An introduction to the concept of viewing every image as having ten channels. [details (http://www.retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=291)]

Thanks for your efforts here. Great concept and illustration. Clear and well written, too.

FYI: I changed the title of this thread for better visibility.

Here's an action for setting up a ten channel workflow.

You can start in any mode except Bitmap, Duotone, or Multichannel.

It'll take a file and create a duplicate.
The dup is converted to your working RGB and labeled RGB.

It'll go back to the original and dup it again.
This dup will be converted to LAB and labeled as such.

Back to the original and dup it one last time.
This dup is converted to your working CMYK and also labeled.

The original image is left unchanged.

This is a great way to become accustomed to what the various channels look like. Gaining an eye for this is an extremely useful skill since it can benefit just about anything one does in Photoshop.

I use this Action when I want to quickly explore what the ten channels have to offer. Quite often I find the start of a mask or an idea for channel blending that might not jump out at me right away.

As my eye becomes more experienced at inspecting channels I've noticed that ideas suggest themselves to me in ways which I most certainly wouldn't have considered previously.

For example, the other day I was working on an image where I wanted to increase the contrast between subject and background. After running the Ten Channel Action I noticed that in the A channel of LAB the subject was light and the background dark. After a quick blend of the A into the L using Overlay mode I got just what I was looking for.

Enjoy, :)

Michael

Updated tutorial.

Added comments regarding Contrast and Color.

Regards,

Michael

Here's an action for setting up a ten channel workflow.Great use of automation applied to an enlightening tutorial. A+.

Many thanks again, Michael.

Hi Michael,

I know this thread very old but I decided I would try it anyway. I will also post this message on a new tread.

This is my first ever message on this discussion board. My question regards PhotoShop modes.

I am an aspiring photographer who is in the process of designing a website to display and sell some of my work. I therefore use PhotoShop to enhance my images for both web/monitor display and print display.

So my basic question is which mode should I work in? I originally thought this would be an easy question to answer, but the more research I do the more questions I have and the more I think maybe I have to work in more than one mode. On this website recently I read some interesting discussions about the 10 channel theory whereby you work on all channels in RGB, LAB and CMYK modes. I’ll be honest. This nearly made me cry!

Here is my dilemma. I am primarily a photographer so I don’t want to spend hours working in PhotoShop. I don’t find this part of the photography process nearly as satisfying as actually taking the photographs. I do realize its importance though and as a result I am very proficient in PhotoShop. I don’t mind studying new and difficult techniques, as long as they are the right ones for my purposes.

My preferred mode for enhancing for web/monitor display is LAB mode. I know however that for best print display quality I should work in CMYK mode.

Does this mean I have to have 2 separate processes for every image (surely there is a more efficient way) or can I start in LAB and then convert successfully to CMYK?

I know LAB mode has a very wide Gamut range and that converting to CMYK will lose some colour details. But these wide Gamut range colours can’t be displayed on a monitor anyway so is there any real point of working in LAB?

My latest workflow theory is that I could:
• Start my enhancing in LAB (colour, contrast, some masking etc..)
• Save file.
• For web/monitor display stay in LAB and sharpen. Finally convert to RGB to save for web.
• For print display convert to CMYK mode fine tune highlights/shadows and sharpen.

But would this workflow plan result in vastly different results. My aim is to keep my photos on the web the same as the photos I print. Both being of the best quality possible.

Or should I do all my work in CMYK and then convert back to RGB to save for web. Is CMYK as easy and effective as LAB for general image enhancing.

Too many questions! So if anyone out there has any suggestions or advice I would appreciate it very much. I’d even buy you a beer if we ever met!

Take care,

Conor

Hey Conor, welcome to RetouchPRO!

You ask; which mode should I work in?

Work in the mode that gives you the best technique to achieve your goal. That's the whole point of this article. All three modes have strengths and weaknesses. Taking advantage of the strengths and avoiding the weaknesses is the important thing.

It depends on the image. Your photographs will be starting out in RGB. If there's nothing to be gained by converting to LAB or CMYK, why do so?

I'm a prepress technician. In the exciting world of digital prepress, time is money. I can't afford to spend hours working in Photoshop, so I'm always looking for the most bang for my buck!

If an RGB curve gets the job done, great! But if I need more color variation, then I'm converting to LAB.

If a channel blend gives me what I need, super! But if a quick sharpening of the blacK channel makes the image pop, then it's CMYK and I'm done.

You state your preferred mode is LAB. Why? LAB is like a sledge hammer. You can't tap in carpet tacks with a sledge hammer! And just because printing is done in CMYK doesn't mean YOU "should work in CMYK mode". You should work in CMYK mode if that channel structure will give you the most leverage to move your pixels.

You should have one RGB image which is properly tagged. Convert this image to sRGB for web display and provide it as is to your printer after explaining that you have tagged it for color management and the tag should be honored. Then let the printer handle the conversion to CMYK.

This is also important when printing to your inkjet printer. Most inkjets expect RGB. If you send it CMYK, most likely it will convert to RGB and then convert again to CMYK.

LAB has a wide gamut, yes. But converting to CMYK won't loose any data if there's nothing in your image that's outside of the CMYK gamut. This general fear of converting due to lose of data strikes me as jumping at shadows. I convert when necessary and very seldom have I ever had gamut issues. Especially going from RGB to LAB and back. When I do have gamut issues there are workarounds.

Don't get hung up on color modes. They all have their place. Keep an open mind and try to remain flexible. As you gain experience things will sort themselves out. :grin:

Regards,

Michael

Michael...
Interesting. One of the things I have done in books of mine is show how to work with CMYK in RGB mode by separating out the CMYK components based on light theory. I also, in my new book (http://aps8.com/taplb.html), show how to work with channels as layers -- so that there is really no need for two palettes, AND you have more flexibility with the changes that you make.

In general this type of thing is something most people need to know more about.

Hi Richard,

Thanks for chiming in!

Using channels as layers sounds very intriguing.

As you can surmise I'm something of a channel junky, so I'd very much like to discuss the concept.

I'm at a point where finding a new book on Photoshop has become very difficult. At the risk of tooting my own horn, most books simply don't speak to my level of experience. I have no interest at all in another book by "The Photoshop Guys" or any of the myriad recipe type offerings.

Other than works by Dan Margulis, I haven't found anything in quite some time which sparks my interest and also challenges me.

Would your "Layers" book be something an old timer like me find worthwhile? Perhaps if you elaborate on the channels as layers idea you might entice me into buying your book. :grin:

Regards,

Michael

Hi Michael,

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation. I really do appreciate it. It has helped me a lot. Sorry to take up more of your time but I would like to ask you about the following section of your answer:

“You should have one RGB image which is properly tagged. Convert this image to sRGB for web display and provide it as is to your printer after explaining that you have tagged it for color management and the tag should be honored. Then let the printer handle the conversion to CMYK.”


My first question is about the term “tag for color management”. What do you mean by this? Is it a PhotoShop process or tool? I have looked in the PS help and found nothing. I then did some Google searches but can’t find anything helpful that explains what you might mean.

My second question is about PhotoShop working spaces. I was under the impression that for web/monitor output the sRGB working space should be used, but for print output Adobe RGB working space should be used. In one of my PS books it even says avoid using sRGB for print output. But you seem to suggest that working in sRGB is okay for printing.

This is your field of expertise so I would be really interested on what you have to say.

Take care,

Conor

Hi Michael,

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation. I really do appreciate it.


You're welcome! I'm happy to help.


My first question is about the term “tag for color management”. What do you mean by this?
In Photoshop, there's only one LAB color mode. But there are many versions of RGB and CMYK.

sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB, Apple RGB, etc... are ICC Profiles. When an image has an embedded profile it is considered to be tagged for color management.

Color management does two things and only two things; it defines colors and it converts colors.

Without a profile the brightness levels in your image have no meaning. For example; in your RGB image you use the eyedropper tool and place the cursor over a given pixel. Looking at the info palette you see 196r 0g 0b. This is red. But what red; Candy Apple Red, Fire Engine Red, Brick Red, your Red, my Red? That's where the profile comes in. It's the profile that defines what the numbers mean.

Your digital camera captures an image in RGB. Your printer outputs that image in CMYK. At some point there is going to be a conversion. If colors have no definition they can't be converted.


My second question is about PhotoShop working spaces. I was under the impression that for web/monitor output the sRGB working space should be used, but for print output Adobe RGB working space should be used. In one of my Photoshop books it even says avoid using sRGB for print output. But you seem to suggest that working in sRGB is okay for printing.sRGB is not a working space, it's an ICC Profile. Same goes for Adobe RGB. The Photoshop "working space" is simply the ICC Profile which will be assumed, or used by default, if an image is not already tagged or you don't specifically assign one. The term "working space" is something of a misnomer on Adobe's part.

Working in sRGB is OK and has nothing to do with printing. Printing, with some exceptions, is done using CMYK. The trick is to convert your RGB numbers into CMYK numbers which your printer will interpret in such a way that you get acceptable results at output. That's where properly tagging your image comes in.

Again I point out that I'm a prepress technician. As such, I don't work in any one colorspace, nor do I prefer one over another. I use ICC profiles as part of my "trick bag" of image correction/enhancement techniques.

There are two commands in Photoshop under the Edit menu; Assign Profile & Convert to Profile. I almost always start and end my image editing with one or both of these commands. I use them so much that I have them hotkeyed to F2 and F3 respectively. They both allow you to choose an ICC profile from a list of the profiles installed on your machine.

Assign Profile changes the appearance of an image without changing the numbers, by numbers I mean channel structure (RGB, LAB, CMYK) and brightness levels. A brightness level of 196r in sRGB is not the same color red as 196r in ProPhoto RGB.

Convert to Profile changes the numbers while attempting to not change the appearance, because out of gamut colors will change based on your choice of rendering intent.

To put it another way; Assign Profile tells Photoshop what a given "red" means, Convert to Profile tells Photoshop what numbers to use to get that "red" if it is possible to get that "red" using a specific channel structure.

So for me, asking what color space to use is like asking what filter to use. My answer would be to use the one you need to get the job done. Sound familiar? :grin:

Adobe RGB is not superior to sRGB, it's different. There is nothing wrong with using sRGB any more than there is in using Unsharp Mask instead of Smart Sharpen.

My advise is to start with sRGB and stay there until you begin to notice that it isn't giving you what you want. That day may never come, but in the meantime you'll get to know what to expect, you won't have to worry about converting for web, and if you give your files to someone else there is very little chance for unexpected results.

This also brings up a very important issue, handing your files off to someone else for output. Unless you know the person creating your prints understands how to deal with ICC profiles, giving an RGB file that is anything but sRGB is asking for an unpleasant surprise.

For an in depth study of this topic you can't do any better than reading Professional Photoshop by Dan Margulis.

Regards,

Michael

Michael,
I don't know about pushing off someone to Dan's book as that was a pretty good primer. I use sRGB almost exclusively (largely because of tests in my workflow) and am glad to see you downplay the importance of color space -- too many, I think get riveted to an idea they've heard. Pre-press people don't have that advantage, as they have to deal with reality ;-). Probably the best thing that ever happened for me having to do with imaging was getting thrown under the pre-press train when I worked for a photography book publisher as a jack of all trades...including layout, color correction, and editing. It was a fabulous way to learn all about digital rendering.
I am curious as to your position stated: sRGB is not a working space, it's an ICC Profile.
That may confuse some people as Adobe clearly uses profiles as names for working color spaces. I think I know what you mean, but would you care to clarify?

Hi Michael,

Thanks again for your helpful explanations. I really am grateful.

I have one last question and then I will leave you in peace.

In your last post your compared the 2 PhotoShop commands “Assign Profile” and “Convert to Profile”. I have used “Convert to Profile” many times before, but have never used “Assign Profile”. And after reading your explanation I still can’t see why you would need to use this command. Why would you want to change how your image looks? You mentioned that you use BOTH very often. I found this surprising. Can you please give me some examples of situations when the “Assign Profile” command would be useful.

Take care,

Conor

Imagine someboby has posted an aRGB picture for the web, and the profile cannot be read in the file exif info, you'll get dull and flat colours. Then you have to assign aRGB profile, and perhaps convert it to sRGB before posting for the web.

Michel B

Thanks again for your helpful explanations. I really am grateful.


Glad to do it!


