The Kayview Gallery

Using Multiple Copies Of The Same Image In Photoshop CS5

2012-01-20T13:12:00.000-05:00

Let's take a rather blah image and spike it up a little. The inspiration for today's image comes fromthe work of Mike Calascibetta, an extremely talent photographer/Photoshopwizard from Burbank California. You cansee a small sampling of his fine art photography here. Mike does a lot of flowers and they are trueworks of art. It appears Mike puts Layers and Layers over abase image and adds pops of color to create really interesting images. Today's image takes several Layers and playswith Blend Modes and big fuzzy brushes to make things more interesting. One of the attributes of Mike's work is theuse of pastel colors. In his work itadds such depth that you can literarily look into his images and sees things inyour imagination. Really outstandingstuff. In today's image there is onlytwo different images. Two separateLayers with the flower and one with a smoke pattern from burning incense. To find out what became of the second flowerLayer and how the smoke was used, hit the "Read More".

The base flower Layer was a shot taken using a large softboxas a background. By exposing for theflower, the background was blown out to completely white. Rather than using a white seamless roll ofpaper and needing to light it, using the softbox serves a dual purpose. One, to be the background and two, to be thelight for the flower. There is noforeground light. Having a large softboxgave enough light to wrap around the flower. The big deal, get your camera off any sort of mode that lets the cameramake the decisions. You definitely haveto be in Manual Mode if you're shooting directly into the path of thelight. You basically have to beat thelight into submission. If you're a"light meter person" you could probably do some metering and figureout what should be a close starting point for the exposure. Me, I take a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess),take a look at what I've gotten and adjust. Using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 (or now 4 Beta) and shooting tetheredis the way to go for anything like this. Trying to make decisions based on the 3" screen on the back of thecamera is almost useless. Seeing theimage on a 23" monitor is killer. Adjustment to focus and exposure are nice, you can be as precise as youwish and see exactly what you're doing. If you're unsure, you can blow the image up immediately and be ascritical as you like. A great way toshoot.

Okay, now we have the image we'll be playing with. The first thing that was done was to copy theimage to a new Layer. The BackgroundLayer was converted to a regular Layer by holding down the Alt key and DoubleClicking on the Layer in the Layers Panel. On the lower Layer (the one that used to be the Background Layer) a FreeTransform (CTRL T) was used and the Image Scaled so the flower itself spilled completelyover the edges of the frame, making the flower the Background element. It was the converted to a Smart Object (rightclick on the Layer and select Convert to Smart Object) so filters could beapplied. A large Gaussian Blur was puton the Layer. Enough so the viewer couldbarely make out the flower.

A Mask was made using the Quick Selection Tool (W) With the flower selected, click on the NewLayer Mask icon at the bottom of the Layers Panel. This makes a filled Mask, outlining theflower. You can also make a selection ofthe background and make that the basis of the Mask.

With the Mask in place it's time to adds a few pops ofcolor. The first thing was to bring inan addition Layer under the Layer of the full image. This Layer was a shot of smoke from a burningincense stick. It had been shot with ablack background, so the Blend Mode was changed to Screen to drop out theblacks. On another new Layer a big (verybig) 100% soft brush (B) was used to just put a couple spots of PastelMagenta. Another Layer and spots ofPastel Green. One more Layer and acouple spots of Red. Each of the Layerswere given a Color Dodge Blend Mode change and clipped to the Smoke Layer. This had the effect of undefining the softspots of color and turning them into very soft, imprecise shapes of color. The Opacity of each Layer was adjusted"to taste" to provide just "the right amount" of hue tobring interest to the finished image.

This goes under the category of playing with an image. Experiment and have fun with your images.

Getting A Little Crazy With Photoshop CS5

2012-01-17T13:52:00.002-05:00

Okay, anybody wanna guess what the elements in this imagestarted out as? Would you believe(great, now I'm sounding like Maxwell Smart) a Tiger Lily, a glass of waterwith ice and the bare branches of a bush. Add in a couple of black Layers with a Fibers Filter(Filters/Render/Fibers) and a Clouds Filter (Filters/Render/Clouds). And, before I forget, one more black Layerwith a Lens Flare Filter (Filters/Render/Lens Flare) to create the sun. Stir in a couple Blend Mode changes and youhave today's image. Any resemblance to what the pieces started outas is pretty much a coincidence. Shows what can happen when you have too muchtime on your hands. I sort of like theway it came out. If you're interested inlearning how it was done, hit the "Read More".

The planet was made first and got the ball rolling. It is a Tiger Lily, in fact it's the flowerfound in the post of July 19, 2010. Thefirst thing that was done was that it was brought into Adobe's Pixel Benderplug-in. The Circle Splash effect wasapplied and then the center removed for use. The rest was discarded. It thenreceived a Gaussian Blur. It wentthrough another trip to Pixel Bender and the Oil Paint effect added. It ended up looking something like the planetJupiter.

The larger surface comes from a shot straight down on aglass of water with ice in it. The glasswas masked using the Elliptical Marquee Tool (M). Free Transform (CRTL T) was used to enlargethe component to give it the look of being the Jupiter Moon Europa. Europa is one of the largest objects in thesolar system, but it is a moon of Jupiter. It's primary characteristic is that it's an ice planet (moon). To give part of the surface a fractured looka shot of a bush in winter was used. Thebush had no leaves, so it became a jumble of intersecting lines. A Black & White Adjustment Layer wasadded to take any color information out of the equation. A Blend Mode change resulted in the"fractures" appearing to be organic in nature.

The start field is a black Layer with a Fibers Filterapplied. A Levels Adjustment Layer wasused and the black slider brought all the way over to the white sliderlocation. This dropped out 99% of thefibers and left only a random scattering of pin points.

The sun and flare are a black Layer with a Lens FlareFilter. It looks as though the"photographer" pointed the camera to close to the sun.

Initial Thoughts On Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 Beta

2012-01-16T08:49:00.000-05:00

Today's image was processed using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom4 Beta. All I have to say is: what anupgrade. The jump from version 2 to version3 was big, but this is huge. What anyonethought about the way the sliders worked (in just about all panels) in LR3 isabout to be blown away by the functionality of LR4. Instead of Recovery and Fill Light, we haveHighlight and Shadow. It's more thanjust a name change. Where Recoveryworked if you pushed it far enough, Highlight gives some fine control overwhat's going on in the highlights without affecting the mid-tones and shadows. Same thing with the Shadows Slider. Where Fill Light opened the shadows, but alsobrightened the overall image, Shadows opens the darkest areas (that havedetail) and doesn't mess with anything higher. Today's image was sort of a test bed for both of these functions. The "lighting" on today's image isa flashlight. A friend and I were overat the Danbury Railway Museum experimenting with some "lightpainting". Playing with flashlightsto act as a light source is imprecise at best. There's a lot of trial and error involved and having the light fill inall the nooks and crannies is a trick at best. So, what you end up with works right into LR4 Beta's lightingadjustments. There's a lot I like aboutLR4 and, being a Beta, a couple of things that still need work. To take a look at my thoughts, hit the"Read More".

I've already spoken about a couple components of the BasicPanel. The rest of the Basic Panel hasalso been turbo charged. Clarity rocks,Vibrance takes a lot longer to make colors go neon. It looks like Adobe went through eachfunction in the Basic Panel and said "put in finer control" on everyslider. I still don't think too highlyof Saturation, and if you're a frequent reader you know I like to saturate myimages. Guess they needed to leave somethingfor LR6.

A couple other of my favorite Panels and functions in theDevelop Module are the Details Panel, the Effects Panel (but still have agripe), and the HSL (specifically the "L"). The Sharpening in the Effects Panel looks toproduce better sharpening without creating halos. The Noise Reduction appears to beunchanged. Good, but no upgrade. In the Effects Panel I use the Post CropVignette on about 90% of all images produced. The gripe is that it's fixed in position. I'd like to be able to grab a center controlpoint and move the position of the target to off center spots. Whenever I need an off center vignette I haveto go out to the Adjustment Brush and hand darken the area around the center ofinterest. Being able to control the sizeshape and hardness of the Post Crop Vignette and being able to move the radiuspoint would be great.

Love the improvements in the Print Module. The ability to tweak the brightness andcontrast to match your printers output to what you see on the screen is dynamite. No more guessing what the shift needs to beto get the print to look like the screen. The controls are "sticky", so once you dial in the numbers fora particular paper you can pretty well set it and forget it. Only thing missing would be the ability tosave the setting as a preset. Haven'tseen where you can do that yet.

One thing that still needs work looks like choosing a fontfor a custom Identity Plate in the Page Panel of the Print Module. I have a specific font I like to use eitheron a "gallery" print or as an image marker of the printed area. Every time I went to change the font (to anyother font) and start typing, the font would bounce back to "Tahoma". I'm sure (pretty sure) this will be fixedbefore the final version is set in stone.

All in all, I do believe the upgrade to LR4 from any previousversion will be worth the ticket price. That's assuming the upgrade price will be the same as the past couple ofupgrades.

Panos, Composites and Bears, Oh My ... In Photoshop CS5

2012-01-09T12:51:00.000-05:00

I've done posts on panoramas and I've done posts oncompositing and I've done posts on flipping back and forth from Adobe PhotoshopLightroom 3 to Adobe Photoshop CS5, so I figured I'd do one combining allthree. I thought the park scene hadpossibilities when I was flipping through LR3 this morning and decided to dothe pano. CS5 makes it so easy and it'sso forgiving that you can practically put the camera on a very short intervaltimer sequence, click the shutter and throw the camera in the air and still beable to come up with a pretty good pano. The days of needing to be on a tripod (doing daylight panos), with alens null point mount, in manual exposure, with manual focus are over. Photoshop CS5 stitches, aligns, blends andspits out a 99.99% correct panorama, 100% of the time. About the only thing the photographer needsto do is overlap one frame to the next. Come to think of it, in the toss it up in the air scenario, you couldprobably do the same setup multiple times and get enough shots so CS5 would beable to sort them all out and build one coherent image. I'll put that on my "todo" list andreport back. To find out more abouttoday's image, hit the "Read More".

The first thing you probably noticed as being dropped in isthat big, old dog in the lower left hand corner. That one's a given. You get no "points" for that one. A little Quick Selection Tool (W) actioncombined with some Smart Radius in the Refine Edge dialog box and I was 90%there. As far as output from the dialogbox goes I typically pick Output To New Layer With A Layer Mask. I did have the dog stacked on the pano beforegoing to Refine Edge. By clickingthrough the F key cycle I was able to put the dog on the background pano,giving me a much better idea how good the selection had to be. After I had the new Layer and the Layer MaskI turned on the Mask (ALT and click on the Mask) to be able to fine tune it alittle. With the Brush Tool (B) set to aBrush Blend Mode of Overlay and the Brush Opacity down around 35% I was able togo back and forth between cleaning the blacks and white by hitting the Xkey. Because the Brush Blend Mode was inOverlay, anything darker than 50% would darken to black using a black Brush andanything lighter than 50% would lighten to white using a white Brush. With the Opacity turned down, getting toeither black or white took several passes. Works great.

I basically did the same thing with the man on the benchreading, the enclosed three wheel bike and (over to the right side) the cannoneersabout to fire on one of the town's buildings. With all three the same steps were taken as the dog with the addition ofone step. The image would be easily seenas doctored if everyone was in front of the trees. In each case I used the Quick Selection Toolon the panorama Layer and picked out the tree or post that should have been infront of the people's position. In eachcase it was a simple task of putting a Layer Mask on the Layer with the person(or people) in it and, on the Mask, filling the Selection with black,

Try it. Make up yourown party.

Getting Clean "Enough" Extractions With Photoshop CS5

2012-01-06T13:04:00.004-05:00

Click on today's image, check it out in its largersize. Look at the wisps of hair on hischin and the back of his head. If that"ain't" good enough for you, you can stop reading now. Adobe Photoshop CS5's Quick Selection Tool(W) and Refine Edge make it a piece of cake to take a piece of an image out ofone shot and drop it in another shot. Ifyou're a frequent reader of the Gallery you might recognize the guy in theimage for the December 19, 2011 post. Same guy, same frame. Just tookhim out of his original shot (of the 19th) and put him in a new location. One thing that made the move easier was thefact that we were going from his head being surrounded by a contrastybackground and being put on an equally contrasty background. Had I tried to put him in a scene with a niceblue sky with fluffy clouds it may have been a different story and this postmight have included weeping and gnashing of teeth. Several friends have cried on my shoulderabout how hard it is to get a good extraction out of any image that wasn't shoton a single color background. It couldbe a white or gray background (black and green backgrounds have their own setof problems). Today's image is anexample of taking a person out of a complex background and moving said personto another complex background. The edgeis "good enough", but not perfect. It doesn't have to be. It has tobe "good enough" to get the job done. To find out how good is good enough, hit the "Read More".

The whole thing with "good enough" depends on whatyou're putting the cutout on. One of theeasiest ways to find out "when" an extraction is good enough is toview it on the background it'll be on when finished. Once a rough selection is made with the QuickSelection Tool (W) you'd go directly to the Refine Edge dialog box. You can read about memorizing the shortcutsthe different modes the dialog box gives. B for black, W for white, etc., but the easiest thing to remember is theF key. It'll cycle you through each tothe possible overlays. One of theoverlays is "on Layers". Ifyou don't have anything under the Layer you do the extraction from, you'll havea blank checkerboard pattern. If you'vecopied the Layer (CTRL J) so as not to disturb the original you won't see anychange. If you put what will become thebackground Layer under the extraction Layer you be able to see what the cutoutwill look like on its intended target. This is where the "good enough" cutout becomes important. Just for jiggles I put the guy from today'simage on a sky background. His chin hairwas good throughout. If I positioned thewisps of hair at the back of his head on a part of the sky that was blue... noproblem. On an area that had grayerclouds, no problem. When I moved it overpart of a particularly bright part of the cloud it was a mess. The fringing around each hair could bequickly seen. In that spot it wasn'tgood enough.

I could have gone in and played with the selection on apixel level to get that perfect cutout, but the plan was to use the fellow onthe background you see above. It wasn'tnecessary to do any more than was already done. The cutout was "good enough".

Try not to beat yourself up with work that doesn'tmatter. Today's image wasn't going toget any better by my fiddling around trying to get the perfect cutout. Some work just isn't worth the time you'dhave to put into it.

Wednesday Q&A - Getting Images To NOT Open As Smart Objects

2012-01-04T10:19:00.001-05:00

An interesting search brought someone to the blog the otherday from Cape Town, South Africa. The entire query was "how do I stop ACRopening my images in CS5 as smart object?" This is the second time in the past few weeks someone was asking abouthow to NOT do something in Adobe Photoshop CS5. The last one dovetails with today's question and the post of November21, 2011 was titled "Wednesday Q&A - Getting Rid Of SmartObjects". It's interesting thatfolks want to not use this extremely helpful piece of Photoshop wizardry. Smart Objects are incredibly useful and therehave been several posts dealing with them here at the Gallery. Back in July of last year I did a two part"Wednesday Q&A" (Part 1) (Part 2) about just why Smart Objectsare so great. I use Smart Objects everyday and can't imagine (anymore) workingwithout them. Just the other day, whilepreparing the image of the motocross rider coming through a curve, SmartObjects saved a great deal of time for me. I'd gone through several steps, used Convert To Smart Object (select allthe Layers you want to make a Smart Object, right click on any Layer and pickConvert To Smart Object) several times and then noticed a mistake I'd made backtwo or three nested Smart Objects ago. Had I used the older CTRL/ALT/Shift/E to make a composite on the top ofthe Layer Stack I would have been in big trouble when I saw my mistake. The only thing I would have been able to dowould have been to scrap the Composite Layer and everything above it. That would have trashed a considerable amountof work. By using Smart Objects I wasable to cycle back through the Smart Objects to the point of the problem, fixthe problem and then Save and Close my way back to the point I had been at whenI noticed my error. A two minute fix ratherthan a half hour rebuilding what had already been done. But, let's get to today's question. To learn the simple answer, hit the"Read More".

Today's "image" is a screen shot of ACR (AdobeCamera Raw) with an open image. Click onthe image to get a larger look at the panel. In the lower right you can see that it says"Open Object" rather than the more normal "OpenImage". Somehow, somewhere, someonetripped a toggle that changed the default setting to open images as a SmartObject. The person asking the questionabout turning off opening images as a Smart Object either wasn't the person whoflipped the toggle or forgot what he/she had done to put it in thatcondition.

I've circled two areas in today's image. In order to get to the inset, click once onethe informational settings below the image being worked on. The inset dialog box lets the "photoshopper"select several parameters to open the image in when going to CS5. These include the color space to work in, thecolor depth, the size, any default sharpening and the resolution. This sets up how you'll be working with yourimage once it gets to CS5. The lastthing in the dialog box is a check box the says "Open in Photoshop asSmart Objects" That's the togglethat is tripping up the person asking about being able to NOT open images asSmart Objects. As the person gotfrustrated the check box was checked "on". To "stop ACR opening my images in CS5 assmart objects" all the has to be done is uncheck that box.

If you are interested in selective control over how an imageopens coming out of ACR you can use the usual suspects as modifiers. In ACR, with the normal "OpenImage" as the default choice, use Shift click to open the image as a SmartObject or use ALT click to open the image as a Copy.

One thing to remember: Adobe makes huge use of "modifier keys" (CTRL, Shift, ALT andcombinations of the three) to give a large number of options. In general, when in CS5 (or earlier) Shiftmeans "Add to", Alt means "Subtract From" and CTRL means"Intersect With". These are particularlyhandy when making selections.

Using The Lasso Tool In CS5 When Doing Compositing

2012-01-03T12:02:00.000-05:00

I titled today's image "A Bicycle Built ForFive". It's sort of an opticalillusion. There are five riders on fivebikes, but only six wheels total. Intaking the series of shots, using high speed continuous, the rider managed tomove one bicycle length (approximately) between each opening of theshutter. We could make a reasonableestimate of the distance between the front and back wheel. We can pick up the shutter speed from theMetadata associated with the frames in the sequence. We could actually make a high school levelphysics problem out of calculating the speed the cyclist was traveling. How about that. Photography really can be used for more thanjust making pretty pictures. When Istarted playing with today's image it was just a simple case of plunking animage down, creating a Layer Mask (the Add Layer Mask at the bottom of theLayers Panel) and painting (on the Layer Mask) with black to reveal theunderlying Layer. No problem. As I went along I noticed that the handlebars of one bike sat just behind the seat of the bike in front of it. The Layers were aligned using the backgroundelements, so all images are really in relation to one another. The background elements didn't move, so itwas fairly easy to get every frame in register. To find out how that was done and why I used the Lasso Tool (L) inmaking this composite, hit the "Read More".

Let's get each Layer "in register" with the onebefore. The first thing I did wasrearrange the Layers in the Layer Stack. Counting from back to front we'd have image #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The way they were transferred into AdobePhotoshop CS5 from Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 stacked them as Layers #5, 4, 3,2, and 1. Just the opposite way I wantto work with them. Rather than movingfive Layers, I just switched Layer #2 with Layer #4 and Layer #1 with Layer#5. I then turned off the visibility ofthe top three Layers. The next step wasto reduce the Opacity of the higher Layer to about 50%. Using the Move Tool (V) I slid the upperLayer into the approximate location, aligning prominent elements. In the first two images it was the balusters ofthe handrail. Once it was close Ibrought the Opacity back up to 100% and change the Blending Mode toDifference. Things that match exactlywill have no Difference and become pure black. Using the arrow keys on the keyboard, with the Move Tool still selected,I was able to nudge the upper Layer left, right and up, down until a"close to perfect" match was achieved. The process was repeated with each additionalLayer.

With that done, a Layer Mask was applied to all Layersexcept the bottom Layer. I used a blackBrush (B) to reveal the front wheel of the bike to the back. I noticed that the back wheel of the frontbike matched up with the front wheel of the back bike. (Feel free to reread that last sentenceseveral times if you wish.) My firstthought was to just reveal the front wheel of each bike. Unless I was interested in a bunch of onefooted men riding their bikes, that didn't work quite right. I brought all the front wheels to the frontof the image and then went back painted the shoes and legs back in on the LayerMask. I tried just using a fairly hardBrush to Mask around the shoes, but that kept nicking either the shoe or thetire.

I used the Polygonal Lasso Tool (L) to trace around the shoeand painted the Mask either black or white depending on if I was inside theselected area or outside the selected area. (I used CRTL Shift I [eye] to flip what was selected and what wasn'tselected. That made life easy becauseeither the shoe was protected or the tire was protected. A simple swipe either way revealed the properportion of the image.

When Is A Mask "Good Enough" in Photoshop CS5

2011-12-26T10:04:00.001-05:00

Today's image, obviously, is a series a images taken usingcontinuous high speed shutter. Before weget into it I'll talk a little bit about Nikon's (or any manufacturer's)continuous mode of shooting. It kind ofcracks me up when some friends say with certainty that their camera can shootat six, seven or nine frames per second. In the case of today's image(s) that's most likely the case. But, if you're in low light and your shutterspeed is one second, you can shoot at a maximum of --- one frame per second. If you're shooting a seven shot bracket, andyour "normal" shutter speed is 1/100 of a second, you'd have 1/12 ofa second as your longest shutter speed. Add up 1/12th +1/25th +1/50th +1/100th + 1/200, +1/400, and 1/800th andyou'll find you've used up just about that whole second. Start at 1/50th and that one second is longgone before you get that six frames per second over. A friend of mine who has a D3 (not a D3X)found that out the hard way when he heard my D300 start to labor during a sevenshot bracket. He wanted to show me howfast his D3 was. I told him to use thesame Aperture I had, in Aperture Priority Mode. His camera went click, click. click, click, click, click, click, same as minehad. There are some rules of physicsthat you can't break no matter how good your camera is. But, back at today's image, it's a burst ofexposures in high speed continuous mode with plenty of sunlight. It was clicking away as fast as the mechanismwould go. Seeing as the Nikon D300 canrun at six frames per second, today's image should be about a one secondinterval. Putting the sequence togetherin Adobe Photoshop CS5 is easier than you might suspect. To learn how it was done, hit the "ReadMore".

The first thing to do was to bring the six frames into CS5from Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 as stacked Layers (Photo/Edit In/Open AsLayers In Photoshop). This will save thehassle of opening each image and doing any sort of Copy and Paste to get allthe images into one document. They willgo into CS5 in the order they were taken. From back to front (from lowest number in the sequence to the highestnumber). That puts the rear image on thetop of the Layer Stack. Just the oppositeway we'd need them. So, the first thing(in CS5) that needs to be done is to rearrange the order so that the closetimage is at the top of the stack and the stack descends back to the furthestimage being on the bottom.

Because I was panning as a followed the rider the edges ofthe shots don't lineup. They look alittle like a stair step sequence going from low at the left to high at theright. We'll fix that later. To figure out where the alignment falls weneed to pairs, starting at the two bottom Layers and turning off all theothers. To get into the general area Ilowered the Opacity of the upper Layer to about 50%. The ruts above the rider remained in oneplace. I used that as a key and movedthe upper image up to match ruts. One Igot it close I brought the Opacity back up to 100% and changed the Blend Modeto Difference. With the Move Tool (V)selected I used the left, right, up and down cursor control keys to nudge theLayer until the area over the ruts went back. To check I went one click further in each direction to confirm theplacement.

The next step was to make a Layer Mask. Using the Quick Selection Tool (W) the targetcursor was pulled down through the rider on the lowest Layer. Once the selection was cleaned up I rightclicked inside the selection. Thisbrought up a dialog box and Save Selection was clicked. This produces an Alpha Channel. If you are using Adobe Photoshop Elements 9you can go to Select/Save Selection and you too will have an AlphaChannel. It's the way selections aresaved, if Adobe lets you see the Channels or not. This process was repeated up through theentire set of Layers.

From there, each Layer was given a Layer Mask based on theSelection that had been made for that particular Layer. This showed each iteration of the rider. Each Mask was then painted with Black usingthe Brush Tool (B) beneath the rider, revealing the rider's shadow. This is actually the trickier part of themasking.

One thing that happened was that the top of the lower leftwas lower than the head of the rider in the third frame. Therefore the canvas had to be expanded. Rather than going to the dialog box(Image/Canvas Size), an easier method (when the dimensions are unknown) is touse the Crop Tool (C). With the entirevisible image selected, grab the upper middle "handle" and pull upout of the image rather than down into the image. As soon as the mouse click is liftedadditional canvas is added and the rest of the image revealed. I had to do this twice as I was buildingtoday's image. The second time I had togo up and to the right. I just grabbedthe handle in the upper right corner and pulled.

The "stair step" was handled using Content AwareFill. The first try resulted in ridersheads in the lower right corner. A LayerMask was put on the image masking out the riders. That gave a better result, but not great. The next attempt was taking small chunks anddoing CAF to about a half dozen pieces to make it look right.

The image was brought backinto LR3 and tones, brightness, colors, sharpness, clarity, etc brought upthere. The upper left and lower rightwere darkened to put the emphasis on the riders to complete the scene.

Selective Sharpening, Selective Blurring, Selective Vignetting in Photoshop CS5

2011-12-23T10:16:00.001-05:00

Today's image reminds me "a little bit of" of Lou Bega's song Mambo No. 5. In it he sings about a composite woman he'dlike to have. He's looking for "alittle bit of ... " many different woman. Check it out, it's a cute song from a couple years ago. Today's image has "a little bit of"the Sharpening Tool (no keyboard shortcut), "a little bit of" theBlur Tool (same tool set), "a little bit of" selective vignetting, "alittle bit of" Adobe's Pixel Bender and "a little bit of"Content Aware Fill. I say "a littlebit of" for each one because none are applied to the entire image. The result is a cohesive image that appearsto have been treated as a whole. Inaddition, it has a sky dropped in with its resultant reflection in thewater. I'd be willing to bet that mybuddy Lorri will look at it and think (at first) it was a one button filterapplication. It's nothing if it's notreally far from the case. There's abouta half dozen nested Smart Objects, a dozen independent Layers, at least fourtrip back and forth from Adobe Photoshop CS5 and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom3. Everything serves a function. I don't believe there are any gratuitous operations. We'll take a walk through the image and showwhere each alteration was done. To followalong, hit the "Read More".

As is typical, today's image started out in LR3. One of the primary functions of Lightroom isDAM (Digital Asset Management). Whileimporting your images from the camera LR3 makes life easy. It writes each image to the primary databaseand backs it up to a secondary storage drive. You can keyword images on import and apply any global processing youmight desire. A great time savings. The first step in processing the image isheading to the Develop Module in LR3. General tweaks are the first order of business. Cleaning up any sensor dust, setting the baseexposure, white balance, contrast, and other adjustments you probably make toevery image.

A more dramatic sky from the same shoot was opened andtweaked in the same manner (not the same tweaks) as the base image.

The next step was a trip to CS5. Both images were brought in and stacked asLayers. The Blend Mode was changed to DarkerColor. In today's case that resulted inabout a 90% success. The clouds showedthrough the rock outcropping on the short. A simple Layer Mask and a little black paint with the Brush Tool (B)make short work of correcting that excess coloring.

Then a side trip to Adobe's Pixel Bender (available fromAdobe Labs) and the Oil Paint filter applied. A little adjusting of the sliders and it was back to CS5. A Smart Filter was made of the Layers and theimage brought back into LR3 (File/Save). This resulted in a XYZ 1234.NEF-Edit.PSD file. Some noise was pulled out in LR3 using the DetailPanel. Then it was back to CS5.

Once in CS5 three additional copies were made (CTRL J threetimes). The top two copies were turnedoff (click on the eyeball icon). Copyone was used for Sharpening using the High Pass Filter (Filter/Other/High Pass)technique. The Blend Mode was changed toOverlay. To see the sharpening, clickthe eyeball on and off. Copy two wasbrought back up (click of the copy 2 Layer eyeball). The Rectangular Marquee Tool (M) was used tomake a selection around the rock outcropping. A 250 pixel feather (Select/Modify/Feather) was applied and a Layer Maskused to isolate the area. The Layer Maskwas then inverted (CTRL I[eye]). TheBlend Mode of that Layer was changed to Multiply and the Opacity brought downto approximately 50%.

On copy three, a larger selection was made with theRectangular Marquee Tool (M) covering everything but about a 10 % ring aroundthe outside. Same thing. A Layer Mask was applied, inverted and theBlend Mode changed again to Overlay. TheOpacity of this Layer was brought down to about 60-70%.

In the case of the two copyLayers the Blur Tool (no keyboard shortcut available) was used to soften thesky. On the original copy in this SmartObject the Sharpen Tool (nested with the Blur Tool and the Smudge Tool) wasused to bring out the rock outcropping. In both cases the tools were applied to a new, clean, blank Layerlocated just above the Layer being worked on.

Selective Sharpening In Photoshop CS5

2011-12-19T13:08:00.000-05:00

Everybody (well, just about everybody) knows about using anUnsharp Mask (Filters/Sharpen/Unsharp Mask) to sharpen their images. It is an oxymoron that comes from the filmdays of sharpening images. Many (well,some) know how to use a High Pass Filter (Filters/Other/High Pass) to do somevery controllable sharpening. An evensmaller set of people know about using the Luminance Channel in LAB (that's L AB, not referring to some laboratory somewhere) Mode. There, you don't mess with the color Channels(the A Channel and the B Channel) and only Sharpen the L Channel . By only Sharpening the grey scale of the LChannel you eliminate any chance of producing a color shift. And then there's a Brush on Sharpeningtechnique that very few people use. Isuppose some of the "early adopters" probably tried using theSharpening Tool (no keyboard shortcut - it's located under the Blur Tool) andfound it lacking. I believe theSharpening Tool fell into Adobe's JDI (just do it) tweaks that came in AdobePhotoshop CS5. The JDI's were a set of little,niggling, things that bugged enough end users and (apparently) Adobe ProductManagers that they made the decision to fix many things before releasingCS5. Dodge and Burn is a goodexample. They put in a checkbox thatsays "Protect Tones". Prior toCS5 the Dodge and Burn Tools (O) would just muddy up whatever they were appliedto. With the JDI fix, they work as theywere always supposed to. Being able toset a default in the Stroke (Edit/Stroke) dialog box was another. Before it was set to Red and had to bechanged every time it was used. In CS5,if you choose to do so, you can set the default color to whatever youfrequently use. If 90% of your Strokesare Black, set it to Black in one case and it'll remain "sticky"until you change it. A great sanityfix. Lots of people were bugged withthat one. Another is the subject oftoday's post. To find out how it wasused in today's image, hit the "Read More".

Using the Sharpening Tool isn't the only thing done to givetoday's image more definition, but it was the first one I ran for when decidingwhat to do to the shot. Click on theimage to see an enlargement. Check outthe fellow's hair. That is some seriouslywell defined wisps of hair. The SharpenTool was used to increase the visual appeal of the hair. The Sharpen Tool is a Brush. What I did was make a new blank Layer(Layer/New/Layer) and make sure the Sample All Layers box was checked. The Strength was set to about 20%. "About" means there is no magic to20%. 17% or 23% would do just aswell. It's just something"about" 20%.

[The only place I know of where"about" means "exact" is back when I was in the Army. The Platoon Sergeant told me to "dropand give me about twenty". Meaningpushups. I knocked out nineteen, poppedback up and stepped back into line. He didn't notice my approximation, but acouple buddies did. One ratted me outand told the Platoon Sergeant I had shorted him one pushup. The Sgt. eyed me and barked, asking me howmany I had done. I told himnineteen. He was livid and screamed"I said twenty". To which Isaid "no, you said about twenty. Nineteen is "about" twenty." His next "request" was for"exactly" forty.]

Meanwhile, back to our topic. With the Strength set at about 20% I wentover the hair (and collar) several times, building the strength with each successivestroke. Doing the Sharpening on its own Layerallows you to click the Layer off and on to see the effect taking shape. Trust me, the hair is highly sharpened.

The other thing that was done to give the appearance ofSharpness was to add Highlights and Shadows using a 50% Grey Layer in anOverlay Blending Mode. With a regular,soft, Brush (B) and the Opacity set to "about" 15%, it was easy toflip back and forth between the Default (D) Black and White (X to flip betweenthe two) colors. Using a Wacom tablet,each fold of the shirt and the edge of ribbon on the hat were painted (again ona separate Layer) to lighten the highlights and darken the shadows. This gives additional depth to the shirt andribbon resulting in perceived Sharpness.

The image was finished with a trip through Topaz Labs TopazAdjust with their Grunge III preset. Oneof the attributes of that preset is adding grain (noise). Back in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 the noisewas removed.

Hope you like the way it turned out. Drop me a line and let me know what youthink.

Wednesday Q&A - Saving Files to Lightroom

2011-12-14T10:11:00.000-05:00

I gave a class last spring and saw one of the attendees theother day. He said "ya gotta clear somethingup for me". In the class I hadtaken an image from Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 (after going as far as I couldinitially) over to Adobe Photoshop CS5. There I played with adding a couple Layers, added a couple pieces fromother images and generally messed with the shot. When I was done there, I wanted to do otherthings back in LR3. The part the fellowwanted clarification on was how I saved it. That took me back a little and I asked "what do youmean"? He explained that he"always" does a Save As rather than just plain Save. I asked him to tell me why he did that. That's when I saw why he wanted someexplanation. His justification for usingSave As was that he wanted to preserve his original image. Take a look at today's image. It's the same shot, four different ways. The original is on the upper left. The other three have had one, two and threetrips over to PS CS5 and back. Eachtime, a simple Save was used, yet there are now four files that show up inLR3. (It also applies to Adobe Bridge.) To find out what's going on, hit the"Read More".

First, take a look at the image in the upper Left. It's TJP5120.NEF. It's a RAW file. The one big thing about a RAW file is thatyou CANNOT do anything to it that changes pixels. You can do all sorts of tweaking in LR3, butit's all nondestructive. The entire list of the changes made to an image iskept in a file that details every step that was made. It stays with the image and can be accessedtoday, tomorrow, next week, or next year. The "original" image doesn't change. You can always go back to it at some time inthe future.

Okay. The image istweaked in LR3 and brought into PS CS5. Things are done to the file, adding Layers, moving pixels, cloningthings in or out, anything. The onlyreason to bring an image into CS5 is because you want to do something physicalto it. Once that's done, many peoplewant to use Save As because they want to make sure not to overwrite thefile. Couple points. A simple Save will make a new file, not overwritethe old one. The "old one" isa NEF file (in my case, a Nikon RAW file) and NOTHING can be done to a RAWfile. A physical file is created in thedirectory folder that the original came out of. With today's image it becomes the TJP5120.NEF-EDIT.psd seen on the upperright. Using the straight Save command it not only saves the files, it alsoadds it to the LR3 catalog and it shows up to the right of the original. If Save As is used, the "adding to thecatalog" doesn't happen. You wouldhave to Import the file into LR3 using the Add option. Plus, the Save As will save the file inwhatever folder was last opened, not necessarily the folder containing theoriginal image. Therefore, it ispossible to have the files scattered all over your computer. Not a good thing.

In the lower left you can see a version of the image thattook a quick trip to CS5, had a Topaz Adjust preset thrown on it and aFile/Save done. Because there was"nothing" done to the image in CS5 (it was done in a plug-in) savingit to LR3 understands that it's not the same as when it went over to CS5. It now saves the new version of the image asTJP5120.NEF-EDIT-2.psd. Anything thatyou'd want to do in LR3 can now be done to that file. Let's send it over to CS5 one more time.

The result is the image in the lower right of today'simage. A couple Adjustment Layers wereadded to the image, the base Layer copied and a Smart Filter run on it. "Things" were done. Using the Save (File/Save) function puts andfile in the correct folder, Adds it to the LR3 catalog and shows it to theright of the version used to bring it over to PS CS5. Now it's namedTJP5120.NEF-EDIT-2-Edit.psd.

There appears to be a limitof three "EDITs" available in LR3. I've actually gone further than that, but the most I've ever seen has been EDIT-EDIT-EDIT. If you're not finished screwing around withyour image by that point you're doing more to your image than I've ever done tomine. Hope this "explanation"helps get you to use the Save function to bring your CS5 image back into LR3.

Simplifying Images With Adobe Photoshop CS5

2011-12-12T11:04:00.000-05:00

Simplifying today's image comes from trying to do"something" different from a shoot we did back in April. We've featured about a half dozen shots hereon The Kayview Gallery from that session. I shoot with a typical Nikon DSLR, so the square format was the first changethat was made. The original image hadtoo much room on the left side and a little confusing detail on the right. One of the biggest things new shooters needto learn is making good decisions about their photography. Good decisions when looking through theviewfinder. Doing most of the composingin the camera. Rick Sammon runs aroundwith several clichés on how to turn "snapshots into great shots. One of his axioms is 'the name of the game isfill the frame". Rick is a goodshooter, written a bunch of photography books, but is a little pompous for mytaste. Never the less, he's right aboutfilling the frame. The nothingness onthe left of the original of today's image? Get rid of it. The part the fellow in the shotwas working on became a maze of shapes on the right. Get rid of the too. One of the benefits it gives is that it putsthe subject and his hands at two strong points in the composition. Mentally project the tic-tac-toe grid of"the rule (suggestion) of thirds" on the image and you'll see thefellow's cheekbone and hands now align on the intersections of the upperhorizontal line. They say, if you knowthe "rules", you can break them. If you know the "rules" you can also use them. The "rule of thirds" in particularhas come into some derision in recent years, but it's pretty much by those oneUS Vice President once called "the nattering nabobs of negativism". The"rule of thirds" came a "rule" because it represents apowerful place to put important components of an image. To read about other ways used to simplifytoday's image, hit the "Read More"

Sucking the color out of the image is another way to make itsimple. In the original, the fellow hada blue denim shirt on. The blue wasfairly vibrant, making it attract the viewer's eye. The skin tone was the next most colorful areaof the shot. If you got past the blue ofthe shirt, you were attracted to the flesh tones. The actual "subject" of the image,the fact that he's working on "something" was the least colorful pieceof the composition. You'd have to lookthrough the image to get to the part you were supposed to find first. Taking the color out makes the viewer reallylook at the shot to "see" what's going on.

The third simplification was increasing the contrast. You can see a lot of detail in the fellow'shair and hat, but not as much in his face or hands. The objective here was to make the image alittle more graphical. Take a look athis chin line. You can see just a hintof shading delineating the curve of the jaw. There's plenty of detail in the shot to define what you're looking at,but not so much that you'd miss the "context" of the image.

The last bit of simplifying the image was adding a little"grain". Today, in the worldof electronic imaging it's called noise. In the world of the black and white photography it was grain. You can see that you can't see the grain inthe darkest parts of the image. Thegrain shows up in the lightest areas, giving just a hint of texture.

If you're a frequent readerof The Kayview Gallery you'll know that most of the images in the past, nearly,four hundred posts are geared toward an in your face style of color. Every once in a while it's good to explorethe other side of things. Basically,it's the same in real life.

Playing With Plug-ins In Photoshop CS5

2011-12-09T05:13:00.001-05:00

Today's image is a bounce to the edge in one direction. I occasionally ping pong between usingplug-ins and not using plug-ins. Mythought is that there is nothing you can do with a plug-in that can't be donein Adobe Photoshop CS5 alone. The way Ithink of it is sort of like the "Laws of Physics". People can do some amazing things, butwhatever someone does it can't break the Laws of Physics. Same with plug-ins for Adobe Photoshop CS5. Plug-ins allow people to make some amazingimages, but they have to stay within the envelop of what CS5 can do. If that's the case, why would anyone botherusing a plug-in? The answer is simple. Ease! If you listen to Photoshop educators like Scott Kelby, or if you've everattended one of his seminars, he's says flat out: "this is the way you do it inPhotoshop" and shows the Photoshop way to get to an image. He'll also say: "but this is the way Ido it for my own use today", and bring up a plug-in. In the early days of personal computers Iwent out and bought an Intel 286 based machine. I mentioned it to my brother, who happens to be a EE (ElectricalEngineer). He said if he wanted one he'dbuild it himself. That was like thirtyyears ago. He's gone through severalcomputers, but he has yet to build one. Why? Same reason. Ease! Beinga EE, I'm sure he could have bought the individual components, pluggedeverything together, and assembled a computer. But he hasn't. Plug-ins are acrutch for those who don't know how to create an effect in raw CS5 (not CS5ACR). They'll push buttons until theywind up with a good looking image. I'dprefer to know what the plug-in is doing and then let the plug-in do its joband get me someplace much quicker that recreating the wheel. To find out what plug-in was used for today'simage, hit the "Read More".

I've downloaded several free plug-ins and tried some with 30day trials, but haven't bought too many. For one thing it's an ROI (Return on Investment) thing with me. A plug-in that costs $199.00 better besomething I'll use on a daily basis. A$100.00 plug-in would have to used at least a couple times a month. Something costing less than $50.00 falls intothe category of something to play with. I don't know how it is today, but a buddy of mine was an engineer forNational Semiconductor back in the 70s. Hesaid they had a hierarchy of being able to buy equipment to makesemiconductors. If the payback waswithin one week, no problem. Two weeksand it would take several levels of approval. A month and forget about it. That's not pots and pans we're talking about. That was machines costing hundreds ofthousands of dollars. That's kind of ahigh bar to cross. Same (to me) withplug-ins. Unless I can quickly justifyit, I'll stick with getting there with CS5 itself.

Today's image bounced around pretty good before getting towhere it ended up. It started in AdobePhotoshop Lightroom 3 for initial adjustments. Then it went to CS5 for straightening. It was straightened there rather than in LR3 because I wanted to add tothe size using Content Aware Fill rather than cropping it after squaring it up. Next it was back to LR3 for more finetuning. Back to CS5 to remove some powerlines running through the image.

Next came the plug-in. Topaz Labs' Topaz Adjust. Theyrecently had it on sale for $39.XX, so it fell into the "play withit" range of justification. Andplay with it was what I did. I'd take alook at one of the Presets and figure out how I might be able to get close towhat the Preset was showing. For most, Ithought I could come pretty close. Acouple stumped me, but looked pretty interesting. I finally settle in on one called DynamicBrightness in their HDR Collection. Ithought it gave the scene a nice "pop". I looked around to see if I wanted to addanother effect, but was pretty happy with what I saw with the one Preset.

Then it was back to CS5 and a bounce back over to LR3. In LR3 I used the Adjustment Brush to do someselective shading of the image to create a path for the eye to follow. I also increased the contrast in the roof,brought up the reads and oranges a little and sharpened specific parts to addemphasis. Once that was done it was backto global adjustments with overall sharpening and putting on a vignette.

The last part divides, depending on what was to be done withthe image. To print it for framing itwent directly to the Print Module in LR3. For output for today's post it went back to CS5 and to File/Save for weband devices. The control of the outputis finer there than in LR3 (IMHO).

Wednesday Q&A - Trust A Retail Salesperson?

2011-12-07T04:54:00.001-05:00

Today's image does relate to the Q&A topic. The topic comes from a direct email from theguy who was my last boss at Intel before retiring. Back in the summer he had borrowed a lensfrom his brother (or brother-in-law ???) and used it to get closer to somelandscape type subjects. At that time hewanted a recommendation on which lens he should buy. I gave him a couple options, The serious route of going for a Canon 70 -200 F2.8 IS and the less budget busting 70 - 300 F4 - 5.6 IS. He thought he might be able to get the$150.00 75 - 300 "kit" lens. Italked him out of it and he decided that he could wait until the holidays toget his lens as a "gift" from his wife. That's where the problem came in. She had lost the email I'd sent and went to astore knowing only that the upper end of the zoom was 300mm. His wife explained that the use of the lenswould be to get closer to the subjects of the photographs. The salesperson at the store talked her intothe cheap 75 - 300mm "kit" lens and --- wait for it ---a 25mmextension tube. The explanation beingthat it was needed for his Canon camera to get closer to subjects. The title of today's post in "Trust aRetail Salesperson?" The simpleanswer is absolutely not. To find outwhere this opinion comes from, hit the "Read More".

My entire career at Intel was in the US sales group, but Inever sold anything. Our team was on thefringe of Intel referred to as "influencers". People who would go out and explain thebenefits of buying products with Intel processors. There are influencers on the commercial side,the manufacturing side, in vertical markets such as the medical field and,where I was, on the retail side of things. One of the biggest functions of an influencer, no matter which area theyare in, is education. In retail itinvolved holding educational sessions (I never really liked the term"training") It could be tomultiple salespeople at an "event" such as a movie premier, dinner ata game parlor like D&B, or at a theater at Lincoln Center in NYC. When we weren't doing the big events we'dvisit stores like Best Buy, Circuit City and CompUSA. Either we, or our part time team, would haveindividual conversations with the sales folks, asking what their understandingof which processor based systems were, for what customers and giving them tipson new technologies. The hope was thatthey could make more informed suggestions to the customers walking through thedoors. It was so bad that one of thepieces of gear we should have been given was Saint Jude logoed gear. Saint Jude being the Patron Saint of LostCauses. For one thing, the turnover inretail was horrendous. Another was thelack of understanding of what they were talking about. A bigger influence than the "Intelguy" was the salesperson with two weeks longer tenure and the loudestmouth. Every store had one.

So, how does today's image fit in to this rant? Not only did the salesperson making the saleof the lens to my exboss' wife err in his/her recommendations. She/he didn't have the foggiest idea whathe/she was talking about. The functionbeing shopped for was to bring far away people or objects closer. A cheap lens won't give a tack sharpimage. But, the big sin, was selling thecustomer an extension tube. An extensiontube is not the same as a teleconverter. In fact it's quite the opposite. The function of an extension tube is "closeup/Macro"photography. Being able to get shotslike today's image, not like the shot found in Monday's post.

Taking recommendations from retail salespeople should beavoided at all times. Do your researchand educate yourself on what you're interested in buying. Walk into the store with a fist full of moneyand say "I want that one". Youshould have researched all aspects of what you're buying. Quality, function, reliability, and thenprice. If you're asking for something asa gift, make sure the giver knows which model to buy. You'll enjoy the gift and the giver won't be embarrassedwhen you return the misbought item.

A Little Weekend Shoot

2011-12-05T04:48:00.001-05:00

What a beautiful weekend the past couple of days havebeen. A slight chill in the air (it'sabout time), semi clear skies and a photowalk with a couple of friends down toLiberty State Park in New Jersey. We haddinner with a couple friends last Tuesday and they mentioned they were going toLiberty SP on Saturday. They asked ifwe'd be interested in joining them. Wehad our usual zero on the calendar and thought it would be a fun day to do someshooting. Lorri Freedman is the shooterof the pair and she has a great eye for images and does a great job doing somePhotoshop magic with the images she shoots. Check out her SmugMug portfolio. I'm sure you'll agree. Well, weleft the house at 9:00 AM for what Google Maps said would a ninety minutedrive. We were supposed to meet at11:30, so we'd left ourselves plenty of time. Grabbed some coffee to go at the local Dunkin Donuts and set off. Would you believe the GPS knows of a secondLiberty State Park about twelve miles from the one that was our intendedtarget? In checking Google Maps I knewwe wanted exit 15E on the New Jersey Turnpike. Google had given one option of taking, basically, city streets once we'dcrossed over into NJ on the George Washington Bridge. I figured I'd ignore the GPS until we'd gottento Exit 15E and then follow it on in. After exiting at the appropriate spot the GPS said take a left, take a leftand get back on the Turnpike in the opposite direction. I knew that was wrong and if we just headedeast the GPS would recalculate and find the way. It fought with us for the next half hour andI finally surrendered and followed the directions from the GPS. After all, it knew "a way" to getus there. Followed the instructionsuntil it said we were within a block or so of our destination. I knew that couldn't be the case, because theLSP we were looking for was on the Hudson River Estuary and the GPS had us inthe middle of Jersey City. Asked Doristo reprogram the GPS using Statue of Liberty rather than Liberty StatePark. It gave three options. Two in NYC and one said New Jerseyaccess. Asked Doris to use the Jersey accessoption and we were finally in route to the right spot. Of course, instead of being a half hourearly, we were now 45 minutes late. Lorriand Mark were very gracious about our tardiness and had waited past one boatout to Ellis Island and the Statue. Itis nice to have understanding friends. To find out about today's image and why they don't lineup exactly, hitthe "Read More".

Both images are five or six shot panoramas. The daylight shot is from Ellis Island andthe night shot is from back at Liberty State Park. The distance between the two spots is alittle less than a mile, with Ellis Island being to the south. Therefore, the shots are slightly skewed fromone to the other. The new Freedom Tower,being built on the site of the Twin Towers looms large and is centered in theshots. Since there was the shift inshooting position, it was impossible to match the shots building forbuilding.

The more interesting of the shots, from a photographictechnique point of view (bad pun) is the night shot. After taking a test shot I moved the EV(Exposure Value) on the camera to -1 (minus one). Since there was so much dark area in thescene, the cameras sensor was fooled and would have made the image toolight. It seems a little counterintuitiveto move the EV lower in a dark scene, but it does work. The camera, being a dumb beast, wants toshoot a neutral gray. When it"sees" a dark scene it'll try to brighten it up to an overall gray reading,killing the tonal value. That's when youmove the EV "down". You knowthat the scene is supposed to be dark. The camera is only doing some math. It's important for the photographer to makethe decisions and let the camera make "suggestions". After that, the camera can knock it out ofthe park (another bad pun) doing the heavy lifting. Other than stitching the five or six shotstogether there is very little Photoshop work done to the scene.

There is one caveat to thatstatement. We weren't fortunate enough tohave the moon in a perfect position for the shot. It's pretty accurate as far as the phase ofthe moon, but it comes from a collection of shots specifically of the moon on anice dark night. As long as your sky isblack in the moon shot and something other than black in the shot of the scene,it's a snap (or rather a click) to put the moon in the scene. Position and size the moon where you wantit. Then switch the Blend Mode toLighter Color. The black sky of the moonshot vanishes into anything lighter than black. Saves a lot of time rather than making a Mask.

Using Adobe Photoshop For Desktop Photography

2011-12-02T06:39:00.001-05:00

Today's image looks like one shot. Okay, maybe two. After all, I really don't know anyone thatsmall, or anyone who has a desk that big. One or the other. Today we havean example of what happens when you have too much time on your hands. As I said in the last post, the year iswinding down and jobs are getting a little scarce. Happens every year. People are busy with holidays, budgets havebeen spent, the marketing folks are more interested in cleaning things up beforethe end of the year rather than starting new projects and on and on. Big thing on the calendar for today is payingthe bills. They don't do any windingdown just because it's the last month of a year. The tripod was sitting next to the deskyesterday. The camera on the floor bythe back wall. Okay, let's stop rightthere. You may be wondering why the camerais on the floor. It's a psychological thing. I've had this theory since I'd been in myearly twenties. "Always put camerasand drunks on the floor. It's the onlyway you can be assured they won't fall off something." I've had personal experience with both andit's stood me in good stead. Alright,back to today's discussion. The otherthing I was doing was trying to resurrect a backup computer who's harddrive hasbitten the dust (literarily I think). Atfirst I thought it might be interesting to take a couple shots of the inside ofthe computer through the grill on the back. Sort of interesting, but nothing special. I looked at my desk and thought it wasinterestingly messy. The lighting is thekey to today's image. To find out aboutit and the post processing, hit the "Read More".

Among the things I have (amidst the clutter) on my side deskis a couple LED flashlights. I figuredI'd play. The neighbors must havethought I was going insane or something. After setting up the tripod, doing the focusing, setting the F-stop toF16 and the shutter speed to 30 seconds the light would go off, then back on,off then back on, off then back on. Thatprobably lasted for fifteen minutes or more. In addition to turning the lights off I turned the monitors offalso. I was using Adobe PhotoshopLightroom 3 with the camera tethered and tripping the shutter using the onscreen button. That meant putting thecursor over the button, then flipping off the monitor and clicking on themouse.

I used the LED flashlight to "paint" the desktop. Using a light painting technique means yourfirst shot is a guess at where the light should play. You get a look at the result and makeadjustments to the plan and shoot again. It takes a few shots to get the pattern and timing down, but in the endyou can get some interesting shots. Ittakes a little patience, but it is a fun way to "create" an image.

I've already mentioned that the monitors were off during theexposure. The image on the screens were broughtin and Free Transform (CTRL T) was used with Distort selected (right clickwithin the image after starting the Free Transform to get a drop down menu tochoose from) to make the images fit the skewed screens.

The photographer (it's not me) is a shot from a trip down toTennessee a couple years ago. We were ina public garden and the fellow was shooting flowers. I thought it was interesting to take a shotof a fellow photographer so intent on what he was doing. The Quick Select Tool (W) was used to makethe majority of the selection. One ofthe nice things about using a Wacom tablet is the speed that you can havecleaning up a selection. Once theselection was made the Refine Edge dialog box was called up and a two pixel Featherapplied along with a small amount of Smoothing. I wasn't worried about his shoes being in the grass. As you can see, the idea was to make it looklike he was stand behind the keyboard. Adding to the already made Mask put him in place.

PLaying with Adobe Photoshop's Polar Coordinates Filter

2011-11-28T13:34:00.001-05:00

It's the holiday season, the year is winding down, jobs aregetting a little scarce, so it must be time to play. To go for the artsy stuff, something thatmight end up on a greeting card or some other form that can be done onspec. It might even bring in a buck ortwo and that would be gravy. Doing workaimed at the greeting card industry is kind of a seasonal crapshoot. Too early and it won't be looked at. Too late, same thing. Too cute (they can hardly ever be too cute)and it won't be picked up because it's been done to death. Too serious is probably worse than toocute. Cards that say 'sorry you died'walk a very fine line. Note cards, withphotographs on the cover, have to convey what's written on the inside withoutgiving away the sentiment. Today's image would fall under the heading of whimsical. It started life as a photograph. Actually, a five shot panorama, and ended uphaving something to do with a lake house. It could be an invitation, a "new house" announcement, acheery note signaling the start of the new season for the lake community, orother lighthearted information. Itprobably wouldn't be the best card to say the house burned down or the EPA justshutdown swimming privileges because they found out someone did nuclear testingon the shore back in the forties. Youget the idea. You have to set the righttone for the target audience. I'll leaveit up to you to figure out what you might use a card with today's image on thefront. What we'll do is discuss how theimage was made. To find out what alchemywas conjured to produce today's image, hit the "Read More".

There are two ways to make an image similar to today's. Outside in and inside out. It all depends on if you flip the originalpanorama or not. If you leave the panoright side up, using Adobe Photoshop CS5's (and earlier version's) PolarCoordinates Filter (Filter/Distort/Polar Coordinates) set to Rectangular ToPolar, you'll get a view as if you're in a hole looking up at the scene. To you flip the pano vertically (Image/ImageRotation/Flip Canvas Vertical) and then apply the same Polar Coordinates Filteryou'll wind up with a view as though you're on a high point seeing a 360 degreescan looking straight down. Sort of likeseeing a shot of a full moon with lots of detail on the edge.

