The Info Palette

Noise removal and sharpening - the leap of faith

2015-10-26T11:39:00.001+10:00

Pretty much everything I teach is instantaneous, you know? You try it, and see the results right away. That's what we love about digital, I guess.

But there's one thing I teach - again and again and again - whose benefits can't be seen immediately, and for that reason it freaks people out. I'm talking about proper noise removal.

So many times people say to me: "I can't remove all the noise, because the photo looks plastic."

And every time I respond: "Be MUCH more afraid of noise than plasticity."

The reason is sharpening. While noise exists in a photo, you can't sharpen it properly. Once noise is removed, no matter how soft you think the photo looks, it can be sharpened as aggressively as you like, and the results are STUNNING. Way beyond your wildest dreams.

I know you don't believe me, and I can't blame you. All I can ask is for you to trust me. If I've proven my worth to you in other matters of editing, allow me to prove it here as well. Remove ALL the noise from your photos, and once you've taken the sharpening class, you'll be blown away at how amazing your prints look.

This quote from Marny says it all:

Ok, Damien, you've sold me. I was reaaaaaaaaally skeptical of your methods after I had to add a ridiculous amount on the luminance slider to some photos in order to eradicate every single speck of noise before sharpening. They looked SO hideous and soft and mushy on screen I just couldn't imagine that they were going to print well at all. But I sharpened them and put in my order.

I just received them today and they. look. INCREDIBLE. The skin texture that looked like plastic on screen is perfect after the slight sharpening noise and the very subtle texture of the print. And even after adding up to +70 luminance to some of them they are actually sharper and more detailed than previous photos I had printed unsharpened.

I'm blown away. I've been staring at these for like 10 minutes because they're just so stunning!

None of the above is meant to suggest that you have nothing to fear from noisy images. Of course you must make every effort to light your photos really well, in order to use low ISOs and prevent underexposure. Clean images still print the best.

What I want you to understand is that if you haven't been able to prevent noise when taking your photo, your best chance of making it look good is to remove all the noise, no matter what.

Correcting eyes distorted by glasses

2015-10-23T13:14:00.002+10:00

Thick glasses can make people's eyes look small, and sometimes it's nice and flattering to be able to correct this. Usually, it's quite simple.

Note: This method is demonstrated in Photoshop. It's almost the same in Elements, but there is one little step that can't be performed. I'll mention them along the way. By the way, many thanks to Pam Frechette for her permission to use the image segment in this demonstration.

Here's the photo. See how the glasses have shrunk the face inwards?

STEP 1:

Use the Marquee Tool to select an area around the frame. No particular precision necessary, just make sure you get it all:

STEPS 2, 3 and 4:

Duplicate the selected area onto its own layer, then immediately go to the Layer menu and convert the new layer to a Smart Object. (Elements users, you can't do this step. It's ok, it's not the end of the world). Then lower the layer opacity by half, ready to enlarge:

STEPS 5 and 6:

Press Ctrl T (Cmd T if you're on a Mac, of course) to get the transform handles. Then Alt-click just inside the frame on the nose side, to put the centre point there. This means that when you enlarge, that point will stay exactly where it is, and everything else will enlarge around it:

(Elements users, I recall that older versions didn't have this nifty Alt-click feature. All the new ones do, though.)

STEP 7:

Hold down your Alt and Shift keys and grab one of the corner handles, and drag carefully outwards until the edge of the face inside the frame lines up plausibly with the edge of the face outside the frame:

IMPORTANT: When you've got the size exactly where you want it, for God's sake make sure you let go out the mouse button before you let go of the Alt and Shift keys. Otherwise the layer will get distorted out of shape.

STEPS 8 and 9:

Press Enter/Return to commit the transformation and get rid of the handles. Then increase the layer opacity to 100% again.

FINAL STEPS:

That's pretty much it! Now just add a mask to the layer and mask it in very carefully. Don't forget to turn the layer on and off a few times to check that your transformation is plausible, and your masking is perfect.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Another example of the Alt-click thing here.

If the basics of layers and masking in this article are confusing to you, this will change your life, I promise.

Black boxes and other weird behaviour in Photoshop

2015-09-04T17:00:00.001+10:00

Since Photoshop CS6 was launched, and subsequently Photoshop CC, we've seen many complaints of weird visual behaviour of the interface. Here are two scenarios, and possible fixes:

PROBLEM 1: BLACK BOXES ETC

Black boxes that appear and disappear randomly on your images, something like this:

Not only black boxes, though. Sometimes white boxes, or weird blue colours in the Liquify screen, or image disappearing when you draw a crop marquee, etc. Annoying stuff. Never problems with the image itself, just with the way it's displayed.

SOLUTION A: Go to Edit>Preferences>Performance, and click on the "Advanced" button. Change the Drawing Mode to Basic, then restart Photoshop. In fact, restart your whole computer if you haven't done so recently.

SOLUTION B: If Solution A doesn't work, go back to Edit>Preferences>Performance, and uncheck the "Graphics Processor" checkbox to turn it off altogether, then restart Photoshop again.

PROBLEM 2: TERRIBLE GRAIN
When your photos look awfully grainy or noisy, but when you zoom in to 100% it goes away.

SOLUTION: Go to Edit>Preferences>Performance, and check your Cache Levels. You'll find they're on 1 or maybe 2. Change them to 4, then restart Photoshop (or your whole computer if you haven't done so for a while):

DESPERATION:

If none of the above solutions work for your issue, fill this out then post the results in Ask Damien, along with a description of your issue, or better still a screenshot to demonstrate it.

About JPEG file size

2015-08-27T14:34:00.003+10:00

Redirecting ...

Simple but important reminder

2015-08-23T09:56:00.001+10:00

While you're transferring photos from your card to your computer (whether by cable or card reader*), DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE ON YOUR COMPUTER.

Not only must you avoid any processor-intensive work such as editing, don't even check your emails or browse Facebook. NOTHING. Allow your computer to concentrate solely on the most important task in the world right at that moment - getting your files safely onto your hard drive.

Likewise, when you're backing up your photos to your external drives, or your cloud, or wherever. Those periods of transfer are SO critical. If any interruption causes corruption to your files, you might not find out until much later, after you no longer have the original files to fall back on.

Some of you will think that I'm making an unnecessarily big deal about this. Many of you, in fact, will profess to frequently browsing the web while copying files, and you'll boast that you've never had corruption. That doesn't mean you're smart, or invincible, it means you're LUCKY. And luck always runs out, eventually. When you are mourning the loss of some important photos, believe me, catching up on your friends' news won't seem that important after all.

There's a very important aspect to this which I must discuss. Many times on forums people post that they've found a corrupted file or files in their set. Many other people are very quick to say "Oh, your card is corrupted, get a new one."

I've often wondered how many perfectly good cards have been discarded for no reason. You see, if you find a corrupted file on your computer, there's a very good chance that the corruption happened during the transfer, because you couldn't leave your computer alone for a few minutes. There's a very good chance that the file on the card was perfectly fine.