I have one last question and then I will leave you in peace.
Famous last words? :)


In your last post your compared the 2 PhotoShop commands “Assign Profile” and “Convert to Profile”. I have used “Convert to Profile” many times before, but have never used “Assign Profile”. And after reading your explanation I still can’t see why you would need to use this command. Why would you want to change how your image looks? You mentioned that you use BOTH very often. I found this surprising. Can you please give me some examples of situations when the “Assign Profile” command would be useful.
ICC Profiles are typically used for color management, one of the most vexing and overrated issues in image manipulation. However, for color correction, purposeful use of ICC Profiles can be a tremendous boon to the prepress technician on a tight schedule.

Figure 1a would be a wonderful holiday shot, if only we could see it better. Due to the auto exposure feature of most digital cameras the picture is much too dark. As usual, the harried prepress technician is charged with quickly turning this amateur capture into something that looks like it was shot by a professional.

48854

Figure 1b was created using Photoshop’s Assign Profile command and choosing a custom ICC profile created for just such an occasion, the occasion being the need to quickly adjust a dark picture… not the Christmas holiday. :D

48855

As you can see, with one quick command I've significantly improved this image and made subsequent edits much easier, if they're even needed at all. Now it's a simple matter of using Convert To Profile to prepare the image for output. In this case I converted to sRGB for posting to the web.

Another example is that very often I get images which are not tagged. They open in Photoshop using my default profile, which Photoshop calls the "working space". But this may not be the correct profile for the image. I use Assign Profile to preview various profiles until I feel the color is correct, usually this just means trying sRGB, Apple RGB, Adobe RGB, etc.., after which I do whatever editing is needed, then convert to the output profile. This is very similar to what Michel B outlines above, only in the print world.

Regards,

Michael

Hi Michael,

As promised I'll leave you in peace now. Your posts have been very helpful. I really do appreciate the time you took to answer my questions. I owe you a beer or two!

Take care,

Conor

Michael,
I don't know about pushing off someone to Dan's book as that was a pretty good primer.


Thank you!

I always recommend Dan to anyone serious about image editing. In the prepress world, Dan is the Man!


I use sRGB almost exclusively (largely because of tests in my workflow) and am glad to see you downplay the importance of color space -- too many, I think get riveted to an idea they've heard. Pre-press people don't have that advantage, as they have to deal with reality ;-).
Yes, indeed! I deal with far too many "Artists" who get hung up on their precious colors. If they only knew what I do to their files prior to output... :D

In the last five years I can recall loosing only one job due to not being able to sufficiently match color, and that was because the "Artist" wouldn't supply me with hardcopy to see what I was supposed to match!


Probably the best thing that ever happened for me having to do with imaging was getting thrown under the pre-press train when I worked for a photography book publisher as a jack of all trades...including layout, color correction, and editing. It was a fabulous way to learn all about digital rendering.
I've said many, many times that spending a year as an entry level prepress technician is an invaluable education for someone looking to work in any aspect of the graphics industry.

One major peeve of mine is that college level graphics courses don't really prepare the student to work in the real world. Too much emphasis is placed on having a pretty portfolio and not enough on production.


I am curious as to your position stated:
That may confuse some people as Adobe clearly uses profiles as names for working color spaces. I think I know what you mean, but would you care to clarify?As used by Adobe, the term "working space" refers to an application level setting which determines the default ICC Profile for RGB and CMYK documents. This default profile, or "working space", is used whenever one changes color mode via the Image>Mode menu commands. It is also the assumed profile when one opens any document which does not already have an embedded ICC Profile. Even, confusingly enough, when one chooses "Leave as is (don't color manage)" in the Missing Profile dialog or "Discard the embedded profile (don't color manage)" in the Embedded Profile Mismatch dialog.

I took exception to the term "working space" as used by the original poster, because it implies that one is changing the application level color settings on a per document basis, a practice I don't recommend. Converting your Adobe RGB image to sRGB for posting to the web is not the same as changing the "working space".

I'm nitpicking, certainly. But I always make it a point to use the terminology as precisely as possible when explaining these rather complicated subjects.

