The Info Palette

Painting on some skin

2012-01-28T21:14:00.000+10:00

This is one of those tutorials that I'm writing in the hope that you'll never have to use it.

Sometimes, things don't quite go right, do they? I'm talking about some very bright light hitting the skin of your subject, or some accidental overexposure, causing complete blowout in one or more areas.

Here is one such image that I was able to (at least partially) rescue from the brink of catastrophic blowout. I know it's not perfect, but at least it's better than nothing. The method I'm about to show you is not a miracle cure, by any means. But it's a way of subtly adding some fake skin colour where none exists.

Obviously, you should be shooting Raw, which allows some latitude to rescue difficult lighting. But even Raw is not infallible, as you can see in this gorgeous example image, kindly provided by Terri:

There was some bright light hitting Mum's fingers which caused a loss of detail which wasn't quite recoverable even in Raw. So Terri needs to add a little bit of colour there, to prevent the viewer's eye being drawn to that area, instead of the beautiful child.

So, here's how to go about it. (By the way, this method will work in both Photoshop and Elements.)

First, use the Eyedropper tool to sample a darker area of good skin colour. In this example, I sampled the thumb:

Then, add a Solid Color layer ...

... which will, of course, fill the image with that sampled colour:

Next, change the blend mode of that layer to "Darken" (sometimes Multiply works too, but I've had better success with Darken):

Then invert the layer mask to hide the colour altogether:

Choose the Brush Tool, and choose white as the foreground colour (if it isn't already). Set your brush opacity very low - I used 5% in this example, but sometimes I even use as low as 2% or 3%:

Then, start painting. I have no particular words of wisdom about this. Just very gradually build up the colour in the areas which need it. Don't go over the top - the darker you go, the more visibly fake it will look. The best you can hope for is to add just enough colour to stop that bright area being an eyesore.

Here's the before-and-after of my job on the fingers. I hope you agree with me when I say that it's strong enough to be effective, but not strong enough to look dodgy:

I hope this little tutorial helps you out of a tricky situation once in a while.

Easy, funky, crazy clipping masks

2012-01-28T15:54:00.000+10:00

I'm prompted to write this short post by a great question from David on the Ask Damien page.

"How would you go about making a storyboard with some 'effect' to its edge?"

This question follows my posts about storyboards and clipping masks (here and here). If you don't know how to make storyboards and collages and things, I encourage you to read those tutorials.

Ok, David, let's have some fun. This is the easiest way I know to do this, and I hope you love it.

Of course, the first step is to decide on the size and shape of your document. I'm making a small one today. Here it is, my plain blank transparent document:

Brushes. That's where the fun is, my friend. Choose your brush tool, then find all the presets:

By default it'll probably be on "Basic Brushes". You can see there are lots of other brush libraries to choose from. And inside each of those libraries are dozens and dozens of different funky brushes. Honestly, you could use a different one every day, and have fun for a whole year.

I choose the one called "Dry Media Brushes".

When you choose a new one, it checks to make sure you want to load them, and remove the Basic ones. Of course you do. You can re-load the Basic ones afterwards. Press OK:

Then scroll through the brush options available in the library you've chosen. If none appeal to you, try another library, and so on.

I've chosen one called "Heavy Smear Wax Crayon":

Then, just paint. Scribble away and fill the space. Mine looks like this:

You know what to do from here. File>Place and place your photo, then clip it. Voila!!!

Of course, it needs a background, so I add a gradient layer behind:

And finish it off by adding some layer styles to the painted layer:

I hope you enjoy playing with this as much as I enjoyed writing it.

Creating, saving and using a watermark (PS & PSE)

2012-01-27T22:35:00.000+10:00

Putting a watermark on your photos is important if they're going online. In this tutorial I'm going to give you some simple guidance for making and using your own.

(I've captured this tutorial in Elements 9, and it's relevant to all versions of Photoshop and Elements. Please also note that I have zero design skills, so please don't laugh at my feeble watermark!)

PART ONE: PLAN IT

As always, a bit of forethought goes a long way. Take a little time to conceive your design. This might involve surfing the web to look at other people's watermarks for inspiration; or it might just mean scribbling some ideas with pencil and paper.

PART TWO: MAKE IT

I've always found it's best to actually make your watermark on a photo. This might seem plainly logical to some of you, but I'm a bit surprised at the number of people who design their watermark on a plain white background, and don't really know how it looks on a photo until they try it out afterwards.

Also, it's a darn good idea to make the watermark bigger than you'll ever need it. Therefore, I make mine on full-res photos, even though I'm only likely to use it on a low-res one.

Pick any old photo, really. I've chosen this one of a snoozy koala:

So, I start. I type my name ...

... then try a few fonts and choose one I like:

Then I add the next layer of text, and choose another font:

I want to add a little extra embellishment, so I choose the Shape Tool ...

... and choose a custom shape from Photoshop's extensive library:

(If you've never really looked at all the shapes that come with Photoshop, do yourself a favour. There's lots of fun stuff in there.)

Then I draw the shape beneath the watermark. Now I have three layers comprising the design - two text layers and a shape layer:

If I want to move the watermark around, without the different elements separating, I select all the layers at once. I do this by first selecting the top layer, then holding down the Shift key, and selecting the bottom layer. This highlights all the layers, and I can use the Move Tool (V) to move the watermark around.

Time to modify things and "jazz it up". I select the "WATERMARK" text layer, then go to Layer>Layer Style>:

(The above menu slightly differs between Elements and Photoshop, but you'll get the idea.)

I add a bit of a stroke to the text:

And I lower its opacity a bit:

(Please note that there's little point in playing with the Layer Blend Modes when making a watermark, because they don't transfer onto the image when used.)

Now I select my name layer, and change the colour to blue:

On the shape layer, I add a Bevel layer style (I've zoomed in so you can see it a bit better):

(At this point, the design-conscious among you will be feeling nauseous at my hodge-podge of styles. I'm just throwing a few things together to give you some ideas of what can be done.)

I re-arrange the layer order a bit, and move the shape layer upwards so it's overlapping the text:

At this point, I think I'm done. But there's one more important thing to do, and I urge you not to forget this step. I have to move the watermark around to various parts of the image, and check its visibility and clarity.

When I place it over a dark area - the tree trunk - I see that the blue text gets a bit hard to read:

I have a few options. I could just not worry about it - that's the easy way :) I could dabble with different text colours. Or I could play with more layer styles.

I decide on the latter. I add a bit of soft white "outer glow" to make the text stand out from the image a tiny bit more:

Finally I'm satisfied. The last step is to delete the background layer so that the watermark is on a transparent background:

Then crop away the excess space:

File > Save As ...

... and save it as a PSD file:

Then I close it. I don't need it open any more.

PART THREE: USE IT

Now I open a new photo. This is the one I want to upload somewhere. I shrink it to web size, flatten it, sharpen it, yada yada yada ...

Then, File>Place ...

... and choose the watermark file, and it appears in the centre of the photo:

The transform handles are active, so I can resize it if I need to, and move it around to where I want it:

I press Enter to finish the transformation (I can Ctrl-T to do it again later if I need to).

I can stop there if I wish. Or, I can play with blend modes ...

... or opacity. Whatever suits my style ... or mood ... or whatever.

Then I save for web, and it's ready to go!

SOME NOTES

Now that you've learned how to make and use a watermark, learn how to build it into an action (PS only): http://damiensymonds.blogspot.com/2010/03/tip-for-watermarking.html

Some people say you have to save a PNG file to be a watermark. This is absolute nonsense. PSD is the best format - not only can it have that transparent background which is so important for a watermark, it is also completely easy to come back and edit it later (eg if I decide I want my name in red not blue).

Other people turn their watermark into a brush. This is really restrictive, and I don't recommend it. A brush can only be one colour, and it can't be batch-processed. Use this PSD/Place method instead.

GO FORTH!

I hope this helps. Have fun making your own, and don't forget to visit me here if you have any questions or problems: https://www.facebook.com/groups/195567190503489/

The light around your computer

2012-01-23T20:48:00.001+10:00

Be careful not to underestimate the influence of the ambient light while you're editing your photos.

I've seen many people comment that when they edit photos at night, then look at them during the daytime (or vice versa) they look markedly different.

Of course, when you edit some photos (especially if you're tired), then look at them again a few hours or days later, you're always going to notice some things you'd like to do differently or better. That's human nature, I guess, and in a way it's a good thing - while you're perpetually critical of your own work, you'll keep striving for improvement. And as long as you do all your Photoshop editing with layers, it should be very easy to make whatever adjustments you need.

But I'm not here to pester you about layers again. I want to discuss light. The light that's around you while you're doing your post-processing.

Some people say you should edit in the dark. I mean, really dark. Other people don't say "dark", exactly, but they say that the computer screen should be the brightest thing in the otherwise dim room. Me, I think that's completely ridiculous. What kind of idiot stares for hours directly at the brightest light source in the room? How is that good for you? And what about if you need to jot something down, or read something you jotted down earlier? And how on earth are you supposed to compare your prints to your screen to see if your calibration is accurate? (Actually, the answer to that last question is: you're meant to buy a fancy viewing booth. I've got better things to spend my money on, frankly.)