When a panorama is used to make this type of polarprojection image the scene will start out as a rectangle. The Canvas should be expanded (Image/CanvasSize) it create a square format. Thescene can then be brought into a circular form using Free Transform (Edit/FreeTransform) and pulling the center handles up and down.

What you end with in either case is some sort of circle andfrom the outer edge of the circle to the square edges of the "paper"you'll have what looks like zoom lines. It's a pretty (if you ask me) unfinished look. In order to give the appearance of sky intoday's image the "zoomy" lines were masked out. A Layer Mask was added and the EllipticalMarquee Tool (M) used with the Shift Key held down (to constrain the shape to acircle) to define the edge of the circle. The Layer Mask was then filled with Black, hiding the zoom lines.

A blank Layer was added under the Masked Layer (Ctrl - AddNew Layer icon). The Eyedropper Tool (I)(eye) was then used to sample the color of the sky. This set the Foreground Color to the samecolor as the sky in the image. TheBackground Color was then set to another shade of blue several shades darkerthan the foreground. Using the GradientTool (G) set to Radial Gradient the blank Layer was filled using an inside tooutside stroke holding down the mouse button. A couple attempts were needed to correctly position the inner blueshade.

Typical color enhancement to the "ground Layer"was done using individual (Red, Yellow, Green, Cyan, Blue, and Magenta)Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layers.

Special Monday Q&A - Getting Rid Of Smart Objects?

2011-11-21T10:01:00.001-05:00

Before I decide what to write about for the Q&A onWednesday I look through the searches that brought people to thesite. Without a doubt, the number onequery has to do with Smart Objects. I'vewritten about the wonders of Smart Objects several times and people aredirected to one of the posts. For thepast month, day in and day out, someone has been putting in a search stringtrying to find out how to "get rid" of Smart Objects. At first I thought it might be one misguidedsoul who couldn't figure out what to do with Smart Objects. In my opinion, the alpha and the omega ofworking in Adobe Photoshop CS5. As thedays wore on and the search sting was persistent I came to realize that someonereally does need some help. Notnecessarily getting rid of a Smart Object, but understanding what a SmartObject is and how to use them. I satdown over the weekend and tried to figure out "why" anyone would wantto get rid of one. The easiestexplanation I could conjure up was that it could be someone new to CS5, who'snot familiar with Layers (no one, on their first day, knows about Layers) anddid a little right click exploring. He/she right clicked on the Background Layer and saw that Convert ForSmart Objects was available. I'm also surmisingthe fact that where was considerable work put into the image the person had beenworking on. Clicking on Convert For SmartObjects got her/him in trouble. To findout how that caused trouble and how to get out of it, hit the "ReadMore"

Let's go back over where we are. New to CS5 person, doesn't have anunderstanding of Layers, had done major work on the Background Layer, wentexploring and clicked on Convert For Smart Objects. When the person went back to try to do almostanything to the image he/she found out they were locked out of, pretty much,everything. The first rule of SmartObjects is that you can't do anything directly to them. You can put Adjustment Layers on them andplay with all sorts of things that way. You can add another, blank Layer, and use that for things likeretouching skin on a portrait. You couldadd a blank Layer, fill it with 50% gray and use low Opacity black and whitebrushes to Dodge and Burn the image. Youcould, certainly, add any number of filters or make Shadow and Highlight(Image/Adjustments/"Shadow/Highlight") or HDR Toning(Image/Adjustments/HDR Toning) behave like Filters. But, you can't do anything directly to a SmartObject. Think of it as an "in progressRAW file". You cannotdirectly alter it. Where does that leaveour lost soul?

If, for some reason, something "must" be done tothe original image that was converted into a Smart Object, you can alwaysdouble click on the Layer icon. That'llbring you back to the original image. Dowhatever you feel "must be done" to the image. When you're finished, Save and Close the file. Not Save As, just plain Save(File/Save then File/Close). That will update the SmartObject and anything that was done to the original image will show up in theSmart Object. You can then continue onwith whatever you want to do that can be done using additional Layers,Adjustment Layers, Filters, etc.

If, and I mean if, you're hell bent on removing the SmartObject and getting back to a flat image, it is easy. Go back to what got you in trouble in thefirst place. Right click on the Layerpanel. Rather than having Convert ForSmart Objects as an option, you'll see Rasterize Layer. Click that and your Smart Object is gone.

A better solution would be to learn how to use SmartObjects. As I said at the start of thispost: they're the alpha and omega (thebeginning and the end, the be all and end all) of working in Photoshop CS5.

To the person who is persistently doing the search: if you're still unsure, send me an email andwe can go through it one on one.

Wednesday Q & A: Using Photoshop CS5's Smudge Tool To Sharpen?

2011-11-16T07:32:00.001-05:00

Today's title asked the question: "can Adobe PhotoshopCS5's Smudge Tool be used as a sharpening device. Well, looking at the two insets, flanked bythe original image and the repaired image shows the answer is yes. The (left) original image comes right out ofAdobe Lightroom 3. LR3 was used on mostof the image to adjust color, tone, lighting and other things. The Adjustment Brush was used to lighten theshadow area under the cap. That resultedin a distinct light/dark light. In thesecond inset the line is gone. How was itdone? To find out how, hit the "ReadMore".

The Smudge Tool (there is no keyboard shortcut - it's nestedwith the Blur Tool [looks like a droplet] just under the Gradient Tool (G) inthe Tool Bar) is one of CS5's least used tools. If you're the type of person who's gone through every tool and everysub-tool you've probably played with the Smudge Tool and dismissed it. I'll kind of put it right next to the LiquifyFilter (Filter/Liquify) as a misunderstood piece of the last several versionsof Photoshop.

The way to use the Smudge Tool (or the Liquify for thatmatter) is to think small. Rather thanmaking major movements, the Smudge Tool is best used at tiny details. The insets of today's image are blown up morethan 300%. The line being fixed isclearly visible in an 11" x 14" enlargement. Your eye is drawn to it because "something"is wrong. There's a (comparably) brightline on the face of the conductor. Oncethe line is "smudged" there is no bright area to draw the eye. Is it perfect? Not quite, but remember, the insets are muchlarger than you'd ever see them in the image.

Using the Smudge Tool it increase apparent sharpness is bestdone using a graphics tablet. It can bedone with the mouse, but the movements, in this case, are unnatural. If you've never used a tablet, it takes alittle getting used to, but learning it is a worthwhile experience. I would never try to "fix" the linein today's image in one stroke. Usingmany small strokes is a much better way to go. Using small strokes also gives the benefit of being able to Go Back(CTRL Z) just a little rather than losing a major stroke.

Not all strokes have to be in a straight line. Tiny imperfections can be taken out using acircular motion. I wouldn't use it forblemish removal, but if you're using the Smudge Tool anyway... A couple places this technique was used intoday's image are: The blue of theConductor's coat. The stripes of theengineer's coat. The pillar between thetwo men. The wording on the engineer'scap (you still can't really read it, but it does look a little clearer.

So, there you have it. Another infrequently used tool in CS5 that, when used properly, can makelife easier.

Wednesday Q&A - Why Use Individual Hue/Saturation Layers?

2011-11-09T12:43:00.001-05:00

Oh boy, have I been getting questions about why I useindividual (Red, Yellow, Green, Cyan, Blue, and Magenta) Hue/Saturation AdjustmentLayer in Adobe Photoshop CS5. The gistof the questions is why I'd bother using multiple H/S Adjustment Layers when itwould be easier to scroll down through the colors on one Layer. The answer is actually pretty simple. I really don't care about the colors of theAdjustment Layers, I want the Layer Masks. Do a double click on today's image to get to a larger view of theimage. Don't worry about the shot toomuch. Look over to the right andcheckout the Layers Panel I have attached. In the Panel, look at the Layer Masks that go along with the individualcolors of the Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layers. You can see that each color (other than the Red) has a unique Mask. There's even two Cyan H/S Adjustment Layers,each with a unique Mask. The Masks arethe key to the question of why I use the multiple Layers rather than adjustingeach color on one Layer. A secondaryexplanation is needed for the two Cyan Layers. I often see tutorials where the instructor uses either different shadeof gray with the brush Opacity at 100% or they'll bring the Brush Opacity downto 15%- 20% and build up the masking. The problem I see with that technique is that if you go too far with thebuildup it's almost impossible to paint over the area accurately. By using multiple copies of the same coloredH/S Adjustment Layer the area can be fine tuned and the amount of masking canbe held. So, the simple explanation ofwhy I use multiple Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layers is to have more (better)control over what I'm getting more colors. To find out how that effected today's image, hit the "ReadMore".

The first thing I should explain is "Layer1". It's the totally brown Layerabove the Background Layer. The majorfallen tree in the lower right was pretty gray. Almost to the point where it looked like I removed the color saturationfrom it. In order to blend into the restof the scene it "needed" a touch of color. I used the Quick Selection Tool (W) to selectthe tree. Right clicking and pickingSave Selection gave me an Alpha Channel Mask of the tree. If you're using Adobe Photoshop Elements 9 or10 and can't fine the Alpha Channels don't worry about it. You have Alpha Channels, you just can't seethem. Just go to Selection/SaveSelection and you've got an Alpha Channel. To get it back, rather than doing a CTRL Click on the Alpha ChannelThumbnail you'd just use Selection/Load Selection. Same thing, exactly.

Once the Layer Mask is applied the tree will look likesomething out of a child's cartoon book. The Blend Mode of the Layer needs to be changed to Color. It'll still look pretty funky, but bring theLayer's Opacity down (use Shift/Down Arrow) until it looks good to you. If finer adjustment is needed, apply aBrightness/Contrast Adjustment to bring the Brightness up or down to taste. To limit the change to the tree a ClippingMask was made by holding down the ALT Key while it hovers on the line betweenthe Layer and the Adjustment Layer.

Once the Layer Panel looked like the one shown today allLayers were selected (top Layer is already selected. Shift Click on the bottom Layer to selectall). With the entire stack selected,Right Click on any Layer and pick Convert to Smart Object. This collapses all the Layers into one SmartObject. The image was then "finished"in a "normal" manner.

Photoshop Has Led To A Photo Tour

2011-11-07T17:14:00.000-05:00

Today's image is typical of what may be found on thegalleries first photo tour. I've beenasked by several people if I'd lead some sort of "domestic safari "for the purpose of shooting "something". After looking at what's available and when togo and where to shoot, we're ready to set up a trip. It's not meant to be a money makingenterprise. I'll just be the personcoordinating a few like minded photographers, making the housing arrangements,figuring out a little Saturday night entertainment, setting up whatever needsto be set up, and generally doing the detail work to have a good time. The place for the escapade is going to be RickettsGlen State Park and the Endless Mountains in Pennsylvania, USA. Today's image comes from the park, which hastwenty two named waterfalls. The tripwill be a two night (Friday and Saturday nights), three day shoot withdiscussion and instruction about Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom3. We hope to have a couple instructorsand a panel for a round table discussion of photographic and Photoshoptechniques. Read future posts to findfor more about the trip. To learn moreabout today's image, hit the "Read More".

Today's image is a seven shot HDR. It would almost impossible to get the tonalrange in one image. Extraneous flotsamand jetsam has been removed using Adobe Photoshop CS5's Content AwareFill. Several twig sized branches werein the lower right hand corner. It wouldhave been nice to remove them in the wild, before taking the shot, but thatwould have involved a jump of about six feet over the outlet of the falls to aperch about nine inches wide. Hey,that's what they made CAF for, right?

The rock on the right was still too hot even with the HDRtreatment. It wasn't throw it away bad,but bad enough to use a little work in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3. The Adjustment Brush was the tool of choicefor this work. The way I work with theAdjustment Tools (Gradient and Brush) is to put the Exposure value down atmaximum underexposure for anything light and at maximum overexposure for thingsthat are dark and then work the area. This lets me see what I'm doing without needing to go back to the"Pin" repeatedly to see what I'm affecting. Once I've defined the area I'll double clickon the word Exposure, returning the value to zero. Then I'll highlight the value (0.00 forExposure, 0 for everything else) and move the value up or down using Shift andthe Arrow Keys. This will bring thevalues up or down ten points at a time rather than one point. In the lower right corner the Brightness wasbrought down and the Contrast, Clarity and Sharpness brought up. Everything is done "to taste", sothe exact numbers don't mean much.

On the left, the protruding rock got almost the oppositetreatment. Brightness up and the otherthree up also.

The water wound up being pretty blue, so a Hue/SaturationAdjustment Layer was used. Theindividual color was targeted by first selecting what appeared to be theclosest color. In this case it wasCyan. Then the Eye Dropper Tool in theH/S Adjustment Layer was picked and the water color sampled. Then the Plus Symbol Eye Dropper was used torefine the color selection. Once thatwas done the Saturation was brought down until the water appeared morewhite. Not completely white, butsomething more realistic.

The Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layers were then used toincrease the Red, Yellow and Green colors. As usual (for me) each color had a separate Layer to allow forindividual masks.

One last thing done to the water was back in LR3. The Adjustment Brush was used to"paint" the water (same technique as detailed above). The Clarity and Sharpness of the water wasthen brought up.

Remember, if you're interested in the Ricketts Glen trip,let me know. Leave a comment, send me anemail or talk to me in person.

Wednesday Q&A - Making Better Selections With Adobe Photoshop

2011-10-26T09:16:00.003-04:00

I've seen a lot of frustration with friends and readerstrying to make selections using Adobe Photoshop CS5's Content Aware Fill. Today's image shows three versions of thesame image. It's not on the blog becauseit's some wonderful image. It's here asa "teaching tool". It's thesame shot, duplicated twice and spread out across a canvas. The first (left) shows the "as shot"image. The middle version show a typicalContent Aware Fill result, trying totake out the middle "R" and the number "7". The third (right) shows a better result usinga modified version of Content Aware Fill. Why someone would want to remove the "R" and the"7"? I have no idea, I'm justtrying to illustrate a point. I didn'tcome up with the secret method of making a better fill. I saw it in a video from Adobe. I've been using it, tweaking the way I workwith it, and have developed a strong confidence in being able to extractexactly what I want. To find out whatthe trick is, hit the "Read More".

The big deal is using a Layer Mask. Make a copy (Ctrl J) of the background image. Add a Layer Mask (the front loading washingmachine looking icon at the bottom of the Layers Panel). Mask off whatever you don't want ContentAware Fill (CAF) to look at. Make anysort of selection you are comfortable with. i.e. The Loop Tool (L) or the Marquee Tool (M). This way you're preventing CS5 from"looking" at areas that might produce false fills. Look at the center image. Part of the "R" was picked up, aswas a double part of the "0".

After making a selection of the "C", the right "R" and the "10"and "2" you would add a Layer Mask. This will create a Mask that "hides" those parts of theimage. Go back to the image itself (notthe Layer Mask) and select the middle "R" and the "7". Now do a Content Aware Fill on thatselection. Because CS5 can't "see"the other letters and numbers it'll take all its information for doing the fillfrom areas that are still "visible" to CS5.

In the case of today's image, the bright area at the top doesn'tcome into play. Therefore there'snothing that has to be done to that area. If it had it would be a simple matter of adding that area to theMask.

The "morale" of the story to making a trickyContent Aware Fill is to "show" CS5 only what you want it to use tothat matches up well with what you're trying to fill. Leaves with leaves, fences with fences, etc.

Try it, it'll help.

Playing With Adobe Pixel Bender

2011-10-24T11:16:00.000-04:00

Actually, playing with Adobe's Pixel Bender is the last stepin today's image. It went throughseveral trips back and forth from Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 to AdobePhotoshop CS5. There are things I findeasier in CS5 and other things easier in LR3. As an example, the face of the barn was "texturized" in LR3,but the "brightness" of the red leaves was goosed in CS5. The sky couldn't be (at least I couldn't) handledproperly in CS5, so it was treated in LR3. The end image wound up being TJP8764-Edit-2-Edit-Edit.psd. That gives you a little idea of what when onin beating up this poor image. Not onlythat, but it started life as a five stop HDR. The biggest "trick" as far as I'm concerned was getting thetexture of the face of the barn to come out. To give the barn a nice weathered appearance the Clarity was brought upusing the Adjustment Brush... five times. The Adjustment Brush was selected with the Exposure brought down themaximum of 4 stops. I find that to be aneasy way to directly see where I'm selecting. After the barn face was properly selected I double clicked on the wordExposure to reset the value back to zero. I then put the Clarity up to 100%. I did the same thing, placing four more pins. "Paint" the face, return the Exposureto zero and crank the Clarity up. Afterthe fifth time the barn face had the texture I was looking for. This same technique can be used to apply a"grunge" effect. Thanks to MattKloskowski of NAPP for demonstrating that trick. Where to apply it is up to you. I picked this image to play with it. I don't think it went all the way to"grunge", but it did supply something. There's a half dozen (or so) other tricksthat were applied to today's image. Tofind out what they are, hit the "Read More".

One of the first "final" images had the grass inthe foreground too dark. When printed itlooked a lot like it was a black pit in front of the barn. To "fix" that the entire stack ofLayers was selected and converted to a Smart Object. It was then copied and the Blend Mode changedto Screen. That brightened the whoimage, so a Layer Mask had to be applied. The whole upper portion of the Mask was painted black using the BrushTool (B). The Opacity was then lower totaste.

Another trick was using only a couple of Hue SaturationAdjustment Layers in CS5. Usually I'llpop all the individual colors (Red, Yellow, Green, Cyan, Blue and Magenta) upwith Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layers. In this case, only the Red, Yellow and Green colors were maximized. What I do is create a Hue/SaturationAdjustment Layer for the Reds. I thenpush the Saturation slider to 100%. Holding the Shift Key down I'll either tap the Down Arrow Key or rollthe wheel on the mouse to bring the value of the Saturation down by ten pointsat a time. The difference between 70 and60 will be noticeable. The differencebetween 75 and 74 won't be. "Walking" the value down in 10 point increments gives youvisual clues to what you're doing. I'llrepeat the procedure for each color. That way you'll have a Mask that can be individualized per color.

There was a sign of some sort on the right side of thedoor. That was taken care of using asimple application of the Spot Healing Tool in LR3. The ability to push or pull the target areamade matching the vertical lines very easy.

The roof of the barn is, apparently, very new. It looked a little too blue. The Saturation and Luminance were broughtdown slightly in LR3.

The sky was darkened using a Gradient in LR3.

Noise was reduced slightly in LR3.

