Hi Richard. I was just in discussion with someone about Elements and Channels and I remembered your tools and techniques. What kind of interface can someone put on Element's Channels.
Can you do things like apply highpass, threshold, contrast, or other filters to channels. Can you switch into a cmyk mode to see if one of those channels makes the beginning of a good mask, and then copy it to an alpha channel.

BTW, I realize that most users will never need to do any of this. I'm just trying to get a feel for how far the channels can be taken.

I also am trying to use the Channel Mixing to color correct too much red in faces--I sometimes get from scanning 35mm negs.

The book explains how--but not in detail?

How would I use channel mixing to fix this? Step by step?

Thanks,

Dave

Hi Dave.

I can't think of any situations where I've used channel mixing to correct that kind of problem.

Why don't you post an example of the problem. Then people can run tests and see what works. Also, is this something that can possibly be controlled at the scanner step. Or is this just some odd random thing that happens?

Hi Andrew,

I can't seem to get the IMG code to turn on in order to post this image. But I've enclosed a link to it. Note that their is too much red in the faces yet not enough red in the women's dress?

This image was scanned using my Nikon Coolscan IV-ED 35mm film scanner. It is kodak portra 160 VC film. The scan may be slightly underexposed by 1/2 stop.

My feeling is that it was something wrong with the film or developing? As I normally get great scans with my Nikon? Just about 1 in 20 do I get a problem scan like this one.

http://home.infi.net/~ldlikes/redgroup.jpg

Dave

Andrew,

The way channels break out in layers, you can actually control them more easily than you would normal Photoshop channels. the reason for this is because you can do anything to the channels in the layer palette that you would to a normal layer but the result effects the channels. Quite honestly I use the technique I have in the Elements book when working in Photoshop (actually, one very similar) because it is not always so straight-forward to apply filters or more, adjustment layers and such to specific channels. Of course you can, by activating just one channel, but I actually find the layered channels easier to use -- there are no tricks to getting a full-color preview of the results.

If there is something you find that you can't seem to accomplish, I'd be glad to help solve that for you.

In testing corrections of that image, I had much more inclination to add yellow using the Color Balance than to remove red (which seemed to desaturate the image). I would give a go with color balance before anything else (well, beside the initial correction, of course).

You can use the Channel Mixer, but I think I might do that in combination with something else. In fact, you might want to try a color range correction using Blend Masking...I don't advocate channel mixing too much in the book for working with skin tone...That isn't to say it can't be done.

>>If there is something you find that you can't seem to accomplish, I'd be glad to help solve that for you.

I don't have Elements loaded, I'm only trying to understand the channels interface in Elements because of a discussion I am in.

In Photoshop I generally copy the channel into a layer. Then point that layer at the channel it came from. Once this is done I can do whatever I want to it and see a live preview as I work, all in a nondestructive way.

Is this how you are working in Elements?

There is another area as well. Channels can be used to make masks. So here I would not point the copy back at the channel, I would work on it until it makes a good mask. Then copy it into a new alpha channel, and load it whenever I want to.

Are you able to create alpha channels from layers and then call them up as needed? What is the interface like?

Andrew - Richard's interface for seeing the different channels in Elements uses a large number of steps (involving HUE/Satuaration adjustment layers as filters to filter out the individual colours) to create greyscale version of each channel appearing as separate layers on a PE2 document. The channel layers can then be recombined to see the effects of individual edits on the channels again using Hue/saturation layers as filters. To do this by hand takes an inordinate number of steps, but Richard gives purchasers of his book a one click action that does it for us.
These channel layers can be used to make masks - but as PE doesn't have native layer masking Richard's book suggest using clipping groups to use these edited channel layers as masks - this also makes them easier to save for PE1 users who don't have the ability to save selections (alpha channels) unlike PE2. One of Richard's new tools gives the ability to add layer masks, but as I've generally got into the habit of using clipping groups anyway, I haven't yet explored this feature much.

Andrew;
Photoshop Elements 2 has a "save selection" option under Select. The selection can be given a name and then be reloaded at any time by the "load selection" option also under select. More than one selection can be saved. If no longer needed or wanted it can be deleted "delete selection" also under select. Elements does not have the alpha channel layer such as the full Photoshop but selections can be saved, and even saved with the image file as a PSD and reopened and reloaded at any time. The selection can be copied and pasted or adjusted however you wish. I hope this is the information you were looking for. CaseyJ

Thanks for the info. I'm getting a much better idea now.