So in these online discussions, my first question to the poster is always "Do you still have the files on the card?" If we're lucky, they still do; in which case they can try copying them across again, and checking if the corruption is still present. Quite often, I'm pleased to say, it's not. This is a great outcome - we've got the photo back, and a card wasn't victimised and discarded unnecessarily.

But sadly, often the poster has already formatted the card, and used it again. This sucks, because then we don't know, you see? We don't know if the problem was the transfer, or if the card itself is truly faulty. That, of course, means people remain nervous every time they use that card in the future.

So leave your computer alone while files are transferring. Just chill out. Make a cup of tea or something. Don't risk it.

In addition to this, of course observe normal computing common sense. Shut it down or restart it regularly. Keep the hard drive at least 1/3rd empty at all times. And run maintenance software regularly (see the bottom of this page).

*Please don't use a cable. Always a card reader.

Fixing tan lines

2015-08-19T14:18:00.001+10:00

This is a very easy method to keep in mind for photos like this one, where tan lines are evident:

(This tutorial deals with darkening the too-white areas to match the tan. If you want to lighten the tanned areas, The Handyman Method should work satisfactorily.)

This method works in both Photoshop and Elements. Start by adding a Photo Filter adjustment layer, and increase the Density slider all the way to 100, and turn off "Preserve Luminosity". The default Warming Filter 85 is usually fine as a starting point:

This will make the whole photo look hideously orange, of course, so invert the mask to hide the effect:

Then start painting on the mask with a very low opacity brush, until the skin is as dark as the other skin around it. The colour might not be perfect yet, but that's ok - just concentrate on the darkness:

Here's what my mask looked like for this photo:

Once the darkness is good, turn your attention to the colour. If Warming Filter (85) doesn't look perfect to you, try changing to each of the other Warming filters. You can also try the Orange one further down the list:

If none of those are perfect either, don't panic. Just choose the "Color" option, and click on the orange square to open the Color Picker:

In the Color Picker, I usually find the H value is most important. I simply click in that field, then use the wheel of my mouse to take the number up or down, while watching the photo. For this photo, I found that a Hue of 24 was identical to the surrounding skin:

(Sometimes it's also necessary to fiddle with the S and B values to get your perfect result.)

Here's my outcome. Pretty good, eh? And so simple. Nobody would ever know.

For really complex situations, it is sometimes necessary to follow the Photo Filter with some additional touch-ups using The Handyman Method. Not very often, though.

Needless to say, if all this talk of layers and masking is foreign to you, I beg you to consider my little Layers & Masks Class. For a tiny fee, it will open up a whole world of editing skills to you.

Buying a Mac or a PC

2015-07-27T07:02:00.001+10:00

I love the fist pump baby. He makes me laugh every time. But I'm not posting this for LOLs. I think this is a genuine conversation that needs to be had.

We've all been told many times that Macs are THE computers for the photographic industry. Mac evangelists will tell you that they are SO good that they're worth the considerably larger price tag. Many will tell you that they had a PC that crapped out after two years, but their Mac is still going strong after five years.

Let's assume for a moment that this is true. (It's not true, but let's pretend that it is for the sake of discussion.) Let's also assume that you, the potential computer purchaser, are (a) not exceedingly wealthy, and (b) do not yet own all your other dream gear - that sweet prime lens, that beautiful studio lighting kit, heck, even that amazing mentoring session with that famous photographer in another state.

So, when you weigh up your available finances, it boils down to this:

OPTION 1: Buy a Mac that might last you five years, but wait another 1-2 years for the lens you want; or

OPTION 2: Buy a PC that might only last you two years, but be able to buy the lens right away.

When presented with this fundamental choice, how can Option 1 possibly sound better to you?? If you're going to be saving up some money for the next two years, why not be playing with your lovely lens in the meantime? If, after two years, you do have to spend your savings on another computer, so what?? You've had a great time with your lens, and you have been able to edit your images all the while.

And I'm sure I don't need to spell this out for you ... what makes the most difference to your portfolio? The computer you edit on (reminder: the Adobe software is identical on both platforms) or the lens you shot with? Hell, it's the lens of course. Or the lighting kit, or the mentoring. When was the last time you commented on a beautiful photo by a wonderful photographer in your news feed, asking which platform they edited on? You never have, have you?

If you have a lot of money, then this debate doesn't apply to you. Buy ALL the things you want! Good for you. But heck, I know that many people aren't so lucky. They need to weigh up their purchases carefully, and Macs don't sit well in those scales.

Now, let's debunk the myths. A PC, well maintained, can last as long as a Mac. A good desktop screen, well maintained, can last the span of quite a few computer lifetimes; whereas an in-built screen such as on a Mac has to be ditched when the computer is. Mac screens are generally good, but they aren't the best around, so if you're in the market for the very best equipment, a Mac screen is not what you buy. Macs *do* need to be calibrated. There's better free stuff available for PCs. And last of all, Macs DO HAVE PROBLEMS. Any given computer can have problems. Sure, Windows Vista was a dog, but does anyone remember a little incident called Yosemite?

I have worked on both Macs and PCs for many years, and I know that fundamentally, neither is better than the other. Given the choice of two tools that produce exactly the same result for me, I will always choose the one that leaves me with funds for other things that I need (or want).

Anywhere you go on the internet, Mac vs PC threads always bring out the vocal advocates, who will rant for hours one way or the other. Whatever. I'm not posting this for the vocal minority, I'm posting for the silent majority. I know you're out there, making decisions like this daily. I want you to know that if you choose the affordable PC because that's what your budget allows, you're doing the sensible thing. Spending more than you can afford is NEVER sensible.

Mangled watermarks on Facebook

2015-07-16T20:10:00.001+10:00

Occasionally people complain to me that their logo goes all blocky and unclear when it's used as a watermark on their photos on Facebook. On further enquiry, I generally find that this happens with logos of very vivid colours, or plain logos placed onto areas of very vivid colour on the photo.

Yes, this is because of the aggressive jpeg compression that Facebook applies to our photos, which photographers are always eager to complain about at any opportunity. As I've insisted in the past, we can't blame Facebook for doing this.

Jpeg compression is not Facebook's creation, though. It was devised many years beforehand. And it is the nature of jpeg compression that very pure primary colours get degraded more than most. I don't understand how it works, and it's not important that you do either. We must simply accept that it is so, and find ways to manage it.

Before I delve into matters of compression, I must point out that it can be avoided on Facebook business pages by using PNG files instead. PNG files have no compression. There are some caveats, though:

PNG files only work on business pages. If you upload a PNG file to a personal page, or a group, Facebook automatically converts it to a Jpeg file.
Even on business pages, Facebook only seems to allow PNG files smaller than 1MB. If you upload a PNG file that's larger than one megabyte, Facebook automatically converts it to a Jpeg file.
PNG files are bigger, so they will take longer to upload, and longer for people to view. This concern has almost completely diminished, though, in this age of fast internet speeds.

So, small-sized PNG files for your photos on your biz page. That will avoid this problem.

