RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Retouching
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Photo Retouching "Improving" photos, post-production, correction, etc.

Pro Photoshop 5

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 01-31-2007, 09:38 AM
imann08 imann08 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks, Ca.
Posts: 192
Pro Photoshop 5

I checked the search and couldn't find any thread on Dan Margulis' new book. I find that odd here. I expected people to be talking about it non-stop. Am I missing something or is it just not being talked about?

If not, I wish it were being discussed. I'd love to hear the PS users opinion on the book and some discussion on the different methods etc.

What gives?

BTW, hello to everyone I know well here. I haven't been around for a couple of months as I have been busy with other things but I could never disappear forever.
Reply With Quote top
  #2  
Old 01-31-2007, 09:41 AM
DCobb's Avatar
DCobb DCobb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 557
Re: Pro Photoshop 5

I bought the book when it first came out. The release date of the book had been delayed about a week. However, I have not done anything with the book. I just recently finished his LAB Color book.

dc
Reply With Quote top
  #3  
Old 01-31-2007, 09:51 AM
imann08 imann08 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks, Ca.
Posts: 192
Re: Pro Photoshop 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCobb
I bought the book when it first came out. The release date of the book had been delayed about a week. However, I have not done anything with the book. I just recently finished his LAB Color book.

dc
I have read the LAB book many times myself. I am a big fan of Dan Margulis and LAB. I owned the previous version of Professional Photoshop and didn't like it for a number of reasons.

First, it was out of date when I bought it last year. It was written in 2002 I think.

Second, it wasn't nearly as easy to grasp as the LAB book I had read and was much more frustrating. The fact that it was in CMYK didn't help my situation as I am more competent with RGB and especially LAB now.

The new book is much much better in my opinion. It works in RGB mainly instead of CMYK and it is much easier to understand. He has gotten better in explaining things. I consider it a very good book now as opposed to the previous version which I didn't like much. Knowing all three colorspaces is very important. Most stick with one and avoid the other two. He does a great job at explaining when to use what colorspace and why.
Reply With Quote top
  #4  
Old 02-01-2007, 11:27 PM
imann08 imann08 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks, Ca.
Posts: 192
Re: Pro Photoshop 5

Is there some rule against talking about this subject that I am unaware of? I figured more people would be talking about this.
Reply With Quote top
  #5  
Old 02-02-2007, 11:49 AM
JettyJ JettyJ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 3
Re: Pro Photoshop 5

Hello, brand new member here. I'm about 2/3rds through the book and am enjoying it. I didn't read the previous versions but have read the LAB book. It certainly isn't a 'light' read and I've needed to go over a few sections a couple of times at least. The real 'a-ha' moment came for me when I realized that part of what he is saying is that in any image, there are distinctions in every possible channel (R,G,B,C,M,Y,K,L,A,B) that can be used to get a better final result. It's very worthwhile to learn to be able to 'see' in all these channels regardless of what colorspace you usually work in.
Reply With Quote top
  #6  
Old 02-02-2007, 12:05 PM
CJ Swartz's Avatar
CJ Swartz CJ Swartz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Metro Phoenix area, Arizona
Posts: 3,344
Blog Entries: 19
Re: Pro Photoshop 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by imann08
Is there some rule against talking about this subject that I am unaware of? I figured more people would be talking about this.
No rules against talking about knowledge here! I think you're just ahead of a lot of us! I know we have a few folks here who really understand Photoshop, and they post an occasional explanation as to WHY some technique will get us the effect we are looking for, but a lot of the work/play that goes on here is based on just learning some techniques that work without having to understand the WHY. I have learned from Dan Margulies' work posted on the internet, and I've searched for his explanations on subjects over the years. I'm not sure why I haven't bought his latest books (the LAB book was discussed a bit here last year), but I imagine it's a combination of laziness and worry that I just won't "get it".

When the LAB discussion came up, I found that the dgrin.com forum had chapter summaries written up by members and discussion threads for the book, and I checked now to see that they are doing the same for this book also -- they have summaries for the first 7 chapters already linked.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=48066

I'm going to read thru those posts and then decide if I can successfully understand his book enough to buy it.
Reply With Quote top
  #7  
Old 02-02-2007, 01:03 PM
Ant Ant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 451
Re: Pro Photoshop 5

Dan is a tard. His views on color spaces are ridiculous. Perhaps that is why so many new digital imaging people are so full of misinformation.
Reply With Quote top
  #8  
Old 02-02-2007, 01:28 PM
CJ Swartz's Avatar
CJ Swartz CJ Swartz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Metro Phoenix area, Arizona
Posts: 3,344
Blog Entries: 19
Re: Pro Photoshop 5

Ant,

Okay, I'll "bite". Please give some examples of Margulies "misinformation", and some better ideas that you have read/learned/invented. Who/what have you read, seminars/workshops attended, that have offered better information?
Reply With Quote top
  #9  
Old 02-02-2007, 01:33 PM
JettyJ JettyJ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 3
Re: Pro Photoshop 5