I'm still unclear on one thing. In Photoshop you can create your mask on a layer, then move it to an alpha channel, then load it as a selection. I am not talking about a layer mask, I am talking about using a layer as sort of the work bench where you shape the mask for later use.

I guess the bottom line question is can you take the grayscale mask that you create on a layer and convert it to a marching ants selection that exactly matches the luminosity variations of the mask.

And btw, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm nitpicking on these methods. I think it's fantastic that Richard has found such a low-cost way to bring so much power to Elements. I only want to get a better idea of how this works.

Andrew - yes - it is certainly possible - with a bit of tweaking and pulling around. Richard has a one click tool that can do this. The way I have done this in the past is from a tutorial on Jay Arraich's very useful Element's website and involves using a layer mask as an intermediate (before the add-on tools I used the layer mask in a temporarily added adjustment layer).

Select and copy the greyscale layer: paste into the layer mask; deselect; command-click (I'm on a Mac - control click for Win I guess) on the layer mask thumbnail to load the mask as a selection; then save the selection which can then be loaded into whatever layer you like. I haven't checked whether this gives an identical result to Richard's.
Susan S.

Thanks Susan. All my questions are answered.

Andrew,

Thanks for trying to correct the color in my image. Your adjustment, using levels, was what I initially did. I had my pro lab print the image. I'm a wedding photographer. Turned out that the skin tones were still too muddy! The red dress was off red. And my blue background had turned green!!!

After many hours of manipulation, using scanner techniques (1/2 stop analog gain in Nikon scan), using Elements the hard way. Selecting the dress, and background individually (using lasso tool, and color saturation) I came up with this improved image (see link).

I'm just looking for a better/easier way? If that is possible? I also would like to know why the image did not scan properly? I did not have channels or some of Richard's tools for Elements prior to fixing this image by brute force!

Dave


http://home.infi.net/~ldlikes/redgroupb.jpg

Wow! Dave - that is a very red dress! Perhaps the scanner just didn't believe the colour when it saw it :D . I had a go at the image as a practice for using the techniques given in Chapter four of Richard's book and used curves on the individual channels - and in general found that the channels did not need much tweaking to get the face tones cleared up and the blue background un-greened. But that correction did not bring the red dress up to anything like *that* colour red - it remained firmly dark-peach whatever I did to the other channels, keeping the flesh tones within reason.
Susan S.

I could just be seeing things, but it looks like that second version of the image was not the natural color of the dress. I am guessing this by the detail loss in shadowing and texture. It is not a bad result, but there are better and worse ways of getting there.

Something that you might try is using a Luminosity layer created from the image after the innitial adjustment.

1. finish your general color correction.
2. duplicate the layer
3. desaturate the layer (if you have hidden power, you can just click Add Luminosity).
4. insert another layer between the original and the luminosity layer.
5. paint over the dress with the color of your choice on that layer.
6. experiment with a few of the modes, like color burn, overlay, pin light and linear light. The opacity for this layer is probably best at 25-50%. Note I did NOT say to use Color mode. In my experience, it is usually not the best idea for recoloring information.

I used that to get the results here:

http://hiddenelements.com/samples/redgroup2.jpg

Judging from your sample, this may appear over-saturated. If so, one of us needs to recalibrate -- and it could be me. I've been playing with a lot of things recently, and not all of them have been nice to my configurations.

I still think exploring the Blend Mask function will get the best result over-all in Elements as it will be better at targeting the color for change.

Hi Dave,

I think we both agree that you should not have to go to all this trouble, and that there is something wrong at the scanner end of things. Have you tried asking for help in one of the pro photographer forums. Such as the ones at:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

Another place that comes to mind is

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/

They are more focused on the equipment, but you might find some tips from people who use the same equipment you do.

There is also a professional photographers forum on Compuserve. You cannot post unless you join, but it is free to join

http://forums.compuserve.com/vlforums/default.asp?SRV=PhotoPro

Originally posted by Susan S.
Wow! Dave - that is a very red dress!Susan S.

