Photoshop Channel concepts: The Power of Ten

[RobertAsh]

Originally Posted by creativeretouch

I have my workflow written and usually I continue 03... 04 ... 05... - again, it depends on the work I am doing. It means, if I would go for "a new look," I would experiment and when I would be happy with the result I would write down all steps and follow them ...

If I would do "a fast" work, less important, I would flatten image and convert to the other color space without keeping a track of it.

You're right. I need to get more disciplined about my workflow. A couple of weeks ago I started a spreadsheet documenting my core workflow steps. I need to keep that updated and expand it.

One thing I do consistently that might help some members here as well is to name my layers including the settings I used. For example:

• SmartSharpen 0.8/400 = Smart sharpen w/ 0.8 Radius and 400 Amount
• SH 30.15.8/20.30.18 = Shadows/Highlights with slider values 30, 15, 8 for Shadows and 20,30,18 for Highights

I do that for layers created by plug-ins as well. For Nik ColorEfex Pro I name the layer with the effect name (e.g., Glamour Glow) + the settings I used in the Nik dialogue window.

In Smart Objects those values are preserved, of course, but naming the layers explicitly helps for times when I have to rasterize, merge or flatten layers after applying the filters or effects.

One thing I'll have to mature in my approach is avoiding feeling that if I stop to document things then I'll lose my creative flow. Sometimes I keep going then document afterwards (often through naming my layers).

[RobertAsh]

Originally Posted by Chain

Lab does make a little more intuitive sense than RGB when it comes to thinking of brightness and color separately, but not as much as something like HSL. That's why I find it much more intuitive to work with Luminosity/Hue/Saturation as the color/brightness components of the image (Color = Hue + Saturation).

Good point. HSL curves would be even more intuitive.

[RobertAsh]

Originally Posted by RobertAsh

What do you mean by Raw Developer here?

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200607_rodneycm.pdf

Thanks.

I have to agree with you statement in the side box in your article:

"RAW converters are becoming more complex as they are built into browsers designed for image editing, adding metadata and even becoming DAMs (Digital Assist Managers). In my opinion, the quality of the RAW rendering should be the primary focus of these products since the ultimate image quality is critical for photographers."

[creativeretouch]

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

I’d be happy to take a crack. But I don’t understand what you mean by “soft look”. One issue is retaining highlight and shadow detail you wish. When you say soft look, you mean Midtone contrast (that’s where clarity comes into play).

No, I don't mean midtone contrast. I mean better highlights & shadows. They are much better on the bottom image than above. But I agree, it is subjective.
As we all know, digital files have problems with this. Classic slides were much better. All RAW converters are creating highlights and darks with more contrast. Some of them are better, some of them worse. Again, this is the reason of my low raw export. This is not about midtones.

[creativeretouch]

Originally Posted by RobertAsh

One thing I do consistently that might help some members here as well is to name my layers including the settings I used. For example:

• SmartSharpen 0.8/400 = Smart sharpen w/ 0.8 Radius and 400 Amount
• SH 30.15.8/20.30.18 = Shadows/Highlights with slider values 30, 15, 8 for Shadows and 20,30,18 for Highights

I do that for layers created by plug-ins as well. For Nik ColorEfex Pro I name the layer with the effect name (e.g., Glamour Glow) + the settings I used in the Nik dialogue window.

Good Idea ...

[andrewrodney]

Originally Posted by creativeretouch

No, I don't mean midtone contrast. I mean better highlights & shadows. They are much better on the bottom image than above.

The question is, is it not possible in the raw converter to produce those better highlights and shadows? Without a raw file, its impossible for me to say. I’ve as yet not found this an issue with my images however (controlling precisely where I want to hit these tones). In fact, just the opposite. The ‘latitude’ a raw file provides over a rendered image is often astounding.

[creativeretouch]

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

The question is, is it not possible in the raw converter to produce those better highlights and shadows? Without a raw file, its impossible for me to say.

Andrew, have you received my email? I have sent you a link to my RAW file.

[andrewrodney]

Got it, played a bit. Question now is, how’s the best way to send you the rendered image(s)? I can pop them on my iDisk. Full rez, high bit ProPhoto OK?

[creativeretouch]

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

Got it, played a bit. Question now is, how’s the best way to send you the rendered image(s)? I can pop them on my iDisk. Full rez, high bit ProPhoto OK?

I can email you ftp details if you have a FTP client?

[andrewrodney]

I do indeed. I did a two variations using 100% in Lightroom. And they are quite subjective but I’m interested in your comments about the tonal range and then color. There’s zero clipping in both renderings, one far more so than the other.

[creativeretouch]

OK. After those two images which were very close to my version - but I wasn't still happy enough - I sent my own original tiff to Andrew and he has managed to get almost same luminosity render from Lightroom. So Andrew is right we don't have to export ugly images anymore

[bart1986]

I see most people talk about the margulis book, but whatabout the video's he did for Kelby? Are they any good or do they just scratch the surface?? For instance the postcard workflow thing he did??

[Janet Petty]

Bart,

The videos he did for Kelby Training run really quite fast without a lot of explanation as to technique. I did find that they enhanced what was being described in the book, adding yet another level/layer of understanding in the learning curves.