Let's take a look at the problem. For this exercise, I created this file:

Then I uploaded it to Facebook, and here is the result:

You can see that the black and white fared reasonably well, and so did the blue and yellow to my surprise. The cyan got a bit mangled, and the red, green and magenta were butchered terribly.

So it seemed that black, white, blue and yellow are the safest primary colours for logos on Facebook. So I created another test for those colours, placed on vivid backgrounds:

I uploaded it, and this is how it turned out:

White and yellow still fared ok, but black and blue got damaged against some backgrounds.

So what does all this mean? Should we throw up our hands in despair? No, of course not. As ever, the truth is that very few "normal" people notice these things. Members of the public don't even glance at issues that we lose sleep over.

More importantly, the degradation isn't as noticeable against normal busy photo backgrounds. Take a look:

Yes, of course the damage is there. But it's not so obvious and offensive. As I said, regular punters won't even notice.

(There is dual importance, of course, in placing your watermark on a busy part of the photo. If you put it on a plain area of seamless background, even the least skilled image thief can easily clone or paint over it. For maximum image security, we should be positioning our logo on a prominent and hard-to-clone part of the image.)

There's another method I want to mention. In my testing, I found that putting a white or black border around the text kept it much safer from degradation. Take a look at the green, especially:

Again, I don't know why this works, but it seems to. I have a white border around my own watermark for this reason.

(A border is advisable anyway, because it also ensures that a watermark is readable against any background.)

Notes:

If you'd like to learn more about the basics of creating a watermark, go here.

If you have Photoshop (not for Elements, sorry) and you want to save a LOT of time by batch watermarking, go here.

Blue or green screen for background replacement?

2015-07-16T11:53:00.001+10:00

If you're taking photos on which you intend to change or replace the background, you might think that a blue or green screen would be best to shoot against. That's the "traditional" way, right? But actually, it's a bad idea. That colour bleeds into hair, and around edges, and it's a replacement nightmare.

This is the order of your options:

BEST: Shoot against the actual colour you want in the photo - no editing necessary.

NEXT BEST: Shoot against a colour which is very similar to the colour you eventually want - minimal editing necessary.

MIGHT BE OK: Shoot against a dark neutral colour if your subject has light hair, or a light neutral colour if your subject has dark hair - the natural contrast will help you replace the colour in editing, but can still be tricky. (Example)

BAD: Shoot against green or blue (or any other bright colour, really).

VERY BAD: Shoot against a mixed/busy background.

Creamy / silky / perfect / angelic skin

2015-07-14T16:22:00.001+10:00

This question is asked a lot. "How can I get that creamy skin?" There are a few very important aspects to consider:

1. Understand that you're comparing somebody's web-size image with your full-size one

Photos always look better on the internet, especially when you know exactly how to do it right (size, format, sharpening). Don't make the mistake of looking at skin in somebody else's photo at its small web size, then at your own photo at full zoom - that'll drive you batty. Be reasonable.

Be especially aware that skilful web sharpening, which makes eyes and hair razor sharp but leaves skin alone, enhances the illusion of "creaminess" of skin.

2. Understand that you're looking at the end result of somebody's hard work

Don't upload your photos straight from the camera, and immediately throw up your hands because the skin ain't creamy. Quality takes skill, time and effort.

3. Accept that the other photographer has probably been doing this longer than you

Nobody starts perfect. They work at it.

4. For heaven's sake compare apples with apples

If theirs is a studio photo, don't compare it with your outdoor photo. Or whatever. Be practical.

5. Don't expect editing to be the key - it's 90% in the photography

This is the crux of it. You have to get the shot right long before it arrives on your computer. Principally, it's about the light. Good light = good images. Dodgy light = way more editing time, for poorer results.

You have to be able to honestly and painfully critique your own shots, when comparing them to those ones you love in your news feed. Look at their light, and look at yours. Look at the direction of their light, and how beautifully soft it is. Look at the shadows in yours, and the shadows in theirs. Wait ... can't see shadows in theirs? That's right, you can't. Learn from this.

Also look for the less obvious things. Look at the colours of fabrics they choose, that flatter the skin. Look at where they've used dark backgrounds, whereas yours are light, or vice versa. If outdoors, look at how they've positioned their subjects in front of trees that aren't being blown out by the blazing sun. These things all count towards the perception of "creamy" skin.

And of course, consider the equipment they have (camera, lens and lighting); and at this point, it might be necessary to admit that you are still saving for the lens that will give you that amazing aperture, or that enormous softbox, or whatever. Gear isn't everything, but it counts.

6. Remember this:

Skintones: Why so hasty?

It's astonishing how often I have to trot that link out. Even if you've nailed the shot in camera, with the perfect light and everything, don't bloody dive straight into skintones as soon as your ass hits your office chair. Get the important things right first.

7. Also this:

Raw noise reduction

Seriously. Simple but vital.

8. Yes, Portraiture.

When everything else is right, finally you can think about the editing of skin. And a lot of people agree that Portraiture is an excellent tool. There is also PortraitPro, and Pro Retouch. I haven't used any of them personally, but plenty of people have, and if you search the group, you'll find many relevant discussions. Don't expect the programs to be magic bullets, though - they have learning curves of their own, which will take time to master.

9. Other methods within Photoshop

There are manual methods for doing everything in Photoshop, of course, though often more time-consuming. Much is being made lately of "Frequency Separation" (google it), and there are various actions available for skin smoothing too. YouTube is rich with tutorials for "traditional" high-end skin retouching using Dodge and Burn methods, if that is your interest. If you do it that way, though, you're either an actual advertising retoucher, or you're the kind of person who listens to music on vinyl instead of digitally. There are also methods involving Surface Blur or Gaussian Blur, which you'll find abundantly if you google for them.

Smart Objects: What they're for, and what they're NOT.

2015-07-14T10:54:00.001+10:00

For the last few versions of Photoshop and Lightroom (not Elements), there has existed the ability to open photos from raw to Photoshop as Smart Objects.

If you do this, the base layer appears as the filename, instead of the usual "Background":

If you have opened a raw file this way, you can double-click the layer to return to the raw program and make further edits. There are a lot of people who use Smart Objects religiously, because of this "go-back-ability". And at face value, it seems like useful functionality, right?

WRONG.

This apparent "usefulness" doesn't stand up to a shred of scrutiny. When you examine it, you'll see it's almost utterly pointless. This modern feature does not over-ride old-fashioned good practice - Getting your raw editing right the first time.

You can't go back and forth between raw and Photoshop, making adjustments here and there, without chaos. Even the tiniest white balance adjustment, for example, will cause one of your adjustment layers to induce clipping (blowouts) in Photoshop, even though it didn't originally. Exposure tweaks? Contrast nudges? Disaster. As soon as you return the photo to Photoshop, you'll find that the adjustment layers you'd applied previously will have to be re-adjusted. Don't waste your time like that. Get your raw editing right the first time.

And consider if you took the file back to do some lens correction in raw, eg for barrel distortion. When the file came back to Photoshop, none of your layer masks would line up properly any more! Get your raw editing right the first time.

And what if you'd done some pixel editing? Some cloning, or liquifying, or skin smoothing? All of those things are done on layers above the original layer, so they won't change if you change the Smart Object. They'd need to be re-done. Ain't nobody got time fo' dat. Get your raw editing right the first time.

In order to do any of the aforementioned pixel edits, you have to duplicate the Background layer, and if it's a Smart Object, it also requires the extra step of "Rasterizing" it (turning the "smart" pixels into normal pixels). That tiny extra step might not seem much ... but to have to do it thousands of times per year, all for the so-called "benefit" of going back to raw every now and then? Forget it. Get your raw editing right the first time.

I know nobody is infallible. Sometimes we don't get it right the first time, do we? If that happens to you, simply open the raw file again from your hard drive. There's no need to over-complicate this. And if you're lucky, you might simply be able to do this. But you often won't be lucky enough.

So are Smart Objects completely pointless? Gosh no. They have another purpose, and it's VERY IMPORTANT.

Smart Objects are critical when putting a photo (or part of a photo) into another photo. The two main examples are headswaps and collages/storyboards. You see, when you use Smart Objects in these situations, you can resize, rotate, flip and even warp the Object as much and as often as you like, and it never loses its original quality. This is really important.

You'll learn much more about Smart Objects for these purposes in The Layers & Masks Class.

Order of layers for complex pixel edits.

2015-07-06T18:46:00.001+10:00

I've written a great deal in the past about non-destructive editing, and its importance for a sensible Photoshop workflow. In essence, all adjustment layers go on top, and pixel layers at the bottom. This is because pixel layers block out any layers beneath them, rendering them un-re-editable (ok, not a real word, I know!)

Mostly, when I've discussed pixel layers in this context, I've concentrated on cloning. But pixel edits can take many forms:

Let's get one out of the way right now. Noise reduction must be done in your raw program. If you've left it to Photoshop, you've left it too late. Go back and fix it.

Perspective correction can sometimes be done in raw. Do it there if you can, but don't worry if you can't, because you can do it with wonderful precision in Photoshop. Straightening can be done in raw, but I don't recommend it, because it automatically crops some pixels away, and you might need those later.

The critical thing you need to understand about pixel editing is that each layer hides the previous one, thereby preventing it from being readjusted later. So it's vital that each step is perfect before moving to the next one. Let's examine a hypothetical nightmare photo that needs all five types of pixel editing.

STEP 1: Edit the raw file and open it into Photoshop (when I say "Photoshop", I'm referring to Elements as well, of course).

STEP 2: Do the Perspective Correction and/or Straightening (per the links above).

MAKE SURE YOU ARE 100% SATISFIED WITH THE PERSPECTIVE/ANGLE CORRECTION BEFORE MOVING TO THE NEXT STEP. You can't go back later, so it has to be right.

STEP 3: Duplicate the previous layer, name it "Liquify", and rasterize it (Layer>Simplify Layer in Elements, or Layer>Rasterize>Smart Object in Photoshop). Then do your liquifying.

MAKE SURE YOU ARE 100% SATISFIED WITH THE LIQUIFYING BEFORE MOVING TO THE NEXT STEP.

STEP 4: Headswap time, or sky swap, or eye swap, or whatever photo merging you're doing. Make sure your masking etc is dead right, because there's no going back.

MAKE SURE YOU ARE 100% SATISFIED WITH THE SWAP BEFORE MOVING TO THE NEXT STEP.

Note: After this point, you can start adding adjustment layers on top if you wish. But it's probably better to do all the pixel editing first if you can.

STEP 5: Now it's time for cloning and healing. Add a new blank layer immediately above the photo merge layer from Step 4, and press Ctrl Alt Shift E (Cmd Opt Shift E on a Mac) to "Stamp Visible" - ie create a new merged layer from all the layers below. Name the layer "Cloning", then do your cloning and healing on it.

Note: If you don't intend to use the Patch Tool, you might simply be able to do your cloning and spot healing on a blank layer, without Stamp Visible. It does keep the file size a little smaller.

If you are doing any tricky cloning that requires masking, add another blank layer above the "Cloning" layer, do the cloning and masking, and once you're completely satisfied with it, Ctrl E to merge it down into the "Cloning" layer. Best not to keep multiple cloning layers, I find. Of course, don't merge until it's utterly perfect.

If you did perspective correction or horizon straightening in the first step, you might have space in the corners or on the sides of the image that you'd be cloning into at this stage as well.

MAKE SURE YOU ARE 100% SATISFIED WITH THE CLONING BEFORE MOVING TO THE NEXT STEP.

STEP 6: Finally, it's skin smoothing time. Add another blank layer above the Cloning layer, and Ctrl Alt Shift E again to stamp. Name this layer "Skin Smoothing". Go ahead and do your skin work, however you prefer to do it (Portraiture, actions, etc).

SUMMARY: Now you have all these layers:

TROUBLESHOOTING: If you realise you've cocked up one of the layers, you need to delete all the pixel layers above that layer, fix the mistake, then completely re-do all the others.

For example, if you notice that you left a subject with three ears in the headswap, you need to delete the smoothing and cloning layers, fix the masking on the headswap layer, then repeat Steps 5 and 6 from above.

If you notice you left the perspective a bit crooked, then you'll be really mad at yourself!

CONFUSED? You betcha. You'll remain confused even after doing this twenty or thirty times. It's darn tricky. Needless to say, please post in Ask Damien whenever you're having trouble with a complex edit.

Selling digital files? You can't limit print size

2015-07-05T19:24:00.001+10:00

These are examples of a type of frequently asked question in photography circles:

"What size do I need to make my digital files so the client can't print them bigger than 5x7?"

"My contract allows clients to print their own photos up to 8x10, and they have to come to me for anything bigger. How do I prepare my files?"

The blunt answer is: YOU CAN'T LIMIT PRINT SIZE.

If clients feel like printing bigger, they will. And they won't care how awful the quality is. And yes, if you've reduced your file size, the quality will be awful.

Even if you have it sternly written in your contract, they probably won't even read it. This is the age of digital promiscuity - nobody respects the T&Cs that accompany anything digital.

Your only chance of enforcing it is if you have Mafia or Biker Club connections, and can send somebody around with a tyre iron to kneecap your clients who disobey the contract. Let's face it, not many of us have those connections, and anyway, it's probably not good for business.

So even if you do have a print size clause in your contract, don't reduce the size of your files. It's not worth the risk. If your client does break the rule and prints big, the best you can hope for is that it looks great, and their friends see it and book you for sessions.

If you haven't done so already, please read my vital information about selling digital images.

Here's another, slightly different, question:

"I'm selling web sized files to the client, but they're not allowed to print them. How do I prepare them?"

As already discussed, sizing won't stop printing. However, watermarking will. Go ahead and prepare the images at web size (suggest 720 or 960, the standard Facebook sizes) and WATERMARK THEM. Put your logo on there prominently.

When I say "prominently", I don't mean it has to be bright and in-your-face. It can be light and subtle, but it must be in a prominent position that can't be cropped out, or easily edited out. Over part of their body, or whatever.

If you have Photoshop (not Elements, sorry) do yourself a favour and check out my watermarking action set. It'll speed up your workflow a LOT.

A fix for glowing backlit ears

2015-06-24T10:20:00.001+10:00

Backlit photos can look lovely if done well, but this is always a risk, isn't it?

Ears are so thin, the sun can go straight through them, and they glow like crazy. Thanks to Angela Beransky for allowing me to use her lovely backlit photo for this demonstration.

This is the handiest fix I've found. Simply add a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer, and click the "Colorize" box:

Then fiddle with the sliders. Usually I find it's necessary to push the Hue slider a little, and the Saturation slider a lot. These are the numbers I used for this one:

Then mask. Here's the result:

Note: While this method works well for ears, it doesn't work for hair. If Angela wanted to tame the glowing hair, another method would be necessary (probably Channel Mixer).

The wonderful Dust & Scratches filter

2015-06-14T22:13:00.001+10:00

The Dust & Scratches filter (in Photoshop and Elements) is amazing. Such a simple tool, yet capable of so much magic.

I use it most of all for, yes, dust and scratches, on the historic photos I restore. It saves me a LOT of time, to clean up little specks in an instant which I would otherwise have to laboriously clone or heal one at a time.

But it's not just for old photos. Gosh no. It's becoming famous in Ask Damien for regularly kicking Frequency Separation's ass for all sorts of skin issues - spots and pores and flakes. It's also brilliant for removing lint from clothing. Basically, any problem that involves very small detail.

My thanks to Amanda Kitto for allowing me to use this close-up for this demonstration:

She asked me how to remove the little milk spots from the nose. Dust & Scratches makes it dead easy ...

STEP 1: Duplicate the Background layer. Never do this kind of work on the Background layer itself. More information here.

STEP 2: Zoom in to 100% view on the problem area. Never use this filter at any lower zoom level.

STEP 3: Choose the Dust & Scratches filter from the Filter menu:

STEP 4: Put both sliders at their minimum settings - 1 and 0 respectively:

STEP 5: Slowly raise the Radius value one pixel at a time, until the problem spots are completely hidden:

This will make everything very blurry, but don't worry about that for now.

STEP 6: Now raise the Threshold slider slowly. Gradually you will see small detail start to re-appear. Keep raising it until you see the problem spots start to re-appear. That's when you know you've gone a little too far:

STEP 7: Slowly lower the Threshold again, to find the perfect balance between detail and smoothness. Your goal is to preserve the good detail that's both smaller and larger than the problem spots, but hide the problem spots themselves. For this photo, I found that 8 was perfect:

To aid you in finding the perfect setting for Threshold, toggle the Preview on and off. It will show you what detail you're hiding, and preserving. It's your best friend in this process:

Here is a cross-section of my edit. See how, in the left panel, the lovely natural fine skin detail is still preserved, but the milk spots have disappeared. Like magic:

STEP 8: Of course, the filter has affected some important detail like the eyelashes. Now simply add a mask to the layer, and mask the effect as needed.

(If masking is unfamiliar to you, please don't wait a moment longer to take my class. For only a few dollars, it will change your editing life.)

Here's the final close-up, with the eyelashes returned to their beautiful sharp state:

The "Handyman" method

2015-04-01T18:57:00.002+10:00

Just as it's nice to have a handyman in the family who can fix leaky taps, change lightbulbs, paint the fence, and various other odd jobs that arise around the house; it's also nice to have a handy editing method that can take care of all sorts of little image problems when you need it.

The following method is not fancy, nor is it difficult (though it does require a little patience). It's the kind of method which you might not need for six months, then suddenly need for three photos in a row. Learn it, and keep it in the back of your mind forever. You never know when it will be handy for skin problems, shadow problems, clothing problems, etc. It works exactly the same in both Photoshop and Elements.

For this demonstration, George Azmy has kindly allowed me to use this small section of a photograph he took. A lovely photo, but a slightly unflattering view of the subject's armpit, I'm sure you'll agree:

The "Handyman Method" involves two stages - first, a dodge and burn stage, followed by a colour fix stage.

For the dodge and burn stage, simply add a blank layer and set it to "Soft Light" mode, then paint with either black or white at very low opacity, to darken and lighten areas as needed.

I've demonstrated dodging and burning in this tutorial in Ask Damien.

Here's the before-and-after of the dodging and burning:

(Important note: The goal of the "Handyman Method" is always to preserve the natural texture of whatever it is you're fixing. In cases where you deliberately don't want to preserve the texture, you'd probably use low-opacity cloning instead.)

Below, I've isolated the view of the dodge and burn layer by itself, so you can see how it evened out the tones by lightening dark areas and darkening the light ones. I did this with a 5% opacity brush. For some more complex work, I use 3%, or even 2%.

The above fix is ok, but I'm sure you can see the problem. Even though the dodged and burned areas are now the right darkness/lightness, they're kinda dull gray-ish, aren't they? That's why we need the next stage - the colour fix stage.

Add another blank layer, and this time set it to "Color" mode:

Then (again at low opacity) paint nearby good colour onto the problem areas. You can do this one of two ways - either use the Clone Tool to clone the colour, or use the Eyedropper Tool to sample some good colour, then use the Brush Tool to paint it on. In this case, I used the Eyedropper/Brush method:

Here's a view of the colour fix layer by itself - you can see that it's quite low opacity painting - a little colour generally goes a long way, so don't overdo it:

Here's the final before-and-after, incorporating both the dodge-and-burn stage, and the colour-fix stage:

Moiré

2015-02-18T12:38:00.002+10:00

Have you ever opened a photo and been startled to see weird patterns in striped clothing, like this?

Or even worse, this?

This is called "moiré". It's the digital version of the mesmerising patterns you see occasionally in real life - such as when two sections of fly screens overlap, or when one picket fence is glimpsed through another picket fence. In real life it's pretty ... in your photos, it's a hassle.

If you are a portrait photographer, make sure you have a stern "No thin-striped clothing" clause in your "What to wear" guide. That will help you avoid this problem. However, it inevitably occurs to everybody from time to time.

There are three stages in the photographic workflow where moiré can occur - in camera, during resizing, or during sharpening. You have to be wary of all three stages. It could pop up to bite you on the bum at any time.

Let's examine each stage.

Stage 1: In camera

I have good news for this stage. When you first open a photo, and notice those weird patterns, it's most likely not really in the photo. 90+% of the time, it's just caused by your screen, because you're viewing at a smaller size. So if you see moiré, the first thing you must do is zoom in to 100%:

This is the blue shirt from the photo above, viewed at 100%. See? There's not really any moiré at all. Phew! If this is the case for you, wipe your brow in relief, and commence editing. But remember, you're not out of the woods - the moiré could arise again in one of the later stages.

But sometimes, you'll view at 100% and groan. Yes, the moiré really is there:

Sometimes it will be a single colour, like this example. Sometimes it will be a whole rainbow of colours. Either way, it's bad news. If you find it in your photo, immediately post a 100% crop in Ask Damien, and I'll help you fix it. (Do your raw editing first, but no PS editing). Once I've helped you fix it, continue on with your editing. But be wary of the next stages.

Stage 2: Resizing for output

Once you've finished your editing, and have safely saved your master file, you're ready to flatten and resize for output (either print or web). If you're enlarging it for a big print, you'll be safe. But any kind of reduction (for small print, or web) involves risk. So after you've flattened and resized, immediately check at 100% again:

If you see no moiré at 100%, great! Go ahead and sharpen for output (next stage).

But if you do see moiré, curse loudly. Then explain to your nearby children that you were very upset, and they must never repeat those words they just heard you say. Curse again, but under your breath this time.

If possible, choose a larger size. Moiré that's visible in a 6x4" print file might be avoided in a 5x7" one, for example. Try it and see. Heck, it might be worth offering your client a free print size upgrade, just to avoid the problem.

But often we're locked in to our output size, so we have to manage the situation as best we can. The following is the best method I've found:

First, I return to my master file, flatten it, then duplicate the Background layer, and go to Layer>Smart Objects>Convert to Smart Object. Turning it into a smart object provides a small degree of protection, I've found:

(Elements users, you don't have this convenient method. You have to flatten your master file, then go to File>Place, and place the saved master file on itself. The Place function brings it in as a smart object. Then zoom in to 100% and turn the layer on and off, and if necessary nudge it around until it's perfectly aligned with the Background layer.)

Then go ahead and crop or resize for output as before. The smart object layer will probably still display a certain amount of moiré, but hopefully not as much.

Here's a comparison. This is the photo I showed you before, resized in the normal way:

Here's the same photo, resized with the smart object layer on top. See how there's less moiré?

Then, go to the Filter menu and choose a blur. I've found Surface Blur can work sometimes, but other times maybe good old Gaussian Blur, or one of the others. See which is best for removing the last of the moiré from the area. This testing process might take some time, I'm afraid.

(Elements users, your software will ask you to rasterize the smart layer before blurring. This is ok.)

Then mask the blur so it's only applied to the problem area (of course you don't want the whole photo blurry!):

Let's be frank - the above method is a pain in the proverbial, and doesn't give ideal results. Who likes blurring their photo?? Not me. But it's the best way I know to combat moiré, so occasionally you'll have to do it. I just hope you don't have to do it very often.
Stage 3: Sharpening for output

After you've sharpened for output (print or web), check again at 100% for moiré. If you see it, it's easy to deal with - just mask the sharpening off that area.

Adding a little bit of blue to a white sky (Elements)

2014-12-28T11:41:00.001+10:00

This tutorial is the Elements alternative to this Photoshop tutorial. It's for adding a bit of plain blue to a white sky. If you wish to fix a white sky by putting a different sky photo into it, use this method instead.

Start by using your rectangular Marquee Tool to draw a selection around the white sky. Allow a little bit extra space under the horizon, as I have done here:

Add a "Gradient" layer:

Make it a light-blue-to-white gradient. Make sure "Dither" and "Align with layer" are checked, and make sure the angle is correct, so it goes from light blue at the top to white at the horizon:

Here's what it will look like:

Then, change the layer blend mode to either "Darken" or "Multiply". Multiply is best in most cases, I've found. The colour will blend nicely in with the photo:

Finally, turn the Gradient layer on and off a few times to assess it, then paint with black on the mask if necessary, if there are any areas which have turned blue that shouldn't have.

If you want a different shade of blue, just double-click on the gradient thumbnail in the layers panel, to edit the colour. Remember, don't go too dark! It will look silly and implausible. Keep it light.

Visit me at Ask Damien if you need help with this tutorial.

Preparing files for a wrapped triptych canvas

2014-12-22T22:14:00.001+10:00

Triptychs are wonderful, I reckon. You know, one photo chopped into three parts and hung as three separate photos? They are groovy. Not just triptychs either - you can have diptychs (two segments), quadtychs, quintychs, etc. Yeah, yeah, I made those last two up! The point is, you can divide a photo into as many segments as you want.

If you are printing a photographic triptych, or a canvas one with plain edges, it's easy. Just crop your photo into its separate parts, and print them. But if you want to do it as a wrapped canvas (or print) - where the photo goes around the edges, then it's trickier, right? Because you don't want to lose any of the image to wrapping.

In this tutorial, I'll demonstrate a simple triptych. The method I'll show you can be adapted to any number of segments, in pretty much any layout. Oh, and it works in Photoshop and Elements equally well.

Basically, you'll be following my canvas preparation tutorial. Have a quick read of it now, but don't start following it yet, because there is a modification.

Skimmed it? Good.

So, you can start following it now. Do all of Part 1, and all of Part 2, then stop and come back to this article.

Done Part 1 and Part 2? Got your plain white template with the black border? Good.

At this point, we're going to add a grid to define the segments. First, go to your Info Panel and make sure it's set to "Inches":

Next, zoom WAY in (at least 400%) to the top left corner of where your white box meets your black border. Turn on Rulers in the View menu if they're not already on, and drag the little corner box out. This is the zero point of your rulers, and you want it exactly at the corner. Watch your Info Panel to make sure you drop the crosshair on exactly the right spot.

I should have mentioned, for this example, I'm making a 36x18 triptych, which will comprise of three 12x18 segments. And I'm allowing for two inches of wrap around the frame. That's why, as you can see in the above screenshot, my black border is exactly two inches thick, and I'm dropping the new zero point of the rulers at X2 and Y2.

Once the zeroing is done, go to Edit>Preferences>Grids & Guides, and set "Gridlines every [whatever the width of your segments is]", with 1 subdivision. More info about grids here. Then turn on the Grid in the View menu.

For my example, of course, I've set the gridlines every twelve inches, because that's the width of my segments:

Now that the grids are turned on, you can continue on to Part 3 of my canvas tutorial. Place your image, and position it where you want it, using the gridlines to guide you.

Here's my example. I've positioned myself in the left segment:

Then move onto Part 4 (extending) if needed. In my example above, you can see I need to clone some extra detail on the right-hand side.

Then, in the "Final Steps" section of my tutorial, do the sharpening and the saving as PSD. Here's what my saved PSD looks like:

At the bottom is the template layer, then the image layer, then the layer that I cloned onto, then finally the sharpening.

The last step in my tutorial is to save the jpeg ready to send to the lab for printing. But of course in this case, we don't want just one jpeg, do we? We need several - one for each segment.

Here comes the key to the method. While watching both the rulers and the info panel, to be sure of perfect precision, put guides either side of the gridlines. (Guides are added simply by dragging out from the ruler, if you didn't know.) How far either side? The wrap width, of course. In my example, the wrap width is two inches, so I place a guide exactly two inches either side of each gridline:

Don't be careless with the positioning! It has to be dead perfect. Once the guides are positioned accurately, save the PSD again so you don't lose them.