Ok, I realise that last paragraph was a bit of a rant. If you like to edit in the dark, and it works for you, go with it. But any time somebody asks me, I always give the same response: "I think you should only edit in light that you'd be happy for your kids to do their homework in." You wouldn't like them to be risking eye strain by writing in too-low light, and I don't want you to risk it either. I hasten to add I have no scientific basis for this - it just seems sensible to me.

Anyway, what's MOST important about your light is that it's consistent. It's got to be the same every time you edit. And that's not always an easy thing to achieve.

Me, I'm incredibly lucky. The bloke who owned our house before us was a musician, and he built himself a windowless (and soundproof!) room downstairs. When selling, the poor old real estate agent must have been wondering "how the heck am I going to market a windowless room??". But it's perfect for me! I've got some nice "daylight" (6500K) bulbs in the ceiling, and no matter when I'm editing - day or night - the light is exactly the same. It plays a huge role in the consistency of my work, and that's important.

Actually, the middle of the day isn't such a problem - not here in Queensland, anyway. That light is pretty "white". But it's the golden tones as the afternoon goes by, and turns into evening, that are problematic. Lovely for taking photos in, not so good for editing.

Not many people will be as lucky as me, I guess. Some of you might be able to find a windowless nook in your home, away from that nasty changing sunlight. But most of you will have windows to contend with. So you have to do the best you can.

Heavy curtains are the best answer, of course. Cardboard is also good, but doesn't flatter your house! Anyway, you've got to block out that outdoor light, and install some good indoor light. As I said, I had no trouble going to the lighting store and asking for 6500K bulbs. They're very standard. Then it doesn't matter when you're working - it's all the same light.

One more thing to mention. Often people ask me what I think about laptops for editing. I don't like them. Not because of the laptops themselves (yes, some have really bad screens, but others have perfectly good screens), but because of the very thing that makes them attractive - their portability. If you've got a laptop, you're tempted to edit on the couch, or in the hammock, or wherever. Please be careful about this. Give a thought to the light you're in, and what impact it might be having on your edits.

A Pinterest idea

2012-01-22T14:55:00.000+10:00

I've been thinking ...

I know a lot of my readers sometimes struggle with skintones, because you feel uncertain about what looks good and what doesn't. Sometimes when someone shows you how it should look, it gives you some clarity of mind, and you can continue editing with more direction and confidence.

I also know a lot of you are on Pinterest. So, here's what I'm thinking. I think you should create a board called "Skintones I love". And whenever you're cruising around, checking out other photographers' blogs, or whatever, and see a photo with skintones that take your breath away, pin it!

Then, when you're doing your own editing, and feeling a bit uncertain about "is this too yellow?" or whatever, just browse your board. Immerse yourself in great skintones for a few moments, then re-visit your own photo with fresh perspective.

Web browsers and Facebook

2012-01-16T14:50:00.000+10:00

I get SO irritated every time I see somebody say "Facebook changes the colour of images".

NO IT DOESN'T.

Facebook makes a mess of the clarity of images, we know that. Its compression settings are pretty strong, and it plays havoc with our sharpening, in particular. Nothing we can do about that. With all the billions and gazillions of images on their servers, can you blame them for compressing them a bit? Of course not.

But it doesn't change colour. If you see that your images' colour looks different on Facebook than it did in your editing program, it's your fault, not Facebook's. It's because you're not using the right browser.

Let's discuss the four main browsers. We'll start at the bottom of the pile, with Internet Explorer and Google Chrome. These two have no colour management at all.

(There have been announcements about colour-management features for both of them, but I can't get them to work, and all my googling hasn't yet found me proper instructions to do so. If anybody knows how to turn on colour management in either Chrome or IE, please let me know.)

If you're browsing in Chrome or IE, you just don't see correct colours. End of story. Even if you have a properly calibrated monitor, those two programs still don't honour colour profiles. If Chrome or IE are your favourite web browsers for whatever reason, that's great - keep using them for most things. But do NOT offer critique to anybody about the colour of their images in them; or you'll end up embarrassing yourself.

Next up the ladder is Safari. Safari is colour-managed ... almost. It honours the embedded colour profiles in images, and shows them accurately. Wonderful! Safari is a great option for most of your colour-critical web browsing.

But Safari has one little quirk. For images on websites which don't have colour profiles embedded, it doesn't attempt to colour-manage them at all. It just shows them however your monitor wishes. In other words, it displays them the same way Chrome and IE do.

All photographers should know that it's vitally important to save their web images with the ICC profile embedded. (Best practice for web photos) But not everyone has got the message yet, so some people still save "untagged". If you're viewing those images, Safari will show them wrong.

More relevant to this thread is the issue of Facebook's thumbnails. Facebook shows large versions of photos with the ICC profile embedded, but not the thumbnails. I'm sure the Safari users among you have noticed that the small photo you see in the newsfeed is a different colour than the large photo you see when you click on it.

So, if you're a Safari user, never offer CC on the colour of a photo just by looking at the thumbnail. Make sure you view the full-sized file.

At the top of the browser ladder is Firefox. Now, I know some people have speed issues with Firefox - I have no advice to offer in that regard. It's always run really fast for me. In this article I'm just talking about colour. And it's the king of colour.

However, I need to make something very clear: At its default settings, Firefox behaves the same as Safari. That is, it shows tagged images correctly, but untagged images incorrectly. Once you make a simple setting change, it then assumes that untagged images are in the sRGB colour space, and therefore gets them right nearly all of the time. (Obviously in cases where somebody has foolishly uploaded an Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB image without the ICC profile embedded, Firefox won't show it correctly. Fortunately that doesn't happen often.)

If you're a Firefox user, but haven't changed the colour management settings, you'll observe the same issue that Safari users see - the thumbnails on Facebook don't match the large images.

Time to rectify that! Here goes.

1. Launch Firefox, and type "about:config" in the address bar:

2. Say you'll be careful:

3. Type "color" in the Filter field:

4. Double-click the color_management.mode line:

5. Its default setting is 2. Change it to 1, and press OK:

The next bit is optional. I don't know how much difference it makes, to be honest. Ignore it if you want. But this is what I do (to make Firefox completely match Photoshop).

6. Double-click the rendering intent line:

7. Change it from 0 to 1 and press OK:

8. Restart Firefox.

That's all there is to it! Now, your Facebook browsing will be completely and utterly colour-managed.

As always, visit me at Ask Damien if you have any questions or problems with these instructions.

Simple storyboard tutorial - part 2: multiple photos

2011-12-22T17:14:00.002+10:00

This post is an extension of my last one - Simple clipping mask and storyboard tutorial. If you're new or relatively new to clipping masks in Photoshop, I encourage you to go back and read it before continuing here.

If you're not new to storyboard creation, you'll notice that the method I'll explain in this article is a little different from most storyboard tutorials. I assure you I have good reasons for this, and I'll explain them as I go along.

I've captured the screenshots for this tute in Photoshop CS2. The methods apply to all versions of Photoshop, and to Elements 9 onwards, but NOT Elements 8 or earlier. If you'd like the tute for older versions of Elements, come and hassle me at Ask Damien :)

As I explained in the previous post, half the battle can be won before you even start, with a bit of planning. For this example, I want to make a three-image panoramic storyboard to go on Facebook. I choose a width of 960 (the Facebook maximum) and a height of 300. I turn on gridlines every thirty pixels, and I'm ready to go:

I choose the rectangle shape tool (no "fancy" rounded corners on this design), and I set my foreground colour to a bright red. That red has nothing to do with the eventual design - it's just for the clipping shapes. I like bright colours for my clipping masks, for reasons I'll explain in a moment.

In the Options Bar, I make sure I've chosen the correct settings, as circled here:

Then I go ahead and draw the clipping shape for the first photo. It appears as "Shape 1" layer in the Layers panel:

Now, this is where my method differs from others. Most tutorials will advise you to create separate shape layers for ever image. I do not like this approach. I prefer to keep all my shapes on one layer. The first, and very obvious, reason is that it significantly reduces the number of layers I have in a layout. Keeping things simple is very important to me. The second reason I'll discuss later.

So, here's the key. In the Options Bar, I choose the "Add to shape area" icon, as circled here:

With that icon enabled, I can draw the other two clipping shapes on the same layer:

Now, I don't need the grid any more, so I press Ctrl ' to hide it; and this is what I've got:

You know this part. I go to File>Place, and choose a photo. I've done the middle one first in this case (but of course it doesn't matter, you can do them in any order):

The Place function presents the image to me with the transform handles attached, but I don't need those at the moment, so I press Enter. Then I hit Ctrl Alt G to clip the image to the clipping shape (Ctrl G in Elements):

In the Layers Panel above, you can see the little arrow on the image layer, indicating it is linked to the shape.

Now I'm ready to resize, so I press Ctrl T to give me the transform handles again, and fiddle until I like the composition in that middle square:

"Middle square" ... that seems to be a problem, right? Take a look at the above screenshot again - the edges of the photo are appearing in the other two clipping areas. Oh no!

Relax, it's a piece of cake. I just choose my Marquee Tool, and loosely draw a marquee around the target shape. (You can turn the grid back on momentarily if it helps, but I usually find that's unnecessary.)

Then, I simply click the Layer Mask icon (the little circle-inside-a-rectangle) in the Layers Panel, and my marquee selection turns into the layer mask, and hides the extraneous part of the photo from view. Neat, eh?

Now, it's just lather, rinse, repeat. I place/clip/transform/mask each of the other two photos, and my storyboard is complete. Only a few minutes' work.

You can see how all the of the images are clipped together, linking them to the shape layer. And you can see each of them have their own mask:

(I mentioned earlier that I like to use a bright colour for my shape layer. This is so that I can see at a glance if I haven't positioned one of my photos properly. If I scan my eyes over the layout, and see a bright red edge somewhere, it instantly tells me I have to check the placement of an image.)

Ok, so right now you're probably still thinking "Why? Why is this whole mask business better than clipping each photo to individual shape layers? It seems like more work to me, not less."

Well, the first benefit I've already mentioned - fewer layers. This layout comprises four layers, whereas it would be six if there was one clipping layer per photo. Four ... six ... whatever, right? But if you start to make bigger storyboards, you'll be very grateful for the simplicity of this method. Eleven layers instead of twenty in a ten-photo storyboard is a lot easier to manage.

But that's nothing. The second benefit is much more significant. It involves layer effects - borders, shadows, etc. If you have separate clipping layers, you have to set up the layer effects on each individual layer. Gah! Sure, you can alt-drag them from one to another, so it's not that painstaking. But watch this:

I select the shape layer, hit the Layer Effects icon ...

... and in a couple of clicks, apply a border and a drop shadow to all three photos at once. Bam!

And if I decide I don't like that style, I can go back and change it as often as I like. And each change I make is instantly applied to all the photos on the layout.

If you haven't done it this way before, I urge you to try it. You'll love it.

On this particular design, I belatedly decided it needed a background colour, so I just selected the Background layer, then added a Solid Color layer. Easy stuff:

I hope you've enjoyed this tutorial.

Simple clipping mask and storyboard tutorial

2011-12-07T16:45:00.001+10:00

If you'd like to make your own storyboard or collage, or if you'd simply like to place your photos in a template that somebody else made for you, you need to know about clipping masks. Clipping masks are the way to fit a photo to a specific shape in a layout.

This is a VERY simple tutorial for beginners. I've created it in Photoshop CS2, but it will work just the same in all versions of Photoshop and Elements.

Here's the basic little design I'm going to make:

Ok, ok, I know it's simplistic and cheesy. My creativity is pretty dismal. But that doesn't matter. I'm going to show you how to make this design, and in the process I hope to give you the skills and confidence to create your own ... much grander than this :)

STEP 1: Plan plan plan!

Storyboards and collages are a heck of a lot easier if you have a firm concept in your head before you begin. Sketch it on a piece of paper if it helps (that's what I do).

It's possible to change the shape and size of a design after you've made it, but it's not easy. Much easier to get it right from the start. So don't be hasty - put a bit of thought into it.

In this example, I just want to make something that will look nice on Facebook. I want it to be a portrait orientation, and I guess 3:4 shape will be nice. So I go to File>New and make a new blank image at 540x720px:

In order to lay things out with nice even spacing, it's a very good idea to use grids. You can find out a bit more about them in this grids tutorial.

For this layout, I've chosen a 30 pixel grid (subdivided in two). You can see the grid over the white document on the left side:

Ok, that's the preparatory work out of the way.

STEP 2: The background

First, my design needs a background colour. So I go to the adjustment layer icon in my Layers Panel, and choose Solid Color:

There, I choose a nice blue:

STEP 3: The shape for the photo

This is the most important bit. I have to create a shape which will be the "clipping mask" for the photo, when I insert it later.

I press U to get the shape tool, then click and hold on it and choose the Rounded Rectangle Tool:

As you can see, there are plenty of other shape options in there too. Hours of fun :)

Then I look up to my Options Bar. If yours has the same options as mine, make sure you have the same ones selected (circled) as I do. In the Radius field, I choose how rounded I want the corners to be - in this case, 60 pixels:

Then, I draw my shape. Using the grid, it is 45 pixels in from each edge, but a bit more at the bottom to allow for some text. You can see how it's dead easy to get a perfectly aligned position by using the grid. If I didn't have the grid, I'd be guessing - badly!

(By the way, there might be a bit of trial and error for the radius of the corners. You might need to draw/delete/adjust/draw a couple of times until it looks right.)

At this point, I don't need the grid any more, so I press Ctrl ' to turn it off. Now I can see my file more clearly:

Something I must mention at this point - it doesn't matter what colour the shape is. Black, white, red, whatever. It'll end up hidden anyway.

STEP 4: Text

Now I choose my text tool, and add Rowan's name at the bottom of the design. I play around and find a font that I like, and adjust the size until it looks nice. You can see that I now have four layers - the "Background" layer (which has nothing on it), the blue layer, the shape layer, and the text layer:

STEP 5: Inserting the photo

Now the fun begins. Select the shape layer ...

... then go to File>Place, and choose your photo from wherever you've saved it:

The photo places itself immediately above the shape layer. When it appears, it has its "handles" active, ready for you to resize it as needed. However, there's not much point in doing that until we've clipped it to its shape layer, so I just press Enter right away to get rid of the handles:

STEP 6: Clipping

This is the key to the whole thing. You have to "clip" the photo to the shape layer beneath it. When you do that, the photo will only be visible where it's lined up with the shape.

This is the only place in this tutorial where I have to explain a different method for Photoshop and Elements. If you're using Photoshop, you press Ctrl Alt G. If you're using Elements, it's just Ctrl G. (Substitute Cmd and Opt on a Mac, of course).

When you do that, you'll see a little downwards arrow in the layers panel, indicating the relationship between the layers:

At this point, you may or may not notice anything different. I certainly didn't on this one - everything looks the same, right? Well, hold on to your hat ...

STEP 7: Resizing

Still with the photo layer selected, press Ctrl T to re-activate the transform handles. Now you can resize the photo as desired. When I enlarge the photo beyond the limits of the clipping shape, you can see what happens. The photo is much larger than the shape, but it's only visible in the shape area:

Once I finished transforming, I just press Enter to finish. Done!

IMPORTANT: Always hold down the Shift key to resize a photo, and only use the corner handles, not the side ones. This ensures the photo won't be stretched out of shape. And one more thing - after dragging, for heaven's sake make sure you release the mouse button before releasing the Shift key.

That's it! We've made a basic one-image layout. Now, let's discuss some simple embellishments and modifications ...

STEP 8: Layer effects

Let's say I want to add a bit of a glow around the photo. Or maybe a border, or a drop shadow. It's all very easy to do via the Layer Effects.

However, you have to remember that these effects are added to the shape, not the image. So, I select my shape layer, then click on the little Layer Effects icon in the Layers Panel:

In this case, I've chosen "Outer Glow" to give that soft white outline around the photo:

There are all sorts of wonderful things you can do in that Layer Effects menu. Have fun!

STEP 9: Modifying

What about if I decide blue isn't working as the background colour? No problem, just double-click on the blue layer in the Layers Panel, and pick something different. Green to match the grass, perhaps?

Maybe I want the photo a little shorter to allow more room for the text? No problem, just select the shape layer, and press Ctrl T to transform it a bit:

(A word of caution - if you resize a rounded-corner shape like this, the corners will no longer be symmetrical. Be careful.)

And if I decide to make Rowan a bit larger in frame? Just select the image layer, and good old Ctrl T to transform him again:

STEP 10: Save as PSD

Don't forget to save your file as a PSD (or Tiff), so that the layers are preserved. That way, you can modify it a bit more tomorrow, or even use it as a template to make lots of other designs!

Obviously you'll need to save a Jpeg version to upload to the web, or the lab, or wherever, but always keep the PSD.

Well, that's all for this tutorial. I hope it made sense. Once you do this a couple of times, it'll be as natural and intuitive as breathing, I promise.

Here's another tutorial that might interest you: Shapes. It'll take you one step further in your design journey. And I'll be back soon to write another tutorial about putting multiple photos in a layout (but it's really easy, I'm sure you'll figure it out yourself.)

As always, make sure you hit me up at Ask Damien if you have any questions about this, or anything else.

Update: The second part of this tutorial is now written. Read it here.

Tutorial: Orange gradient for a dusk sky

2011-12-07T11:22:00.001+10:00

Ok, here's what we're aiming for:

We want a bit of colour in that blown-out sky. Many thanks to Sue for allowing me to use this photo.

As usual, I've done this tutorial in Elements. The method is exactly the same in any version of Photoshop.

Here's the original.

First things first, folks. Make sure you process your photo warm enough! It looks absolutely stoopid if you add a really warm sky to a really cold photo. Let's face it, if you take photos at this time of day, they're going to be warm. Don't fight it.

