes to color, Dan is the bottom line...the book is infinitely better because of him."
I find this type of generous and respectful exchange lends credibility to both authors. It's reasurring to to know that some experts in the field are on amiable terms.
Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution.--
Ansel Adams
I just bought Scott Kelby's "The Photoshop Channel's Book". I see in the acknowledgments he says "he owes a special debt of gratitude to Photoshop color genius Dan Margulis..".and mentions "when it comes to color, Dan is the bottom line...the book is infinitely better because of him."
I find this type of generous and respectful exchange lends credibility to both authors. It's reasurring to to know that some experts in the field are on amiable terms.
Gloria
I agree.
I would like to add that I have all of Dan's books. Like many other people, I have read them numerous times. The re-reads have nothing to do with readability. The books are written clearly enough. I read them a second and third time because as my comprehension of the material increases, I am able to grasp things that at first glance were completely lost on me. Many of Dan's ideas are quite advanced and at least for me, they require time to fully understand.
In my opinion, Dan Margulis is in a league of his own when it comes to his understanding of Photoshop and color correction. What I like most about his writing is that he challenges me to stretch my knowledge and he doesn't get lost in theory. He delivers practical knowledge that can really improve your results. I have read a lot of books on Photoshop, but I haven't seen anyone that delivers books with as much meat as his. Reading Dan's books has improved my skills more than any other material I have read. In my opinion, the guy is a genius and we're lucky to have someone like him around to share his vast knowledge of a very complex subject.
I would like to add that I have all of Dan's books. Like many other people, I have read them numerous times. The re-reads have nothing to do with readability. The books are written clearly enough. I read them a second and third time because as my comprehension of the material increases, I am able to grasp things that at first glance were completely lost on me. Many of Dan's ideas are quite advanced and at least for me, they require time to fully understand.
In my opinion, Dan Margulis is in a league of his own when it comes to his understanding of Photoshop and color correction. What I like most about his writing is that he challenges me to stretch my knowledge and he doesn't get lost in theory. He delivers practical knowledge that can really improve your results. I have read a lot of books on Photoshop, but I haven't seen anyone that delivers books with as much meat as his. Reading Dan's books has improved my skills more than any other material I have read. In my opinion, the guy is a genius and we're lucky to have someone like him around to share his vast knowledge of a very complex subject.
Start with the first five chapters in the LAB book. It will get you moving really fast. Then its a toss up about whether to proceed with PP or LAB. Both books tend to get more difficult as you get further in. If you start with the LAB book, you will never understand why other people say that LAB is not an intuitive color space.
Comments
Well, this theory got me excited for a while. But then I found out some additional information, follow this link
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ProfilingandProofing/ACT-False-Profile.htm
Here's my take-away:
1. Applying false profile IS applying a curve; think of it as a predefined curve, rather elaborate, probably not easy to better with your own version;
2. Changing the middle lever in Levels IS changing gamma, but like a different curve then the false profiles, and obviously the authority himself prefers the effect of the latter;
3. The effect of false profiling is 'smooth', which probably means shadow detail; where did the color saturation boost therory originate?
4. It would be quite useful, if someone can write a plug-in with a single lever and instant preview to allow us to tune gamma visually (with maybe 8-16 data points) - superior to Levels / Curves in both image result AND degree of non-destruction.
Here are a few quotes, I found useful:
First quote:
"If the image is so disastrously dark that I have to use 1.0 gamma to save it, I don't at present know any alternate way of doing this. OTOH, if the image is a bit washed out and colorless, I can certainly get what I want with curves. But assigning an Adobe RGB profile seems to make the process less painful, and only takes a second."
My interpretation of this is that a gamma correction is the best way to recover a very dark image and that curves (for some technical reason), do not work as well. But, for images that are off a smaller amount (I'm guessing <2 stops), curves can work just as well and it's really up to the retoucher which method is faster or easier.
Second quote:
">>I don't understand why this should be the case-- I thought gamma was just a curve with a specific shape, and that Photoshop curves could be any arbitrary shape. What prevents you from making a curve that shape in Photoshop?>>
It's not that easy to make a curve with 5 or 6 accurate points in that tiny dialog box. For the same reason, it's hard to write a curve that exactly duplicates what changing the gamma settings in Levels does--there's a fudge factor there, too."
This says to me that it's easier to make large brightness adjustments using gamma instead of curves. It doesn't say that curves can't, just that it's easier with gamma.
Third quote:
"A false profile is the use of the Image: Mode>Assign Profile command to assign color and gamma values that are known to be incorrect, in an effort to make further color correction easier. In my August column I suggested that users whip up half a dozen of these false profiles to have around in case they are needed.
