Untitled Document

Gentlemen,

Whether the list will move or not, the name of the game for me remains the same: how to create high impact images.

Here is one: [ http: //www.bfcollection.net/errordocs/02.htm

]http://www.bfcollection.net/errordocs/02.htm

I spent way too much time on it today and am no longer sure I did the best job possible. Perhaps it will be clearer in the morning.

This is not about the lightest or darkest "significant" parts of the image. For the client (architect) everything is significant. It is a photo taken at dusk, which is always beautiful and challenging time of the day. I am not sure right now if it can be done better; it's just the lingering feeling: the picture lack the final magic touch that will make it jump out of paper.

Am I right?

Any and all commnts will be greatly appreciated.

Boris Feldblyum

www.bfcollection.net

___________________________________________________________________________

Boris Feldblyum wrote:

I would be interested in seeing the original at the same resolution as the worked example Boris.

As for your edits, I know what you mean, it can be hard to milk such types of images and it is very open to artistic interpretation. Forgetting the sky, the area of interest is low key. One wishes to engineer more contrast into the area of interest, while still keeping the impression of the original lighting of the scene (for both artistic and technical reasons related to print).

With a quick glance, I would say that it is mostly there Boris, but more may be needed for impact in print.

Not having access to the original, I would recommend use of the shadow/highlight command and then further contrast enhancing moves (to counter the previous edit). Back in the day I did this using contrast masking or similar manual methods, combined with reduced opacity "light" layer blending modes (CMYK blends different to RGB and one may prefer the CMYK edit, even if the final destination is RGB) that were masked to exclude the transitions into the endpoints - and curves too of course (steep curve in this area of interest)! Sometimes one may multiply blend in the K channel of a UCR sep at reduced opacity with layer blend if to further alter the lighting.

Then there is ACR4 and Photoshop Lightroom (highlight recovery, fill light, tonal edits, exposure, vibrance etc).

Various sharpening methods could be the next point (previous tonal edits will have a contrast/sharpening effect anyway).

Regards,

Stephen Marsh.

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Boris

This is my first time writing something on this group and i'm not a professional but simply a very very passionate about color correction and photography.

Maybe you are right this picture missed the final touch. I've just finished to read the last Dan's book. It was very hard for me both for the language, because I'm Italian and I've learned English reading this book, and for the contents, but nevertheless let's us continue with the picture. Following some Dan's techniques I tried to add two new layer as a copy of the background on RGB space. In the middle layer I applied the inverted red channel and then gausian blur with a radius of 70, layer mode set up on overlay. The top layer mode, which is a copy of the background, set up on darkness then the opacity on 50%. In order to leave untouched the sky I added to this top layer an additional layer mask applying on it an inverted copy of the blue channel. If you like you can also make some adjustment on the layer mask just created with curve which will allow you to fine tune the power of the layer mask.

This is my idea and I will appreciate comments If I'm in the right way or in the wrong one Sorry for my English language I hope in your understanding

Davide D'Angelo

Italy

___________________________________________________________________________

Boris,

I think this is a stunning photograph. I would be interested to learn about how you so carefully controlled the highlight and shadow areas, because these are very much at risk in such lighting conditions. The shadow detail shows beautifully on the monitor; however, I'd be curious to know what media you would use for printing this photograph, and whether in a print the foreground would need to be very gently lightened with a slight increase of local contrast to maintain that kind of detail on paper.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi, lovely image Boris, I would lighten the odd bits, like...

http: //www.broadhurst-family.co.uk/Photos/20070413023.jpg

I leave you to sharpen etc.

Regards

Chris

http://www.broadhurst-family.co.uk/lefteye/

___________________________________________________________________________

Boris,

Really nice image. I do think it can be made better, but any changes from where you are would IMHO be a matter of opinion, not right or wrong. What color space is it suppose to be in? I actually prefer it in ColorMatchRGB which might be lighter than you mean it to be.

After assigning ColorMatchRGB I think the sky could be darker and the silver doors lighter and the brightness of the reds brought down so as not to draw too much attention. I did a quick adjustment that I like better using Apply with Blend-If and Curves in RGB and Lab, followed by a healthy dose of Hiraloam sharpening . A larger file to look at would be nice.

Ric Cohn

___________________________________________________________________________

On 4/26/07, Boris Feldblyum wrote:

We'll see about that! :-)

My main comment has to do with the crop. It seems like you worked really hard on the middle half of the image but there's just not much interest in the bottom. I can see that there's not much you can do with the sky, but I'm confused by the area at the bottom.

It either needs to be more attractive or needs to be cropped out. Right now it's like this big, dark, bluhhhhh at the bottom of a striking image. You could darken it down and crop it out, or cut some quick masks and brush in some lighting to create interest. I'd start by brushing in a light yellow on a layer set to overlay, and see how that looks. Remember the brush should be big and the opacity small.

--

J Walton

___________________________________________________________________________

Boris,

I agree with your "lingering feeling". The exterior lighting is verging on flat. For an architectural shot I want it to be a bit more dramatic.

