The Newsletter for Elements Users
------------------------------------------------In this issue:
A prevailing topic these past months has been which product to use for image editing. I got a little carried away with the answers I provided, and then turned it into an article. You'll get the whole thing here, plus a word about creativity, color correction, infrared and luminosity masks.
1. What program is best for image editing?
2. Elements can't do 48 bit editing.
3. Getting creative with Elements.
4. Adjusting Skin Tone?
5. What book do i use for upgrading to Photoshop CS?
6. A word about infrared
7. Clever Application of Luminosity masks?
Short Answers (12)
These short answers are all over the map, from questions about the book and tools to getting serious about image editing.
It may have been a long time coming, but my healing tool for Elements users is finally here and ready for distribution. I call the new tool Mend and while it works a little differently than Photoshop's Healing tool, it has all the 'magic' and offers some opportunity for adjustment that Photoshop's Healing does not. It can make quick work of some corrections that would otherwise be difficult, and is great for removing birthmarks, spots, scratches, damage, etc. If you always wanted to have better corrections than you get with the clone tool, and you have heard about the Healing tool, now is your chance.
Get it here:
http://aps8.com/mend.html
The tool costs $10 and will be delivered by email within a week of purchase. Payment is accepted through PayPal, which allows many different types of credit payment options. I'll have some sample corrections up on the website in a few days so you can see what healing can do. Purchase will entitle you to free updates that I may make available for the tool, and helps support my interest in helping Elements users get the most from their image editing.
Other than that, I finally finished working on my Photoshop book (http://aps8.com/hppscs.html), and it is great to have that finished. I'm starting to think about updating the Hidden Power Elements book...But I think I'll be doing a few more tool enhancements before that. If you have any suggestions, feel free to forward: rl@ps6.com
The Hidden Power website:
http://hiddenelements.com
The Hidden Power forum at RetouchPro.com: http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&forumid=142
The Hidden Power newsletter archive:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hpe
Free Hidden Power Tools:
http://hiddenelements.com/freetools.html
Or from Adobe:
Mac: http://share.studio.adobe.com/axAssetDetailSubmit.asp?aID=7531
PC: http://share.studio.adobe.com/axAssetDetailSubmit.asp?aID=7516
Get the Hidden Power book:
http://aps8.com/hppe.html
Buy Elements:
http://aps8.com/elements.com
Get the new Mend tool for Elements:
http://aps8.com/mend.html
------------------------------------------------
LONG ANSWERS
------------------------------------------------
1. What program is best for image editing?
2. Elements can't do 48 bit editing.
3. Getting creative with Elements.
4. Adjusting Skin Tone?
5. What book do i use for upgrading to Photoshop CS?
6. A word about infrared
7. Clever Application of Luminosity masks?
-
1. What program is best for image editing?
-
There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding when it comes to choosing a program for editing your digital images and what the differences actually are between programs. Time and again you will hear that Photoshop is "the best" and many people consider it the only choice for editing images. While this may have been mostly true in the past when there really was little competition, it is now inaccurate. The fact is there are several good image editors and viable options for image editing depending on your level of use. There is no doubt that there is difference between these programs which lies both on the surface (what features are included, how those tools are implemented, and the interface) and behind the scenes (how the changes you affect get calculated). But how that effects your image results beyond your technique in using the different programs may be a lesser issue.
Advanced image editing programs share many common tools that you really need to edit images. It is just common sense that an image editor worth using at all will incorporate the obvious: one manufacturer will know what is in the competetor's tools, and can pick and choose which to mimic-time allowed. As that is true, virtually any of the better image editing packages will do for 90% of users who have common needs. Regretfully, many people who buy Photoshop on recommendation because it is "the best" without knowing what it means to be "the best", and those people may never need the high-power, professional tools offered in Photoshop that really set it apart as an image editing program. It is the equivalent of putting a 14 megapixel professional digital camera in the hands of a beginner. They invest in Photoshop because someone tells them it is the best, or they think they need it to somehow make their images better, or because it is some type of status symbol. In some cases the investment may turn out to be a strange way to proclaim vanity, rather than need or expertise.
For those who don't prefer (or promote using) Photoshop, the program defined as "the best" might end up as the one that they happened to prefer at the time they started to get the hang of working with images. Their preference may actually have been born of something less to do with one program actually being better than another, than seeing it that way because of familiarity. The catalyst may have been something as simple as placement of the tools, design of the interface, price, circumstance or convenience.
Whatever the reason for the preference, the invisible line is drawn, and thus ensues the great debate about some programs being better than others with staunch defenders of each camp. Some yodel from the hilltops, and some seek out a fight. The arguments of this sort are remaniscent of the mac vs. pc wars waged endlessly in newsgroups, forums and listservs. They usually have to do with an extreme miopia of the user trying to defend their investment-often without really knowing much about the other options. Reviews of a product are often tainted by ignorance of other products and what those other products can really do.
Which is "the best", is, more often than not, flat out the wrong question to ask. If you have common needs for image editing, you can likely get results with any image editing program that you choose-you just need to learn to use it. That said, there are key differences in popularity, price, and system requirements that may affect your choice more than features-and these concerns might not matter one iota to the image results.
Several of the most popular packages for image editing are Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop Elements. I'll use these packages to point out some of the choices you have to be aware of to make the best solution for you. It would only confuse the matter more to throw in additional high-level products such as Ulead PhotoImpact (PC only), GIMP and Photo32.
Price Gap
Price is something that is hard to ignore when you look at a comparison between Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop Elements. Photoshop retails for $650, Paint Shop Pro for $109, and Photoshop Elements for $99. This would seem to place PS in a class of its own, leaving PSP and PE to battle it out on a different tier. At some level (e.g., professional pre-press use) this may be true, but in reality may not be if the user honestly considers the important features that will be used day-to-day.
Traditionally, high-end items tend to cost quite a lot more than even more-than-adequate bretheren. It is a sort of luxury tax levied by those who achieve exclusivity. A Rolls Royce may weigh in with a hefty price tag, but pales to an indy racer whose high level of sophistication makes it all but unuseable in daily situations (e.g., commuting). I would take neither out in a snowstorm to stock up on needed supplies. The investment in a rolls or indy racer would strike most as an absurd expenditure for a daily car unless one was so rich that it just plain didn't matter. In a similar way, it is hard for some people to swallow the idea that a lower price in an image editor may not mean you get less than you need.
High cost in an image editor traditionally comes with something that people completely ignore: increased operating and hidden costs. It should be no surprise that future upgrades to a costly program will tend to cost more than upgrades to a less expensive program. More expensive, more robust programs may require greater processing abilities, and in-turn have processing needs which require more robust systems-at a greater cost in addition to the program purchase. In recent years, Adobe's attention to processing power for Photoshop has forced many Mac users to purchase entirely new systems if they wanted to remain on the cutting edge. This hidden cost of image processing can total multiples of the cost of the program itself.
If you have an unlimited budget for image editing, then it is fine to ignore the costs. If you are on any type of budget, however, the upgrade expenditure that one may have for updating to a new version of a program should be weighted against other opportunities. It may be that the investment can be put to better use elsewhere, such as in investing in an update for your system (more RAM, a second monitor, more disk space, faster processor, a storage and archiving device, saving for a college education, etc.). Some of these updates may prove far more useful to you than the newest version of the program.
Upgrade Sidebar
Some people upgrade out of obligation (!), or the need to have the newest toy first, when the first consideration should be need. No single tool or function alone is worth the price difference in an upgrade unless you will be using that feature extensively. Upgrades should be looked at collectively; Read the release notes before upgrading. Hot new features should be looked at a little skeptically: they should add functionality that cannot be duplicated in any other fashion (for example, this was not the case for healing and extract functions). A few interesting additions in the feature set may get a bit of attention (by the manufacturer) as key features for a release, but may not really much more than interesting interfaces to accomplish tasks, rather than must-have additions. For the most part, new tools are never really magic, and just about any process can be mimicked or duplicated using the less expensive programs or pre-upgrade versions. Snazzy features are often just a variation on using basic tools in conjunction.
More Features Doesn't Mean Better
The obvious assumption one might make about a program with more features is that the program will be more robust, more powerful, and 'better'. However, a newer user may not find having more features to necessarily be better: more features may just mean you just have more choices to get something done, more potential confusion, more chances to use things incorrectly, and in the end: more features you won't need or bother to use. If the added features are essentially redundant you just have additional menu items screens and options to remember. An important factor is not always so much how many features there are, but how they are arranged and how intuitive you find them as a user, and what they really (rather than proport to) do.
Regretfully, learning the features of any program is a process. Some red-eye repair feature you found in a freebee program you got with your digital camera may or may not be called a red eye tool in another package as it may have different implementation and/or broader purpose. This makes a one-to-one comparison of features all but impossible. It is helpful to look at and compare programs by exhausing their demo possibilities. All of the differences between packages may not become apparent in a short-term trial offered in a 30 day demo, as even with dilligence, it is likely that you will only be becoming familiar with the program at that point. However, actually working with the program when possible will give you a credible means of comparison-and a better one for determining your need. If you can't find a feature by name, don't necessarily assume it isn't there.
A Market Leader with Platform Awareness
Between Photoshop and Photoshop Elements, Adobe is clearly the market leader when it comes to image editing. This probably shouldn't mean much to making a decision between programs, but like the effect of hidden costs it can cause an overwhelming influence below the surface. While some of the circumstance that leads to becoming a market leader may be little more than hype (by the company or users of the product), there are specific advantages to being a market leader. This extends beyond Adobe's great beta testing program, Adobe's ability to invest substantially in research and development because of their success, and the power to incorporate developments from other resources (e.g., programs and plugins) readily.
As Adobe is the market leader, there are many Adobe users, many users familiar with the package, and a great number of people capable of making information available on program use (e.g., through books, magazines, DVDs, tutorials, articles, websites, etc.). While this information can vary in value and usefulness, it is far easier to get knowledgeable (if not merely well-intended) help in using the Photoshop program and features than it might be to find competent help for Paint Shop Pro. This availability of users and experience may prove useful when seeking help on a project.
As Elements has many features from Photoshop (in fact, many more than advertised, see: http://hiddenelements.com ), Elements users can enjoy similar support-if not directly as tutorials for the program, by interpreting steps. Elements is quite similar in function to Photoshop-In fact, Elements is built directly over the Photoshop engine, and the results had using settings for Photoshop tutorials in Elements should achieve the same results. Elements users have let me know, for example, that they can successfully employ techniques from Photoshop Restoration and Retouching (Eismann and Nelson) with the help of the tools from my book (The Hidden Power of Photoshop Elements 2). In other words, with minimal investment, Elements users can do almost all of what Photoshop users can to correct and manipulate photos. This helps Elements users open the doors to an enormous cache of information that already exists for Photoshop. While Paint Shop Pro users may be able to intuit the differences between the tools and interface, needed settings may prove dissimilar enough to cause cross-referencing frustration. On the other hand, should the need ever arise, the Elements user can make adjustment to the Photoshop interface without much trouble at all, where moving from Paint Shop Pro to Elements or Photoshop may prove a bit less friendly. The suggestion here is that the new user can more than get-away with Elements as a starter program, develop enough skills to warrant an investment in add-ins (http://aps8.com/hppe.html), and if there is finally a need to upgrade to Photoshop, may have a smoother transition than if moving from PSP.
One of the greatest advantages to Adobe products is that they are almost always cross platform. The product you work on on a Mac will be nearly the same as the same program used on a PC. This means that you can go from one type of computer to the next, change jobs or buy a new cost-efficient system and not have to worry that you will need to relearn the program you use for image editing-though you may need to purchase another license. A real drawback to the professional using Paint Shop Pro would be that job opportunities may actually be limited to shops that use PCs. This is regardless of the level of expertise achieved using PSP. While the cross-platform advantage may make no difference whatever to the home user, it is almost certain that the availability of information will be a boon to those going at it in relative isolation at their home computer.
Side-by-side Comparison
As mentioned earlier, a side-by-side comparison of features between these programs is difficult or impossible. A specific feature by a specific name may not exist in one interface, but the same results may be possible none-the-less. The real difference lies in core abilities of the programs, rather than the features themselves.
Photoshop is probably the most full-featured, professional program in the group that includes Paint Shop Pro and Elements. However, that means is it has the most fringe tools: high-end, professional tools and functions that you will need in a production environment, and short-step, duty-specific tools for common procedures. Custom CMYK separations, broad 16-bit support, extensive color management options, on screen proofing, layer comps, animation (Image Ready), large images, non-square pixels, slices and HTML exports are all examples of hardcore, high-end needs included with the recent Photoshop CS release. These are exactly the tools that home users may never use or care about individually. Tossed into the mix are a few hype-tools that may grab user attention and imagination, but that may not perform the magic they suggest (e.g., healing, extract, panorama and even channel mixer). The key features that determine a 'need' for Photoshop would almost always be those high-end tools listed. The drawback to supporting the broad range of user tools-from the merely flashy to the more production based-is that the Photoshop interface is hugely complex, often with screens buried behind other screens behind buttons depending on selected options. Just through sheer bulk, the new user will often be daunted - and might find a steep learning curve awaits. It really isn't "the best" for everyone.
NOTE: I think Photoshop CS is the best release of Photoshop by adobe in a while, so I'm not putting down the program. Too many people spend a lot more than they need to, and I hate to see that.
Paint Shop Pro has virtually all of the every-day tools found in Photoshop, but lags behind somewhat, perhaps in polish (e.g., vector handling) and a few of the more recently added advancements found in Photoshop (e.g., 16-bit support). At the same time, Paint Shop Pro adds its own flavors to the mix, in such popular features as nozzles (which act something like a paintbrush full of pictures; some PSP users collect and trade these). But, practically speaking, a side-by-side comparison may show few differences that effect daily use and the home user working with photographs. JASC has been effective in updating Paint Shop Pro in attempts to keep up with Adobe's lead. With the cost advantage, it might seem obvious to any PC user that PSP would be the clear choice because of the abundance of features in comparison to price (or, rather, compared to the price of Photoshop). The Mac user is left totally without an option here as the program is PC only, but it does offer a viable, much less expensive alternative to Photoshop for the PC user. While it is a program that should be taken more seriously in professional circles, it doesn't have the general acceptance of Adobe products.
NOTE: I worked on a project with Jasc for PSP6, and have not had much opportunity to work with the product since, but even at the time found few things that were impossible to do in PSP or that were inherently inferior. Jasc might do well not to leave Mac users out on their ear by developing a cross-platform market to expand their credability and acceptance.
Photoshop Elements is an adaptation of Photoshop meant to address and attract the croud of users who would otherwise be looking to Paint Shop Pro (or other less expensive program) because of the strong feature set and attractive price. While removing some of the access to higher-end features, Elements (as per the name) retains the core functions of Photoshop, and goes one step further to attempt to simplify the interface. The result is a powerful package with core abilities that rival its sister program Photoshop. Note that I suggest it is a 'sister', rather than a 'simplified', 'dumbed down' or 'limited' version as I often see it referred to. Elements is not really made to be a program that is subservient to Photoshop: it is intended to be a different product entirely that focuses on digital photography and basically an RGB workflow. Adobe chose to hide some of the features in the interface (e.g., Curves, Channel Mixer, Color Balance, CMYK, channels, calculations and running actions ‰ÛÓ all of which are all possible using work-arounds from my book). This can either be seen as an attempt by Adobe to distance the product from Photoshop, or, and it seems more correctly, as a means of keeping the interface easier and more manangeable. The program has an easier structure than Photoshop and is more friendly to new users because there are fewer tools on the surface, but translating that to somehow inferior is incorrect. The guts of the program are the same as Photoshop, and the user can enhance the interface along with their growth as a user. It serves both the purpose of an introductory package, and in some cases, potential as a professional one. Certainly it can work as a partner with Photoshop to behave as a less expensive second license: just build actions you need in Photoshop and install them in Elements to create solutions to production needs.
NOTE: As for tools it is said to be missing from Elements, most all of these can be devised using the right techniques. For example, I'll be releasing a healing tool for Elements users, and can easily create an extract tool using existing functionality. It is all a matter of employing core tools to define technique.
Which to Buy?
The scenario I have tried to build here is that there is not one correct choice in image editing for every user. An honest evaluation of what you need should point you in the right direction as to what program you should buy and use. This evaluation should include a practical look at your individual needs, moreso than how well you can impress your photo-club buddies by what you can afford to buy. In many cases, the honest answer for what program to use may look to one of the less expensive options. Just to say: I have used Photoshop in a professional setting since 1992. Faced with the opportunity to budget a purchase of Photoshop (using someone else's money) at my current job, I opted to purchase Elements instead and save the rest of the budget for system upgrades that would better suit my purposes. This decision was based on the budget, the reality of needs, the production volume, and availability of additional resources.
For the true graphics professional, there may be no substitute for Photoshop. The qualification as 'professional' can vary, however, and this may not continue to be the case as other products catch up and are released. In the sense I use it here, a graphics professional is one who deals with a mixed bag of graphics on a professional level, needing to provide images extensively as part of professional services in graphic design (e.g., desktop publishing, web design, etc.). In other words, while many professional services may have graphic needs (e.g., real estate in processing images of homes), the professional need in all instances may not be so demanding or varied as to warrant need of Photoshop. However, if there is a feature used even once a month that is 'Photoshop Only' necessary to provide professional results that can't be achieved in other ways, it may be worth the investment to maintain clients and production times. Currently Photoshop remains recognized as a standard tool for the graphics professional, and those who are serious in the field will often be required to have intimate knowledge of the program. It will be the common program of choice in a professional or business setting, and perhaps a less common choice in a private one-unless you are really demanding in your graphics needs or want a license at home to hone up on and practice using the program.
Paint Shop Pro is a very good choice for the PC user who wants power on a budget while getting a little more feature-wise than Photoshop Elements will provide. This user should be somewhat self-reliant, able to concoct solutions from Photoshop-centric materials (because of thinner supply of PSP-centric materials), and should fear no rebuke or reprimand for using something other than Photoshop by choice. Almost exclusively a home-user pick for PC.
Photoshop Elements is a good choice for home use tool for those on a budget, or professionals who don't have pre-press or other volume imaging demands. It can function as a second Photoshop license to some degree and can be useful for processing images using actions and batch functions. It can be a learning tool for those newer to digital images, and provides room to expand. It can be a logical choice for those who use Photoshop at work as a less expensive home license option. It is bi-platform, so is friendly for both Mac and PC users, and it allows users to tap the broad base of information available to Photoshop users with more confidence. Though lacking in some features available in Photoshop and PSP (e.g., pen tool), it has just about all of what you will need for image processing (lacking a few things such as 16-bit functions‰ÛÓthough it will open 16-bit images as 8-bit). a good pick for most users on many levels.
The thing to keep in mind is that it is not the package that makes the image. Much of your image processing should be done in the camera. It sometimes takes years to master image editing (using any program) to the point where you are comfortable with and good at what you do...it is like learning any art. Depending on your background you may have some insight to make the learning go faster, but as I've said elsewhere, a more expensive hammer will still only drive the nails. Elements, Photoshop and PSP are comparable, and the difference is not so much that Photoshop would be a nailgun compared to a hammer. If you aren't much beyond using Autocontrast, the choice of programs won't make your images much better. Each program has many useful production features‰ÛÓmost all that you will need in common situations. To me, if you aren't doing high-volume CMYK, working in 16-bit and writing your own actions, owning Photoshop won't matter much...a less broad tool may be "the best" for you.
-
2.
Elements can't do 48 bit editing.
-
> Your truly excellent book notwithstanding, for me the most
> important function that Elements 2 (as well as prior Photoshop
> versions) can not do is support of 48-bit color (16-bits per
> channel) in all image editing and processing operations! Without
> that, Elements is no good to me.
48-bit was not even supported (fully) in Photoshop until Photoshop CS (http://aps8.com/pscs.html), which was just released. So if 48 bit is that important, what program were you using?
I am not privvy to such information, but i would expect Elements (http://aps8.com/elements.html) will not be handling 48-bit but in a cursory fashion in future versions (allowing users to open 48-bit files by converting to 24). While 48- bit may be valuable for some archiving purposes and in some corrections, the proper correction techniques (non-violent ones) should really get similar results for almost all purposes. Output cannot even really make use of 48-bit color at this point...and it is difficult to assess the difference between millions and billions of colors. Of all things, I would think grayscale is where one profits most. Even there, conversion to 24-bit will currently be the end point.
To me, 48-bit is a professional need -- something that most users will never look for. In several years it may be a standard, who knows. In any case, it does not render Elements invalid (nor 24-bit images). I never suggested there was no need for anyone to get and use Photoshop. However, I also stand by that for the grand bulk of users, Elements will more than cover what most users need or want to do with digital images...with or without 48-bit support. My book (http://aps8.com/hppe.html) adds to those possibilities without the $600 price differential. Even a fraction of that difference can allow users to upgrade their systems significantly in ways that may be more valuable: such as adding a second monitor to increase desktop landscape (http://aps8.com/monitor.html ; you will usually need a second video card http://aps8.com/pcicard.html) or adding RAM (http://aps8.com/RAM.html), or even adding another storage device. In other words, I don't think 48-bit is the only consideration -- you'll need roughly double the handling power in your system...and other additions may prove more valuable to your work and workflow than 48-bit. Presently.
-
3.
Getting creative with Elements.
-
> It seems to me you have to go into Elements with
> something in mind, or else I just don't know what
> to do. I find Elements boring and not as creative
> as i thought it would be. Will your book help with
> that?
I have taught creative writing and creative imaging, and perhaps this isn't what you want to hear but 'boring' is in the eye of the beholder. If you are going into Photoshop to do something, it isn't the program that you will have to expect to perform tricks or keep your interest. YOU have to provide the interest, and perhaps that is one of the hardest things to come to terms with. If I am writing a story and it turns out boring, it is either because I was unable to do something interesting or just having a bad creative day...I'd be hard-pressed to blame that on MS Word (no matter how delightful it might be).
I, for one, very rarely find that there is nothing I can do in Photoshop to make something interesting. My direction might be as stupid as running a few filters on an image, or opening an image at random and playing with it to achieve some interesting results. In writing as with images, teaching creative stuff was always a matter of getting students to realize it was OK to play. My guess is you don't see it as a game anymore, but as work where something is required, you expect to perform at a specific level, and have led yourself to an impenitrable wall of disappointment.
My books (Elements: http://aps8.com/hppe.html; Photoshop: http://aps8.com/hppscs.html) don't really get into teaching creativity...and the reason for that is it is too user-centric. A user would buy a book that told them they would become more creative with the expectation of becoming more creative, and, well, that is a tall order to put on myself as an author. I can teach techniques, and even techniques for creativity, but I can't promise to make a reader creative if they have no capacity...Again, it isn't the tool or the book or the inspiring object that makes us creative, it would still be the sense of play.
My perscription would be to go into the program without expectation. Open an image and start by doing some basic things like dust corrections and other perhaps mechanical procedures like color correction until you see something in an image that might be interesting to explore...then start playing with it.
> I have recently started doing digital touch up and color correction
> for wedding photographs and am finding that it is realatively new
> waters that I am in, as far as adjusting for skin tones. When
> looking at an image, I can tell if it is too greem or pink and
> such, but when I go to take the slightest green out, I see the
> magenta go in and I think it looks too magenta. When I take a bit
> of blue out, I see the yellow go in and it looks too blue.
> It also happens with the wedding dress. In the shade the dress
> takes on a blueish cast, but when I take the blue out, I get too
> much yellow it seems.
The touted solution by some experts and such seems to be in targeting the skin tone adjustment, like so:
>> An average, middle-of-the road caucasion skin tone reads:I have tried to make such recommendations in books in the past but also include a disclaimer that suggests such targeting can't be accurate. These are supposed to be a guideline...but inherently fail because of the problems inherent in the differences between skin tones. The number of exceptions outweighs the validity of the guideline (e.g., what about rosacious skin, what about yellow skin, black skin, etc.). You can't possibly measure the skin tone with accuracy: or, rather, you can measure what is there, but only guess as to what it should be. Guessing, I think, is not accurate. The most troubling part about the recommendation is that you never have black in the skin tones. I think this is just incorrect. Shadows happen, skin tones run the gammut, and there is no way to say: no black.
The real solution I would look at, ESPECIALLY for the original question (correcting wedding images) would to forgo correcting the skin at all (!!). If you correct for the grays, which CAN BE MEASURED, you will get far better color (if accuracy = better). The idea would be to neutralize the grays and as a result, the color will naturally fall into place. In the case of a wedding photo, your grays are really built in: you will want to correct the tone of the tux (black, white or gray will work) and various areas of the normally white gown. If you correct white and black points (lightest and darkest in the image) and then various tones throughout the range (say 25%, 50% and 75% gray), your skin tones will correct NO MATTER WHAT SKIN TONE the subject may have. Grays will be predictable in that the Red, Green and Blue values will be equivalent (128, 128, 128 is medium gray). Gray values are far less tricky to work with than skin tone.
Once the image is correct, then might be the time to change the skin tone to make it more pleasing (pleasing is not always correct/accurate). Another thing to keep in mind is not to necessarily correct to what you see on screen but to correct by the numbers. This can take your color settings out of the loop--If your monitor is presenting wrong and you change the image to be a little less yellow when your monitor presents a little yellowish already, the result might be far too blue. Trust the measures, not what you see on screen.
-
5. What book do i use for upgrading to Photoshop CS?
-
> I've just purchased the Photoshop CS upgrade but
> haven't installed it. Frankly, I'm still a beginner
> and use Photoshop mainly to improve my digital
> photos for printing. I have about 6 books on
> Photoshop 7 (most of the ones mentioned here)
> and haven't yet gone through all of them.
I would suggest that if the books are decent ones, you should be able to apply the techniques from PS6 and PS7 to PSCS. For example, Katrin's book has no version number, I believe for good reason: it will be applicable for most of what you want to do -- regardless of the tools. The only real difference between 6 or 7 and CS is that you will not have the new CS features/advantages, and some of the tools/functions may be somewhat different/enhanced, or may be located in a different place. As a beginner, you will mostly be using more common tools in the interface that have been around for a while.
I would not be looking to buy new books if you haven't digested the old ones. Though there may be better books coming with better techniques, and I am glad for those who help support authors (!), you should have quite enough source material to keep you chained to your computer for a while.
I have to ask as I am curious: why did you upgrade the program for casual use of Photoshop when you weren't already sure of the differences? I would imagine the program serves its purpose as version 6 or 7, and wonder if you have upgraded out of habit rather than real need? Before committing to an upgrade be sure the new features are something you need -- and at that point the potential difference between the books dedicated to any version should be evident. Your request suggests you might not be clear on the advantages first, and that might be a tactical error...
Just a word about infrared.
While there may be filtering or means of creating an infrared effect (some of these I have seen as plugins are really pretty mediocre), this would be a complicated process. Though I have a section on doing this in my new book, the effect only mimicks the real outcome. The reason for this is IR is outside of the spectra of visible light. In normal circumstances and in an sRGB color space, IR will not be recorded/retained (this is not to say some sensors do not have sensitivity to the IR spectra -- that is two separate issues). If IR light is not specifically recorded, you will not take visible light and make an accurate adjustment to mimick IR. It would really require rebuilding the effect.
That said, the process would need to take many factors into account to achive an effect, such as image brightness and filtering per color (IR photography in B&W filters out blues and greens depending on color, you will find that starting with the red channel is a good jumping off point). The best results may be had by forcing shifts in greens toward red so that you get whitened foliage...but that even by example only addresses a portion of the complexity which is the infrared spectrum and how it has traditionally affected film.
Some digital cameras like the Rebel (which has a sensitivity to infrared) when used with IR filter seems like a more realistic way to produce these effects...and then there is always using IR film in an analog camera.
Sometimes there really is no substitution. A similar problem occurs in underwater photography where everything at any significant depth turns blue -- as other wavelengths peter out. You can only record the light that is there with equipment and media that can actually handle the information.
There are many ways to achieve this, including loading the composite channel as a selection, creating a luminosity layer and converting it, duplicating the image, converting to LAB and copying out the Lightness channel, and making an action to do your favorite of these. As loading the composite is perhaps the easiest, try these steps:
If you want to apply as a highlight mask, you can invert the selection before using the shadow mask steps, or just choose Hide Selection.
There may be situations where you will want to adjust the luminosity masking to specific tonal ranges. For example, say you wanted to isolate the shadows, you could adjust the mask using the following steps:
While the selection outline of these two sets of steps will look the same, they will do very different things, both based on luminosity. There are many additional ways to adjust the tone before creating your mask -- some quite precise, and others that can save hours of work time in creating more complicated masks based on tone (or color).
I cover quite a lot of similar stuff in my new book: The Hidden Power of Photoshop CS, out in stores in the new year. Find it on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0782142559/newwriting/
------------------------------------------------
Short Answers
------------------------------------------------
-
1
-
> I seem to remember that when I originally installed the Hidden Power
> Tools from the CD, there was a filter that allowed for turning an
> image to sepia. I seem to have lost that filter.Ê What is the best
> way to get it back?
There are several methods for achieving Sepia effects using the techniques in the book. I am not sure what filter you are referring to. see pages 123-129 in Hidden Power.
-
2
-
> Was your book written for PC's? Is the CD for PC platform?
As i work on mac and PC, I have written the books for both platforms...actually the image editing thing is quite independent of platform, in my estimation. The CD works for both platforms and for Elements 1 and 2. I use it on both mac and PC pretty much every day, and there is very little difference. Adobe has done some great work in attempts to keep the programs the same. The interface may look slightly different because of the wat things are drawn by the platform...I don't know that there is enough of a difference there to really effect what you do.
-
3
-
> I am considering a new computer and can't decide on whether
> to get a Mac or PC. Do you prefer PC to Mac and why?
Oh, no...platform wars. I work on both and own both. If you have computer experience, it is often comfortable to stick with the platform you know. If you have a previous computer, just changing platforms isn't always that easy -- you have to consider the software investment you have made. For example, I have about 20k in software for mac in the closet...I don't see making that investment again soon. On the other hand, I work on a PC at my regular job, and have a PC laptop. If either is better, I have a hard time telling which. Either has their charms and fortes. If I appear to have a preference for mac, it is mostly because of the investment I have made in it as my primary workstation. Traditionally, Mac has had more room for lots of RAM, and had done more with dual processing and multiple monitors, but most of this difference has been wiped away in recent years.
> Will the HPAIII tools allow any Photoshop Action to be run
> on Elements or only the custom ones you make available?
The instructions explain this in more detail. In theory, any action can be run in Elements. In practice, it has to do with how the actions were recorded. I am of the impression that ANY action can be adjusted. I have been known to help with these adjustments when asked.
-
5
-
> What is a flattened image? I'm new to photography and Photoshop
> Elements 2 and I need to learn.
A flattened image is one where the layers have all been merged into the background. You can flatten an image by choosing Flatten Image from the Layer menu (Layers>Flatten Image). Images that you get from your camera or scan are already flattened.
-
6
-
> If I adjust a photo using levels along with the options, would you
> ever see a need to a highlights/shadows adjustment, and what steps
> would you take for it?
Yes. Please see the hiddenelements free-bee actions in there is a highlight/shadow masking tool. You would use it for images where you take separaate exposure for highlight and shadow and then combine the result. You could also use one of the masks to make an adjustment while leaving the other part of the image masked. For example, if there are some details you want to enhance in the shadows, mask the highlights so they aren't changed by alterations you make to the image. That's the short answer.
-
7
-
> I'm trying to learn how to write actions myself. Is it an absolute
> MUST that they be written in Photoshop CS (in which case I have 29
> more days to do it) or can they be edited in another program?
Actions can be written in PS6, PS7 or CS. I believe the PS6 demo is the best to get because it should not expire (and should continue to allow you to save actions). There was a link in the last newsletter to PS6 demos for Mac and PC. This demo doesn't expire.
Editing them in other ways is POSSIBLE (e.g., text editing, and another means I was fiddling with), but at the same time perhaps so labor intensive and difficult that I don't know that i would recommend it.
-
8
-
> Having just moved to Elements, one thing I really
> miss from my previous package is the ability to
> store/load selections. is there a work round for
> this in Elements?
If you have Elements 2, the save for selections is right in the Select menu (Select>Save Selection).
If you have Elements 1, there are work-arounds in my book, and a tool for saving selections specific to the Elements 1 installation of the tools included on the CD.
-
9
-
> I'm new to digital photography and hope to
> use Photoshop eventually in a number of different ways.
> What is the best way to start with Photoshop?Ê
If you haven't yet made a Photoshop purchase, you might consider looking in to Photoshop Elements (http://aps8.com/elements.html). This program along with Hidden Power (http://aps8.com/hppe.html) will probably do everything you need and save you money so you can upgrade your system.
-
10
-
> I want to get serious about editing images. What do I need?
If you are really serious I recommend getting a lot of drive space and as much RAM as you can afford.
I would also consider a second monitor -- especially if you only have a smaller one. This will allow you to increase your desktop landscape, treating both monitors as one larger one.
Monitor: http://aps8.com/monitor.html
You will probably need a PCI card for the second monitor. Without this there may be no way to plug in the second monitor.
PCI Card: http://aps8.com/pcicard.html
As far as I am concerned these additions are worth more than whether you use Elements or Photoshop.
-
11
-
> Is there a History Brush in Elements?
The History Brush is included in the tools that come with my book -- or at least a simple work-around. There is a tool that lets you set up the function and it is actually easier to apply than Photoshop's history brush. It is based on simple masking and stamping visible. All you'd do manually is:
- 12
> Hope the Healing Brush is going to be our Christmas present.
Um, well, uh...it is available for valentines day!
Brought to you by Richard Lynch
in conjunction with The Hidden power of Photoshop Elements 2
Copyright © 2004 Richard Lynch