And a Vignette was appliedin LR3 creating the final, final image.

Use Adobe Photoshop's Lens Correction

2011-10-21T09:57:00.001-04:00

There's always something new to play with in either AdobePhotoshop CS5 or Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3. I use to obsess about barrel distortion when taking wide angle shots atfairly close range. Such was the casewith today's image. I almost looked likethe window was semicircular in a vertical dimension. We were up in Bar Harbor Maine over the pastweekend and wandering around Main Street after dinner. Bar Harbor is just a great little town forhanging out and window shopping. Everywhere we looked there were neat little shops and neat littlevignettes that would make interesting images. Today's image is a good example of how either Photoshop CS5's ACR (AdobeCamera Raw) or Lightroom 3 can make a problem into a one click solution. In either case, Adobe has a routine for LenCorrection. In LR3 it a panel availablein the Develop Module. In ACR it's onthe all encompassing screen and looks like a lens group. It's the sixth icon in on the set of iconsjust under the Histogram (just to the left of the FX icon). Adobe maintains a large database of lensesfrom most of the major manufacturers. There are two options, Manual and Profile. Manual is just as it sounds. You make any adjustments you feel arenecessary. There's another tab calledProfile. The camera manufacturer, thespecific lens and Adobe's Profile for that combination is picked up from theEXIF data that accompanies each image. Clicking on Enable Profile Corrections instantly "corrects"any distortion in the lens. The straightlines in the window are the result of Adobe's lens correction. The only thing done to the image (as far asany straightening goes) is to correct the tilt of the camera. The entire image "leaned" to theleft. There is other processing thatwent into making today's image what it is. To find out what was done after the Lens Correction, hit the "ReadMore".

In the top left corner could be seen the facade of thesecond story of the building. That waseasily removed using the Clone Stamp Tool (S). The color (slightly off black) was picked up using the Color Picker Tool(I) and brushed out with the Brush Tool (B).

There wasn't a whole lot to do about the blown out floodlights, but the second wood beam inside the shop was also blown out. Using the Recovery Slider in LR3 did nothingfor that spot. I thought there might besome detail. The trick was how to pullit out. In LR3 (it could have been donein ACR) the Adjustment Brush was selected and a color applied to pretty muchmatch the color of the beam. The way Iwas the Adjustment Brush is to bring the Exposure all the way down (minus fourstops) to see where I'm applying the adjustment. Once I have the area covered I double clickon the work Exposure to return it zero. I then highlight the 0.00 value and use the Shift Key and the Up or Downarrows to gently make the adjustment. Inthis case it was the Down Arrow to darken the beam.

There as ceramic disk just about centered in the image. I had a light directly on it and was very"hot". Another AdjustmentBrush was used to tone down the plate. The same level of adjustment was used on the second level just above thestairs.

Nothing was done to make the image warmer. The rich browns were there to start. I vignette gives a more moody feel to theimage by lowering the luminance of the walkway in front of the store.

Wednesday Photoshop Q&A - What Happened To The Fall Colors

2011-10-19T14:32:00.000-04:00

Luckily, the fall foliage season seems to be a littledelayed in the southern Northeast USA. Such was not the case in Bar Harbor Maine and Acadia National Park lastweek. We arrived on a rainy Fridayafternoon just in time to take a bus tour of the Park. At one point I asked the driver/tour guide ifthis was a "trust tour". Heasked what I meant. I told him everytime we got to what was supposed to be a great view it was almost as if he'dsay "trust me, there's a great view to the left or to theright". The fog or low lying cloudswere so dense that none of the views were visible. What we did see, close to the road, wasimpressive and the promise of good photo ops once the fog had lifted washigh. The fog and rain didn't lift untilovernight and a bright sunrise was the reward. Unfortunately, so were some high winds. As much as 60 MPH in gushes all day long. The great color we did see on Friday waspretty much blown away on Saturday. Someremained, but it involved a lot more hunting than it did in the rain on Friday. Saturday night, after dark, I wanted to go upthe summit road to Cadillac Mountain. Westopped at one of the overlooks, I grabbed the tripod and started setting upfor a night shot. The moon was slightlyto the right, Bar Harbor to the left, and a beautiful seascape filling in inbetween. After almost being blown offthe side of the mountain I thought better of trying for that shot thatnight. We finally started getting somegood shots on Sunday. Today's imagecomes from the road going from Trenton down to Bar Harbor. We spotted two photographers shooting on ourway off the island and stopped to try our luck on the way back. To learn the story of today's image and theprocessing involved, hit the "Read More".

Today's image is a five shot HDR. The kayaker was slowly coming out from hisput in site and his forward movement was minimal. Adobe Photoshop CS5's HDR Pro's Remove Ghostfunction eliminate the multiple exposures while keeping the density of the HDRcomposite.

The only Hue/Saturation adjustment made were to the Red,Yellow and Green colors. After the firstshot at it, the blue was too pastel and the Luminance had to be reduced toproduce a more natural looking sky.

It's a pretty straight forward image for me.

Wille Wonke Meets Photoshop HDR Pro

2011-10-14T06:30:00.000-04:00

I don't know. Seemslike we're doing a couple mashups this week. Monday was "Norman Rockwell Meets Photoshop" and that was apretty straight looking HDR composition. Today we go to the other end of the scale with a fictional charactermeeting the far side of HDR. Today'simage actually comes from the Scott Kelby World Wide Photowalk of a couple ofweekends past. It's just down the streetfrom last week's image from the walk and miles away as far as techniquegoes. Here's a little comparison of thetwo images:

· Both are five shot HDRs

· Both are in the small New England town of KentConnecticut

· Both are on the west side of Main Street

· One tends toward the photorealistic, the otheris more illustrative

· One is a straight shot (for something that'sHDR). The other has large sectionscloned out using Content Aware Fill

· One tries for true (almost) colors. The other kicks the sh** out of the colors.

If you'd like to see what was done to the photorealisticimage from last week, click here. To seewhat was done to today's image, hot the "Read More".

As was said, today's image is a five shot HDR done in AdobePhotoshop CS5's HDR Pro. It, as are most of my HDR sequences , was handheld. More of the HDR that I do are sortof spontaneous rather than well thought out, on a tripod, all that"stuff" that many blogs and websites tell you has to be done. One of the keys is, naturally, having enoughlight that the slowest shutter speed can be handheld. This coming weekend we'll be out doing somenight photography, with exposures of several minutes. Obviously that'll be on a tripod. But, enough about philosophy and what will bedone, let's get into today's image.

To the left and right of the chocolate shop, in the trees,are other buildings. Once the HDR imagewas assembled in CS5's HDR Pro the same program's Content Aware Fill(Edit/Fill/Content Aware Fill) was used to hide a garage on the left and ahouse on the right. The big thing thatmakes the use of CAF possible is the use of either a Mask of a separateLayer.

The Mask method is simply to make a mask that hides anythingthat might interfere with the texture you want to use. On the left side of the shop the RectangularMarquee Tool (M) was used to select the trees. Going back to the image (rather than the Mask) and using the Loop Tool(L), the bits and pieces of the garage showing through the trees within the maskedarea were selected and CAF applied. Because the rest of the image was masked, the only place CS5 had to pickfrom was in the selected area. With theshop masked out, it could not be "seen" by the program. The same technique was used on the right sideto eliminate the house.

With the colors enhanced using individual (Red, Yellow,Green, Cyan, Blue, and Magenta) Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layers ((Layer/NewAdjustment Layer/Hue/Saturation) the major trees in front and to the right ofthe shop still didn't have a whole lot of color. I used the Quick Selection Tool (W) to selectthe trunks and major branches of the trees. A dark brown color was selected from the Swatches Panel and the selections(on a separate Layer) were filled (Edit/Fill/Color). This gives a childish looking opaque paintjob. The Blend Mode was then changed toColor, allowing the detail to show through the applied color.

The image was sharpened anda vignette applied in Adobe Photoshop Lightrrom 3 to "finish" theimage.

Wednesday Photoshop Q&A - Why Use Lightroom If You Have Bridge?

2011-10-12T10:00:00.002-04:00

Wow! I get askedtoday's question every time I teach a class, do a program for a camera club orhave discussions with people interested in getting recommendations about whichprograms to use. The reason I'vequalified the question to only Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (3) versus AdobeBridge CS5 is because of the database functions. The Develop Module in LR3 and Adobe CameraRaw (ACR) are the same thing. So, ifyou're interested in the Develop Module and already have either Photoshop orAdobe Photoshop Elements 9 (or now PSE 10), you have the Develop Module of LR3. They're the same program. Theinterface is slightly different, but layout does make the program. The ability to do things is the issue. So, my recommendation is always to stay withwhat you have if the Develop Module is the only draw for going to LR3.

The database portion of LR3 is far superior to the currentversions of Bridge. One demo I do whengiving a presentation is to make a Smart Collection using Bridge. I push the keystroke to get it started andthen open LR3. In LR3 I make the exact sameSmart Collection. I press the key to getit going and almost instantly the Smart Collection pops up. I then switch back to Bridge, and it's stillplugging away trying to build the Smart Collection. The speed at which you can find images is ahuge plus in favor of LR3.

The general layout of LR3 is another plus. Where Bridge has everything hidden in menuafter menu, LR3 has everything needed for the Library organized intopanels. Start from the top and work yourway down through each panel and you're done. Nothing has to be searched for. It's all right in front of you.

Keywording, ranking, rating, collecting images are verystraight forward. If you want to keeptrack of your images, grab a copy of Lightroom. If you're interested in the Develop Module and have either CS5 or PSE9,stick with what you have.

Norman Rockwell Meets Photoshop

2011-10-10T06:02:00.004-04:00

A while back I mused that it would be interesting to do someNorman Rockwell-ish shots. Today's imagebecomes the first in what, I hope, will be a series of either re-creations or homagetype shots based on Rockwell's work. Oneof the notable things about the way Rockwell worked was his use of photographyto get fragments of ideas as a photo to incorporate into his paintings. He'd hire neighbors as the"actors", a professional photographer to do the shoot and borrowlocations in the Stockbridge, Massachusetts area as sets. Rockwell immortalized many of the townsfolkand descendents today point with pride at Saturday Evening Post covers and say'that's my" whoever. Grandmother,uncle, brother, sister or more. I don'tknow the fellow in today's image and he never knew I was taking a shot ofhim. There's more to what AdobePhotoshop CS5 had to do with the image than meets the eye. To find out what was done in CS5, hit the"Read More".

Today's image is actually a five shot HDR (High DynamicRange) image. It started out in AdobePhotoshop Lightroom 3 as part of the catalog of a shoot at the local trainmuseum. A couple friends are setting upa night train shoot and we were at the museum scouting locations. The folks at the museum couldn't have beennicer and posed if asked. The problemwas that, for the most part, they'd ham it up a little and the posed shotslooked, well, posed. In today's imagethe fellow was just having a little lunch. I noticed him sitting there, taking a break from doing some woodwork ina boxcar converted to a woodshop. We hadbright sunlight and I rattled off a five shot, bracketed burst, hand held. The shutter speed ranged from a fast of1/2000 second to a slow of 1/125 second.

The first trip out of LR3 was selecting the five images andusing LR3's Merge To HDR Pro in Photoshop command (Photo/Edit In/Merge to HDRPro in Photoshop). That brought the fiveimages into CS5 and opened the HDR dialog box. The Detail was increased, Exposure and Gamma brought down just a bit andVibrance cranked up about half way.

The left side of the original shot stopped just about at theleft side of the soda can. The image wasstraightened up using the Ruler Tool (I) with the ALT Key held down. Rather than turning and cropping an image tofit, holding down the ALT Key straightens the image and leaves the excessbacking. Each of the four triangularpieces of excess was individually selected using the Quick Selection Tool (W). Once the selection was made it was expandedby 30 pixels (Select/Modify/Expand) to "bite" into the remainingimage. With that done, Content AwareFill (Edit/Fill) magic was done to add unavailable detail. It worked great in this case and added to theshelf, including adding the third slotted hole. In addition to giving some space to the left of the soda can it alsogave a little room in front of his shoe.

After that it was back to LR3 for finishing. Since this was shot in Nikon's RAW format,the only thing that needed to be done was to save the file (File/Save). Because nothing on a pixel level can be doneto a RAW file, doing a simple Save is all that's needed. Lightroom will produce another file. In this case it was named TJP7281 Edit. LR3 appends one of the original file nameswith the word Edit to denote the fact that it has been modified with anexternal image editing program.

While in LR3, the colors were adjusted, the image sharpened,his hair was sharpened a little more (using the adjustment brush). The final crop was applied. And then it was back to CS5. A New Layer (Layer/New/Layer) was set andfilled with 50% gray. The Blend Mode waschanged to Overlay. The Brush Tool (B)was selected and the Opacity of the Brush brought down to about 15 - 20 %. Each of the folds of the fellow's shirt andpants were darken in the dark areas and lightened in the light areas to adddefinition. A Wacom tablet and pen wasused to get the fine detail. Adjustingthe pressure of the pen allows for increasing and decreasing the width of eachstroke. Once the folds and wrinkles wereemphasized to was another trip back to LR3. This resulted in a file named TJP 7281 Edit Edit. Note that a second "Edit" wasadded. This would continue to build foras many round trips as needed.

Back in LR3, finalsharpening, any noise reduction and adding a vignette completed the work doneto today's image.

Some Thoughts On Steve Jobs

2011-10-07T12:33:00.000-04:00

Just so you don't get confused, I've always been a big admirer of Steve Jobs.

It was sad to hear of the death of Steve Jobs. He's been influential in our lives if youacknowledge it or not. There have beenApple zealots who have fallen all over the words Steve spoke. There has been the other side of the fence,where some either thought of him as a maverick or a Don Quixote, tilting atwindmills when Microsoft was, seemingly, in control of the future of computing. Even if you were a Jobs hater, if you look atwhat you have today, even if you're a PC person versus a Mac person, you oweJobs a thank you. My thoughts are in the "Read More".

I'm a retired Intel guy. I spent fifteen years working for one of the best companies in theworld. I used to (try to) train peopleworking in retail about processor and the benefits of using the latest andgreatest Intel had to offer. Apple justswitched over to using Intel processors within the past five years or so. Before that, I'd hear the Mac zealots sayMacs were good and PCs were bad. ThatCISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing) and RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing)was the wave of the future. The factthat the Mac fans had no idea what the difference was didn't matter. Steve said it and so it was. The typical refrain I heard was that RISC(when it came out) had fewer instructions than CISC. That was wrong (CISC actually had fewerinstructions), but that didn't matter. Steve said it was better and that was good enough for the zealots. If nothing else, Steve Jobs was a charismaticleader. Thank goodness he was a tech marketerand not a religious leader. I can'tthink of any religion that has as zealous a following.

Steve also made a big thing of MACs using 64 bit processorsfirst. I remember Mac sales guys inCompUSAs chiding me that MACs used 64 bit processors and Intel didn't haveone. Couple of facts. It's not that Intel didn't know how to makeRISC processors or 64 bit processors. Intel had both. During large,multi-store trainings I would ask who had sold the most RISC processors? People would try Apple, or Motorola foranswers. True is that Intel had sold themost RISC processors. One of the thingsJobs didn't tell the followers was that the 64 bit processor was running a 32bit operating system. Now that's greatmarketing. When Apple first switched toIntel processors it was to a 32 bit version of the processors, not a 64 bitversion.

Here's a couple of interesting tidbits about Steve Jobs.

When he and Wosniak first started Apple Computer, Inc. heused to ride his motorcycle over to the house of one of his mentors. They'd have a glass of wine and discusstechnology. Jobs would stay so long thathe frequently crashed on the couch. Thementor was Robert Noyce, the inventor of the integrated circuit and one of thetwo founders of Intel.

The first human resources head of Apple was a woman namedAnne Bowers. She was also the wife ofthe same Robert Noyce. It's not likeJobs thought of Intel as "the enemy". He left that up to the misguided zealots.

When the G4 processorwas used in Apples top of the line (at that time) computers the Apple zealotswould tell me how much better it was than an Intel processor. I'd ask them to tell me how many Apple G4based computers were made with no Intel silicon. They would typically say they all were. The truth was that every Apple G4 computerhad some Intel device in it. Not themain processor, but other components.

Just to juice up the MAC sales people I'd tell them thatIntel had a special name for Apple. They'd all want to get the dirt on how Intel referred to Apple. I told them the "special name" was... customer.

Andy Grove, Intel's long time CEO did an interview forForbe's magazine back in the 90s. Thelast question asked Andy who he admired in the tech industries. His answer surprised the interviewer. The answer was Steve Jobs. When asked why, Grove said that Steve had hada focus on what he thought a computer should be and had never wavered from thatvision. He was the first to see the benefitof the GUI (Graphical User Interface), the first to seethat a mouse was a natural way to get around a screen. The first to embrace the laser printer.

The first, the first, thefirst. That pretty much sums up SteveJobs. He, his vision, did more to bringus usable computing devices than any other single person of the late 20th andearly 21st century. Bye Steve. Thanks for the ride.

Wednesday Photoshop Q&A - Scott Kelby's "Light it, Shoot It, Retouch It" Book

2011-10-05T09:01:00.000-04:00

If you're a frequent reader, you probably remember that I just did a semi-review of Matt Kloskowski's compositing book a couple weeks ago. Well, as soon as it was available I ordered Scott Kelby's latest book, "Light It, Shoot It, Retouch It". It's been sort of busy around here, so I've only gotten through a few chapters, but enough to know the I'll be going through the rest of the exercises as quickly as possible. If for no other reason, to get a chuckle from his sense of humor. Naturally, if I was interested in a humor book, I'd buy a humorist's book. The basic function of Kelby's book is to teach a little something about lighting, shooting and retouching. (Can't imagine where he would have come up with the book's name.) The first comment I'd have is that it's a well conceived book. It teaches about lighting in a manner I haven't seen in other books. One of the things that intrigued me was the promos Kelby Media put out about using actual overhead photographs to show the setups rather than sketches. Kelby credits his assistant Brad Moore for coming up with the idea and it works very well. One thing I will have to say is that I don't have the range of lights Scott has at his disposal, so I've had to think through the setups using my gear to try to replicate what he was doing. Which is fine and he acknowledges the fact that everyone doesn't have the same gear he's got. I have a fairly good range of small strobes, ranging from Nikon SBs to Sunpack FP38 Flat Panels to miscellaneous small poppers. I do have all sorts of modifiers. Anything from umbrellas to softboxes to light spheres to a homemade beauty dish. So, I can move the light (not just the lights) around. I have a range of scrims, flags, diffusers, stands, reflectors, and other gear, so I'm not nailing things to the walls. I am pretty flexible in my positioning and pushing of the photons. All that said, to see some of the compromises I've had to make to use my gear with Scott's instructions, hit the "Read More".