Lee Clawson

2/\V/\7 Studio

___________________________________________________________________________

Boris,

Very nice photo indeed!. I would remove the electric blue from it (my take was to blend 30% of the the RED in darken mode), after that I went to LAB and reduce the Magenta on the wall (maybe cMyk would be better). I gained a greener look on the bottom right construction but it doesn't seems that wrong. The sky now seem more natural to me and the rest of the colors are still there.

here's my take: http: //photo.adrianoesteves.com/color/try.jpg

Hope you can give us a higher res :)

later,

Adriano Esteves

___________________________________________________________________________

Boris wrote;

Yes I agree with that it's not about the lightest or darkest "significant" parts of the image but here you have a problem of "too much darkness", due to the sky that for me it's very distracting because it's too luminous. I think that the architect will appreciate more to see better the building than the sky....

So even if it's a particular moment of the day, the key is to darken the sky with a more dramatic color and the lower part will take more life...

I also see too much magenta on the file (I don't konw if is a problem of profiles of something else) and I would fix this.

I tried some moves in LAB but the problem is that when you convert the file in CMYK the final result is not so pretty, and I think you'll have to give a CMYK file to the printer or not?

In any case you can use an RGB version making it from the CMYK file if you like it.

So I made this:

- duplicate and convert the image in CMYK SWOP Coated 20%, GCR Medium 95-300-0

- duplicate the Black channel, invert, copy and paste onto the RGB file in Overlay mode

- Gaussian Blur of 92 pixels: this gives you the light in the lower part of the image and darkens the sky

- adjust the amount of contrast obtained by applying a curve at the layer for making the darkest gray level of about 53 RGB value and leaving the lightest gray level untouched

- flatten and convert in CMYK with the same settings above

- apply an adjustment layer->Selective Color to make the Reds more warm with some extra Yellow, eliminate some Green casts adding Magenta and subtracting Cyan and Yellow in the Greens, subtract Magenta from the Blues 25% and add extra Cyan 35%

- apply an Adjustment layer->Curves with an S shape in the Black channel to have more contrast and light also making the shadows deeper.

This is for me enough for making this image more interesting.

If you prefer you can do some sharpening in the black channel.

Here are my RGB and CMYK PSD files: http: //www.bbexecutive.com/boris.html

I hope you'll like them.

Alessandro Bernardi

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Boris

This is my first time writing something on this group.

Maybe you are right this picture missed the final touch. I've just finished to read the last Dan's book. It was very hard for me both for the language, because I'm Italian and I've learned English reading this book, and for the contents, but nevertheless let's us continue with the picture. Following some Dan's techniques I tried to add two new layer as a copy of the background on RGB space. In the middle layer I applied the inverted red channel and then gausian blur with a radius of 70, layer mode set up on overlay. The top layer mode, which is a copy of the background, set up on darkness then the opacity on 50%. In order to leave untouched the sky I added to this top layer an additional layer mask applying on it an inverted copy of the blue channel. If you like you can also make some adjustment on the layer mask just created with curve which will allow you to fine tune the power of the layer mask.

This is my idea and I will appreciate comments If I'm in the right way or in the wrong one Sorry for my English language I hope in your understanding

Davide D'Angelo

Italy

___________________________________________________________________________

It has a lot of color and looks pretty nice as is, Boris. I agree with some of the other posters that a darker sky and a lighter pavement would be a help. If you can get away with it, you might stretch the image. The effect is similar to using a longer lens on the camera. This seems to make the image a little more inviting.

I posted an example in the file section for this list. The name is "store.jpg" . I'll remove it in a few days. Go to http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/files/

Dick Lutz

___________________________________________________________________________

O.K. ... here I go off the deep end. This is my first post to this group, and with all the heavyweight pros here, I'll probably get pilloried as a color bumpkin, but nonetheless ...

In PP5, Dan talks about "betting the image." My approach to this shot is to "bet the image" that the central vertical slab is really black (if not, then all bets are off). If it is black, then at the top it is reflecting the sky, and since black is neutral, the proportions of R/G/B in the reflected sky should be the same as the proportions of R/G/B in the actual sky, so ...

First, I added a Levels adjustment level and clicked the black point eyedropper in the darkest part of the concrete basin at the bottom of the picture (sampler point #3; see the screen cap <http: //www.simpsonsresearch.com/Boris/Boris.html>that shows where I put my sampler points). This put a bit more tooth in the foreground.

Second, I sampled the darkest part of the sky (sampler point #1) and the darkest part of the reflected sky in the central vertical slab (sampler point #2). Adding a Curves adjustment layer, I adjusted the Green and Blue channels at sampler point #2 so that the ratio of R/G and the ratio of R/B was the same as in the sky at sampler point #1. (Since Red is a major color in the image, and since I wanted to keep the Red the way it is, that's why I used the Red channel as my ratio base, adjusting the Green and Blue.)

You can see the side-by-side results here:

http://www.simpsonsresearch.com/Boris/Boris.html

<http: //www.simpsonsresearch.com/Boris/Boris.html> .

To my eye, this does a couple of things:

1. It neutralizes the left wall of the building, which I see as gray concrete, and

2. It darkens the foreground which moves the eye up into the center-of-interest. It seems to increase the "depth" of the image and makes it "pop" a bit more.

3. I like the sky better being a bit more cyan.

So, do I win the image-bet, or lose it?

Best regards,

Scott Simpson

Simpson's Research

Fort Wayne, IN

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Boris,

This is my take on your photo.

I'm not at all proficient with blending channels and stuff like that yet so I had to use the tools I know a little about.

First of all, however, I thought the only thing really wrong with your version of the photo was that the foreground was too dark and flat. I don't think it was really that dark out when you took the photo and I don't think someone standing where you were when you took the photo would have seen the foreground to be as dark as you made it.

With that in mind the first thing I did was to lighten the darkest tones with the S/H command.

That done I converted to LAB and gave the "L" channel an "S" curve. This gave the photo a little "snap!" Or is that "punch!" I don't remember from Dan's books.

From their I converted the photo to sRGB. Actually, that brings up a point. Your photo wasn't tagged but in my opinion it looked best with the AdobeRGB profile assigned to it at the beginning of all this work.

From there the only thing I did was to make the sky a little darker with the Replace Color command and a layer mask to keep the changes confined to the sky. And that's just a personal opinion, I think your sky was fine.

I added the photos to the Photos section in an album called Boris' Architecture. (I don't have my own web site.) I hope you don't mind Boris. Maybe Dgrin would be a much better place to discuss and share these kinds of discussions!

Murray DeJager

___________________________________________________________________________

Scott,

This was courageous and honest on your part; and I respect what you were trying to do - stating the problems as you saw them and deploying the tools you know for resolving them; this is straightforward straight-shooting. However in the final analysis, looking at the result on my monitor, I think Boris's original is better. I found your outcome a bit more dense than his, especially in the places where one wouldn't want that (for example, bottom foreground, lower parts of the building). But it was good that you posted the results of your effort, allowing us to see the outcome of the moves you described. Please don't let a comment like this discourage you from continuing to contribute your ideas and thinking. Maybe others will disagree with my evaluation of this effort. As well, we've seen from other posted results that (at least in my opinion) they didn't succeed in improving anything either, hence it is clear that fiddling with this image is not an undertaking for the feint-hearted.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

Boris,

Here is another interpretation of your image with corrections that would be appropriate for this image to go to print, with the intention of showing off the building for the architect. The corrections were made in about 15 minutes max. sRGB was assumed as a starting point, and the corrections were made in five layers using standard techniques. The .psd file is located in the Files section as 20070413023_mod.zip

(http://tinyurl.com/3x8bly) and the jpg can be found here (http://tinyurl.com/3xl3tk).

Best,

--Rich Wagner

___________________________________________________________________________

Boris,

The subjective nature of the colors in the original scene make it quite difficult to decide what is the "correct" way to push this excellent image. The cool blue of the open sky, the yellow bath of the light cans on red brick, the orange-red light of the interior...I would suggest the only person who can target the original colors is the individual who was behind the lens.

For my part, posted at http: //www.punapix.com/tests/boris042907.jpg, I found the original--and many of the corrections submitted so far--to be too blue, particularly in the concrete. I also agree with others that the foreground is too muddy. My correction was to convert to LAB, apply a curve adjustment layer to neutralize the blue in the concrete, and lighten the quarter-tone. I limited the effect by using an inverted blue channel for the mask. I also found it aesthetically pleasing to steepen the a channel by 5 points. Did I go too far? I think the extra red counters the cool blues well, but is it accurate? Or OOG for the output method? Most importantly, will the client appreciate it?

I also find the composition more pleasing if cropped a little tighter, if the format will allow for it.

These are the types of posts where this list really shines, IMHO. While I have learned an awful lot from the endless arguments over such affairs as proper profiling, it is the collective input of so many talented professionals on a particular image that I really enjoy. If dgrin makes this type of thread easier to digest then it's worth the extra hassle.

Bruce Albrecht

___________________________________________________________________________

So much for Yahoo Groups and images. The files I posted are still in the Files section of Yahoo Groups - the links that were posted previously are broken. The files can also be accessed here, as well as through Yahoo Groups:

ftp: //www.wildnaturephotos.com/download/20070413023_mod.jpg

Layered .psd file.

ftp: //www.wildnaturephotos.com/download/20070413023_mod.zip

--Rich Wagner

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi all, this is my first post. Though I've been reading for some time, it's just now I finally felt I had something to add!

My version is at http://benrichardson.com/colortheory/ It's been corrected using a kind of digital ENR, or bleach bypass: a photochemical technique used for motion picture release prints. This gist of it is that you end up with a black and white image overlaid on the colour image, which enhances midtone contrast, adds density and desaturates the image.

How I get there varies by image, but it this case it began with a Hue/Sat adjustment layer at -100% saturation, set to Multiply. This, of course, makes the image way too dark, but only through the mids, so a strong correction either with Levels' mid-slider or an aggressive curve is all that's required to bring it back (I used a Curves layer with points at 19/66 and 91/198 set to Luminosity). I grouped these two layers and adjusted opacity by eye (50%, in this case). I also added a Channel Mixer layer (monochrome from 100% green) at 35% Soft Light and a second Hue/Sat at +30% saturation, set to Darken. Finally, judging the sky still too light, I added a darkening Curve at the bottom of the stack, using the Blend If sliders to limit its effect to the sky.

I'd be happy to hear everyone's thoughts.

Ben Richardson

___________________________________________________________________________

I don't think it would print as well as the image posted by Rich Wagner; with a series of rather ordinary Curves Adjustment Layers and gradients that image picks up the low-lights and clarifies areas of under-exposure enough to produce a vibrant, detailed print. From what I see on my monitor I don't think your image would do this as effectively.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

This picture is an extreme example of how humans and cameras evaluate scenes differently. We all know how offensive cross-lighting can be. Here, because of all the different light sources, the top left side of the building has a bluish-purple cast, but the cement in the foreground is greenish-blue. If we were at this scene we wouldn't necessarily see them as the same hue but they would be very much closer than what the camera picked up. Those corrected images that I've looked at from list members all are much too blue or purple in the background.

Also, there are two subareas that have the same type of problem. The strong yellow lighting in the first-story rooms overwhelms the camera--we would not see those areas as nearly as yellow. And on the second floor the camera doesn't neutralize the light shining through the blue windows nearly as well as our eyes would. When this effect occurs we typically have to use the B channel of LAB as a mask for the area and then reduce its saturation.

I threw a quick version into the Filess section of the list, labeled Boris/Dan. Obviously many different views are possible on how dark everything should be, as well as how to treat the yellow and blue areas. But there shouldn't be much dispute that we need to move toward neutrality in both the foreground and background cement. Doing this while avoiding a selection requires careful curving. In images like this, even though they are headed for RGB, it would be well to keep the possibilities of CMYK in mind: the presence of the black channel can help maintain neutrality in the desired areas while not muddying up the sky, which wouldn't contain any black.

I actually used two sets of curves: one in RGB to get somewhat close, reverting to Color mode to preserve detail, and then one in CMYK. I went to LAB afterward to try to get more color into the foreground brickwork.

If anybody who did a version doubts the necessity of getting these neutrals closer, paste a copy of mine on top of yours, setting layer mode to Color. That will eliminate any difference of opinion as to how dark the image should be and let you see the impact of the color shift only.

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Group:

There are all kinds of contortions we can go through to make the image pleasing.

Without being there and viewing the scene when it was photographed, correcting it will be by using the tools that work best for us, and making the image look the way we might see it in our mind's eye.

So for want it is worth - here is my mind's eye view of how the scene might have looked. Working in AdobeRGB.

http: //www.mikedemyan.com/dpreview/ColorTheory%20and%20My%20Eye.jpg

All I used to correct the image is one commercial plug-in "Shadow Illuminator" to bring out the shadow detail, and the balance of corrections were done using Hue/Saturation.

Mike

Fine Photography by

Michael Demyan

www.mikedemyan.com

610-758-9769

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Dan,

Yup, I agree. To be fare to myself I didn't even think of pulling out the Color Sampler Tool, I thought I'd give Boris the benefit of the doubt and assume that the final colors were fine with him. I also, however, never thought the colors were that far out though. When I saw Richard's version I realized my foreground cement was to green so I made a slight change to that, but that was it.

I guess thats why you make the Big Bucks!

Murray DeJager

___________________________________________________________________________

Michael,

I think your first couple of sentences are exactly right. In fact, it is a bit hazardous going too far on this image without a more comprehensive statement of intent from the client and the photographer. But one can identify and correct things that could interfere with achieving the most readily supposed objectives of the image and this you and the image from Rich Wagner have done. Along with the image that Rich Wagner posted I think this is the most successful re-take of all that have been posted - and for the same reason - the atmosphere is preserved while lifting the heavier areas that would give the most difficulty printing. This is a bit of a tricky image to work-over because the sky and the atmospherics on the building get wrecked if one gets too fancy or too heavy-handed with it. You mention using the "Shadow Illuminator" plug-in. I am interested in learning about it. Could you point me to the vendor's website, and at the same time I'd appreciate your take on how it differs from Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight filter.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

Hello Boris

Your client is an architect. If this is one picture out of many to describe that building then, in my opinion, it is a good picture. At dusk, few things are neutral, artistically speaking it is not too blue and it is not too dark, it is what you have made it. On the other hand if this is the only picture to describe the entire building then, from an architect's point-of-view, it is not a photo that describe the building adequately.

You say "I am not sure right now if it can be done better". It depends what "better" means to you, every one has a personal opinion on that and you have seen quite a few so far.

In my opinion a series of black and white photos best describe a building, its design and characteristics, architecturally speaking that is.

André Dumas

___________________________________________________________________________

Thanks for posting this image, Dan. Just looking at it with color sampler tool in hand taught me a lot. Neutralizing the concrete was what I was shooting for in my earlier effort, but your example showed me how much I missed the mark. That's why yo' da man ...

Best regards,

Scott Simpson

Fort Wayne, IN

___________________________________________________________________________

on 4/30/07 6:28 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

Dan,

We have a fairly good idea that this is to highlight an architect's design as described in the OP below:

I keep wanting to minimize the distracting changes of shape, color and light that make up this image of the building.

A rear block wall and the concrete shape in the foreground that's (now) neutral and a walkway with more color, both now lighter, (to my eyes) also adds competing visual elements. For me they are minor concerns versus bringing visual focus to a photograph of a building.

I'll be very curious to hear what the client says...

Lee Clawson

2/\V/\7 Studio

___________________________________________________________________________

Mark, I'm happy you asked. I was going to write earlier about SI but wasn't sure it would get by Stephen. I've used this plug ever since Vlad introduced it. I also use S/H and Digital SHO Pro as well as several actions and the tools in LR and ACR. Why? Because I deal with thousands of tranny scans from a CanoScan 4000. This scanner, like so many digital sensors, has mediocre DR. I invariably choose to hold the highlights, which results in plugged shadows. Ergo, I need an array of tools to recover shadow detail.

In many instances, SI does a better job than the others, including S/H, with far less work (although on images larger than 50MB it's a bit slow). The defaults are frequently bang on. Take it for a trial run. I've included an interesting note on its history.

www.shadowilluminator.org/

Paul Marriner

Vladimir Brajovic is a robotics researcher at Carnegie Mellon University. His goal is to give a better vision sense to robots. But in an unexpected side-effect, he developed a smart system to automatically enhance underexposed photos. The result, the Shadow Illuminator, is quite convincing.

The Shadow Illuminator, funded through a $350,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, was developed originally to help robots see better. Using principles based on the physics of how optical images are formed, Shadow Illuminator imitates the vision processes that take place in the human eye. It examines the content of a photograph, estimates the illumination conditions and then brightens shadows. It also enhances details within the shadow.

"Shadow Illuminator is intelligent and works consistently for all pictures," said Brajovic, director of the Computational Sensor Laboratory in Carnegie Mellon's Robotics Institute. "It provides the same results quickly and eliminates the hassle of manually adjusting photographs."

--

Paul Marriner

Outdoor Writing & Photography. Owner: Gale's End Press. Member: OWAA &

OWC. Author of: A Compendium of Canadian Fly Patterns (co-author),

Stillwater Fly Fishing: Tools & Tactics, How to Choose & Use Fly-tying

Thread, Modern Atlantic Salmon Flies, Miramichi River Journal, Ausable

River Journal, and Atlantic Salmon.

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Mark:

Here is the link to their web site.

https://www.intrigueplugins.com/

Excerpt from the web site:

===============================

Shadow IlluminatorT Pro and Shadow IlluminatorT Home are image processing plug-ins that intelligently restore details in shadows. Through physical modeling of light and surfaces, Shadow IlluminatorT technology compensates for common illumination problems in photographs. Shadow IlluminatorT technology has been originally developed at the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University to enable robots to approach the visual capabilities of the human eye. Users will find that the results of Shadow Illuminator resemble what their eyes would see if they viewed the environment instead of a camera.

Shadow IlluminatorT plug-in is compatible with most popular image manipulation programs such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Elements, Adobe Illustrator, Jasc Paint Shop, Microsoft Digital Image Pro, Irfan View, and others.

===========================================

It is very inexpensive: $30 for a home license and $40 for the pro version.

You can download a trial version also.

See what lurks in the shadows! Have fun, don't make work, correcting images.

Mike

Fine Photography by

Michael Demyan

www.mikedemyan.com

610-758-9769

___________________________________________________________________________

Michael,

Thank you, I found it and corresponded with them. They say they have thoroughly tested it for Photoshop CS, they've heard it works with Photoshop CS2, it is not compatible with Photoshop CS3 and they say it will be some months before they produce a version that is. That's OK because there are some critical teething problems with CS3 that make CS3 itself incompatible with me for the time being.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

Paul, thanks for the recommendation and explanation. Perhaps a bit OT and you won't be offended if I suggest that much time doing such adjustments can be saved (regardless of how slick the corrective software is) if one improves the "capture conditions". For my legacy film stuff I'm using a Minolta DiMage Scan-Elite 5400, which has excellent rendition of detail and DR, and combined with Silverfast leaves not much to be done in Photoshop for print. [I've written material about this on Luminous-Landscape, and developed material in support of Harald Johnson's "Mastering Digital Printing Second Edition", pages 83-89.] Unfortunately Minolta vacated this business, but Nikon has several comparable models that work faster.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Color theory and practice

Paul Marriner wrote:

Paul, I am at a loss as to why you would think that talk of "Shadow Illuminator" would not be approved, in the context of making this image "better". My moderation message was about ending potentially endless talk about missing profiles and not talk of image editing, I was wanting talk of image editing to outweigh the missing profile. "SI" would come under the subject of image editing and even if not Photoshop, it is worthy of some minor discussion (just as other third party sharpening or extraction or colour plugs get plugged).

After all, I did write about "SI" in 2003, to name one instance:

http: //tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/message/6833

BTW, on some newer cameras from Nikon - there is now an in-camera option for processing JPEG's - called "D-Lighting". It is also presented as part of a stand alone PC/Mac application named "PictureProject". An example has been uploaded to the files section of this website, named Nikon-D-Light-Boris.jpg (run at low setting, there is also normal and high options with no sliders or interface, it is a simple drop down menu choice).

Regards,

Stephen Marsh.

___________________________________________________________________________

Paul,

It's something worth trying all right. If you want the same effect in CS3, presuming that CS3 doesn't differ all that much from CS, try creating a Curves Adjustment Layer set to Screen mode. Use 100% opacity. Flatten the image and use Shadow/Highlight to adjust both shadows and highlights. Perhaps not as quick as SI, but the results are essentially the same when using their example.

Howard Smith

___________________________________________________________________________

We seem to think alike on this one. My first impulse was to get in there and start changing things around. Then I realized that Boris had shot this image at dusk for a reason-to add drama and mood to the building. Apparently it had been a clear day, so there would have not been any observable reason not to do the shoot earlier to produce an architecturally correct image with all the correct details and colors. My only suggestion to Boris was that he might want to do a very slight enhancement of the golds and reds to draw more attention directly to the building. For this image it would appear that the surroundings were not considered relevant. The colors in the image would appear to have been consistent with the lighting at that time of day. Photographers have often commented that colors change in an image shot in late afternoon light. When we start changing the colors, we lose some of the effects of the natural lighting. It makes a more acceptable image, but you lose some of the flavor.

From a realistic standpoint, our opinions don't really matter. I, too, am curious to hear what both Boris and his client think of the image. We probably won't agree, but the client pays the bills.

Howard Smith

___________________________________________________________________________

Howard,

Once you flatten an image and proceed to build a new structure you are engaged in "destructive editing", which is generally not a preferred approach - one wants to edit while preserving as much reversibility as possible. So I took your basic idea below one step further. Instead of flattening the image. Select but don't open the highest layer in the stack. Then implement a CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+E (Windows - I suppose with Mac it would be CMD+OPTION+SHIFT E) to create a stamped layer (which is everything below it sandwiched into one. Next, your stuff: create a Curves Adjustment Layer in Screen mode clipped to the Stamped layer. This Curve itself can be used for further work on image luminosity in Screen mode. But if that isn't good enough, then select the Stamped Layer, open Shadow/HIghlight filter and go to work on it. You will see by switching it on and off that all these adjustments are confined to the Stamped Layer, so if in the final analysis you don't like the result, you can trash that layer and everything is back to where it was before you started.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

and Scott adds,

No, it's just basic by-the-numbers, but it does bring up a few points to remember.

1) This image shows the dangers of overreliance on monitor appearance. Certainly several of those who posted must have well-calibrated screens. And yet some of them posted backgrounds that are, upon examination, grossly blue or purple where the viewer expects approximate neutrality. This happens for the same reason that the camera's perception of the scene didn't agree with ours: we humans are very adept at calibrating our vision to the existing light. Look at one of these blue images for long enough, no matter how good the monitor, and it will start to look neutrally correct. That's why we need an Info palette.

2) Those people who still use master RGB curves or, worse, levels, might take this occasion to discard these primitive tools (or limit them to very small moves, where the harm they do is unlikely to be noticeable). This image is a spectacular example of why channel-by-channel is better, but even images that superficially look good can benefit from proper color handling, which master adjustments don't offer.

3) We don't know where this image came from, but somewhere along the line, either by human or by algorithm, it was damaged before we got it. By context, this is a dark image--at least dusk, maybe a true night scene. Yet the sky is extremely blue, even in the version I did. In many of the others, the sky is unprintably blue. This is one reason I did a conservative image--in real life we would have to go to extra effort to make up for the acquisition damage.

This effect occurs when somebody or some machine attempts to set a light point and blows out the lightest channels. This is a particular weakness of Camera Raw's automated adjustments, but it also occurs in some camera algorithms that lead to saving a JPEG. It's the type of image that may need to be *opened* in a raw acquisition module to avoid the damage that JPEGging may do (although, in fairness, many camera models wouldn't do it unless the identified the sky as *white*). OTOH, any attempt to do anything in Camera Raw other than a minimalist open would damage this image, because its corrections are applied, in effect, as a master curve.

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

The very first problem with all of this is the first statement "No, it's just basic by-the-numbers." None of us have any way of knowing what the *right* numbers should be unless we knew more about the intent of the photograph, but we don't. "Basic by-the-numbers" is a sensible concept in the context of a finished photographic file in the hands of a pre-press manager whose task it is to reproduce that image in offset as faithfully to the file numbers as the technology allows. More generally, "by the numbers" makes sense when the PURPOSE of the exercise is exact reproduction of the hues given by the Lab numbers. The concept does not necessarily make any sense in the context of photographic imagination, which is the present context. There is no presumption - apart from taste and intent or artistry - that the concrete should be any particular hue - it can be anything which is both believable and "atmospheric" for that time of the day. The hue of the sky in the original as presented was a not bad representation of what a sky could look like in the mind's eye at that time of the evening. And even if it were exaggerated a bit, if it looks good and believable it is good and believable - that is artistic license. More generally, unless you are dealing with a situation where the objects being photographed have known and precise colors and the client wants them reproduced exactly that way, image editing by the numbers is simply an extreme and not necessarily fail-safe approach to colour-balancing a photograph. Even when I photograph a Whi-bal and use it for adjusting images taken about the same time of day, I find myself departing from the cold logic of the numbers because the scene simply looks better, or more like I saw it, using some other recipe for the White Balance. *Accuracy* is a dangerous word in these situations. Very often, white balancing is a "mix to taste" affair. That may jangle some peoples' nerves because it leads to uncertain judgments rather than pat recipes, but that's life, and that's this image.

Now, if one wishes to handle colour balancing with artistic judgement rather than arithmetic alone, your first sentence in para (1) collapses, because in these conditions you absolutely need a properly calibrated and profiled monitor (which requires using a quality colorimeter and software), otherwise the adjustments you made to the numbers to produce what you like on the monitor will not come out that way from the printer, and you will be frustrated. Those of us using modern colour management techniques avoid such frustration - well, by using modern colour management techniques, the heart of which is a properly calibrated and profiled monitor on which we can place a high degree of reliance (complemented by the appropriate ICC profile governing the processing of the numbers from the profile connection space to the printer). You may still need an info palette, because in making these judgments it is often useful to have certain reference points for anchoring judgments. Those reference points would be colours whose Lab values you "trust", or to assess the extent to which a curve movement of "X" points will reduce a cast in the "a" or "b" channels. By working back and forth between the info palette and one's eyesight, believable and artistically meaningful images are produced. It isn't a case of either the numbers or the eyes, but use of both.

In making these adjustments, just to add a rejoinder on your comments about workflow, the place to start is a raw file opened in Camera Raw. As an experienced practitioner of raw file conversion using ACR, I would never employ automatic anything. All that stuff is turned OFF and I do it by hand image by image. Camera Raw in fact - especially in version 4 now shipping with CS3 (but even before) has superb tools for recovering image detail that may at first glance appear to be clipped. There is no weakness in Camera Raw per se - the only weakness may be on the part of inexperienced users who think they can depend on automatic settings to deliver them acceptable images. For technical reasons, those who know the inner workings of this module have advised that less damage is done to image data making the largest corrections in Camera Raw, then fine-tuning the image once opened in Photoshop.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

On 5/3/07 7:10 AM, "dmargulisnj" wrote:

Says who?

So there's really no need to ever color correct an image, lets just adapt to the scene and move on.

How do you know this?

What automated adjustments based on what initial settings? You can roll your own. A particular weakness? Are you using this term to protect yourself from what is essentially an incorrect grossly exaggerated statement about ACR?

May? Oh it most certainly will.

In effect? Is this your way of protecting the statement which is utterly incorrect? You keep saying this kind of unsupported nonsense but have yet to back it up making me suspect you don't know how to properly use this tool or how it applies its data corrections. Shall we once again investigate this using the products as designed? This idea of a master curve is absolutely not how the product handles the raw data, not even close. You really need to have a conversation with Thomas Knoll, Mark Hamburg (if they©ˆd even talk to you) or read Bruce Fraser©ˆs Real World Camera Raw. You are either ill informed about the processing pipeline or you©ˆre making this stuff up! You©ˆre entitled to believe anything you wish about this product but please don©ˆt give readers on this list the impression you©ˆre in any way correct about how this product processes raw data cause you©ˆre not!

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Dan,

I've never participated in an exercise like this one before and I found it quite educational. It would have been even more educational if we had access to the "original" file, whether that be a RAW file or a Tiff file from a film scan. And maybe an "Accepted" final version as well.

Dan, you must have a hard drive full of such, real world, files. May I suggest that every now and then you toss one out for the masses to play with. Just like the one we just worked on, everyone who desires can pit there skills against one another and hopefully learn something in the meantime.

Murray DeJager

___________________________________________________________________________

On May 3, 2007, at 6:10 AM, dmargulisnj wrote:

True.

Damaged? What, broken pixels? This is a meaningless statement, unless you are referring to the damage done by JPG compression. This image is not significantly clipped in either the highlights or the shadows, and the tiny amount of clipping that is present in the posted JPG is likely because of JPG compression, not from error by Boris in either exposure or processing. Please explain *exactly* what you mean by *damaged* so that we can follow your line of reasoning.

Unprintably blue on what device? We have no idea what the intended use of this image is. I can print the blues on Chromata Brilliance Canvas and a 9600 Epson just fine. Or on Hahnemühle FineArt Pearl. Or half a dozen other papers. You could make a 5-foot tall display print of this image with a decent inkjet printer and have no problems with the blues - with any of the versions presented. There is no reason to arbitrarily limit the gamut to that of, say, SWOP if the intended use is not known.

What acquisition damage? Where is the evidence of this? What *specifically* are you talking about?