STEP 1: Select

Choose your marquee tool, and roughly select the sky. It doesn't have to be precise in any way:

STEP 2: Add a gradient

From the adjustment layer list, choose "Gradient":

Choose any old two-colour gradient. This green and red one is good enough. Make sure the angle is at 90 degrees, and make sure "Align with layer" is checked:

STEP 3: Choose colours

Ok, now let's pick some appropriate colours. There's a lot of clicking involved, which gets a bit annoying, but stay with me ...

To begin, click on the little gradient ...

... which will bring up the Gradient Editor. Let's change the green first. Click on the green slider (1) then on the Color swatch (2):

Then a new window opens, and you can choose a darkish orange. Then press Ok.

(Don't sweat if you haven't got the exact right colour - it's easy to come back and change later.)

Then, repeat the process for the other colour of the gradient. Click on the slider, then the swatch ...

... then choose a light orange colour:

Then press Ok a bunch of times until all the dialogs are closed and you're back to your image.

STEP 4: Blend mode

Change the blend mode of the gradient layer to either Darken or Multiply. Try both and see which works best. For this photo, I found that Darken was better.

Alrighty then, this is where I'm at. The gradient is lovely, but of course it's not blended in properly yet (it's still showing the hard line where I made the marquee selection):

STEP 5: Masking

Now it's just simple masking to blend it in. A nice big soft white brush to fade the orangeness into the trees, then a small black brush to block it from the subject's faces. Here's what my mask looked like when I'd finished:

Here's the result:

(If simple masking like this is confusing to you, I urge you to consider my little Layers and Masks class. It will change your life.)

STEP 6: Modification

Now's the time to adjust things as necessary. In some cases, you'll need to double-click on the layer to open up the Gradient Editor again, and change colours. It's easy to do.

In this case, I was happy with the colours, but the whole thing was a bit strong. So I reduce the layer opacity a little:

STEP 7: Noise

Add a noise layer per my Noise Layer Tutorial, then clip it to the gradient layer.

Do NOT skip this step. It is very important to prevent banding.

And here's one more look at the before-and-after.

I hope this is as easy for you as it was for me. If you have any trouble, don't forget to hit me up at Ask Damien.

X-Rite i1 Display Pro - the good news we've been waiting for

2011-12-01T17:17:00.001+10:00

Back in August I posted my first review of the new X-Rite i1Display Pro. I was impressed with the hardware, but disappointed in the software.

Subsequently, X-Rite assured me that they were working on the software to bring it up to the high standard that we enjoyed with its predecessor, the i1Display2.

Well, X-Rite have just released the update (V1.2.0), and I'm thrilled to report that it's excellent. Almost all of my concerns have been addressed, and I'm loving it.

It's gone from "a good device with bad software" to "a good device with great software". I do not hesitate to recommend it to everyone. If you're in the market for a calibrator, this is a terrific option.

Strategies for managing out-of-gamut clothing

2011-11-19T06:22:00.001+10:00

Very brightly-coloured clothing present a unique problem in post-processing. Most commonly it's red and orange garments, but it can happen with any vivid colour. They're invariably out of gamut, and cause channel clipping. If you shoot Jpeg and this happens, you're screwed. Make sure you shoot Raw, so that you have plenty of latitude for dealing with it.

When time permits, I intend to write more comprehensive information about this. For now, here's a brief overview of your four options.

Option 1. Ignore the clipping. This is a genuine option - a lot of people don't mind a bit of clipping in clothing. Remember that this whole issue boils down to a choice of "bright and clipped" vs "dull and safe". You might prefer the former over the latter. (Of course, some clipping is so severe that it can't be ignored.)

Option 2. Process the raw file with correct exposure etc, then use the adjustment brush to desaturate the area (if your software has an adjustment brush). In some cases reduction of exposure is better than desaturation; in other cases it needs a little of both.

Option 3. Process the raw file a bit underexposed. Then, in PS, selectively increase the exposure of areas that need it. Obviously the clothing wouldn't be one of those areas.

Option 4. Process as normal, in a large colour space. Then take it into Photoshop (still in the large space), and desaturate the clothing until it's within the sRGB gamut and can be converted safely.

LR users - you're in ProPhoto RGB by default. Just make sure you don't automatically convert to sRGB as you export to Photoshop, or the clipping will happen without your control. Stay in ProPhoto.

ACR users - choose Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB by clicking the link at the bottom of the ACR window. Remember to change it back to sRGB when you start to process other images!

Why PPI doesn't matter - yet another analogy

2011-11-14T14:13:00.001+10:00

This morning my children asked for a drink of milk. So I told them to get cups out of the cupboard, and I'd pour them one.

My daughter (4) found a short fat cup, and my son (2) grabbed a taller, thinner cup. They put them on the table, and I poured the milk.

My daughter immediately asked why her brother had more milk than her. I tried to explain that they both had the same amount of milk, but it looked as if she had less because her cup was fatter, whereas her brother's cup was thinner. Needless to say, she didn't really understand the explanation (how do you explain fluid volume to a 4 year old?), so I brought the discussion to a hasty halt with my most fatherly "Just drink your darn milk, ok?"

Replace "milk" with "pixels", and it's pretty much the same discussion we have regularly on forums and Facebook ...

"That photographer's images are 300ppi, and mine are only 72ppi! Why are hers bigger?"

They're not. Yours are just as big as hers. Hers are just in a "thinner glass", that's all.

Just take your darn photos, ok?

:D

"Front Image" (Crop Tool): Don't touch it!

2011-11-08T20:21:00.001+10:00

When you choose your Crop Tool in Photoshop (I don't think this applies to Elements), one of the features of the Options Bar is the "Front Image" button:

When you click this button, it populates the three fields with the Width, Height and Resolution of the image you're working on.

There is only ONE reason to use this button, and it is a very rare one. You use it if you want to crop another image to the exact same size as the one you're presently viewing. You press that button to get the specs of the current image, then switch to the other image, and crop it. Both images will then be exactly the same height, width and resolution.

That hardly seems worthy of a blog post? You're dead right. It's such an obscure function that it's barely worth mentioning. The reason I'm writing this post is because an alarming number of people misuse the Front Image button.

This invariably comes up when somebody, somewhere, asks the question "How can I crop my image and keep it the same shape as the original?". Somebody else chimes in with "Just press the Front Image button then crop".

Before I discuss why that answer is wrong and dangerous, I want to stress that the question is also flawed. As I sit here, I can't think of a single reason why you'd want to crop your photo with no other purpose than "keeping it at the same shape as the original". Cropping must only be done with a specific purpose in mind. If you haven't already done so, please read my cropping tutorial.

But even if you could find a legitimate reason for cropping to the original shape, Front Image is a dangerous way to do it. Why? Because you're not only cropping, you're also re-enlarging (resampling) the remaining pixels. This is unnecessary, and detrimental to image quality.

DON'T DO IT.

Faulty Camera Raw plug-in

2011-11-05T20:11:00.000+10:00

Last night I did a fresh install of Photoshop CS5 on my PC. After the install, I immediately chose "Updates" from the Help menu, and it installed all of the latest plug-ins, patches, etc. All pretty straightforward - the kind of thing we've all done a few times.

But this morning when I came to do some work, I found that there were a couple of CR2 files from one particular client which I couldn't view in Bridge, nor open in ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). I could see everybody else's raw files ok, it was just this one set.

I was totally perplexed, because I knew I'd viewed these files only a couple of days earlier, before the re-install. And what was more, I found I could open them just fine in Elements 9, so I knew the files themselves were ok. It was a problem with CS5.

But what was the problem? Like I said, I could open other raw files without any trouble. So I thought, well, maybe I didn't do the Updates properly? So I went to Help>Updates again, but it told me everything was up to date. I tried the same thing via Bridge - same result.

I'm happy to report I found the solution, and I'm posting it here on the remote chance that somebody else has this same problem, and finds my blog ...

I went to C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Plug-Ins\CS5\File Formats and found the file called Camera Raw.8bi. I deleted it, then went to the Adobe site and manually downloaded that file again. I put the newly-downloaded file into the folder, and launched Bridge - voila! I could see and edit all of my raw files again. Huzzah!

So I guess it means that the Camera Raw plugin file must have been faulty somehow. I don't know how it happened, but I'm very glad that my tale had a happy ending.

(I assume this problem and solution could apply to any version of Photoshop. If you're on a Mac, I believe the path to find your plug-in is /Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug-Ins/CS5/File Formats.)

Blanket fade examples

2011-10-30T20:54:00.000+10:00

In my last post I demonstrated my technique for blanket fade. I hope you liked it. (If you haven't read it, please do so, or this post won't make much sense!)

Here, I'll show you two more examples using the same method.

Many thanks to Amanda Miley for this image:

And thanks to Jennifer Davidson for this one:

Blanket fade tutorial

2011-10-30T14:17:00.000+10:00

By popular demand, I finally got around to writing this tute. Let's take a look at what we're aiming to achieve:

It's the classic blanket-blurring-off-into-the-distance. In most cases, it's really easy to do, as I'm about to demonstrate.

Before I start, I must express my gratitude to Amy Cope Photography for the use of this gorgeous image. Thanks Amy! Also, I've recorded this tutorial in Photoshop Elements 9. I never pass up an opportunity to show Elements users how seriously their software ROCKS. CS5-CSschmive, I say ;)

Important - Before you begin: Read my Adding a noise layer tutorial and set up a noise pattern the way I demonstrated. We'll need it later. Please don't attempt this method until you've done so.

Step 1: Take your eyedropper tool and sample a piece of background colour that you wish to use. My firm advice is: sample from the area next to the most difficult piece of hair! That wispy piece that you really don't want to have to mask around. You can see the area I chose:

Step 2: Use your Polygonal Lasso Tool to loosely select around the subject, and down to the foreground at each side (you can use the plain Lasso Tool if you like, but I find it too clumsy):

Step 3: Add a Solid Color layer:

The result will look like this. You can see how, because I chose a colour very similar to the original background, it's already blending quite nicely without my help:

Don't forget that you can easily change the colour of the layer at any time, just by double-clicking it in the Layers panel. It's important to keep this in mind, because sometimes you'll find you haven't sampled quite the right colour.

Step 5: Zoom in and mask around the subject with a white brush. You'll need to vary the brush size and opacity as you go around. This part takes a bit of time, but if the existing backdrop is fairly evenly-lit, and you've sampled your colour from nearby the trickiest bit of hair, it shouldn't be too difficult.

Here's my result. You can see the hard-edged bits falling away towards the foreground, but that's not a problem - I'll be fading that out soon.

Note: This is fundamental masking stuff. If it's foreign to you, please consider my little "Introduction to Layers and Masks" class. It's only $20, and it will change your life.

Step 6: Now choose a big soft brush and gently paint with black from the bottom upwards, gradually blending the blanket into the colour layer. The bigger the brush, the more gentle the transition will be:

Here's my result:

And here's the mask I used:

Finished? Well, yes, you could be. If you're happy with flat colour in your background, then you can stop at this point, and be happy.

Me, I'm rarely happy with flat colour. I love a very subtle bit of vignetting - I think it adds to the credibility of the edit.

There are oodles of ways to add a vignette to an image, and I've written about them in my vignette tutorial. However, I like to take the easy approach in this method, and it works well for everything except very light backgrounds.

Step 7: Duplicate the Color layer, then change its blend mode to "Multiply", and fill its mask with black (Edit>Fill).

Step 8: With a big, soft, low-opacity white brush, very gently paint around the edges to create a slight vignette. Please don't overdo it!

Step 9: Finally, it's time to add our noise, so that our vignette doesn't suffer banding. Return to your original Color layer, then add a Pattern layer:

Step 10: Choose your noise pattern preset, and set the layer blend mode to "Overlay". Then clip the noise layer to the Color layer (Ctrl G in Elements, Ctrl Alt G in Photoshop). That ensures that the noise is only applied to the backdrop, and not to the subject:

And that's it! Let's take one more look at the result:

I hope you have lots of fun with this. Needless to say, if you're having trouble following the steps, just give me a shout at Ask Damien, and I'll help you out.

Continue on to the next post to see more examples of this method.

Making a Before-and-After

2011-09-23T14:20:00.000+10:00

Lately a whole bunch of people have asked me how I prepare my side-by-side before-and-after comparisons, such as the ones I post on my Facebook page. Eg:

etc. It's really easy, so here it is.

There are two stages to the process - firstly, getting the before and after on top of each other, and secondly, rearranging them side by side.

STAGE ONE: Stacking the before and after

If your image began its life as a Raw file, and you want to show the whole transition from Raw file to final edit, there are two parts to this stage. I'll discuss that in a moment.

Let's do the easy one first. If you just want to show the transition from "Here it is when I opened it in Photoshop" to "Here it is once I'd finished in Photoshop", it's a simple matter of merging layers.

Here's an example. This is a photo of my daughter (wow, I can't believe she was ever that small!) which was shot in Jpeg. I opened the Jpeg file into Photoshop and made a few Levels adjustments. I also cloned out a specks of dirt:

All you have to do is select the Background layer, and create a copy of it by pressing Ctrl J:

Then hold down the Shift key, and click on the topmost layer. Now you'll have all the layers selected, except for the original image at the bottom:

Simply Ctrl E to merge all those layers together (the new merged layer automatically assumes the name of whichever layer was on top):

That's all there is to it, for this stage. Now you've got your edited image on one layer, and the original image underneath it. Needless to say, DO NOT SAVE your file at this moment, or you'll lose all the precious layers you had.

Now let's look at the situation from a Raw file. Here's a photo of my son, which I processed from Raw, brought it into Photoshop, and did some more editing with layers:

Just go to Layer > Flatten Image, and put those layers all together into one finished item. (Again, do not save at this point!):

Then re-open your Raw file, and reset your adjustments to the defaults, then hold down the Alt Key and press "Open Copy" to open the completely unedited image into Photoshop (much more information about this step here):

Now you have both versions open in Photoshop. Arrange your windows so you can see them both (much more info here):

Make sure the "after" image is the one you have selected, then drag and drop its Background layer onto the "before" image, as I've shown here with a big red arrow:

Now you'll have exactly the same result as the other example - your edited image on one layer, and the unedited one beneath it:

Are you with me so far? The whole purpose of Stage One was to stack the "after" on top of the "before".

Important: If you want to crop your image, now is the time to do it.

Now let's put them side by side ...

STAGE TWO: Arranging them

In this stage, it makes no difference whether your original file was a Raw or a Jpeg. The only consideration is whether to put the images beside each other, or on top of each other.

I hope it makes sense when I say that, in most cases, you'll want your portrait images to be side in a landscape layout, and your landscape images to be above/below each other in a portrait layout. If you look at the two examples I included at the beginning of this post, you'll see what I mean.

Let's revisit my first photo. Here she is, with the edited image on top of the unedited one:

Open the Canvas Size dialog. First, change the units to "percent", then change the width to 200. Needless to say, this doubles the width of the document. Secondly, click the Anchor grid as necessary. I want to create new space to the right of my image, so I click on the left Anchor square. (If you haven't used the Anchor grid before, it might seem slightly unintuitive to you, but don't worry, it'll become second nature very quickly):

Here's the result of all that. The images are still stacked on top of each other at this stage, but there's some neat blank space beside them:

Now all you need to do is take your Move Tool (V), and drag the "after" image across to its new space. Unless you've deliberately turned off "snapping" in Preferences, the image will click nicely into place, and fit perfectly:

Then it's all ready for you to do your normal web-saving stuff. Flatten the layers, resize appropriately (eg 960px for Facebook, or whatever) and sharpen if desired, add your watermark, save, and upload. Bam!

(More comprehensive info about this here: Best practice for saving web photos)

Easy stuff! Let's take a look at the landscape photo ...

When we last saw it, we'd achieved the stacking of the layers:

In Canvas Size, I anchor it at the top (because I want the new space to be at the bottom), and enter 200 percent as the height:

Here's the result - blank space at the bottom ready for the "after" version:

Then I take my Move Tool and drag the layer downwards. Voila!

Finally, I can do my usual saving steps (resizing, watermarking, etc).

I certainly hope that all makes sense. Honestly, it's a process that takes a matter of seconds. Nothing to it.

Of course, you can get a bit more creative with borders etc. It's just a matter of adapting the mathematical calculations slightly.

Hit me up at Ask Damien if you have more questions about the process.

Facebook image quality

2011-09-20T11:21:00.000+10:00

Last month, as we all know, Facebook made some changes to their image handling.

I wrote my initial observations in this post. In it, I mentioned that my test images were turning out smoother than before, and I thought this was a good thing.

Since then, however, I've seen waves and waves of complaints about how "horrible" the new image quality is. People keep saying their new uploads are "noisy", "grainy", "oversharpened", etc. So I had to investigate.

It turns out that Facebook's new compression method is insanely touchy about noise.

If I may quote the great Jerry Seinfeld, from a stand up routine:

I don't want to be in other people's showers. I don't know how to operate them. You can never get the ratios right on the dials. Sometimes a 16th of an inch is a thousand degrees.

Well, Facebook's compression is to noise what that shower tap is to water temperature. As long as you upload a completely noise-free image to Facebook, the resultant quality is good - remarkably good, in fact. But if there's even a little bit of noise, it goes CRAZY! It gets exaggerated out of all proportion.

So, what does this mean? Well, firstly, it means you must remember to use your raw noise reduction sliders. This should already be second nature in your workflow, but it's easy to forget sometimes, I know. I've written about their use here, and there are more comprehensive instructions in my Raw Class.

Secondly, and more importantly, you must be careful with your sharpening. If you allow your sharpening to emphasise noise in your image, even a tiny bit, it'll bite you.

About a year ago, I explained my current web sharpening method. It is a method that has served me really well, and for other web purposes, I will continue to use it. But for Facebook, it's no longer appropriate.

My testing so far is pointing me to Unsharp Mask numbers of around 200/1.0/20. (Of course, that's just a starting point - I vary them on a photo-by-photo basis.) 20 is an outrageously high Threshold value, but that's what is needed to protect from "noise pollution", so to speak. (If you don't understand the role of Threshold, please read my explanation here.)