One of the first things is that when I said I had multiply Nikon SB Speedlites I meant multiply SB 600s. At the beginning of each chapter Scott shows the power setting of the lights he uses. As an example, in Chapter One he uses three Elinchrom BRXi 500 lights. The power on them goes from 2.3 to 10. His setting are 2.4, 2.3 (the lowest possible setting) and 4.5 (less than half power). He can, most likely shoot at a pop, pop, pop rate. My translation (using similar modifiers) would be the Sb600s at full power through the beauty dish, full power through the softbox (the softbox will cut the light more than the beauty dish) and, again, full power, with no modifier, on the background. Can I shoot pop, pop, pop? No, it's more like pop, wait, pop, wait, pop. The "waits" aren't excruciatingly long, but probably very noticeable compared to higher power studio strobes.

When Kelby gets into cool continuous light I can go, pretty much, toe to toe with what's in the book. One of the things I do is night train shoots. So, I have a range of daylight balanced CFLs going up to 400 watt equivalent. I have a three socket setup and put them (typically) through a uncovered softbox (using the softbox strictly to aim the light. Backing down I have smaller lights that can be used in a reflector or defused softbox.

One of the very neat things about the book is Chapter 13. Scott goes through a "okay, if you're shooting with hot shoe flashes rather than studio strobes..." setups and shows that each shot can be done with small lights. Very cool. Sense I was going through the book chapter by chapter I didn't see Chapter 13 until I was well through the first couple of "lessons".

Lighting is only the first of the three facets of the book. Shooting? Okay, Kelby shows the how of the shoot. What lens, where he stood, what angle he shot from (high, low, where, toward what, why, etc.

The third piece of the book is the retouch portion. Scott's done several riffs on photo retouching. Such as his book "Professional Portrait Retouching Techniques for Photographers". His "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers" and others. If you're interested in high end retouching, go to the Professional Portrait Retouching book. If you're interested in light (but excellent) retouching and want some tips on lighting and shooting, grab his latest book, "Light It, Shoot It, Retouch It. It's worth the time and the dime (actually, while reasonably priced, it is quite a bit more than a dime ("legal disclaimer???").

To HDR Or Not To HDR, That Is The Question

2011-10-03T09:56:00.000-04:00

Over the weekend we took part in Scott Kelby's World Wide Photo Walk. Ours was set up for Sunday and at quarter to seven my wife called down and said "it's raining, are we still going?". I had just checked weather.com for Kent, Connecticut and saw that the rain would clear by 9:00 AM and we should have a nice day for a photo walk. I called back and said we'd be fine and we'll still go. Today's image gives an idea of what the result was at about 9:45. A beautiful New England fall day. Blue skies with puffy white clouds and just enough sun to produce some good shots. It's not really hard to find good shots walking through the small town of Kent. The total length of the walk was probably less than a half mile. One quarter mile down Main Street and one quarter coming back, exploring the alleys and back yards (of businesses). There's an art studio back there with sculptures in the yard, a highly decorated little outside mall with all sorts kitschy knickknacks, bric-a-brac, and the like. Just a real fun place to get some of those small, detail shots that go well in a storytelling photo essay. I spent most of the morning with the camera set to shoot five shot brackets in the high speed continuous shooting mode. That way I could either select the exposure I liked best or go for a three or five shot HDR. With at least one of the shots, the 2 Stop underexposed image is the one I like best of the five shots in the group. It's dark and brooding, with great shadows and an old fashioned white outside lamp shade as the focal point. You may see it here in the gallery later this week. Today's image comes from the same technique. Shoot a five shot bracket and either pick the best exposure or use three or five of the images to produce an HDR image. Watta ya think? Is it one shot, brought to its full potential? Is it a three shot HDR? Or, is it a five shot HDR? Do your best analysis and make your SWAG (Scientific Wild A$$ Guess). To find out which it is, hit the "Read More".

No sense going for suspense, it's a five shot HDR. Rather than going for the illustrative style of HDR, I went for the photo-realistic side of the fence. The five shot HDR was only the starting point. It's done using Adobe Photoshop CS5's HDR Pro. I find that the CS5 version of doing HDR is very good on the realistic side. It seems to me to be harder to go to the far side using CS5. Nik Software's HDR EFEXPro or HDRSoft's Photomatix Pro look to be able to do a better job on the illustrative side of the docket. One of these days I'll download the thirty day trials of each and give them a true workout and then do a review of each to give my opinions of which does what better.

I find that I can get a very illustrative HDR look on landscapes using Scott Kelby's "Dave Hill Effect" formula without doing anything HDR. Then again, there are times when people will comment of "what an interesting HDR effect" and I'll have to explain that there's no type a HDR applied. It's just taking the image to a hyper-real place using extreme Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layers. There's never one technique that does it all and mixing and matching this and that usually comes up with something a little different from the norm.

One thing I do have to say is that using Smart Objects and nesting Layers as Smart Objects gives just an amazing amount of flexibility. See a move way back in the processing that resulted in something that too exaggerated? Just go back through the nested Smart Objects, make the correction, and Save and Close your way back up to the present condition. Simply incredible.

Today's image doesn't have a lot of color changes done in CS5. Most of the color tweaks were done in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3. In fact, today's image probably had a half dozen trips back and forth from LR3 to CS5. The first trip back to LR3 results in whateverFileName.Edit.psd. The second trip back gets named whateverFileName.Edit.Edit.psd and so on. Things better done in LR3 are done there. Things that have to be done in CS5 (pixel edits) are done in CS5. Everything has its advantage and being able to make use of those advantages is one of the keys of having both available.

Combining Techniques In Photoshop CS5

2011-09-30T11:10:00.001-04:00

A buddy of mine asked me the other day if I had ever heard of the Dave Hill Effect. I laughed and told her she hadn't been reading the blog enough. I've written a couple times about the DHE (and here). Now, this friend is a very clever photographer and a master refinisher. The fact that she hadn't used the DHE shocked me. She does marvelous HDR work, her compositing is outstanding and anyone looking for a photographer to give them some very unique work should run out to hire this photographer. Here's a link to her site. Check it out. We were out the other evening preparing for an night train shoot we're doing at the end of October She was doing the test shots while I, along with her husband, was playing roadie. Setting up locations, lights and carrying gear. She sent me over one of her tests. As usual, a great HDR of a passenger car we'll be using as a "prop" on the night of the shoot. I asked her to send the 0 EV exposure over so I could see what a straight shot would good like. I wanted to check how the interior versus exterior lights played. Since we'd been talking about the Dave Hill Effect, and I just happened to have it queued up as a preset in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3, I just popped the image with it and sent it back for her to check out. It got me to thinking about what would happen if HDR was combined with the DHE. I'd guess it ends up as D²H₂RE or something equally as confusing. In any case I thought I explore it with today's image. So, today we have an image that's one part HDR, one part DHE and a couple other parts "normal" finishing thrown in. If you'd like to learn more about what this poor image went through to get where it is, hit the "Read More".

Basically, everywhere you look you'll see a different technique. The train is HDR. The building the train is passing is the DHE. The area below the track is a combination of the two. The train has the lines and shapes outlined using Filter/Stylize/Find Edges as a Smart Filter. The lines have a Levels Adjustment Layer applied to increase the contrast and finally the Blend Mode was changed to Vivid Light and Clipped to the filtered Layer. That one Layer got beat up pretty good, but the freshly painted metal of the train parts shines.

The building got the Dave Hill Effect and then went through the wash with a Motion Blur (Filter/Blur/Motion Blur) Smart Filter applied. The color was jacked up using individual Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layers. The roof of the building wasn't blurred, but gives that appearance because of the blur applied to the face of the building.

The crop of the image eliminated most of the sky, but leaves enough to show the smoke rising out of the stack.

The objective was to give the impression of the train chugging on down the track. Having half the image in sharp focus and the other half with a Motion Blur I think it achieves the objective. What do you think?

Wednesday Photoshop Q&A - Do I Need My Computer Anymore?

2011-09-28T12:56:00.001-04:00

I was out the other evening with some friends when one of them asked me if they needed their computer anymore. My first response was "of course you do". After a minute I asked what my friend was using the computer for. ??? He said I do email, surf the web and doctor my photos. There it was, the reason for having a computer. Ah-ha, you need a powerful computer to manipulate your images. A no brainer, until I thought about it a little more. Like almost all aspects of modern life, photography is moving toward the tablets. I bought an iPAD 2 about six months ago. It was for the typical reasons (although I still don't have a single song on it) and I thought it would be handy for checking email, online shopping, a couple of games and generally freeing me from running to the computer every time I needed access. Thinking about how my usage has changed I had to qualify my snap response to my friend. My initial retort came back to haunt me as we discussed his uses in more depth. He does some very serious photography, but 99.9% of it is straight. He's not familiar enough with his chosen image editing software to be any sort of heavy duty pixel pusher. He makes great images, but they're all very straight. He's been using Adobe Photoshop Elements through several iterations and is currently on PSE 9. Having the ability to create a Layer Mask confuses him and Adjustment Layers are over his head. Any tweaks he needs he does on the Base Layer and it makes me cringe when I see him work. I had to rethink my initial reply. To find out what switched my thinking, hit the "Read More".

As an experiment, I took a walk down to a swampy area down the road a little bit. (The town likes to refer to it as a "conservation area", but it's a swamp.) It was early morning and the light had a soft warm glow to it. It was going to rain and it showed in the pink shades of the image. I shot in RAW. I always do except for weddings and sports. Rather than downloading to the computer when I returned home (which I also did), I dumped the files into the iPAD while I was out.

I've been making a collection of image processing apps on the iPAD. Mostly I've just been doodling around, adjusting an image and returning it to "as shot" before leaving the app. To test my "rethink" of my friends question I wanted to take the image as far as I was able on the iPAD. Going through several different apps I came up with today's image. It's straight, but it's also pretty juiced. After finishing I went home, down loaded the files onto the computer, cranked up Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 and Adobe Photoshop CS5 and replicated the same image on the computer. The two images wound up 99% the same. I don't want to say 100% because there "might be" a hair difference between the two.

I was able to finish a shot to the exact (99%) same image on an iPAD. Even if it required using several different apps, the iPAD's intuitive interface made it simple to think of the apps almost as modules. The finger flicks were the same across the apps. Finding the modifiers I wanted to use was similar (Left to right, up to down might have been different, but that was minor.)

So, if I did straight photography (I don't) and had no real heavy programs that I couldn't live without (I don't) I think I might think twice before buying another computer. Within the next couple of years I might be off a computer altogether. That is a very strange thought compared to the norm of just a year ago. The soothsayers often talk about a paradigm shift. I think one's all teed up and ready to be smacked down the fairway. Yikes! Gotta call my friend before he runs out to buy a new computer.

Sometimes It's Alright To Steal Ideas

2011-09-26T11:40:00.000-04:00

The other day was our anniversary, so, being the good guy I am, I bought some roses for my wife. Over the weekend she noticed how they had come into full bloom and said she might want to take a couple shots of them on Sunday. No problem. She didn't. So, today I took a couple shots of one rose. That way, if she gets her camera out this evening, she has eleven left that haven't been shot. The roses are actually kind of an orange color. I know rose colors have all sorts of meanings and I'm not sure what orange roses stand for, but I'm sure it's some nice thought. (I hope!) The setup for today's image comes what a rather hairy accident. The black glass top used to be part of a television stand. The stairs going up from the playroom at home are open. We were dog sitting our granddaughter's English Bulldog a couple weeks ago and I lost my balance stepping over the barrier we had set up to keep the dog in the playroom. Unfortunately, the 50" flat panel television is right at the open stairway. It was almost like trying to make a boogie board out of the set. I wound up on the back of the television, "riding" it down to the floor. I wound up with some bumps, bruises and cuts but the television smashed. It had been sitting on a metal frame, glass topped stand. The metal frame ended up bent, but all three pieces of black glass survived. That's why I now have three black glass panels to use as sets for doing tabletop photography. Today's image wasn't shot in "the usual" way. To find out how it was shot, hit the "Read More".

Some of the inspiration for today's image came from Dave Black's "lightpaintings". Really nice stuff. The light for today's image came from a small LED flashlight (actually, two small LED flashlights). With the camera on a tripod, attached to a remote shutter release, in a dark room (not a darkroom) the rose was a prime target for the "lightpainting" technique.

The set up for the camera was to use a Nikkor 18- 200mm F4.5-5.6 lens with a Nikon PK-11A 8mm Extension Tube. Just in case you're not aware of what an extension tube is or does, let me recap. An extension tube is a hole with some plastic (and/or metal around it. No glass, just a hole. What it does is move the lens further away from the film plane (i.e. sensor). Moving the lens out makes the focusing distance much closer. How much depends on the lens and the size of the tube. Nikon has 8mm, 14mm and 27.5mm tubes. They can be used singularly or in any combination. By putting the extension tube on I was able to get in close to the rose.

The technique for exposing the image was to set one LED flashlight behind the flower turned on continuously and the other was hand held and click on and off once for the top of the flower and once into the face of the flower. The total exposure was 3 seconds @ F8 at about 150mm zoom.

The post production was a simple case of cleaning up any stray light or reflections. A copy of the base image was made in Adobe Photoshop CS5, converted to a Smart Object and had a Half Tone filter applied. The Blend Mode was changed to Soft Light to complete the finishing.

Wednesday Photoshop Q&A - Wanting A New Lens

2011-09-22T09:37:00.000-04:00

Today's question comes, not from searches that pointed to the blog but, from a short conversation with a guy who works with my wife. We just happened to cross paths with him and he said he wanted to ask for my recommendation for a new lens. Boy, is that a loaded question. We had the length of an elevator ride to establish a problem statement. The obvious question was "what are you shooting that you feel you need another lens?" His explanation was that the kids were getting a little older and starting getting into sports. The kit lens that came with the camera just wasn't getting him as close as he wanted/needed. Next question: what sports are we talking about? The big three were gymnastics, basketball and soccer. The other factor was budget. So, we have the problem statement. To find my recommendations, hit the "Read More".

One of the first things would be the old adage: "be prepared to spend more on glass that you spent on the camera body". No matter what you spend on the body, chances are great that the glass (lenses) is going to cost you more. If you're a professional like a Moose Peterson (no relation) you'll buy the top of the line body. Moose shoots with a Nikon D3s and two D3x. The D3s is his cheaper backup camera and goes for about $5200.00. The D3x models (we're talking body only on both models) runs about $8000.00. Yikes! To do the thing he's famous for (wildlife), one of his goto lenses is a Nikkor 600mm F4. That puppy goes for about $10,300.00. See, buy the most expensive camera Nikon (or Canon, or Sony) has and the lens you want/need still costs more. But, he wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't going to pay for itself. That the big caveat with the pros. The expense doesn't matter, because the billings justify whatever is being paid.

So much for the high end. Let's take it back down to the realm of reality for most of us. An introductory level Canon camera is $500.00 or more with a "kit lens". An 18 - 55 mm is typical. Going back to the discussion we have on the table, you're screwed. The reality of the situation is that the questioner has two problems. He's interested in two indoor sports and one outdoor sport. The indoor sports take place in notoriously dim spaces. It looks fine to the human eye, but to a camera lens it's like shooting into a pit. So, a fast lens with a moderate zoom is the answer to that problem. The outdoor sport (soccer) is played on a large field, primarily (for kids) in the daylight. That answer is a slower lens with a greater maximum zoom level.

For the first case, the gymnastics and basketball, a 70 - 200 F2.8 lens is probably the best, most cost efficient lens for mom and dad taking shots of the kids. That doesn't mean it's cheap. Canon has a range of 70 - 200 mm zoom lenses. On the low end there's an F4 lens that goes for $675.00 or so. The problem with that one is that there's no IS (Image Stabilization) and it's one stop lower than an F2.8. Canon says their IS gives "up to" 4 stops. Okay. We have one stop slower and 4 stops due to the IS. What does that mean? Inside we'd shoot wide open. That means F2.8 @ 1/500 sec. the shutter speed is needed to freeze the action. If we go to the cheaper lens let's see what that gives us. To have the same exposure, using the F4 lens, we're automatically at 1/250 second. Factor is the 4 stops of gain gotten for the IS ability of the better lens and you would have to shoot at 1/15th second. With the non IS lens racked out to 200 mm you might as well leave the camera in the bag. Every shot is going to suffer from motion blur. In the best of situations you're not going to hand hold at 200mm @ 1/15th second. The down side of the better lens (the 70 - 200mm F2.8 with IS) is that it goes for @2400.00. Ouch!

The outdoor sport (soccer) is easier on the wallet, but still not a freebie. From mid-field, the goalie can be covered reasonably well with a 300 mm lens. A 300 mm lens, with the Canon DSLR multiplier of 1.6 is equal to a 480mm lens on a 35mm film camera. The good news is that the low end Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS lens is probably "good enough" for a family shooter. Even better news is that it only costs $550.00. (wipe the sweat off the brow with that one). Canon does have more expensive 70-300mm lenses, but almost a 3x price factor to get to their L-series is pretty iffy for a family lens. The speed of the lens (F4-5.6) is fine for sunny, semi shady and somewhat overcast daylight shooting. For days with really dark skies it's probably getting somewhat iffy. But, for any "Park and Rec" type soccer it'll probably be called off if the threat of rain is imminent.

So, there you have it. One question that requires two answers. One caveat would be if the camera is very new. Newer models from Nikon, Canon and others have much better noise control. You'd be able to crank up the sensor sensitivity (ISO) and compensate (a little) for a slower lens. But, that's probably a step-up body from the basic camera kit. There's always a give and take, and it always costs more money.

With Photoshop CS5, It's Easy To Have Dramatic Clouds In Winter

2011-09-19T13:18:00.000-04:00

Today's image is a mashup of four (actually three) images. The street scene is a two shot panorama and the clouds in the background come from one cloud image, duplicated, flipped, joined and tilted. If you think there was a fancy, intricate mask involved here you be pretty far off base. I did use a knew trick I just thought of (at least I haven't seen it discussed anywhere) to make placing the clouds a snap. At the start of the making of today's image there had to be a little Adobe Photoshop CS5 trickery applied. The two images making up the street scene were two totally separate shots. Two different focal lengths and probably ten minutes apart. I noticed that the two images had one building in common, so I had a midpoint to start from. One set of building was half again larger than the other set, so I wanted to see how clever CS5 would be trying to decipher the data being thrown at it. I have to say, it did a darn nice job of figuring out what was what and how it would piece together. The sky was pretty blah, with the palest of blues for the entire stretch. Not much to look at. The street scene came along fairly nicely, but with as bald a sky as there was the image was nothing special. To learn how the cloud filled sky got there without a Mask, hit the "Read More".