I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. Now it's easy to prepare the segment files for print. First, flatten all the layers. Then crop the first segment. Remember, include the extra wrap width in the crop. That's why you positioned the guides there!

Crop the first one, and save it as Jpeg Number 1:

Then return to the full image, crop the second segment, and save it as Jpeg Number 2:

And finally, crop the third segment and save it as Jpeg Number 3:

I hope this makes sense to you.

As another example, here's a file prepared to be printed in four square sections:

The possibilities are endless.

Needless to say, if you're having trouble following this tutorial, please visit me at Ask Damien so I can help you out.

Fixing Chromatic Aberration

2014-12-22T20:27:00.001+10:00

Chromatic Aberration ("CA") is that annoying purple or green (or other colours) fringing you get around bright white areas of your photos sometimes.

See it around the hat in this photo?

Some lenses are more prone to it than others, from what I understand, in photos of high contrast. I'm not a photographer, so I don't know anything about that. You'll find more info on Wikipedia and elsewhere. What I do know about is fixing it.

First: Try fixing it in raw

Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw (with Photoshop, but not Elements) have functions for fixing CA, in their "Lens Corrections" section. Give them a try ... but don't expect a guaranteed solution. You see, the raw CA functions seem to work beautifully sometimes, but other times ... they don't work at all.

So try it in raw. If it works, celebrate. If it doesn't, no biggie. Time for ...

The Photoshop solution

I would generally recommend fixing CA fairly early in your workflow, but if you don't remember it until later, it's not a problem. Just remember that it's a pixel layer fix, so like all pixel layers, it must go underneath all of your adjustment layers, the same as for cloning.

1. Add a new blank layer immediately above your Background layer, or immediately above any other pixel layers you might have already created (but below any adjustment layers). Set the new layer to "Color" blend mode:

2a. If you're using Photoshop Elements, temporarily turn off all the adjustment layers above the new layer. Then choose your Clone Tool and make sure "Sample All Layers" is checked in the Options Bar:

2b. If you're using Photoshop, you don't need to turn off any layers. Just choose your Clone Tool, and make sure "Sample: Current and below" is selected in the Options Bar:

3. It's easy. Just clone nearby good colour over the problem area. Like magic, the problem will disappear as you clone:

Note: You don't have to clone. In cases where there is a long area of exactly the same colour required, it might be easier to sample that colour with the eyedropper tool, then paint with the brush tool. Whatever suits you.

Here's my result. On the left, a close-up of the original problem. In the middle, a look at what the clone/paint layer looked like by itself (you can see I cloned around the edges, but painted over the band of the hat in the middle). And on the right, the finished result:

It's a quick method, which almost always works well. If it's not working for you, visit me at Ask Damien for more help.

My thanks to Jessica from JR Wellington Photography for her permission to use her photo in this article.

The bl**dy Adjustment Brush

2014-11-07T09:53:00.003+10:00

It's quite common, in my group, for people to post about weird graininess in their raw files. Mostly, this is because they've used the stupid bloody Adjustment Brush. More specifically, because of the "Auto Mask" function therewith.

My disdain for the Adjustment Brush goes further than the dodgy Auto Mask function, though. I am fundamentally opposed to that tool, period.

I've always said that raw processing isn't really editing, so much ... it's actually an extension of photography. The things you do in raw are the things you do (or perhaps, *should* have done) when you take the photo. Adjusting the exposure in raw is akin to adjusting the exposure triangle to control the light through the lens when shooting; adjusting the white balance is akin to setting correct white balance in camera; noise reduction is akin to ISO setting ... do you see what I mean?

So, it's my belief that becoming a good raw editor actually helps you become a better photographer. Consistently having to fix your exposure in raw makes you think about how you could have done it better in camera, and so on.

One of the aspects you learn about is light. How it's hitting your subject, how you messed up, how you should position them better next time.

The adjustment brush makes a mockery of all that. You can quite easily be dreadful raw processor, not really know what you're doing, not be learning a damn thing about your photography, just be fixing your bad lighting with this "saviour tool".

I learned to edit raw in CS2 (I never used ACR in the first CS). It didn't even have the Recovery and Fill Light sliders, let alone the brush. And it made me an EXCELLENT raw editor. I wish everyone was forced to learn raw processing on CS2.

Lastly ... it's just a poor alternative to the exquisite control you get in Photoshop or Elements, with layers and masks. That's where selective editing lives.

Brush Tool - Difference Between Opacity and Flow

2014-09-10T16:46:00.001+10:00

Frequently on this blog you've seen me talk of painting with a low-opacity brush for one reason or another. I use varying brush opacities all the time. But I don't think I've ever mentioned Flow, nor do I use it in my work very often.

What's the difference? Well, take a look at this example. On the left, I've painted one long squiggle at low Opacity (but full Flow), and on the right, at full Opacity, but reduced Flow:

That's the difference. At reduced Opacity, no matter how many times you go over the same area in the same stroke, you don't get more "paint" on that area. To get more paint, you have to paint with a new stroke (a new click of the mouse button, or tap of the stylus).

Whereas at reduced Flow, you can keep the mouse or stylus held down, and each time you go over an area in the same stroke, it applies more paint.

Why don't I used it in my work? Honestly, because I've never taken the time to learn it. Even as I'm typing this, I'm thinking "Gee, I bet there are benefits that I'm missing out on by not using Flow more often."

So I'm adding it to my list of things to play with and learn. And I suggest you do the same, when time permits.

Proof Setup: Working CMYK: Not really

2014-07-15T20:54:00.002+10:00

This is our iron. Presently it's set to "Cotton":

Now it's set to "Wool":

Now it's on "Silk":

What's the point of all that?

NOTHING. Not a damn thing.

Want to know why?

Because it's not turned on:

If your iron isn't turned on, it doesn't make a shred of difference which heat level it's set to, right? Right.

Surprisingly frequently, somebody posts in my group in a panic, because they've discovered that Photoshop's Proof Setup function is set to "Working CMYK":

These people are wise enough to know that they shouldn't be dabbling in CMYK, so they freak out when they suddenly think they are.

Relax, my friends. Like the iron, those settings are meaningless if "Proof Colors" isn't turned on:

So chill out, pour a wine, and keep editing. You're safe.

By the way, if you want to know more about the proper use of Proof Colors, proceed to this article.

The Wide Gamut Myth

2014-06-10T20:21:00.001+10:00

Or: Why you must work in sRGB

I'm writing this post in hopes of preventing some of the recent damage from yet another CreativeLive disaster. I despair when I think of the thousands of workflows that are complicated, and the countless images that are ruined, by persistent advice to edit in large colour spaces.

It's terribly sad that so many prominent photographers sabotage the workflows of emerging photographers by advocating Adobe RGB or even ProPhoto RGB as the working space of choice. I don't think this sabotage is deliberate (although it certainly might be in some cases). I think these photographers simply enjoy the false impression of "expertise" that such advice gives them. "Oh, that guy works in Adobe RGB - he must be an expert!" WRONG.

What shall we call a group of photographers who talk crap? Why, the "Craparazzi", of course.

The Craparazzi will tell you that you shouldn't work in sRGB. They'll probably tell you that sRGB is for consumers - people with camera phones and point-and-shoot cameras. They'll try to make you believe that sRGB has a tiny gamut, with very few colours in it. They'll tell you that it's only for web, whereas Adobe RGB is for printing.

These things are not true. sRGB is for almost everyone. sRGB is a lot bigger than you think, and it easily contains most of the colours that you need in your images. And anyway, even as I write this, there is still only a very small percentage of screens in the world that can show a greater range of colour than sRGB. So there aren't many people in the world whose screens can show them the colours of Adobe RGB, and none at all which can show ProPhoto RGB.

And even if your screen can show the greater range of colours, you have to be one of the lucky few who prints on an expensive high-end wide-gamut printer. Such printers exist, of course, but not many of us use them. (More info)

See where I'm going with this? It's true that a tiny number of people in the world, with the right screen and the right printer, really can use Adobe RGB. But I'm not in that number, and chances are you're not either. We work on screens that can show us no more colours than sRGB, and we print at labs who can't print any more colours than sRGB. In some areas of the spectrum, quite a deal less, in fact.

In short: sRGB is our end goal. (Important analogy)

So how do the Craparazzi validate their bad advice? They say that it's best to work with as many colours as possible, then use sRGB for the final output if necessary. Well, here's the funny thing - they're right, in a way.

They're right that it's best to work with as many colours as possible. They're right if they tell you to convert to sRGB for the final output. And they will probably tell you to shoot raw, and they're definitely right about that. What they're wrong about is where the changeover happens.

Of course you should begin with a huge range of colours. As many as your camera can capture. That's why we shoot raw. Raw data is amazing - so many colours and tones in those ones and zeros.

The Craparazzi will tell you to process your raw files in a large colour space (Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB), then continue to edit your photos in that space, even in Photoshop. "Work with all the colours" they'll say. Of course, we know this is nonsense, because you can't see all those colours on your screen. Only the sRGB-ish portion of them.

Then they'll tell you to convert to sRGB when you're ready to save for web, or print. They might even point out the handy "Convert to sRGB" checkbox in the Save For Web dialog. Or the handy sRGB selector when exporting from Lightroom. What they won't tell you is the clipping this will cause. Colours you thought were safe, suddenly get clipped (blown out) and lose detail. A very nasty surprise. Who likes nasty surprises?

Or even worse, they'll neglect to tell you to convert at all. They'll leave you to wonder why your web images look dull and lifeless, and why your prints have lost detail. Sabotage, as I said. If you're lucky, you'll quickly find your way to a forum of good folk who will explain the problem and show you how to fix it. But not everyone is so lucky - I've known some people to buy new equipment and go to considerable expense of repeated printing, trying to figure out the problem on their own.

The "s" in sRGB stands for "standard"; but it could equally stand for "safe". As long as you work in sRGB, you're safe. sRGB colours are usable colours.

So the key to the whole issue is where you change from "Huge colour range" to "Usable colour range". And this is the crux of the Craparazzi's mistake. You mustn't change to sRGB at the end, you must do it at the beginning, when you're processing your raw file.

Here's the simple truth - the core purpose of raw processing is to convert from "Huge colour range" to "Usable colour range". Never mind what amazing creative functions your raw software has. When you boil it down, this one role is at the heart of it all. Manipulating the camera's enormous data into a form you can use.

(Astonishingly, Adobe lost sight of this truth when they designed Lightroom. By not providing the user with an sRGB histogram, they created a program which did everything except the one thing it needed to do. By Lightroom 4, thank goodness, they realised their error and partially corrected it with the introduction of soft-proofing, but it's a clumsy workaround. I yearn for Adobe to rebuild Lightroom from the ground up to fix this problem, but that seems very unlikely.)

Once you've processed your raw file into sRGB, the rest is plain sailing, you see? You can confidently work on your photo in the knowledge that you can both see and reproduce all the colours you're editing. That is so important.

So please, ignore the Craparazzi. They are not helping you, they're inflating their own egos. Ain't nobody got time fo dat.

FOOTNOTES:

1. If you shoot raw (and you should) the colour space setting in your camera is irrelevant. Your photos' colour space is designated by your raw software.

If you use Photoshop Elements, make sure its Color Settings are on "Always Optimize for Computer Screens".
If you use Photoshop/Bridge, make sure you click on the blue link at the bottom of the Adobe Camera Raw screen to set sRGB as your colour space.
If you use Lightroom 4 or above, make sure you turn on the Soft Proofing checkbox in the Develop module, and set it to sRGB. (Always choose "Make this a proof". Do not allow it to create a proof copy.) Also set your export and external editing preferences to sRGB.
If you use Lightroom 3 or below, switch to one of the above-listed programs. Your software is completely useless.

2. For heaven's sake keep this turned on. If something has gone wrong, you need to know about it right away.

3. Remember that sRGB is vital if you're selling digital files to clients. Please read this if you haven't already: Selling Digital Images

4. Likewise, sRGB is the only colour space for web photos. Info

5. Needless to say, sometimes you'll encounter vivid colours in your photos (such as clothing or flowers) that naturally exceed the sRGB or printable gamut. As much as we'd love to be able to wave a wand and magically use those colours, we can't. So we have to manage them within our limitations. I've written about these issues here and here.

6. Even when colours are safely within sRGB, some of them still might not be printable. If you have Photoshop (not Elements, sorry) you can check them before printing.

Weddings: A plea to all photographers

2014-05-16T07:31:00.001+10:00

In my line of work, I receive quite a number of emails that go like this:

"I hope you can help us. We got married in [insert month/year here] and our photos are really bad. They're [insert flaw here - blurry/dark/etc]. How much does it cost for you to fix them so that we have some memories of our day?"

Often these emails go on to say "We've been trying to contact the photographer but s/he won't return our calls."

Very often I can't help these poor people, and my heart bleeds for them.

So I'm putting out a general plea to all photographers, everywhere. For the love of God, don't start shooting weddings until you're completely sure you DON'T SUCK.

Second shooting, sure. But as the main shooter? That's incredibly weighty responsibility. Two people's happiness literally rests in your hands. If you can't, as a bare minimum, hit focus most of the time, and competently clean-process the images afterwards, you're NOT READY. Keep finding opportunities to practice and learn and improve until you are.

Thank you.

-----

Footnote:

Too often on photography forums I see this issue descend into the "They get what they pay for" debate. Statements such as "People shouldn't choose the cheapest photographer if they don't want crap photos", or the old "Pay peanuts, get monkeys".

This boils my blood. I have no patience for victim bashing.

This is about the responsibility of a photographer offering a service. If I get food poisoning eating at fast food outlet, nobody except a moron would say it's my fault for not eating at a more expensive restaurant. The food industry has certain standards to which even the cheapest establishments must adhere by law. Such laws do not exist for photography, but the standards sure as hell should. End of story.