So, we need to change our mindset. The fact is, we can no longer sharpen our images as aggressively as we used to. Our tastes have evolved in the last few years, and we really seem to admire strongly-sharpened web images. But it's just not possible on Facebook any more. I'm here to tell you that it is perfectly possible to get lovely, clean, noise-free images on Facebook. But as a trade-off, you have to accept that you can't sharpen them as much as you once did.

I urge you to do your own testing. Try various sharpening settings, and see what works for you. If you invest an hour of testing time now, you'll be rewarded with much nicer Facebook images.

If you use an action for your web sharpening, you're a damn fool, and you deserve whatever crap quality you get. Sharpening is SUCH a delicate process, and it needs a careful touch on each individual photo. Do yourself a favour and take control.

One more thing, while I've got your attention - STOP BITCHING! I can't believe the vitriol that I see and hear every time Facebook changes something. For heaven's sake, it's a wonderful medium that has literally changed our lives, and it's free. It doesn't cost us a cent. I, for one, love this gift horse, and feel no compulsion to look it in the mouth. If Facebook need to change something, so be it. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have a legitimate reason for every change that they make.

Cropping Tutorial

2011-09-18T21:02:00.001+10:00

At face value, cropping a photo seems such a simple task that it shouldn't require a tutorial at all, let alone a two-part one. Yet I'm asked more questions related to cropping than any other single issue. It can be genuinely confusing for people.

PART ONE: HOW IT WORKS

We all know what cropping does. It removes part of a photo. If we had a physical photographic print in our hands, we'd crop it by cutting it with scissors or a scalpel, and throwing part of it away. In digital terms, we remove some excess pixels from one or more sides of the file.

In all programs, the Crop Tool looks something like this:

Let's discuss cropping in various software ...

Cropping raw files

In Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom (and probably all the other raw programs too), it's really simple. You have two options - crop to a specific rectangular ratio; or "freeform" crop to any rectangular shape you wish.

If you want to freeform crop (no specific shape), you don't need to do anything special. Just grab the Crop Tool, draw the crop marquee, press Enter, and the excess is removed:

Note: when cropping raw files, the excess detail is never actually deleted, it's just hidden. You can get it back at any time by choosing the Crop Tool again, then pressing the Esc key. This is consistent with the "non-destructive" nature of raw editing.)

If you want to crop to a specific shape, it's still very easy. You just need to choose one of the preset ratios which Adobe provide ...

... or choose "Custom" and enter your own desired ratio:

Once you've chosen your ratio, crop as usual. The unwanted pixels are removed (hidden), and the remaining ones are in the shape you chose.

When you draw your crop marquee, you can click in the middle and drag the whole thing around. Or, you can grab the handles at the corners to resize the target area. (If you're cropping to a specific ratio, you'll only have handles on the corners; but if you're freeform cropping, you'll have handles on each side as well.) When you hover your mouse just outside the handles, you see that you can rotate the crop; but be careful with this - make sure you don't do it accidentally!

Cropping in Photoshop

(Please note: when I refer to Photoshop, I'm talking about Elements as well.)

Photoshop is where most cropping happens, and it's slightly trickier to understand than in raw. That's because there are three options. As well as (1) freeform cropping, and (2) cropping to a specific ratio, there is also the option to (3) crop and resize at the same time.

Let's take a look. When you select the Crop Tool in Photoshop, you see the Options Bar has Height, Width and Resolution fields, like this:

If you want to freeform crop, leave all of those fields blank. Just draw the marquee, and crop:

As in raw, you can manipulate the crop marquee with its handles, and rotate it if desired. If you decide you don't want to crop after all, just press the Esc key.

The difference between raw cropping and Photoshop cropping is that Photoshop cropping is permanent. Once those pixels are discarded, they're discarded! So choose your crop wisely :)

That was easy. Now it gets more confusing ...

If you want to crop to a specific shape, you enter values in the Width and Height fields, but leave the Resolution field blank:

Ok, ok, obviously I'm pulling your leg with that last one :D Photoshop doesn't really recognise light years as a unit of measurement!

But I did it to make a very important point. It doesn't matter what unit of measurement you use for the height and the width. Inches, centimetres, picas, light years, nautical miles, 7-irons ... it's irrelevant. (The only one you can't use is pixels, for reasons I'll discuss later.)

As long as you keep the Resolution field blank, the unit of measurement can be ignored. All that matters are the numbers. In the first example, I'd be cropping a rectangular shape in which the height is one-and-a-half times greater than the width. In the second example, I'd be cropping square. And in the third example I'd be cropping a rectangle whose height is five-sevenths of its width. I am not imposing a particular size on my images at all - just a geometric ratio.

Needless to say, there are some common shapes in photography. DSLRs capture images at 2:3 shape. Compact cameras are usually 3:4 shape. 5x7" prints are 5:7 shape (duh!) and 8x10" prints are 4:5 shape. And so on. However, the only shape you'll ever really need is the 11:15 shape. That's the shape I recommend for proofing, and for providing digital files to customers. You can read about those important topics here and here.

One more thing. When you crop to a ratio, and leave the Resolution field blank as I described, Photoshop will adjust the resolution (PPI) of the image to whatever value it needs. This tends to freak people out. "Why is my resolution 486.291??? Shouldn't it be 300?" I assure you you can relax. In this method, the pixels per inch value is completely meaningless.

Cropping and resizing

Ok, now we move on to the last option - simultaneous cropping and resizing in Photoshop.

The two previous options shared one very significant characteristic - they removed unwanted pixels from the image, but left the remaining pixels unchanged in any way.

Option number 3 resamples the pixels while cropping, meaning that the portion of the photo which remains is either enlarged or reduced. It's most commonly used when saving images for print or web.

Here's an example of an image which has been cropped AND resized at the same time:

You can see how the surrounding unimportant detail has been trimmed away, and the good part has been shrunk down, ready for uploading to Facebook, or wherever.

To use this method, you need to have a specific purpose for cropping, and a specific size in mind. And you need to put values in all three of the fields - Width, Height and Resolution.

In this example, I'm ready to crop an 8x10 print at 300ppi:

If I crop an image with these settings, it will remove the excess pixels which I don't need, then resample the remaining pixels to exactly 8x10 inches at 300ppi. Then it's ready for me to sharpen, and send to my lab.

(Most labs suggest 300ppi for printing, but not all. Check your lab's website for specific advice. More information about resolution here.)

(8x10 prints tend to present particular problems to photographers - read this article for more information.)

The only time you don't need to include a value in the Resolution field is when cropping/resizing for web. Web images are always measured in pixels, and web browsers only read pixel dimensions - they completely ignore the resolution. You can put a value in that field if it makes you happy, but I assure you it makes zero difference. (And no, 72ppi is NOT web resolution.)

In this example, I'm ready to crop to 900px wide for uploading to a blog:

As you would have guessed by now, Photoshop recognises abbreviations for the units of measurement. The two you'll use most often are "in" for inches, and "px" for pixels. If you enter numbers by themselves, Photoshop will automatically assign whatever default unit of measurement you have set up in Preferences. Be wary of this - you could end up with a much smaller file than you anticipated. Always double-check the unit of measurement you're cropping with.

That's about all there is to tell you about the technical aspects of cropping.

PART TWO: CROPPING IN THE WORKFLOW

Now it's time to discuss when and how cropping should take place in your imaging workflow.

Let me make this very plain: DON'T CROP DURING EDITING.

Seriously. Don't crop your raw file, and don't crop in Photoshop while creating your masterpiece. Edit the whole photo.

I know what you're thinking ...

"But I need to crop away some dead space!" No.
"I have to crop to the Rule of Thirds!" No.
"Shouldn't I remove that ..." No.
"What about ..." No.
"But ..." NO.

Keep every pixel while you're editing.

You do NOT know when you're going to need those pixels. It costs you nothing to keep them, and it might cost you a heck of a lot of time if you don't.

The most common problem caused by early cropping relates to print sizes. If you crop to one particular shape, then your client (or your Mum, or whoever) orders a print of a different shape, you can find yourself in trouble.

You'll also find yourself in trouble if you've cropped tight, then your client orders a gallery-wrapped canvas. The tedium of trying to create extra detail around the edges of your photo to give you enough space for the wrap will drive you up the wall. With every mind-numbing stroke of the Clone Tool, you'll be thinking "Why didn't I just keep the pixels that were there in the first place??"

These problems occur equally whether you crop to a specific shape, or freeform crop. Either way, you're cropping without purpose, and I promise it will bite you before too long.

While I'm on this subject, I must also stress the importance of "shooting loose" in camera. Not really loose, but you should definitely allow 5-10% extra space around your ideal composition, just to be safe. Modern cameras have SO many millions of pixels that you can easily spare a few around the edges for peace of mind. The "Fill your frame" mantra is long-established, but it's unnecessarily dangerous, and I urge you to take a small step backwards.