Again, where is the evidence of this in the image presented? The ONLY thing that is "blown out" are the edges around the building - and this is likely an artifact of compression.

What?!!! There is no basis in fact to this statement. Furthermore, it is likely that Boris, obviously an experienced photographer, did not use the "automated adjustments" in Camera RAW (if that is indeed the RAW processor that he used, if he shot RAW) as anyone with any experience at all with RAW processing quickly turns off automated adjustments, regardless of which RAW processor they use. But regardless, Camera RAW does NOT "blow out the lightest channel" when used with the automated defaults. The automated settings are also not the "best" settings for making any given conversion, if that is what you do with your "open in RAW and save" technique.

Camera processing to JPG is highly model/setting specific.

There is always far more control in opening an image in RAW than in taking whatever processing the camera has done and saved as JPG, but for clarity, what JPG "damage" are you talking about? The reduction in colors in the original in adjacent pixels, or something else? The user has little or no control over the tone curve *or anything else* when the camera does all the processing and outputs a JPG.

This is pure, unsubstantiated, meaningless horse manure, and it displays a gross lack of understanding of the RAW processing pipeline, in ACR or any other RAW processor. First of all, what "damage" to the image by ACR are you talking about? This is a completely meaningless statement. Second, simply "opening" an image in Camera RAW does not give you an image to further manipulate in Photoshop. You have to SAVE the image, and when you've done that, guess what? You've done a conversion from a RAW image, with linear sensor data, to a gamma-corrected, output-referred color space (either sRGB, ColorMatch, AdobeRGB, or ProPhoto - your choice - but you have to choose one of them). You should get everything right BEFORE saving the file, whether that is exposure, white balance, tone curve adjustments, or anything else - it makes no sense whatsoever not to make these adjustments in Camera RAW. You can even optimize the conversion for whatever output space you choose, if you want to go that far.

To imply that a "better" image can be obtained by starting with a JPG, rather than a RAW image, simply does not jive with reality. The camera does the sensor-to-output conversion to make a JPG, but the user has essentially no control over the process. Even the simple adjustment of color temperature cannot be done as accurately on a JPG after-the-fact. With a RAW file, the demosaiced RGB channels have multipliers added to them *before* the image has any other processing done to it - and before it is converted from a scene-referred to an output-referred color space. Camera RAW can operate on the linear- encoded data, which you can't do with a JPG, that by definition is already in an output-referred color space. The list of examples goes on and on...

Contrary to your assertion that ACR is likely to "blow out" the highlights, ACR can frequently *recover* highlight detail by looking at a channel that has been overexposed (that's not ACR's fault!) and comparing other channel information in the vicinity to estimate what the correct values should be of the clipped channel. This technique can recover a surprising amount of detail, as anyone who has used it can attest. This is done on the linearly encoded data, not after conversion to the output-referred color space.

Essentially any correction to an image possible is best made on the RAW image, and not on the output-referred, gamma-adjusted pixel image. If you have evidence to the contrary, I (and a lot of other people) would like to see it. To state that *any* RAW processor is equivalent to using "master curves" in Photoshop is sheer nonsense.

--Rich Wagner

___________________________________________________________________________

On May 3, 2007, at 7:10 AM, dmargulisnj arranged some pixels so they

looked like this:

What are you talking about here? Are you saying that Camera RAW corrections are applied in a manner siimilar to a master curve?

If that's what you're saying, you're wrong. Investigate CR further and you'll see why.

I'm sure you'll be relieved to hear that I agree with the rest of your post.

Cheers,

_andrew webb

P.S. See, Rodney and Wagner? You can disagree without being nasty.

___________________________________________________________________________

Dear Richard,

Thursday, May 3, 2007, 3:45:17 PM, you wrote:

Now you need to list what corrections in ACR are applied to raw data.

--

Best regards,

Iliah Borg

___________________________________________________________________________

--- "Murray DeJager" wrote

I asked Boris to look at a JPG of the original (offlist), as it may have been easier to enhance (globally or dropping in areas to his worked file) than the corrected image that was presented. The presented image to the group was quite a departure and the original was not much use as it was so far from the *intent* of the photographer's rendering. The presented rendering could be and probably is considered the original and the accepted final version - which we were asked to comment on.

Regards,

Stephen Marsh.

___________________________________________________________________________

Dear Andrew Rodney, dear Richard Wagner

You may be right, Dan may be wrong.

That doesn't justify the aggressive language you are using.

What's your problem?

Werner Tschan

--

STUDIO LTD

Atelier für Fotografie

Altenbergstrasse 8

CH-3013 Bern

T: ++41(0)31 332 88 33

F: ++41 (0)31 331 62 42

M: ++41(0)79 227 02 19

U: www.studio-ltd.com

___________________________________________________________________________

on 5/4/07 4:38 AM, Stephen Marsh wrote:

Stephen,

This sounds like I'm asking you when I would rather be asking this of Boris.

What I want to know if what's written above displaces Dan's speculation about acquisition damage, master curves and monitor appearance and puts it in Boris' hand ?