I was just about to bite but CJ beat me to it. Why do you find his views on color spaces so ridiculous?
Reply With Quote top
  #10  
Old 02-02-2007, 05:18 PM
Ant Ant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 451
Re: Pro Photoshop 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Swartz
Ant,

Okay, I'll "bite". Please give some examples of Margulies "misinformation", and some better ideas that you have read/learned/invented. Who/what have you read, seminars/workshops attended, that have offered better information?

well that was easy enough. ok, he is not an all out tard HOWEVER...
some examples and the context included


sRGB

Posted on photo.net

Harvey S , feb 02, 2007; 04:03 a.m.
I've been reading Dan Margulis' latest book, Professional Photoshop (Fifth Edition) - The Classic Guide to Color Correction. Unfortunately, he's made me start to wonder if I should switch all my color space settings to sRGB, throw away my monitor calibrator, and adopt Curves as my religion.

While I don't find his writing style objectionable, he can take a lot of space to explain something. I'm a little surprised at how glowing most of the reviews of his book were on Amazon. However, he certainly has made me begin to think much more about basic concepts such as color space, channels, RGB vs. CMYK, etc. Maybe this is his intent -- not to necessarily bring you over to his sometimes extreme way of doing things, but to simply make you question many of the basic ideas behind color correction in particular and digital photography in general, and to then decide for yourself. If this was his goal, then I think he's succeeded.

Andrew Rodney , feb 02, 2007; 10:18 a.m.
Keep reading and you'll toss your Tivo and auto and go back to the life of the Amish. Seriously, he's way off base with the sRGB stuff and I'm blue in the fact arguing with him despite showing him clearly that there are all kinds of capture and output devices that exceed sRGB and that sRGB was NEVER built for Pro use. I even submitted a message dated way back in 1998 by Michael Stokes of HP who in writing a number of times states this clearly (I'd be happy to copy and paste if anyone wants to read this public thread from the ColorSync list).
When it comes to color management, you're best to ignore Dan big time!

Andrew Rodney Author "Color Management for Photographers" http://www.digitaldog.net/

Andrew Rodney , feb 02, 2007; 06:19 p.m.
Here's the tread (full in context) from Dan's so called Color Theory list:
Re: MacbookPro & Cinema Display Color Syncronization

On 1/25/07 4:32 AM, "Laurentiu Todie" wrote:>

> 2) sRGB WAS the compromise color space of old CRTs, isn't anymore > (LCDs can have twice the brightness of CRTs, therefore more light > colors)

With respect to sRGB, its useful to look at the origins and design. This is a synthetic color space like all the RGB working spaces Adobe installs. Its all pure math. Define the RGB chromaticity values, a white point and a tone response curve which is often called (incorrectly depending on the design of the space) gamma. Such synthetic spaces are built because its they are based on a theoretical, predictable device behavior. The behavior defined can as specific as the ambient light under which this theoretical device exists. In the case of sRGB, the chromaticity is based on a pretty darn old technology (P22 phosphors), the so called gamma is really two TRC's (there's a tweak in the shadows), the white point is OK but the reference media (the conditions this CRT display reside, the contrast ratio etc) isn't anything like an LCD. There?s only one true sRGB output device, its an emissive CRT display in a very fixed condition and environment.

Now, for some useful info about sRGB, from the man who designed it. I have a post from the Colorsync list dated November of 1998 which may clarify some interesting debates about sRGB, notably its usefulness to pro?s:

On 11/30/98 8:56 AM, "Stokes, Michael" wrote: Jeff and Andrew, I just ran across a couple of threads you wrote in response to a query about sRGB. Being the color scientist behind this effort at HP, I would like to clear up some apparent misconceptions. 1. sRGB is not base on "standard" "typical" or any other type of PC monitor, but is directly derived from the HDTV standard ITU-R BT.709/2 2. sRGB does represent not only average PC monitors, but is within the factory tolerances of almost all CRTs on the market today, including Barco professional CRTs. This is due to the shared family set of P22 phosphors which almost all CRTs use today. While this "family" of P22 phosphors has some differences between manufacturers, these differences fall within each manufacturer's factory tolerances. Saying that sRGB chromaticities are "quite small" is simply saying that CRT phosphors in general are quite small. 3. While the 2.2 gamma was directly derived from HTDV, it has been independently verified by Sony, Barco and others to represent the native physical state of CRTs today. It is also very close to the native human perceptual lightness scale when viewing CRTs. This combination makes this gamma the optimal for CRTs to physically operate at. This also goes a long way in explaining the compatibility with Windows and PCs in general since these systems have not imposed any arbitary or proprietary system adjustments. 4. The white point again is derived directly from the television industry and is the standard is televisions and also in many aspects of photography. Achieving a bright enough D50 white point to comfortably adapt to continues to be a technical challenge for CRT vendors. 5. I agree that there is a different in gamut shapes between sRGB and press CMYKs. This is due the the difference in gamut shapes of CRTs in general and press CMYKs in general. Since sRGB represents the native physical condition of CRTs, this is an obvious outcome. I also note that the sRGB gamut in general is significantly larger than press CMYK gamuts an most areas other than cyan. 6. I agree that if I am in a high-end graphic arts D50 only workflow, that sRGB is not the optimal solution and neither HP nor Microsoft claims it to be so. On the other hand, it is the optimal solution for any display-centric workflow such as desktop publishing in the office or home, the world wide web or any assortment of workflows where a display plays an integral part. 7. Claiming that pure cyan in sRGB converts to 78% cyan in press CMYK is completely dependent upon which gamut mapping technique you are using. I am assuming you are using whatever is in Photoshop. I can tell you that this is not the case for the gamut mapping in our own printers. 8. We've worked very hard with Pantone to provide a solid physical and scientific foundation for their RGB representations. I am at a loss to explain your criticims on this front and your implicit request that Pantone base their CRT RGB palettes on something other than established standards, physics and science. I would appreciate some input on this one. 9. Your statements that "However, I've been told that the original color scientist from HP that proposed this colorspace has stated that it has gone too far, that this was a proposal ONLY for the web. . .not for printing or cameras or scanners. I've also heard the even Microsoft is kinda backing away from sRGB for ANYTHING other than the web." are simply untrue and I would appreciate knowing where to go to straighten this out. I have never said that sRGB is not for printing or cameras or scanners. I believe sRGB provides an excellent, robust and fundamentally sound solutions for these mass markets. HP has a lot of evidence both internally and with real customers to support this. We also have many partners in the camera, scanner and desktop printer businesses that have independenty confirmed this. I also believe that Microsoft has not backed off from sRGB in any way. 10. A better web site for sRGB information is at www.srgb.com 11. I would very much like to have a discussion on the difference between display spaces and editing spaces. I agree that a larger editing space would be helpful, but am skeptical from my own scientific research if this can be done in a 24bit encoding by simply changing the chromaticities without resulting in other problems. Would you and Rodney be interested in such a discussion? 12. Characterizing our efforts as hoodwinking seems a bit stretched since we've gone out of our way to conform to existing international standards, sound physics, and state of art research results. I just wanted to clarify a few things and hope this helps, Michael Stokes HP

In a following post (answer to Jeff Schewe):

> sRGB reflects the characteristics of the average PC monitor. If you are > producing graphics to be viewed on the Web, sRGB will reflect what most > viewers see. The downside to sRGB is that it has a limited color gamut > and cannot represent as many colors as other color spaces. It is NOT a > good choice for Professional prepress users since too much CMYK gamut > lies outside of it". I have told Adobe and their quote is factually accurate, but possibly not as informative as it could be. I do agree that when using a purely prepress D50 CMYK workflow, sRGB is not the optimal solution.

I think we're in agreement that sRGB is mainly or primarily targeted at the mass market and not the high end professional market (for all of the many sound reasons you gave above). Any questions? I think it puts sRGB in the historic perspective it deserves.

Andrew Rodney Author "Color Management for Photographers" http://www.digitaldog.net/

(from a review of his book by John Ruttenberg at DigitalGrin)

Dan doesn't shy away from controversial topics, but when he enters battle he is always well armed. For example, he doesn't think much of automated color management which aims to calibrate monitors to each other and to printers (and presses) by way of spectrometers. He shuns the use of many of Adobe Camera Raw's features. He famously denies that there is much advantage in 16 bit mode. He explains why very little is lost in sRGB or even CMYK vs color spaces with wider gamuts. In every case, his reasoning and experience throw light on the subject and result in practical insights. You might not agree completely with all his controversial opinions (MOST DEFINITELY), but you ignore them and his reasoning at peril of confusion and misunderstanding. OR, LISTEN TO EVERYTHING HE SAYS AND MISUNDERSTAND, MISUSE AND FOREVER PULL YOUR HAIR OUT


Much of what Dan says is fine for home users, those sending their files to walmart or for posting on the web and the occasional business card or wedding invitation that might be printed off-set. Also, a lot of what he says is correct in many regards (ie. a color blind person could color correct very well using his by the numbers). But, much is just his opinion and/or simply not true. sRGB for example - never a pro space. clipped and limited. 16bit? You retouch....no loss? debateable. file dependant and how much are you manipulating that file?

Like Katrin, Dan also simple has bad taste. Gearhead, technophiles imo, the both of them. I'd poke my eyes out if I had theirs. I guess there is a reason they make all those floral print couches in pink.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Retouching


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question for MacBook Pro using photoshop retouchers. Retouchpix Hardware 2 01-31-2011 05:42 AM
Paint Shop Pro vs Photoshop albatrosss Software 38 08-15-2007 01:28 PM
How do you learn to do "Photo-art"? DannyRaphael Photo-Art 101 18 09-23-2006 11:41 PM
Photoshop 4.0 and WIN XP Pro 1STLITE Photoshop Help 2 05-10-2005 10:11 AM
Paintshop Pro Color Replace Photoshop equivalent? ShortBusCandid8 Photo Retouching 0 11-13-2002 03:51 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved