Fallen Leaf

This is the first image that I have processed since reading David DuChemin's Lightroom book that I reviewed in my last post. In doing so, I took a lot of his suggestions to heart. For example, in this image I first asked myself what drew my eye to the scene and used that information to help direct me through the image processing.

Leaf And Wooden Door
Copyright Howard Grill

Here, I was drawn to the way the wood of the door as well as the metal of the rusted hinge had an old and deep wrinkled texture that was similar to that of the leaf. In addition, I liked the way the yellow of the old paint on the door echoed the yellow in the leaf and the way the orange of the rusted hinge echoed the red of the leaf. Finally, I was intrigued that the green paint of the door symbolized the color of the leaf before its turning color and that the yellow paint was coming from underneath the green paint. Lots of echoing and symbolism going on here.

So, based on those thoughts, I knew that I wanted to emphasis the texture of the wood, leaf, and rusted metal in post-processing. I also wanted the colors saturated, though not so much that they appeared unnatural and, since the main point for the viewer's eye to be drawn towards was the leaf, I wanted the saturation of the paint to be somewhat less than that of the leaf.

I also used these thoughts to guide my cropping. Given that I wanted to display the leaf in the setting of the old door and for viewers to compare the inanimate to the living, I left enough of the door in the image so that it became a recognizable portion of it and not simply a backdrop onto which the leaf could be displayed.

Going through these thought processes are quite helpful in directing one's self down a specific route or two as opposed to the endless possibilities that exist when first opening a RAW file.

Photoshop Optimized Computer: Epilogue

Several weeks back, I wrote a series of three posts about a "Photoshop Optimized Computer". Those posts can be read here, here, and here. Just this last weekend I received a comment from photographer Mike Mundy (see his blog and website....great stuff) who said....

"It is probably time for a follow-up report on the computer . . . what worked, what didn't. And why didn't you get an Apple product, as everyone else seems to be doing? I have a feeling that Photoshop CS5 is going to be too much for my aging low-end PC to handle . . ."

So here is the follow up on what worked and what didn't.

1) Puget Systems Computers - This is the company that I decided to purchase a custom computer from, as I had discussed in Part 1. I couldn't be happier with that decision. When they say technical support responses within 24 hours, they mean it! I had several occasions to contact them and each and every time I got a thoughtful response in less than 24 hours from folks that obviously knew their stuff .

The computer came exceedingly well packaged with supplemental information provided by Puget Systems, including benchmark testing results, as well as all the spare parts and instructions from each of the individual components that were used for the build. In addition, they included the original Windows 7 OS disc as well as a system image/restore disc for the system as it was configured at the time of shipping.

There was absolutely no unasked for bloatware as you get with Dell. They made good on their offer to include certain free downloads and have them pre-installed. The only one that I had chosen was Microsoft Security Essentials, given the reviews stating that it was an excellent piece of software (from Microsoft????)....elegant in its simplicity and not a drag on the system (from Microsoft????). Not only was it installed, but the computer came with all current Windows updates as well as security essentials updates already applied, so the system was totally up to date and ready to go. I have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending Puget Systems!

2) Windows 7 OS - I like it. I like the way things are organized in libraries, I like the Windows system imaging, and I like the Windows search. Coming from Windows XP it took a little getting used to, but I now prefer it. The only part of the OS that I don't like is the portion that controls tablet functions. More on that in a second. I have had no problems finding drivers for my hardware and they all seem to function normally, save one.

That one, unfortunately, is my Wacom Intuos 2 graphics tablet. There is a Windows 7 driver for it...so, given the age of the Intuos 2, kudos to Wacom for that. The tablet initially started functioning normally, but soon started malfunctioning even with a system image restore to a point in time when it had worked. What do I mean by malfunctioning? When you boot up and try to use the pen, the cursor moves about a mm and then freezes. If you go to the tablet software by right clicking on the Wacom icon in the control panel, remove user presets, and then load the presets again it functions normally until you reboot. It has to be done again with each fresh boot. The whole maneuver literally takes about 20 seconds to do and you just have to do it once when you boot, but, nonetheless, I wish it worked correctly.