I'm sure my message here is striking a chord with experienced photographers. Most have made the mistake at least once. In a recent discussion in our Facebook group, several people recounted their own experiences:

"I learned that lesson the hard way on my very first not-my-own-children session! My cousin's engagement photos - first she was going to make 16x20 and then she was going to get them printed square and then she changed back to some kind of rectangle. And every time I had to re-edit!"

Jill, Texas.

"I cropped a family photo and it looked fantastic. Until they wanted it on a canvas. It had been a lengthy edit so instead I spent ages 'creating' extra image at the edges. And it looked crappy so I ended up paying $60 for a wasted print and redoing it."

Kim, New Zealand.

"I have certainly learned that the advice "Fill your Frame" is NOT the best way usually! SO many people tell you to fill the frame with your subject, but that can cost you later. Gallery wraps can't be made from a filled frame shot... or not easily anyway."

Sandy, Alabama.

"I learned this the hard way on my very first client session - NEVER again!"

Cyndi, Kentucky.

I urge you, learn from the mistakes of others, not your own. If cropping is a habitual step in your editing workflow, remove it now. Keep all of your pixels.

So, am I suggesting that you should never use the Crop Tool? Am I suggesting that you should display and print every pixel you capture?

Of course not. Cropping is composition, and composition is an integral part of photography. Your clients should only ever see photos that you've cropped perfectly.

But cropping must be part of the output process, not the editing process. Once you've edited and saved your whole image, that is your Master File, from which all cropped versions will be created.

For each output purpose, you open the Master File, and crop it. Then you perform any other output steps that might be necessary (eg resizing, sharpening, watermarking, vignetting, or profile conversion), then save as a separate file. Be extremely careful not to save over the Master File.

Needless to say, each of the output purposes in the above diagram require their own cropping method. Proofs are cropped to the 11:15 shape, and resized suitably for your proof site. Prints are cropped to the exact ordered size. Canvases are also cropped to the ordered size, with extra room for the wrap, of course. Images sold on disk are cropped to 11:15 without resizing, and images for your web portfolio can be cropped however you please.

Almost 100% of the time, the output files will be Jpegs. The Master File can be a PSD, a Tiff, or a Jpeg, depending on your needs. You can read more about the Master File workflow here.

I hope this tutorial has been useful for you. Please visit me at Ask Damien if I can help you with further information.

Must I calibrate?

2011-09-09T13:43:00.000+10:00

I'm frequently asked "My prints already match my monitor. Do I really need to calibrate?"

The answer is "No you don't, but yes you should."

Obviously, at this point in time, if your prints are turning out exactly as you expect, then there's no immediate problem. Ultimately, the whole goal of colour-management is to get no nasty surprises when you open your packet of prints from the lab.

But one of the purposes of calibration is to standardise your screen's output from now to the end of its useful life. This is the key issue here - screens change. Let's face it, any electrical or electronic device changes over time. Your toaster won't toast your bread as evenly after a couple of years as it did when you first bought it. So it is with screens.

The important thing I want to make clear is this: If your screen is already very good, calibrating it won't make much, if any, visible difference. A large part of the process we call "calibration" is simply to record a description of the characteristics of your screen.

So we come back to the first point. If calibrating your screen tomorrow won't change it, why bother? Because calibrating will ensure that your screen looks the same in three years as it does tomorrow. And that is peace of mind.

Don't double your editing!

2011-09-09T06:57:00.000+10:00

A brief post today, but a very important one. I need to make something VERY clear:

If you shoot in Raw format, and edit in ACR or LR, you should never need to do any overall adjustments in Photoshop. Your overall editing (the whole photo, I mean) can and should be done completely in your Raw program. If you do any global adjustment in PS (even a small thing like a soft light layer, or a little curves bump), then you haven't used your Raw program efficiently, and you've wasted some of your valuable time.

Photoshop is for selective work - ie layers and masks. Lightening somebody's face, or greening up some grass, or whatever. Also, the pixel editing such as cloning, healing, skin smoothing.

If you find yourself having to make overall adjustments in PS, stop and slap yourself, and re-visit your Raw processing. Time is money, and you should be working as quickly and efficiently as you can. And that means harnessing the amazing batch-processing power of Raw programs.

There is, of course, one reason to make overall adjustments to your photos in Photoshop, and that's for artistic effects. Only apply your creative stuff right at the end of your workflow, once the clean processing has been done.

Update: X-Rite i1Display Pro review

2011-09-01T14:13:00.000+10:00

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a less-than-satisfied review of the new i1Display Pro monitor calibrator.

I'm pleased to say that X-Rite's product manager found my review, and gave me a call to discuss it (an international call from the USA to Australia, for which he stole a piece of his family time in the evening, so I'm very grateful.)

I'm even more pleased to say that he gave me the answers I wanted to hear. In my inital review, I said:

Presumably, X-Rite will eventually issue updates to the software which will address all these problems. I hope they don't take too long.

They will, and they won't, it seems. They will update the software, and they won't drag their feet about it.

I was assured that plenty of other people had expressed my concerns about the software; and that the extra functions are all on the drawing board. Apparently, they were under a bit of time pressure to get the new product in the marketplace, so they didn't have time to include everything before they launched it. New updates will be released before too long to include more features.

This is great news. I'll keep an eye out for the updates, and report on them when they appear.

Facebook image changes (August 2011)

2011-08-28T21:03:00.001+10:00

Yesterday, Facebook announced changes to their photo handling. You can read the brief article here.

Essentially, they announced that their photo viewer can now display photos up to 960 pixels, rather than the previous limit of 720 pixels. Also, the photo viewer interface now has a white background, instead of the black one (which I rather liked, personally).

One particular sentence in the article seemed to cause alarm among photographers - "Photos you've already uploaded to your profile will also be displayed at this higher resolution." Some of us were worried that this meant they'd be stretching our old 720 images. I'm happy to assure you that this is not the case. I assume (and I wish they'd clarified) that it only applies to images that had been uploaded in high resolution ... and I don't know any photographers who are doing that, for obvious image protection reasons.

The other interesting phrase was "and load twice as fast" ... what does this mean, we wondered? How will they make larger files load faster? More about this shortly.

Let's discuss the size thing first. Yes, you can now upload images up to 960x960px, and they will be displayed that big in the photo viewer.

Or will they? Not necessarily.

Since the first photo viewer was introduced (the one with the black background), I never saw anybody mention one important little characteristic - it automatically resized photos to fit small screens. If your screen couldn't fit a full 720 height image (mine can't), it shrunk it down a bit on the fly, so that you could see the whole thing without having to scroll downwards.

It makes perfect sense that they did this, because scrolling to see a photo is annoying, right? It only has one teensy drawback - your careful sharpening is diminished. If you've ever read my writings before, you'll know that I always say "make sure you resize precisely before sharpening, so that your sharpening is accurate". Well, all that is out the window if the website or the browser are resizing your images for you. So, I've been keeping my vertical images to no greater than 600px ... because I'm a control freak, and I like people to see my images sharpened just the way I intended wherever possible.

I know that many of you have enormous screens, and Facebook has never had to shrink a photo for your viewing pleasure. But there are still a heck of a lot of people with small screens like mine, for whom it does. Mine isn't exactly a small screen, by laptop standards (I mean, it's not one of those itty bitty netbooks or anything), but it's not big enough to show 720px high images without shrinking them.

(Get back to the point, Damien!) Right, so the point is simply this: Even though you can upload images at 960px high now, bear in mind that a lot of people will never see them that way. I certainly won't. Is this a big problem? Apart from the sharpening issue, no, not at all. But I'm just telling you about it, because I'm a nerd, and if you're reading this, I know - deep down - there's a little bit of nerd in you too.

I should mention that my laptop screen can show 960px wide images just fine ... except that the average 960px wide image is at least 620px high, which is too high for my screen, as I've already mentioned. So even landscape images are going to be shrunk down a bit for me to view them.

You must think I'm making this a very Damien-centric article. I know my laptop is not the only computer in the world, but there are lots of others like it, or smaller. Just sayin'.

Ok, so personally, I'm going to be sticking with 600px high as my limit for most images I post.

And let's face it, a 960px image is getting dangerously close to 6x4-printability. If you're uploading images that big, and you don't want people to rip them off, make sure you watermark them prominently. Standard internet image security.

One more thing to mention about size, which may or may not interest you. The standard photo interface (not the viewer which appears over the top of the page you were viewing) is still only 720px. Just a little tidbit of info that I observed. I know hardly anyone uses that interface any more, but I certainly do.

Ok, that's enough about the physical size of the images. What about the file size? What about this claim that the images will "load twice as fast"?

I didn't get out the ol' stopwatch, but it certainly does seem to be faster. Twice as fast might be an exaggeration, though.

How, then? How are they making larger files load faster? Well, let's start by giving Facebook the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they've moved to a faster server, or something. That would certainly help.

But yes, from my brief observations this evening, they do seem to have sacrificed a bit of quality in our images in order to get smaller file sizes. This is bad news, because the quality of images on Facebook has always been pretty ordinary, hasn't it? Well, it's not as bad as all that.

I did a few tests. I re-uploaded some photos I'd uploaded previously. Then I compared the quality of the previous file, to the quality of the newer upload; and compared them both to the original. The results were interesting.