Susan,

Yes, the dress looks too saturated on my monitor too! But increasing the saturation is what I had to do (took me like four trys--back and forth to the lab), in order to get the color right in the print. Note: the print looks less saturated than the image on the screen.

I don't know if it is because I am using an sRGB profile? But that is what my lab recommends!

Dave

Richard,

Your image is the best I've seen done of the skin tones yet leaving the background the correct color of blue. Still--too much saturation in the faces. The dress is better, but not red enough.

Andrew,

Thanks for the tip. I belong to Zuga.net (professional and amatuer photographers) and have posted this problem on their site with not much luck.

I get this problem only once and a while, like 1 in 20 scans. Other scans and color corrections come out fine? That is why my thinking is it has something to do with the scanner or film/developing?

Just want to nail it down! Currently, I am working with Nikon, to see if it is a problem with the scanners color management system? As when I turn off color management, I get better reds in the dress?

Dave

Dave - colour management is such a complicated issue that I do not pretend to understand it. I only know that I get much more predictable printed results when I use the no colour management work-flow with Elements that Richard suggests in his book. (that solved so many problems for me on its own that I reckon the book was worth the exhorbitant number of Australian dollars that I had to pay for it (compared to the Amazon US price!)) But I am not getting things professionally printed.

One possibility that occurs to me is that the very bright red may be out of gamut (I think that's the correct term!) for CMYK printing - it just isn't translatable easily to printing inks- and this would have led to the need to oversaturate the red in the RGB image that you supplied to the printer to get something close to what you wanted in the printed output.
Susan S.

Susan,

According to Nikon, you are absolutely right! They called me today. The level 2 specialist I talked to made a scan by scan comparison of my problem negative. My scan verses theirs. They say that I am scanning out of gamut (they are too). Both sRGB and Adobe 1998 profiles are not covering the whole color range!

Suggestion is to use Scanner RGB which appears to allow more color. It definitely is getting the dress more red (I tried it).

I've found once scanned, I can convert to an sRGB profile and still keep the improved color!

Will have to put it to the test and send a test to the lab.

Thanks,

Dave

Well I was half right! I was thinking out of gamut for printing rather than for scanning .

Dave,

Remember that corrections made without seeing the original make it VERY difficult to match anything. That is but one variation I could have chosen...and i also allotted about 5 minutes for the correction.

You may have to use a variety of tools to get a result, and much of the result will depend on the calibration (if, like most people, you look at the screen while correcting). In the book I do go through ways to get more accurate results quickly, using curves and a printed gray card. But, it also depends on what you want to match...if there is nothing to match, you go by preference.

I guess my point was, you could potentially make other adjustments, and that the red change in your last example seemed to me to lose detail in the dress folds. The suggestion was the color could be improved without that loss.

Glad you are getting somewhere. Watch out for profiles...they can help -- or hurt.

Richard,
Have been working on a picture of mine and trying to adapt the suggestions which you made re the red dress. In step#4 do you suggest a new (blank) layer to be inserted and the painting to be done on that, or to insert a duplicate layer of the original? In other words, would you be so kind as to clarify step #4 for me.
Thanks.
Ken:)

Insert a layer. Blank. Between the duplicated layer and the background.

When you place the luminosity on top, everything below will assume the tone from the luminosity layer. The color changes you make below it will assume the tone. You may need to adjust or target the luminosity (e.g., make a levels change or mask) to influence the tone as it is applied to the color.

Does that make more, or less sense?

Thanks for the reply. It makes sense. I take it, then, that the "painting" is to be done on the inserted, blank layer. Am I correct?
Ken:)

Keep in mind there are other ways to get similar results and affect these changes in different ways...but yes, in the scenario I set up, you want to paint on the blank.

OK?

Thanks. OK.
Ken

Originally posted by Richard_Lynch
Dave,

Glad you are getting somewhere. Watch out for profiles...they can help -- or hurt.

Richard,

Still having trouble with profiles and Nikon Scan. Tech support suggested using the Scanner RGB profile in 12 bit scan mode to improve the color in the dress. But I tried that and it went into OVERKILL!!! Blew the color saturation to almost BLACK!! So its back to the drawing board!