One example showed an RGB image that was extremely dark and colorless. I assigned one of these stock false profiles to it, using Wide Gamut RGB primaries with a gamma of 1.0. It was still far from being an acceptable image but I was able to get a pretty decent result out of it after some further moves. I was not immediately able to get similarly good results without starting with the false-profile gambit."
Again I note that he's working on an "extremely dark" image and he makes reference to the convenience of having a bunch of different false profiles lying around that you can just quickly apply to get an image in the ballpark for further adjustment.
My summary take-away so far:
False profiles are pre-canned methods of doing a set brightness and/or color correction/modification. They are non-destructive and quick to apply. Reasons to consider using false profiles:
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
So, false profiles are for major changes with machete, and curves are for small one with eye scalpel?
If so, can ACR's sliders replace the false profiles (but in far more controllable way), or there is still a major difference?
When I post my False Profiles chapter summary I'll make it a point to discuss gamma in detail.
Almost done...
Regards,
Michael
Graphics23 - Design, Illustration, Restoration & Retouching
What's a Pirate's favorite color mode? Arrrr, G, B!
G255 is numerically the most saturated green we can define using an 8-bit system. G255 is NOT the same color in sRGB as it is in ProPhoto RGB yet its the same number. These colors fall within a different scale of human vision which you can plot and see (that horseshoe shaped plot represents the numbers within the color space we can see). Numbers without a color space don't provide the scale we need to fully define the color.
Profile simply provide the numbers a scale. When you assign sRGB to an image then ProPhoto RGB, the numbers do not change, but you've told Photoshop the scale has, it updates the preview based on this new information. Just as if you told someone, "no, I'm working in ounces, not grams". The number in front of that scale now plays a different role in what you get.
Assign profile doesn't change the numbers, it changes the scale of the numbers. So what's the result? The image appears differently. And, when you now convert (and unless the image is only being viewed on your display, you'll have to), the new resulting numbers are altered based on this assignment.
You're not changing the gamma or anything at all when you assign a profile however, when you then subsequently convert those sets of numbers to a new color space (to print or maybe to upload to the web; you need sRGB), then a new set of numbers will be made based on the profile used. So there's no free lunch, you then change the numbers the net result is if you didn't Assign the profile and just used Photoshop to change the numbers. There's nothing magical here, just a different way to get a new net result.
So, the profile either defines the numbers and produces a color appearance you wish or it doesn't. How is this fales? If I provide an untagged document, you have RGB or CMYK mystery meat. Photoshop makes a guess as to the correct scale of the numbers (using whatever you've got set currently in your color settings). Assign profile changes that assumption. Its either correct or its not. Its correct when it appears as you wish although all this could have been avoided if someone down the food chain had just originally assigned the correct profile to the numbers.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I didn't realize you're a member of Dgrin, too!
It's awesome that you can participate in this discussion.
Let me ask you this... My biggest grudge with the "profile" approach is its total un-intuitiveness and uncontrollability. Basically, you're dealing with a set of mathematical formulae that will interpret some numbers stored in file to a (possibly) different set of number onscreen and to the third one on print. I personally find this approach arcane and obscure.
I do understand that for a person who's dealing with those profiles by hundreds on a daily basis they can present a quick way of getting from (the vicinity of) point A to (the vicinity of) point B, just like 777 would take you from LAX to JFK. Yet you still need to get to LAX and then map your way from JFK. And if you are already in the general area you need, you can probably just drive or even walk.
And, of course, I do not deal with hundreds of images on a daily basis. So naturally, I don't have a library of the profiles, and judging by the way the things are going, not going to have to in any foreseeable future.
So my question is: what good are those profiles from a purely practical standpoint for a person who does limited amount a shooting (500-5,000) pics a month) and is not a stranger to a heavy-weight post processing?
Thank you!
ICC profiles only serve one role; the give RGB and CMYK numbers a meaning as I discussed above and allow you to produce new RGB and CMYK numbers from existing ones. As I said, G255 without a profile defining its color space isn't enough information to describe that color. With a profile, you can.
There are a zillion different color spaces. Imagine all the LCD displays and consider they are all a bit (sometimes a lot) different. If you profile them, you build a description for their behavior. If you want to view a set of RGB numbers in say a colorspace called sRGB, the only way for all the various LCD users to see those numbers the same way is to use a profile (actually two). One defines the numbers scale. They are in sRGB. The 2nd is a profile of the individual display. Now everyone can see the same numbers the same way. Not so without the use of profiles. Profiles give the numbers meaning. Everything we do on a computer, be it retouching photo's in Photoshop or surfing the web is just a big pile of numbers; 1's and zero's. That's all computers understand. They have no idea what "Green" means. They do understand how to show you the most saturated green on your display when you tell Photoshop that you're working with G255 in sRGB!
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Being a programmer and - in my prior life - dealing with some insanely abstract mathematical topologies, I do undertand what a profile does.
What I'm not so sure about is their practical applicability in a way it was discussed here. If I understand you correctly one should have very limited number of profiles, namely:
- Screen
- Printer
Well, that times the number of colorspaces a person uses. For sRGB only two are suffice, but for a person who also uses, say, AdobeRGB and CMYK on a frequent basis, that would be (3 paces) x (2 devices) = 6 profiles.However, as you said, there are zillions of "imaginary" spaces and devices, hence a huge pile of "artificial" profiles.
My question was: how one can use them to one's advantage?
It appears that some people do, but I can't get a handle on it.
The 2nd profile is for the display. This defines device behavior. With those two pieces of data, Photoshop can show you and me the same numbers the same way. Now, I can also move from one color space to another (sRGB to SWOP, ProPhoto RGB to Epson RGB for luster paper). I'm just transforming one set of numbers (one color space) into another.
An Epson is not an sRGB device. There's only one sRGB device, a CRT display. If you want to make a print that looks anything close to what you're viewing on screen, you need to send the correct RGB values for the Epson based on what you saw so again, we need profiles to define these two devices in order to work with the correct set of numbers. Again, it's all numbers. Color management is number management.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
The Role of Working Spaces in Adobe Applications
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200509_rodneycm.pdf
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200510_rodneycm.pdf
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I'm willing to do a summary of this.
I think the right approach is to do it in 3 parts: shadow/highlight,
alternate methods of solving the same problem, and creative uses
of HIRALOM sharpening.
How do I get a smugmug account?
7 days trial. Then you decide which one you want and shell out your credit card. If you want to save a few bucks, there is plenty of people with $5 coupons around (I'm one of them
HTH
14 day trial, not 7.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Thanks!
Nik and David's answers are fine, but for the purposes of these chapter summary, we have a special account to use and it's even free. I'll PM you the info to log in.
Thank you for telling us about this book. Based on the recommendations I read here I just ordered it to compliment my Scott Kelby books.
Ansel Adams
Let us know which you find more 'readable' ...
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
With all due respect, it's not about readability... It's about entry level vs advanced.
I started with Mr. Kelby's books few years ago and I am extremely glad I did. Yet they lead you only so far, and then you need to read something more challenging if you want to progress....
It's all about readability! Teaching complex subjects doesn’t and shouldn’t require reading the text 2-3 times to 'get it'.
I only have one of Scotts books and a few of Dan's. Both are discussing advanced topics. One is a lot easier to digest. But again, lets see what NavyMoose has to say.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I also like both Dan's and Kelby's books. Dan's book is for sure chanllenging to read, which is to be expected not only because the content is 'advanced', but also because so much of it is systematically explained only for the first time, unlike 99% of the photography books on the market that repeat the same ideas over and over.
In modern physics when the breakthroughs of the 20th century first came out, the papers decribing them were impossible to understand save by a few experts. After decades of being taught in college now we have textbooks that are much more 'readable'. I think of reading Dan's book as going to Einstein's original paper instead of a late copy of Physics 101.
Sincerely,
Stephen Marsh.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I just bought Scott Kelby's "The Photoshop Channel's Book". I see in the acknowledgments he says "he owes a special debt of gratitude to Photoshop color genius Dan Margulis..".and mentions "when it comes to color, Dan is the bottom line...the book is infinitely better because of him."
I find this type of generous and respectful exchange lends credibility to both authors. It's reasurring to to know that some experts in the field are on amiable terms.
Gloria
Ansel Adams
I agree.
I would like to add that I have all of Dan's books. Like many other people, I have read them numerous times. The re-reads have nothing to do with readability. The books are written clearly enough. I read them a second and third time because as my comprehension of the material increases, I am able to grasp things that at first glance were completely lost on me. Many of Dan's ideas are quite advanced and at least for me, they require time to fully understand.
In my opinion, Dan Margulis is in a league of his own when it comes to his understanding of Photoshop and color correction. What I like most about his writing is that he challenges me to stretch my knowledge and he doesn't get lost in theory. He delivers practical knowledge that can really improve your results. I have read a lot of books on Photoshop, but I haven't seen anyone that delivers books with as much meat as his. Reading Dan's books has improved my skills more than any other material I have read. In my opinion, the guy is a genius and we're lucky to have someone like him around to share his vast knowledge of a very complex subject.
John Arnold
Thanks!
Canon 7D & 350D
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ~ 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II ~ 50mm f/1.8 II ~ 85mm f/1.8 ~ 100mm f/2.8 ~ 70-200mm f/4 IS L
I found the LAB book easier to understand and more immediately useful. But both are worth the time and effort.
Regards,
Duffy