It seems that Facebook might be using a whole new compression algorithm. (Note: just because I'm using big words like "algorithm", please don't assume I know what the hell I'm talking about. I just read that word somewhere, is all.) The old photos were much noisier than the original; whereas the newly-uploaded ones seem a little smoother than the original.

Choose your poison - do you prefer images which are too noisy, or too smooth? I'm prepared to lay a small wager that most of you might actually be happy with the new image quality. Yes, the file sizes are smaller, and yes, the smoothing effect of the jpeg compression will rob your images of a tiny bit of fine detail, but I think the new compression will be nicer to skin and skies and things than the old one. I'm prepared, at this early stage, to give Facebook a small thumbs up. I'm going to be testing and observing a lot more, though.

Needless to say, you should do your own testing. What I haven't tested yet is the implications for sharpening. We might need to sharpen our images for Facebook slightly more than we have been up til now. I'll post more about that once I've had a chance to play.

There's one more thing I have to talk about. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else yet, but it's pretty significant from a nerd's point of view - they've removed the ICC profiles from images!

Yep, in a way, this is back to the bad old days. Originally, Facebook just took your image, ripped the profile out of it, and displayed it. If you'd cocked up and uploaded an Adobe RGB image, it looked like tripe. Then, they improved things, and implemented profile conversion - if you uploaded an Adobe RGB image, they converted it to sRGB, and kept the profile embedded (well, it was a strange alter-ego of sRGB, but it did the job nicely).

Now, they've come back halfway. Their upload engine still converts your images to sRGB, but it takes the profile off after doing so. So it's displayed untagged. This means that it's up to your browser to decide how it will display the images. Firefox will display them correctly, but as far as I know, none of the others will (not even Safari, which is colour-managed except in the way it handles untagged images).

So I'm expecting my Ask Damien page to be flooded over the coming weeks with "Oh my God, my Facebook images look wrong!" posts. And my answer will be the same as it has always been: "Switch to Firefox, then get over it. Do you think Joe and Joan Public know or care? Do you think they have a calibrated screen? Do you think they're using a colour-managed browser? Of course not. They just like looking at your photos, that's all. Go and have a beer or something."

So, Facebook images are untagged again. I should mention that they've also gone back and removed the profiles from all previous images, too. So it's not just your newly-uploaded ones that might look different. Brace yourself!

Let me finish this rambling post (if you've read all the way to here, thank you!) by doing what I've always done - defending Facebook. I've always thought there must be a lot of photos going to their servers, and now they've given me a mind-blowing number - over 250 million every day. If I had to find space for that many photos on my servers, I'd want to keep the damn things small too! ICC profiles add a surprising amount of size to a file, so I'm not in the least surprised that they've removed them. In hindsight, I'm surprised they ever included them at all.

Yes, I love Facebook. It's a friend to me, so I'm very happy to play along with their image decisions.

Photoshop vignette methods

2011-08-16T19:31:00.000+10:00

Vignettes can add a touch of emphasis and "punch" to a photo if used well. In this tutorial, I'll discuss a few simple vignette methods in Photoshop and Elements.

Before I get into the nuts and bolts, I want to start with a couple of important points:

Be gentle. To my mind, a vignette shouldn't be a prominent feature of a photo - in fact, the casual observer shouldn't be consciously aware that a vignette has been added at all. Its purpose is to subtly draw the viewer's eye to the important features of the photograph.

I think the majority of established photographers would admit, if pressed, that they went through a strong vignette phase which they now regret. It might have been trendy at one stage, and who knows? - it might come back. But right now, I think less is more.

(Disclaimer: I'll be applying stronger-than-usual vignettes in this tutorial, for the sake of emphasis.)
Always keep it on its own layer. I know I bang on about layers a lot, and I know that not everyone saves their layered files as fastidiously as I do. But vignettes are awfully dependent on the chosen output size - if you apply your neat vignette to a 2:3 full frame image, then your client orders a 4:5 print (eg 8x10), your vignette might end up looking unbalanced. In that case, you need to be able to modify the vignette layer to suit the new crop.

Plus, of course, you can easily reduce the strength of the vignette layer at a later date, if you find you were a bit too enthusiastic :)

Ok, let's get into it. All of the screenshots in this tutorial have been taken in Elements 9, and will work just the same in Photoshop. I'll be discussing the use of Levels, but everything I suggest applies more or less identically to Curves, if you're a Curves user (Comparison of Levels and Curves). Oh, and all of the vignetting I'll be demonstrating will be of the darkening variety, because that's my favourite, but you can reverse the adjustments to achieve a lightening vignette if that's your thing.

First, I'll discuss the application of vignettes, then I'll discuss three main styles that you can use.

Applying a vignette - Method 1 - Apply/hide/mask

This method involves darkening the whole image, then hiding the effect, and painting it on as desired.

In this example, I apply a darkening layer:

Then press Ctrl I to invert the layer mask from white to black, thereby hiding the effect:

Then paint with a big soft white brush to gently introduce the effect around the edges where I want it:

This method is quite "manual", and as such might not suit everyone's workflow. But it certainly allows very precise manipulation, particularly if you use a brush at reduced opacity. It's a good method if you want to apply a non-uniform vignette.

Applying a vignette - Method 2 - Select/apply

This method is a more direct approach, but needs a bit of forethought. I choose a Marquee Tool - usually elliptical, but sometimes rectangular:

Then I draw a marquee around the image, a little way in from the edge. (How much is a "little way"? As much as you think the photo needs. Every photo is different.)

At this point, a lot of people recommend feathering the selection. I don't recommend that. It's just too darn hard to know how much feather is enough! If you've ever tried it, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's utter guesswork, and too easy to get wrong. I prefer to wait until I can see what I'm doing. Stick with me here, I promise you'll like my suggestion ...

I press Ctrl Shift I, or "Inverse" from the Select menu:

Which gives me a selection of the outer part of the photo:

Then I add my Levels layer, which immediately turns the selection into the layer mask. I darken it to my taste:

Right now you're thinking: "Um ... Damien? What the heck? Not subtle, buddy!"

I know, I know. But here's the advantage - now I can see the feathering as I apply it. I simply choose "Gaussian Blur" from the Filter menu, and blur the mask as much or as little as I want to:

Blurring a mask is exactly the same as feathering a selection, except with visual guidance. Much easier!!

Needless to say, once you've blurred the mask to your taste, you can also paint on it with the Brush tool to fine-tune it.

The three basic types of vignette

The way I see it, you can make a vignette by manipulating the shadows, the midtones, or the highlights. (Or sometimes a combination of those three). All of those options are available right there in Levels.

Shadows - this is the aggressive one. By moving the black slider inwards, you're clipping blacks in your vignette area. This gives your vignette real impact, and wouldn't be suitable for sweet newborn photos and that sort of thing, I'd suggest.

In this example I've brought the black slider in to 68, which has caused clipping (loss of visible detail) around the edges.

Note: This is equivalent to using an adjustment layer on "Linear Burn" mode, if blend modes are your thing. I don't encourage them.

Midtones - this is the most natural one, and it's certainly my favourite. It darkens the area, but doesn't cause any loss of detail:

The blend mode equivalent to this is "Multiply". Again, not a fan :)

Highlights - this is less common, I think, but still necessary from time to time.

One small problem you might have noticed with the previous two methods - they both leave whites white, no matter how much they darken everything else:

The problem isn't too bad in this photo, but can really mess up your plans in other photos, especially ones with bright skies. So, you might need to move the white slider ... not the usual white slider, but the Output one:

See how I've moved the lower white slider two-thirds of the way across? That's darkened the white areas, so that patch of sky is no longer glaring.

This method really robs the area of contrast, so you might like to combine it with a bit of shadow or midtone adjustment to maintain a bit of pop.

I don't think this method has a blend mode equivalent.

That's about all I can think to tell you about vignettes. The point of my post was to show you that there are different methods for different situations, but they're all easily accessible right there in Levels. Play and discover!

Raw Defaults

2011-08-09T05:29:00.000+10:00

Everywhere I turn lately, I seem to be running into this nonsense about "zeroing out the settings" in ACR and LR.

It's completely silly. All you achieve by setting everything to zero is to make your photos look utterly awful. (The benefit, I suppose, is that when you've finished your editing, it looks as though you've made AMAZING improvements.)

Defaults are just defaults. They're a starting point. The truth is, no matter where the sliders are when you start, you still have to move them on a photo-by-photo basis, to get the best results every time.

If, for example, you go to the trouble of changing the default setting for the Brightness slider from 50 (Adobe's default) down to 0, then habitually find yourself moving that slider up to about the 40-60 range every time, then you've wasted your time, haven't you? Wasted it in changing the default in the first place, and wasted it making those big adjustments on each photo.

The truth is, Adobe aren't silly. They've given us pretty darn good defaults. But if you're not happy with them, set your own. Maybe your camera's images look better with the Contrast slider at 10, not 25. Maybe you're a habitual overexposer, so your Exposure slider should start at -0.20. Etc, etc.

But don't zero.