Question: Should I scan some images using a profile and others without? Kind of check color and if it seems wrong turn C. Management off? Then covert them all to sRGB in Elements once they are scanned? Seems the real color loss occurs during the initial scan.

Also, I wondering what will happen when I don't embed a profile? Basically Turn color management off in Nikon Scan. I have some reservations about doing this. But I read in your book that you don't use color management. Also, I think I read where you suggest not embedding a profile either?

I guess the only way is to try it? But then it means sending to different labs--as I use more than one--what a mess!!! I was under the impression that the only way to get the color right is to embed a profile. Reason I bought this scanner.

Now I'm confused?

Dave :question:

Sounds to me like you need a color overhaul. You need to go through in order and calibrate (first) your scanner, then monitor. I believe I talk about this in the book. If you are working on calibrated systems, you should not have the wild swings you are talking about.

I find that profiles are dangerous (the extra stair in the staircase). You really have to know what you are doing with them to IMPROVE your results. Most people use them because they think they have to. Well, long before there were profiles, people were getting results.

What happens when you don't use them? I guess I am more interested in what DOESN'T happen. You can't go embedding the wrong profile and ruining your color based on an unknown (you can only ruin it based on knowns!). The image should get treated by the numbers without the profile embedded, and that means that the 'magic' that gets done behind the scenes doesn't happen. I am, of course, sarcasticly using 'magic'. A profile in the hands of a master will still only get the values possible in a CMYK image...You don't suddenly get a true broader range of possibility -- the inks remain the same color. What you do is get an adjustment as to how those colors are handled. if the profiles are wrong, you get the wrong results. Profiles, as far as I am concerned add an unnecessary variable.

If you read the section in the book on calibration and management, I am really suggesting you don't use embedded profiles if you don't know what they do. I have suggested ways to Adobe that they might go to make profiles smarter, easier to use, and more friendly...but I really don't think that they are interested in that. You are left with a ratheer daunting task with your first selection in opening the program for the very first time -- choosing how to manage color. Chances are you have no idea. You can make the wrong choice, and it'll ruin hundreds of images before you really learn what to do with it.

I'll get off the burning soapbox now. My position is not a terribly popular one, but I know far fewer people who struggle WITHOUT embedding profiles because it offers the opportunity to locate the problem. I would only use profiles once i am sure I can get results without them. After that you can start using them as a tool -- or not use them at all. I don't.

Richard,

My monitor is calibrated using Adobe Gamma (may be buying a spider soon). I tried to calibrate my scanner for about a year until I called Nikon and they told me I didn't need to do that. My Coolscan 35mm Film scanner calibrates itself every 5 minutes!!!

Actually the wild things that are happening to me are very few in nature. This red dress problem happed over 1 and 1/2 years ago! I've gotten some pretty good scans out of my Nikon since. It is just those few (1 in 20) that ruin my confidence! I dug up this problem from my archives just to tackle it once and for all! I wanted to know what the problem was!

As a wedding pro I use my scanner as a last resort to fix problem images. So it is very intimidating when I can't do it every time--to save my behind. Sort of defeats having the machine in the first place. So I have not used the machine all that much because of this.

Up until this month, I was convinced I had a bad batch of film. Little did I know it was a color profile problem! I had heard about color profile this and color profile that--but never really saw any difference when testing previously? I guess it happens to certain colors (vibrant reds, blues etc).

Now I know what to look for! I'll have to see what I can come up with without using color management.

Thanks for the info,

Dave

One last note, and again as it suggests in the book, RGB and CMYK will NOT yeild the same results. Your extreme colors will be the most problematic. Bright reds, deep blues, vivid greens will all dull in certain ranges when switching from RGB to CMYK, which is what happens when going from screen to a home printer.

SOLUTION: Outsource printing. There are CRT and LED printers that are LIGHT-BASED process and which will get you RGB results in a print (on photographic paper). You will never match this stuff with your home CMYK printer, even if you got a good one. Do a test at home (do not use cheap paper), and send the final to a service for output. Their 10-50K printer will make a print for you true to RGB using light process. BE SURE you ask for CRT or LED printing and not just a laser or inkjet output.