A couple things had to be done to the image before adding the sky. The gray building just left of center had the side facing the sun blown out. The easiest place to fix it was in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3, so back it went. At first glance it appeared that there was no detail on the sunny side. I used the Adjustment Brush and cranked the Exposure all the way down. Pulling the exposure either all the way up (on dark segments) or all the way down (on light segments) is an easy way to see what you're painting. If the final adjustment were to be a couple of tenths of a stop and anyone were to try to apply that small an adjustment they wouldn't be able to see if the change was made. By raising or lowering the exposure all the way you can see what's going on. Since anything done in LR3 is nondestructive the change can be modified after knowing that you've covered the entire area that needs to be dealt with.

After all the adjustments were made the image took another trip over to CS5. The cloud image was brought in. It really doesn't make any difference which Layer is in front. Changing the Blend Mode to Darker Color brings all the fine detail in the trees forward. It also over painted the lighter buildings. A really non-fancy Layer Mask was applied and any spill onto the buildings taken away using a Black Press Tool (B).

The secret was that the only place with any blue was in the sky. Using a Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layer to make only the Cyan and Blue components very light (maxing out the Luminance) allowed the clouds and sky to show through.

Big thing is to not make things any harder than they have to be.

Sometimes A Pretty Girl Is Just Sitting There.

2011-09-16T13:39:00.000-04:00

Every once in a while you stumble on a shot that works. The young woman in today's image was just sitting in NYC's Central Park as we happened by. She an several friends were there to portray characters from anime. (see this companion post) The big deal with today's image is that's it's a straight shot. Maybe it was the makeup she wore, but her skin was that nice. Maybe it was that she was sitting under the arms of a tree, but the lighting was that soft. The colors of her dress and hat are as they were and she did have blue tint in her hair. The fact that she was a very good looking young woman didn't hurt either. The background was just as you see it (minus the vignette). There were a couple things that had to be done to "finish" the image, but they were very minor. To find out what they were, hit the "Read More".

Because of the bright sun filtering through the trees, there was a slight blue caste to the white of her bodice and slips. Some can still be seen on the left of the image. On the right side it was all removed. The Luminance of the background foliage was brought down in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 using the HSL Panel. Rather than manipulating the colors manually, the automatic adjustment control (the small ball in the upper left of the HSP Panel) was used and the foliage targeted. Dragging the target down, with Luminance selected, caused the greens to go considerably darker. No adjustment was made to the focus on the trees.

Here gloves were lightened, again in LR3, using the Adjustment Brush. When using the Adjustment Brush I typically crank the Exposure value up as high as it will go. I then "paint" over the area needing refinement. Once the area is properly selected, a double tap on the word Exposure returns the value to a center (zero) position. The I'll bring the value up or down (up in this case) using a Shift/Up Arrow tapping. The other sliders will advance by .10 increments doing this. The Exposure Adjustment moves at .10 without the use of the Shift Key. Holding the Shift Key down moves the slider in 1/3 Stop increments. Increasing the Exposure of the gloves brought out the detail.

Both young women were very open to explaining what they were there for and, as you can see, this one was very welcoming. Sometimes you just get a cooperative model.

Wednesday Photoshop Q&A - Is Puppet Warp Just For Making Gag Images?

2011-09-15T10:01:00.000-04:00

The trend this week seemed to be more than the typical number of people looking for information on Adobe Photoshop CS5's Puppet Warp. It appears it is getting the same rap the Liquefy Filter has gotten since it was introduced. The first thing the Liquefy Filter was used for was giving friends elongated noses and the like. It was a throwback to an old program for doing such playful thing named "Kai's Power Goo". Once the novelty wore off people started finding out how useful Liquefy could be. You probably can't find a cover of any fashion magazine that hasn't had the Liquefy Filter used to gently push a waist, some arm flab, a hip or two, or any other not so perfect body part into place. Today, Puppet Warp is an alternative to Liquefy. In some cases it provides more control over the tweaks being given. One of the keys to using almost any tool Photoshop has to offer is moderation. Don't use the Dodge and Burn Tools (O) at 100%. Use them at 10 - 15% and build up the effect you're looking for. Don't make big sweeps with the Liquefy Tool (Filters/Liquefy). Little tiny pushes with fairly big brushes (in the Blot Liquefy Tool) let's you find tune whatever needs fixing. To see how the Puppet Warp Tool was used on today's image, hit the "Read More".

Today's image shows the before, during and after shots of how the image was corrected. The basic image is a four or five shot panorama taken at a pretty close range to the building. Not only did this produce a left to right bulge effect, but also "domed" the roof. The left to right displacement gives the sense that the building is longer than it really is. I really don't have a problem with that. I did find the roofline to be more of a distraction. You may want to click on the image to see an enlargement to make it easier to see what was done.

The first thing is to make a plan. I made an empty blank Layer (Add New Layer icon) and then selected the Pencil Tool (B). I set the foreground color to a bright red. With the Pencil Tool I clicked on the top of the roof just above the left "eyebrow". Then I Shift Clicked on the end of the roofline where it ends beyond the right "eyebrow". This created a bright Red line showing where the roofline "should" be. I also brought a guide in from the left (click on the Ruler and drag a guide out) and positioned it on the left vertical edge of the building facade. It was slightly askew and needed to be put vertical. The only reason for this Layer is to put control lines that can be later discarded.

The middle image shows the "Pins" set with the Puppet Warp Tool. Each of these "Pins" can be pushed or pulled in whatever direction is needed. A trick to give more control is to click on a Pin and use the Arrow Keys (left, right, up and down) to slowly (and accurately) move the Pin. Moving each Pin close to (but don't try to get it exact at this point) its final position gives you an idea of how much the next Pin needs to be moved. Remember, moving a Pin changes the relationship of the Pins on either side.

Making small adjustments several times is preferable to trying to make a gross adjustment all at once. Keep going from Pin to Pin to get the maximum accuracy.

Keep in mind that "most" tools in CS5 produce better results when a gentle approach is taken. Being "ham handed" creates a mess and will lead to doing the same adjustment over and over again.

Night Shooting With Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3

2011-09-12T08:41:00.000-04:00

Now that's a strange title. Ya don't "shoot" anything with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 or any other Adobe product. Adobe makes applications to finish or manipulate shots or artwork after the click of the shutter. There is a relationship between the small image on the left and the larger one on the right. You might want to click on each one to enlarge them and take a closer look. A general observation might be that one looks a little over exposed and the other a wee bit under exposed. If you take an even closer look (just observing, not enlarging) you'll see that I was either extremely accurate in the placement of my tripod, the height of the camera and the zoom of the lens or there must be another explanation. To find out which is the case, hit the "Read More".

The truth is --- it's the same shot. The exposure on the image was 30 seconds at F6.3 at an ISO rating of 3200 at about 10:00 PM. One of the things I found surprising was the lack of noise at that sensor setting. A young fellow walking through the park happened by and saw the view of the image on the LCD and asked how it could look like a daylight shot when there was no light. I explained that there was a lot of light and that I had captured it. He didn't "get it". He had a bottle of water with him, so I used it to simplify what was going on. I asked him what would happen if he turned the open bottle on its side. He said the water would spill out. I asked if he would have any of the water that spilled? He said "no, it would be on the ground and gone". Right, that how we see. Whatever light is there is passing before our eyes. Then I asked him what would happen if he put a glass in the arc of the stream of the water? He said he'd end up with a glass of water. I told him the same thing was going on in the camera. A small amount of light was going through the lens to the sensor for a long time. While we can only see in the instant, the sensor can keep gathering light for as long as the shutter is open.

The shot was a "test shot" to determine exposure. Once the proper exposure was determined, the ISO was brought down four stops (to 200) and the exposure time increased by almost four stops (to about 7 minutes). The reason for shooting such a bright exposure for a night shot is to get detail. Had the sky been exposed as it looks in the larger version of the image, there would be no detail in the trees. You wouldn't see the shadow of the tree in the lower left side of the image and you probably wouldn't have as nice a gradient in the sky. By exposing the histogram to the right (more toward a brighter exposure) you get all that detail.

After bringing the image into Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3, the exposure was brought down to reveal the night shot. If you look in the sky you can see that the cup of the Big Dipper (Ursa Major) was captured. Just a bonus by pointing the camera in the right direction.

Night photography can be done at any time of the year, anywhere. In the case of today's image we were in an urban park. You can see the light trails from the cars just below the centerline of the image. The big "trick" to night photography is to over expose and bring it down in your image editing program. If you expose for the sky, the details on the ground will be blocked up and the only thing you'll have is black blobs. Go out and shoot something (photographically of course). Put the fun back in your photography.

What Is The Best Camera!!!

2011-09-09T08:05:00.002-04:00

How's this for ego. Today's image is of me. I got a call the other day asking for a publicity shot of yours truly. I only had one shot I (recently) like and that was setup for use on the web only. I asked what was the size they'd be using the shot. They answer was "no more than 5x7". Okay, for a 5x7 you really don't need a 12 Megapixel file. A 1.5 MP shot would be fine (as long as it would be a full frame shot). Rather than dig out the lights, softbox, stands and all the other gear, I glanced up at the top of my monitor. There sits a Logitech webcam. The last shot I was using was about ten years old and that was shot sitting in front of the computer with what was probably a .7 MP webcam. I figured it was worth a shot (bad bun). The lights in the computer room are daylight balanced so the monitors won't be thrown off by cool lights. The monitor, being color balanced, with a blank white screen, makes a reasonable softbox. So, I had a set of lights that might be workable. I was educated as an engineer (but was a peddler most of my life) and one of the rags we used to say about engineers was the chief prerequisite was to be lazy. A good engineer seeks the simplest way to do something. The simplest way to get a quick publicity shot of me was to use the webcam sitting right in front of me. I grabbed a 3'x5' five in one reflector and put it in back of me. Had to do it. The computer room is not the neatest place in the offices. I took a quick test shot, tweaked the White Balance, exposure and aiming of the cam and took several more shots, most of which looked pretty dumb. Eyes looking at the computer rather than the camera, head tilted at some bizarre angle, facing the computer with eyes toward the camera, facing the camera with eyes toward the computer, hand on chin, hand under chin, etc. All together about ten different, bad shots. As I was getting more and more frustrated I rested my hand on my cheek, elbow on the desk and looked into the camera. Click and my head snapped back. I'd gotten "something" I could use. It wasn't perfect, but it could be quickly fixed in Adobe Photoshop CS5. To find out what the fixes were, hit the "Read More".

Let me qualify what the image is not. It's not cropped in any way. I didn't extract my head and put it on another background. This was supposed to be a quick, down and dirty, shot for the publication requesting it.

My hand was too bright. It was actually the closest thing to the monitor, so it got more light. Using the Quick Selection Tool (W) I made a selection of my hand. I then did a Save Selection (right click in the Layer box and pick Save Selection). I deselected and made a copy of the entire image (CTRL J). The reason for this move, rather than just putting the Selection up on another Layer, was that it was going to be applied to exactly the same image in exactly the same place and I didn't want any visible lines at the edge of the Selection. I then changed the Blend Mode to Multiply, applied the Alpha Channel Mask (CTRL click on the Channel's thumbnail) and hit the Add Layer Mask icon at the bottom of the Layers Panel. Now my hand was too dark, so I dialed back the Opacity until it looked right (matter of taste).

The only other thing done to the image was to Clone (S) in a little gab by my lower shoulder. The edge of the reflector used as a backdrop was showing, with a little bit of the messy office behind. Not a pretty sight.

So there you have it. A publicity shot in ten minutes and the publication sent back an email saying "great, glad you found it". Found what? There's a whole movement out in the world that says the best camera is the one you have with you. That's why the majority of images on sites like Flickr come from phone cameras. The little webcam just happened to be the camera right in front of me. At the time, it was the "best camera" to get the job done quickly.

Wednesday Photoshop Q&A - Where To Make B&W Images? Lightroom or Photoshop?

2011-09-07T10:47:00.000-04:00

Let's dispense with the obvious, if you don't have Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 you can do a Black & White image completely in Adobe Photoshop CS5. After all, Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), which comes with Photoshop, has the same engine as the Develop Module in LR3. So, bouncing back and forth from LR3 to CS5 and back a few times is more a matter of personal workflow. Today's image started out as a five image HDR mashup. It's not an "over the top" HDR, but a pretty subtle form of the technique. I can go either way with HDR, but tend to be more interested in the photorealistic side. A buddy of mine (that would be you Lorri) is a great practitioner of the far side of HDR. Her HDR images are beautiful. Take a look at her portfolio. She tends to push to the illustrative side and I'll have to sit down with her one of these days and take a lesson on her technique. The question today comes from several search queries that brought people to the gallery this past week. Hopefully I can "focus" a little light on the subject. (I know, bad pun.) Today's image is straight out of LR3/CS5. I played with the two week trial of Nik Software's Silver Effects Pro 2, and thought it was a very interesting piece of software. I'm old enough to have come from B&W film developing and printing, so I think I might have a bit of an advantage over those who have never done wet printing. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad those days are gone and I sit in front of a computer to do my "darkroom" work . To get an idea of how to apply wet darkroom techniques in a dry darkroom, hit the "Read More".

"Back in the old days" you'd develop your film, let it dry and then start "reading" your negatives. Today you come back from doing a shoot and upload images to the computer. "Then" you looked at the contrast of the negative and took a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) at what paper grade you think might be close. "Now" you go to the camera presets to get a starting point for finishing your image. "Then" you'd make a test print to see 1. if you were close on the paper grade and 2. to see where you needed to do some work. "Now", if you have LR3 you can slide your cursor down through the LR3 Presets found in the Develop Module. If Adobe hasn't given you enough choices you can find hundreds of presets by doing a Google search. Presets shouldn't be thought of as the end of the development process, but as the beginning of the process. If you just happen to find one and can say "that's it", that's fine, but, just like in the wet darkroom, you'll probably see some areas that need tweaking.

In the wet darkroom you'd do some selective Dodging and Burning. You'll do the same thing in a dry darkroom, except you have a lot more tools to play with. "Then" you might go through several sheets of paper (at a buck and a half back in the 70s). Expose the image, Dodging in the areas you feel need to be held back. Either continue the exposure and Burn the areas or restart the exposure for each Burn area. Meticulous note taking was a must in the wet darkroom. You'd probably use a red marker to make notes on your test print as remind you where you wanted to do what. A 16 x 20 print might be filled with ten or fifteen circles of red indicating this or that adjustment. In the case of Burning a circle might have a cryptic +2 in it. Meaning I (everyone had their own methods) wanted to Burn that area twice as long (one stop) as the overall exposure. "Now" you can do test after test and the changes are "sticky". In the wet darkroom you had to repeat all the adjustments on the next try. Today when you get one area just the way you like it you leave it alone, go on to the next area needing a tweak.

Life is good in the Dry Darkroom. No smells, no waste paper basket full of test prints, no needing to get to the finished print before passing out from lack of sleep. It doesn't matter if you do the entire process in Lightroom, in Photoshop or bounce back and forth using the best parts of each program. The Dry Darkroom is better.

Real Life Anime in Photoshop CS5

2011-09-05T06:51:00.000-04:00

Over the weekend we took a ride down to NYC to see JoeMcNally's tribute to the heroes of 9-11 titled "The Faces of Ground Zero,10 Years Later" and shoot in Central Park for an hour or so. Today's image is part of a fun event going on in CP's Sheep Meadow, but a little on the McNally exhibit first. I've seen Joe's blog on the exhibit along with several other sites encouraging people to make time to visit this fleeting moment in history. The exhibit only goes until September 12th, the day after the tenth anniversary of that day. Several commentators have said that September 11, 2001 is one of the days that are seared into your brain and you can tell people exactly where you were and what you were doing when you heard the news. The Intel office I was in on that day is no longer there, but even if new tenants have totally rearranged the layout I'd be able to take you to within two feet of the exact spot I was standing when we heard the first report. A phone call from a coworker's wife telling him "a plane" had hit the World Trade Center. No word of the size or type of plane came from the first call. We speculated about how bad a pilot you'd have to be to get that far off course so you'd hit a building that big. We had just gone back to our planning discussion when the same guy got another call from his wife about a plane hitting the second tower. The first reaction of the two guys I was meeting with was a joke about what the hell was up with those New York people. I stopped them and said "guys, we're under attack". Their reaction was disbelief and "do you really think so"? As we know, I was right and the event planning and the event itself was put off indefinitely. "The Faces of Ground Zero, 10 Years Later" brought back some of the emotions of that dreadful day and tears again came to my eyes. What McNally did in the aftermath of 9-11 was undoubtedly a work from the heart. The exhibit now on display at the Time Warner Center is, in typical McNally fashion, meant to be a tribute to the people who served at that time. Without his meaning it to be, it's also a tribute to Joe McNally. Thanks Joe. Now, to find out about today's image, hit the "Read More".

After checking out the exhibit we walked across the street into NYC's Center Park. It was a beautiful late summer afternoon and the park was full of activity. We walked into the Sheep Meadow and just wandered around a little bit. There was a cast of characters (literally) congregating on a rock outcropping a short way in. After snapping a couple candid shots the young woman in today's image spotted us and waved. The entire group seemed to be pretty friendly. We approached her and asked what was going on. She explained that they group was dressed as characters from Anime. Anime being a very stylized type of cartoon, popularized first in Japan.

Part of the Anime style is having very little detail in the faces of the characters. That's one of the things I tries to do with today's image. Each of the different areas, the face, the arms, the shirt, the stockings each have their own piece of the image. I'd finish with a piece to my satisfaction, make the set of Layers into a Smart Object and go on to the next piece. The amount to Surface Blur varied depending on what was being softened. The reason for using Smart Objects is to be able to go back to any point, make adjustments and have those adjustments reflect back to the top of the Layer stack. Smart Objects is the only way to get this type of flexibility.