Now how about elaborating on that channels as layers topic? :D

Regards,

Michael

I read your Powers of Ten, and this thread, and I say "Thanks!" for all the great info.
I'm wondering what you meant when you wrote about a quick blend of the A into the L using Overlay mode. What steps did you take to do that? (I understand that it was in LAB mode, but I don't get how you overlaid a channel on another.)

<<<For example, the other day I was working on an image where I wanted to increase the contrast between subject and background. After running the Ten Channel Action I noticed that in the A channel of LAB the subject was light and the background dark. After a quick blend of the A into the L using Overlay mode I got just what I was looking for.>>>

David

I read your Powers of Ten, and this thread, and I say "Thanks!" for all the great info.


You're welcome!


I'm wondering what you meant when you wrote about a quick blend of the A into the L using Overlay mode. What steps did you take to do that? (I understand that it was in LAB mode, but I don't get how you overlaid a channel on another.)
I almost always use the Apply Image command when doing channels blends. One may also use Channel Mixer and Calculations, but I tend to use those more for creating masks.

Here are the steps:

Open the channels palette and convert to LAB.
Duplicate the background layer.
Click on the L channel. Then hit the tilde key (~) to view the composite so you can see the results.
Go to Image>Apply Image.
The "Source" will be the image you're working on.
Set "Layer" to Background.
Set "Channel" to A.
The "Target" is always the active channel(s) and layer of the working image.
Set "Blending" to "Overlay".
Set "Opacity" to 100%.
Click "OK".

49388

Here's the results of the actual image I was referring to:

Before

49389

After

49390

Regards,

Michael

Trying to replicate this Lab correction in Elements with Benny Pedersen's Lab add-on:
- Extracting A channel in a duplicate file
- add a luminosity layer on original, ie duplicating background, new 50% gray layer under duplicate. Duplicate set to luminosity, merge down, set mode to luminosity
- copy A channel from duplicate file to new layer, link to luminosity layer and mode to overlay.

The result was not enough, so I duplicated the A layer and did minimal colour and levels adjustments.

Thanks for this tutorial (and to Benny Pedersen...)

Michel B

Well done, Michel B!

Regards,

Michael

Hi Michael,

Wow... I thought I knew something about photoshop and digital imaging until I found this site and especially your posts. I've been using photoshop since version 2, but now I realize just how much I still need to learn. I'm very interested in your solution to the high contrast image (the backlit christmas scene) and custom ICC profiles. I had no idea that this type of adjustment could be done just by assigning a new profile. I would like to learn more about creating and using custom profiles. Is there a book or website that you recommend that covers this subject? Is there a website where I could download custom ICC profiles, like there is for actions, etc.

Thanks for your time!
Andy

Pirate,

GREAT, I have been a user of the technique of using LAB channels to find an alternative means to an end. Found your action to be very useful. Great insight. Thanks
Richard

Michael,

Thanks for the step-by-step help...I still need lots of practice to figure out what corrections any particular photo would need...

Hi Michael,

Wow... I thought I knew something about photoshop and digital imaging until I found this site and especially your posts. I've been using photoshop since version 2, but now I realize just how much I still need to learn. I'm very interested in your solution to the high contrast image (the backlit christmas scene) and custom ICC profiles. I had no idea that this type of adjustment could be done just by assigning a new profile. I would like to learn more about creating and using custom profiles. Is there a book or website that you recommend that covers this subject? Is there a website where I could download custom ICC profiles, like there is for actions, etc.

Thanks for your time!
Andy


Hi Andy,

Welcome to RetouchPRO!

Thanks for the comments.

I can't say that I've been using Photoshop since version 2, but I could probably get my hands on a copy of version 3 if I go digging around in my attic. :)

I can't take credit for the idea of using custom ICC profiles. I got the technique from reading Professional Photoshop by Dan Margulis (http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Photoshop-Classic-Guide-Correction/dp/032144017X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3502863-5538510?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188555775&sr=1-1).

I don't know of any specific websites on this topic, but Dan has a newsgroup over at Yahoo, (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/) and there's a discussion of his work over at Digital Grin (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=48066) where I volunteered to do the chapter summary on ICC profiles. It's still in the works, I got promoted to management a little while ago and have been quite busy lately, but when finished I'll very likely post an edited version here at RetouchPRO.

It certainly is a powerful technique, and as stated previously I use variations on it quite often. Dan's book shows how to create the custom ICC profiles used in his examples and provides them on the companion CD.

Regards,

Michael

Pirate,


Arrrr...

That be Cap'n to you, ye swob!

Arrrr...

:D



GREAT, I have been a user of the technique of using LAB channels to find an alternative means to an end. Found your action to be very useful. Great insight. Thanks
RichardHi Richard, welcome to RetouchPRO!

I'm glad you find the action useful and thanks for the comments,

Regards,

Michael

Michael,

Thanks for the step-by-step help...I still need lots of practice to figure out what corrections any particular photo would need...

You're welcome!

There's the rub. All the fancy technique means nothing if you don't know when and why to apply it.

I'm very much in that boat myself. Working in the print industry, I have an eye for print, so I know when and why to fix images so they look good on paper. But I don't really have a "retoucher's eye". Which means I don't immediately see the things that are required to make an image of a model's face ready for a high-end fashion magazine.

This thread is a good example (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/photo-retouching/18630-beauty-retouching-help.html). I looked at the image and thought, "That should print well, what more does it need?" But the retouchers see a myriad of issues which need correcting.

So not only do you have to learn how to use Photoshop, you also have to learn why to use it.

But that's what makes it so much fun! :D

Regards,

Michael

You are not limited to the 10 channels in the Channels palette. It is most definitely a good start, but there is more. If you know the different colour spaces, blending modes, and ChOps, then you can extract even more channels.

Attached is an example of the pure hue channel and saturation channel (HsY). Both of these done with stock tools.

(I borrowed the tiger - I hope you don't mind.)

Nice one, Stroker!

I keep the old HSB/HSL plugin around to extract Hue and Saturation channels.

Giving me, in essence, a total of 14 channels!

But the "B" of HSB, the "L" of HSL, and the "L" of LAB, are pretty much identical.

So I just stick with the "L" of LAB since it's far easier to get to.

But the "H" and the "S" sure come in handy at times!

Regards,

Michael

Many Thanks Michael,

I will pick up a copy of the book that you mentioned. Looking forward to learning more about the technique.

Andy

I have enjoyed your input with this discussion and the power of 10 Michael. Verynice input about a subject that is not talked about enough .

I have also been a huge calculations and apply image user since version 2. I find it indispensable to a lot of the work I do, not just my beauty work. I find that your use of "10" channels is very good theoretically, but I believe that you do not need to go to each of the other color spaces or different profiles to achieve what you have. I like what was done to the tiger with the technique you used above Michael, but the loss of some saturation and detail in the orange of the tiger and the "greying"out of the stripes is, at least to me, in the opposite direction and I believe hurts the way the tiger does pop from the background.
Strokers techniques are awesome and are very similar to the ones that I use. THe power of what he does is that he doesn't need to go to other color spaces to get the results he does. And while I love the ability to pick which tool I use to achieve my channel blending, I really would love some of the tools he has created, but alas, I am a mac user and the tools are for windows users only.

Hey Chris, thanks for joining in!

How about sharing some of your Calculations and Apply Image techniques?

Regards,

Michael

But the "B" of HSB, the "L" of HSL, and the "L" of LAB, are pretty much identical.

B in HSB and L in HSL are kind of similiar. The formulas are rather simple and can be done with stock tools. They are kind of like step brothers or something.

L in Lab and Lum in HsY are nearly identical. If I remember correctly, you have to look into XYZ colour space (conversions) to see how nearly identical they are. Like, out to three decimal places or something.

Cheap and easy way to get Lum in HsY:
-Edit > Fill
-- Using: Black, White, or 50% Grey
-- Mode: Saturation

Another option, which is a dynamic in the Layers palette, is to fill a new layer with any shade of grey and set blending mode to Saturation.

Tada. You know have the next best thing to L in Lab without having to convert to Lab.

One of the main advantages of using Lum in HsY (or L in Lab) is that the channels are weighted. This means that yellows will be brighter and blues will be darker. If you have a photograph with lots of highly saturated hues, desaturating to L in HSL will wash-out the photograph a tad. Whereas Lum in HsY (or L in Lab) should give you more contrast to work with right off the bat.