That said, I'm not quite sure where the fault lies. It could be the OS but could also be the motherboard USB controllers or the driver itself. Searching the internet, I'm not the only one with this problem. The workaround I describe is the result of Googling the problem. I did contact Wacom and they claim it has to do with a motherboard USB problem, but I am not convinced.

As I mentioned, the tablet functions of Windows 7 are also a bit odd. When you use a pen you get a distracting ripple effect as well as a small Windows Tablet interface. You can turn these off (and I did), but you have to do a bit of research to find out how....it isn't intuitively apparent.

Overall, I think that if one is going to venture into a new OS as an 'early adapter' there are always going to be some issues. I think I encountered a number of these issues (including the fact that I can't get Firewire or e-SATA drivers/drives to function correctly and, again, I'm not sure if this is related to the OS or motherboard) but overall I am quite pleased with Windows 7. I have the 64 bit version to prepare for the future!

3) Internal Components - All seems in order. Did I need the RAID 0 system for the scratch disk and files being worked on that I described here? I am not at all convinced that I did. The system seems so fast that even large files approaching 500 to 750 MB load into and save from Photoshop very quickly.......much, much faster than in my old system. In that system I could open the file and walk away for a minute or two. Not so anymore. I honestly don't see a huge difference between opening or saving the files from the standard Western Digital 1 TB Caviar Black hard disk compared to the RAID 0 system. I haven't timed it and there may well be a difference, it just doesn't seem all that significant in 'real life usage'.

A volume of the Raid 0 array is also being used as the primary scratch disk, as described here. I have not compared the speed of the RAID 0 array used as the primary scratch disk to the regular hard drive used as such, but perhaps it is of some benefit. These benefits might be further magnified if the RAID array consisted of more than 2 disks, but that would start to get even more expensive. Overall, however, if I were designing the system again, I might well pass on the RAID 0 array, which would have saved some cash and kept more internal SATA drive bays open.

I outfitted the computer with 12GB of RAM....it is quite fast. Had I not included as much RAM perhaps the effect of the RAID 0 array might be more apparent.

As you can see, I have not tested these issues in a quantitative fashion but am just commenting on my 'real world' usage experience. If anyone has more quantitative experience and wants to chime in on these issues I would be most appreciative!

4) Monitor - I sprung for a 'lower end' wide gamut Eizo monitor . Not at all cheap, but after using it am really amazed at the increased sharpness, saturation, and soft proofing ability that it offers once calibrated. The difference is dramatic and I wasn't using a bad monitor before (it was a LaCie CRT). I think it was a worthwhile investment. An alternative monitor which has gotten excellent reviews, can be obtained for significantly less, and which I considered is the NEC with integrated calibration.

5) Photoshop / Lightroom - I have the 64 bit versions of these running as well as the 32 bit version of Photoshop installed and have not run into any problems even though CS4 is not officially supported on the Windows 7 platform. I do wish that Nik Software would make all their plug-ins available in 64 bit versions. Viveza 2 is available in a 64 bit version, but Color Efex and Silver Efex are not, and it is a bit of a pain to use two versions of Photoshop. My PixelGenius, OnOne, Topaz, and Neat Image plug ins are all available in 64 bit versions and I have not had any difficulty with any of them.

6) Why didn't I purchase an Apple? I strongly considered it. I ended up with a PC because the price for a machine with similar 'power' seemed significantly lower to me and I already had multiple programs that were Windows 7 compatible that I did not want to repurchase in Mac versions. Also, despite the fact that Apples 'just work', I have read on various forums about problems that people are also having with the Snow Leopard OS.

So, that is the update on the new system.

Photoshop Optimized Computer III

With the background of Parts I and II of this series behind us, I thought it might be useful to discuss what components I personally picked for my "Photoshop Optimized Computer".