The hair got some extra treatment. In addition to enhancing the color (slightly), emphasis was added using a separate Layer filled with 50% gray and having the Blend Mode switched to Overlay. With the Brush Tool (B) set to a low Brush Opacity (not Layer Opacity) and using the Flip Foreground and Background keystroke (X) highlights and shadows were dramatized to make the hair look more cartoonish.

Attention to removing definition is the key to creating a real life Anime.

Matt Kloskowski's Compositing Book

2011-09-02T11:54:00.001-04:00

This isn't going to be a true review of Matt's book. Let's just say I have a stack of books by Scott Kelby, Matt Kloskowski, and Joe McNally and a bunch of other people associated with Kelby's NAPP. If you've followed the postings here you probably know that I do a fair amount of compositing. Never the less, I'm a firm believer in the fact that there's always something to learn. That continues to be true with Kloskowski's newest book. As I read through the book (the power was out over the weekend due to Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene so I was literarily reading through the book rather than following through the examples) I'd sit there and said "yep, yep, yep, aha". Every once in a while there was a nugget that was new to me. Using an inner glow to get rid of a little halo of left over color was one such nugget. Very cute trick and it's now in my hip pocket whenever it'll be needed. I think Kelby's sense of humor must rub out on the folks working for him because Matt's book is written in the typical irreverent style of Kelby Media. I'd much rather read a book that teaches while not taking itself (actually the author not taking himself/herself) too seriously. I've bought a number of books from pompous asses and, for the most part, they sit in a stack of books that have the first two chapters read. I just can't handle someone who might as well, figuratively, write "I'm better than you" at the start of each paragraph. What they say might be the key to my becomes the world's greatest Photoshop expert, but I'll never know. I just can't get through the book. Books out of Kelby Media Group, their DVDs, the online training, their online TV shows and about any other thing they put out have an easy going style and, while they treat the subjects with respect, the authors/stars all have a self deprecating sense of humor. To find out which tricks from the book were used on today's image, hit the "Read More".

There are two big lessons that were used on today's image. One is technical and the other is more inspiration. Which of the two are more important? Neither! Both are equal. Going back to Kelby and Kloskowski, they just did a discussion on the talk show "The Grid" this week about sweating the small stuff. Is it more important that I got all the "t"s crossed and the "i"s dotted or is it more important that I was inspired by Matt's book. There's the old saying about "give me an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters (that's word processors, pre-computer) and an infinite amount of time and I'll give you Shakespeare. The "mechanical" stuff is one thing. Anyone can train and become a good mechanic. There's a huge gap between being mechanically capable and being creative. Luckily Matt's book ignites a creative spark.

The first lesson is to pay attention to the details. If you have shadows, make sure they're all going in the same direction. It's little thing like that that will trip up some composites.

The second lesson is to be bold. Take a ballerina and composite her into an old factory or something.

As well as a composite is done well, it photography and art at the same time.

Wednesday Photoshop Q&A - How Many Times Can You Go Back & Forth Between Photoshop and Lightroom?

2011-08-31T11:38:00.000-04:00

Today's question came from two sources. A friend asked, basically, the question as written. The other source is a variety of tutorials I've seen lately. Many times I see the tutorialist (? - hey, someone has to make up new words) go through a complex operation on a RAW file and then do a Save As when they've finished. That's actually a little bizarre and totally unnecessary. If you start with a RAW file, one of the big tenets in using RAW files is that you can't do anything to them. Short of burning down your computer, a RAW file is always going to be a RAW file. My normal (constant) workflow is to pull the NEF (Nikon's RAW format) into the computer, do whatever I can in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 and, if necessary skip over to Adobe Photoshop CS5 to mess with some pixels. Anything that was done in LR3 is nondestructive. It keeps the original file and adds a list of things that are done to it. You can go back to As Shot today, tomorrow, next week or next year. The RAW file remains. Everything done to the image in LR3 is a set of instructions that are applied to the As Shot RAW file. The reason for sending the image over to CS5 is because there's something you can't do in LR3. If you have to do anything to the actual pixels you have to go to an image editor. CS5 or Adobe Photoshop Elements 9 change pixels. What they do is very destructive. If you erase something, it's gone. Once you close out the image you're working on, the History goes. You can't backtrack like you can in LR3. So, why is doing a Save As a dumb (or at least unnecessary) step? Find out once you hit the "Read More" .

Why is it unnecessary? Because "you can't do anything to a RAW file", period, period, period. Look at the file you're working on. I don't care how much pre-work you've done in LR3, the tag will still read NEF (on a Nikon file). If it's an NEF file it's a RAW file. When you Save your image after you've done your best to mess it up, it won't overwrite the RAW file. It can't. What you get is a file with the same coding as the RAW file (today's original was something like TJP 6140). You get a new file that is coded "whatever edit". Today's image would be TJP 6140 Edit.

Once it's back in LR3 you can do whatever you need to do that can best be done there. That file gets its own list of adjustments that are nondestructive. Therefore , you can get back to that state at any time. It there's more pixel level changes needed the "edit" file can be brought back to CS5 and surgery can be performed. Once you're done, it Save (not Save As) again. This time another new file, coded (in out example) as TJP 6140 Edit Edit.

So, the answer to today's question is "as many times as needed". Just don't do a Save As. Keep hitting the Save option and you're good to go (back and forth, back and forth) as many times as it takes.

Sorry About Having No Post On Monday. We Had A Bit Of Rain Over The Weekend

2011-08-30T22:07:00.000-04:00

We'll be back on schedule tomorrow. Hurricane Irene buzzed through over the weekend and we've had no power since Sunday morning. Back on track tomorrow.

Thanks

Tom

Has Photoshop Met It's End?

2011-08-26T15:14:00.000-04:00

I saw a note about a software App for the iPad the other day and had to download it to give it a shake. It's a version 1.0, so there might be a couple of "gotchas" floating around, but I haven't seen any yet. I figure it was a free App, so what's the worst it could? Blow up the iPad? (figuratively) Since it was software , either Apple or the software writer would put up a fix pretty quickly, so why not play. Today's image comes from playing with just a couple sliders, after choosing what I wanted to work on. It was free, I was playing and I was impressed. Today's image was a finished image, having gone through Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 and a trip over to Adobe Photoshop CS5 and back, but there's always something more that can be done to an image. In this case it was taking a fully saturated image, with real good greens and some nice, plugged in clouds and antiquing it. Sort of takes it out of the modern day New York/Pennsylvania border area and puts in kind of a rural Appalachia locale. Makes the sturdy barns look a little more weather beaten and the foreground building a share croppers cabin. It just changes the mood of the image. To find out what this magical, free, iPad App is, hit the "read more".

The App is called Luminance, from a company named Subsplash, Inc. It appears to have been released about ten days ago. Interestingly enough, their other Apps appear to be church related. Now, that's what I call a "leap of faith", thinking that a church app company could (would) come up with a pretty handy photo enhancement application. It's different alright.

Regardless of who wrote the app or what they done in other aspects of the creativity, Luminance is pretty slick. Pick what you want to do (fix white balance, hue/saturation [globally only - no tweaking individual colors], exposure and others and push a couple sliders around. Or they have some presets. If the preset gets you close, you can always kick a slider one way or the other to get the image to your liking.

The title of today's post is a bit of a stretch. I don't think designers and photographers and other creative types will be chucking CS5 in favor of Luminance or Nik Software's Snapseed any time soon, but we're still at the bottom of the hill when it comes to what can be done on any tablet.

Luminance, and Snapseed and a half dozen other Apps that are either out or on their way are making "instant photo finishing" in the field a real possibility.

Wednesday Photoshop Q&A - What Are Calculations All About?

2011-08-24T09:05:00.001-04:00

There were a lot of searches bringing people to the blog this week asking various questions about Adobe Photoshop CS5 (and earlier) Calculations. But, before we get into it, the most interesting phrasing of a search was "Smart Object rubbish". I'm not quite sure if the searcher had some extraneous detail within a Smart Object or if he/she thought of Smart Objects as "rubbish". In either case, the landing page she/he wound up on was one of the several posts I've done about Smart Objects. Hope it helped. So what are Calculations in CS5? First let's get a handle on what it isn't. It's not CS5's version of a spreadsheet. Calculations were one of the "go to" methods of extracting a piece of an overall image from, typically, the background. If you're trying to do something like separate a headshot of a woman with long hair being blown by the wind (a fan) where a new tool that'll do that much easier. It's the Quick Selection Tool (W). The woman's head is a solid object and the flyaway hair is usually wispy strands. Between the Quick Selection Tool and the Refine Edge dialog box short work is made of that type of selection. The type of selection shown in today's image is a little trickier. There's a lot of internal structure that makes it more difficult for the Quick Selection/Refine Edge to make an accurate selection. To find out how Calculations comes to the rescue in this situation, hit the "read more".

Right up front, the Calculations dialog box is scary the first time you look at it. I've talked to several people that have turned and headed for the hills as soon as they opened it. It's that bad (at first). Within the dialog box you're presented with three sub-boxes. The first two simply ask what you want to base the calculations on. The first "question" is what is the initial source. Ninety nine percent of the time the answer the image you opened Calculations for. The second question is what Layer do you want to use. Most of the time I know that I'll be replacing whatever (the sky) is the problem area. The first time I want to do is make a Mask, so the "normal" answer is the Background. The third question in the first sub-box is what Channel is to be used. Flip through the Red, Green and Blue Channels to see what gives the best contrast. If you're trying to mask out the sky, chances are it'll be the Blue Channel.

The second sub-box asks the same questions all over again. The second sub-box is asking what do you want to manipulate the first data against. Once more the answers typically are: Source = the open image, Layer = background and Channel = Blue (if working on the sky).

The third sub-box is where the magic happens. What Blending Mode do you want to use? This is simply a case of highlighting the first item in the scroll box and tapping the Down Arrow Key to cycle through the choices. All you have to do is keep an eye on your image as you cycle through and look at the Blend Mode that gives you the best Blacks and the best Whites. You can also adjust the Opacity of the upper selection (never happens) and use a Mask if you want (also not happening). The image to the right in today's post is the Alpha Channel Mask that came out of the Calculations dialog box. It actually took you longer to read this post than it did to create the Mask.

Calculations are an extremely powerful method of making a Mask. My first choice is using the Quick Selection Tool/Refine Edge combination, but for things with a lot of complex internal structure (as in a tree), Calculation may be the faster, more accurate way to make the Mask.

The Trouble With Plug-ins In Adobe Photoshop CS5

2011-08-22T08:19:00.001-04:00

I was watching the latest episode of Scott Kelby's talk show, "The Grid" late last week and was real interested in the topic. Basically it was "is it alright to use plug-ins with Adobe Photoshop CS5"? Scott's sidekick, Matt Kloskowski and guest Rich Harrington had a lively discussion about the topic, with lots of tweets coming in either defending the use of plug-ins or saying it was cheating. Scott and Matt both said, when they're out teaching, they show the step by step "how to do it in CS5" method and then say "but here's how I really do it using plug-ins". Let me make sure I say upfront that "I have nothing against plug-ins". As Rich Harrington said on the show, "if they save you time and make you money they're fair game". I absolutely agree, but there is a telling point in what Scott and Matt said. They said they first demonstrate the straight out of the box method before going into plug-ins. To find out why that statement is so important, hit the "read more".

The big thing they mentioned was that they show how to get the effect they're going after without the use of plug-ins. They understand how CS5 (and earlier versions) work and what steps need to be taken to get to a final product. This is where too many people skip a step and go directly to plug-ins. I'd dare to say that there isn't a plug-in out there that does something that can't be done manually in Photoshop. Think of Photoshop as a box. Everyone gets around the center of the box with some degree of competence. The further out from the center you push the hairier it gets. The number of people who can reach into the far corners of the box is very low. The plug-in manufacturers take the user out to the scary places with little distress on the part of the user.

Scott and Matt know how to get to the edgy places on their own. The reason for using plug-ins is for their convenience. Click and they at a place that might have taken them five or ten minutes to get to. The same trip, without the use of plug-ins, might take a relatively proficient user a half hour or more and an average user might never be able to get there.

The point I'd like to make is that the average user is missing something by using plug-ins. It's the knowledge of the journey. Rather than clicking a plug-in preset and saying wow, I'd like to see more users say what I think Scott and Matt might say. "Cool" and not only do they choose wisely but also know what went into getting them there. To use another analogy, taking a shortcut going to granny's house is very useful, but only if you know how to drive.

BTW: I do use plug-ins but, in my free time, I try to figure out how to get to the place the plug-in took me to in one click.

Wednesday Photoshop Q&A - Printing From Lightroom 3

2011-08-18T09:52:00.000-04:00

Today's question comes from several keyword searches I've seen bringing people to the blog asking about printing from Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3. I have to admit, since I use both Adobe Photoshop CS5 and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3, I print, almost exclusively, from LR3. I find I get more control from LR3 than I do from CS5. It may be a psychological thing and there may be no real benefit of one over the other, but I just print from LR3. Today's image is a "Print to File" image directly out of LR3 showing the base image in a Fine Art Matt mode. Printing in CS5 gives you one dialog box and says here are the four or five options you have. You can click a button that'll take you out to the printer setting, but that's about it. The print module in LR3 gives six different Panels, plus a Page Setup dialog box and another Panel with more than twenty five presets. To go through each of the panels, hit the "read more".

As is typical in Lightroom there are retractable frames on each side of the viewing panel. The frame on the left has three options. The Presets, you can get to your Collections and you can do your Page Setup. Page Setup is where you select you sheet size and if you're going for landscape or portrait orientation. You have all the same dialog box controls you find in printing from anywhere.

Being able to get to your Collections is fairly important. You don't have to create a separate file of selected image . Just define what it is you want to print and let the computer find you images. The big deal in the left side frame, as far as I'm concerned, is the Presets. There's almost anything you'd want and if you don't see the layout you want you can create your own and save that as a User Preset. That way you have infinite possibilities for layouts.

Now: on to the right side.

Layout Style: Pick the general idea of what you're going for. You have the ability to make a Single Image, a Picture Package or some sort of Custom Package. A single image is what you see in today's image. A Picture Package is good if you're doing school, sports team, children's or any sort of group shots. You can do a 4 x 6, and six 2 x 3s (wallets). If you're selling packages, this makes it simple. In addition to a half dozen of the same image, you can do a different image in each opening.

Image Settings: Here you have four choices to mix and match. You can zoom to fit, rotate the image, put a border and/or stroke and modify the settings for both.

Rulers, Grids & Guides: This is pretty self explanatory. You can move and position your custom layouts, align images, offset image by specific amounts. Using your arrow keys can make precise movements. I seen some stunning groupings by doing very careful movements.

Cells: Here's the meat and potatoes of making the custom package layout. Start with a blank sheet and start clicking. Add two 3 x 7s, click, click. Add two more 2 x 3s, click, click. Fill up one sheet, keep clicking and a new sheet will start. You can offer a mom and pop exactly what they need to satisfy the whole family and all it is is take the custom order and click through it. On to the next family and build them a custom package. Workflow is the key to the Cells Panel.

Page: This is the place to add drama to the print. You can select your Page Background Color. In today's image a true black color was selected to give the image a very cool effect. The Name Plate can be added. In addition to a straight text Name Plate a graphical type Name Plate can be used. Name Plates can be saved and used in different circumstances. One of the custom graphical Name Plates I use has a code Tag to it. Anyone with a smart phone and the proper app can scan the tag and be taken to this blog site.

Print Job: This is the last Panel and gives options of where you want to print the image. What's the purpose, how it should be sharpened, what resolution to print at, what the intent is, etc.

The amount of control you have printing from Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 is outstanding and is my default method of printing. Even when the image is taken to its conclusion in CS5 I'll bring it back to LR3 for printing. It's just that good.

Make Your Own Poster With Adobe Photoshop CS5

2011-08-15T08:47:00.000-04:00

This was the summer of trains for recreational shooting for me and I figured I might like to try something a little different from the typical image. What are you going to do when you have hundreds of images and want to play. In the old movies you might find Mickey Rooney saying "hey gang, let's put on a show". Well, it's a little hard to put on a show on a blog that doesn't do video. Maybe one day... For right now we'll have to be satisfied with doing a movie poster. We're a couple who adds to the coffers of the movie companies several times a month. We always checkout the posters on the way down to the auditorium showing our choice of the week. The comedies are light and airy, the shoot 'em up blockbusters are bright and super colorful and the serious dramatic movies are very dark and make you come closer to see all the detail. One thing they have in common is that they seem to want to give you multiple vignettes of what's going on in the film. If there's a big name star involved he/she will be featured on the poster. If, like in today's image, the featured player is an unknown or slight star, the face will recede into the background. To find out how today's image was created, hit the "read more".

The first things is to select the images. Today's all come from the same outing. There have been several "straight" posts about the Roanoke Virginia night shoot and the Thomaston Connecticut steam shoot. All of today's images come from the Thomaston shoot. They were shot at three different locations. The "star" was shot from the station platform. The close up was shot down the track and the bottom image came from a little road trip down along the tracks.

The "star" image was converted using a Black & White Adjustment Layer. To add just a touch of drama a Brightness/Contrast Adjustment Layer and the brightness and the contrast were both increased. This made the image look much more like a graphic rather than a photograph. A Layer Mask was put on the Layer and a Foreground to Transparent Gradient applied. Foreground to Transparent was used because multiple gradients can be applied to a single image. Other softening techniques could be used, but I find the Background to Transparent to be very easy to control. Try a gradient, step back (CTRL Z), try another one, keep cycling until you're happy with the result and go on to the next area to be softened. All three major areas of the poster were treated in this manner.

A couple different types of Type Layers were used. Both spot text and paragraph text layers were applied. For the movie title a nice large font size was selected. You can start with any font. Once the text is nearly in place, the font name can be highlighted and you can see how individual fonts will look on your specific text by using the Up and Down Arrow Keys. With the font name highlighted your text will change with every Arrow Key click. Once the font is found it can be "enhanced" by double clicking on the Layer box (not the thumbnail). This open the Layer Effects Panel. Today's title has a Drop Shadow, an Inner Glow and a Bevel and Emboss addition. The Layer Effects Panel has so many choices that it gets hard to limit the playing around you can do.

At the bottom of the image a Paragraph Text box was opened. It's a little surprising how many people I run into who don't know "the trick" to the Paragraph Text box. Simply select the Text Tool (T) and drag out a box rather than clicking on a point in the image. You can either start typing or do a cut and paste of text from another source. Paragraph text is easy to control to limit the text to conform to shapes around pictorial pieces. The outline can be effected by any on the "normal" Selection Tools.