----

Apply Image and Calculations

I adore Apply Image, but I don't really use Calculations at all.

One day Mr. Cox said that Layers were meant to replace Apply Image. After thinking about that for a bit, I realized that the things that Apply Image can do can also be done in the Layers palette - but the Layers palette has the benefit of Adjustment Layers, Clipping Groups, and what-not. Think of it as tweakable Apply Image on crack. Layer ChOps as I call the techniques.

But moving things from the Channels palette to the Layers palette isn't always worth the effort. For the simple things, prolly best to stay in Channels.

For a little more finese, tweakability, and visual feed-back, take it to Layers. Can go a long way to taking out the hit-or-miss inherent in Apply Image (but I'm not sure about hit-or-miss in Calculations). Wanna adjust the choke on blues in the midtones? Layer ChOps.

----

Too much on my mind regarding these things. Going to digress and hide under my rock for a bit.

Another option, which is a dynamic in the Layers palette, is to fill a new layer with any shade of grey and set blending mode to Saturation.

Tada. You know have the next best thing to L in Lab without having to convert to Lab.


That's a great move, I use it quite often myself.


I adore Apply Image, but I don't really use Calculations at all.
I've been experimenting with Channel Blending a lot lately, so I use Apply Image more than Calculations. But Calculations comes in pretty handy when creating masks.

I recently starting using Calculations to combine two channels which were then used with Apply Image for the final blend, so as I experiment with Channel Blends I find I'm using Calculations a little more than just for masks.


One day Mr. Cox said that Layers were meant to replace Apply Image. After thinking about that for a bit, I realized that the things that Apply Image can do can also be done in the Layers palette - but the Layers palette has the benefit of Adjustment Layers, Clipping Groups, and what-not. Think of it as tweakable Apply Image on crack. Layer ChOps as I call the techniques.

But moving things from the Channels palette to the Layers palette isn't always worth the effort. For the simple things, prolly best to stay in Channels.

For a little more finese, tweakability, and visual feed-back, take it to Layers. Can go a long way to taking out the hit-or-miss inherent in Apply Image (but I'm not sure about hit-or-miss in Calculations). Wanna adjust the choke on blues in the midtones? Layer ChOps.
There's one thing that Apply Image allows for that can't be easily reproduced with Layers alone, that's combining Blend Modes.

For example, using Apply Image set to Darken mode on a layer that's set to Luminosity.

And what would we do to manually create Layer Styles without Calculations? Some of Bert Monroy's photorealism techniques absolutely require it and can't be done otherwise.

What's so "hit or miss" about Apply Image? You have a preview and immediate feedback. Other than needing to be very familiar with the various blend modes it seems pretty straight forward to me.

So I would be very displeased to see Apply Image and Calculations go away. If anything they should get a redesign based on what Bert suggested in his Channel Chops book.


Too much on my mind regarding these things. Going to digress and hide under my rock for a bit.Well, I sincerely hope you come back for further discussion. I really appreciate your contributions and would very much like to hear more of how you use Apply Image and Channels/Color Modes.

Regards,

Michael

There's one thing that Apply Image allows for that can't be easily reproduced with Layers alone, that's combining Blend Modes.

For example, using Apply Image set to Darken mode on a layer that's set to Luminosity.


That can be done in Layers palette. One layer set to Lum, then clip a layer to it set to Darken.

When I use Apply Image, I don't really pay attention to the preview/document. If there is visual feed-back, I've never noticed it because I always know exactly what I'm after and exactly what I'll get. Since there is no hit-or-miss in my head, I haven't bothered looking for hit-or-miss in the preview/document. My bad assuming that there wasn't an immediate preview.

I can't say I'm familiar with Monroy's techniques in this area. But I do know how to replicate the Layer Styles completely in the Layers palette without Apply or Calc. Well, I haven't checked them all explicitly, but I do know I can do most of them for sure.

Trying to do Monroy's techniques in Layers without Apply/Calc might be an interesting diversion. If you post one up and point me to it, I'll crawl out from under my rock again.

Rock. Again. I mean it this time.
Unless a Monroy Apply/Calc technique is posted and I'm pointed to it.

Thank for this tutorials ..i sorry i am abit in english language