In the 'digital age', all of our processing is done on a computer and, for many, prints are made at home on an inkjet printer. For as much time as we spend out in the field, we likely spend as much time, or more, working on our images in the digital darkroom. For this reason I feel it would be foolish to spend money on cameras and lenses and not put forward the investment in a computer system that makes finishing the job efficient and pleasant. In short, I don't think it is wise to buy expensive equipment and mate that equipment with a computer that is underpowered and which makes the processing portion of image making an unpleasant experience. If you have waited and waited for a file to open in Photoshop or had your system crash while using a memory intensive plug-in, you know exactly what I mean. If one can afford to make the investment, a good computer system will make post-processing a much more pleasant and productive experience.

I don't mean to insinuate that one needs to go on a wild spending spree for a computer. In fact, as we shall see, some high end components are well worth buying but there are others, such as the graphics card, where pouring more money into a higher end card is not going to significantly enhance the Photoshop experience.

So, lets get down to particulars. What components did I choose for my new computer? Again, some of these choices are personal and I don't mean to imply that this is the best or only worthwhile configuration.....I just thought I would share my decisions and why I made them.

RAM: I'm starting here because I knew how much I wanted (12 GB) and the way to get to this amount at a reasonable price was to have 6 memory slots on the motherboard so that I could purchase 6 x 2GB as opposed to 3 x 4GB. RAM comes in several varieties and speed. I bought Kigston ValueRAM (DDR3-1333). While one can pay more for 'faster' RAM etc, I am not convinced it will make much difference for still image editing. It may well make a difference for gaming and video, but I am not planning to use the computer for much of either. Therefore, it seemed to me that this RAM would do the trick. Obviously, once one is over 4GB it makes no sense not to get a 64 bit OS in order to utilize it.

Motherboard: There were some limitations here, as any builder is only going to carry a limited number of makes and models. In order to get a 6 memory slot board I went with the Asus P6TD DDR3 motherboard.

Processor: I was originally planning for an Intel i5 750, which sits at a nice price/performance point. The i5's don't have hyperthreading but, to the best of my knowledge, Photoshop doesn't utilize hyperthreading at this point in time. Nonetheless, because of the motherboard choice, an i5 was not an option and I went for the arguably more powerful (and a bit more expensive) i7 920 (which is actually due to be replaced by the 930 soon) which does have hyperthreading. Perhaps in the future (I expect to use this system for at least 5 years) Photoshop will utilize hyperthreading.

Graphics Card: This is one component where, if one were building a computer for the express purpose of gaming, you could go hog wild and really drop a bundle on a high end video card. However, while one wants a reasonable video card, the best of the best is really a wasted resource if it is to be used for Photoshop alone (as opposed to gaming or video editing). For this reason I went mid-range with a Gigabyte GeForce 9600GT with 512 MB of video RAM.

Sound Card: This machine is for Photoshop and Lightroom primarily....I went with no dedicated sound card, just the motherboard sound processing.

RAID: A discussion of all the varieties of RAID is far beyond the scope of this blog. However, for the scratch disk, I did go with RAID 0 (as I had discussed in Part II of this series) using 7200 RPM disks. One worthwhile issue to touch on is the use of on-board RAID controlled by the motherboard vs a dedicated RAID controller card. Again, this goes beyond the scope of this blog, but suffice it to say that, based on what I was able to learn, having a separate RAID controller card is well worth the investment in order to remove the RAID function from the motherboard. I went with a two disk RAID 0 array and a RAID card. I had the two disk array partitioned into a smaller first volume for the scratch disk. This volume resides on the outer, faster portion of the disk while the remaining volume will be used to store files on which I am still working in order to allow rapid opening and saving of the file. When the processing of these images is completed, they will be moved to storage on a non-RAID hard drive given the increased risk of data loss if either of the disks in the array were to fail.

Hard Drives: As I mentioned, I went with two 7200 RPM disks for the RAID array. I also wanted a fast boot drive so that the computer would boot quickly and applications would also launch very fast. Though this was clearly a 'luxury item', I decided to go with a solid state disk (SSD) for the boot disk to hold the OS and applications. In addition, a Western Digital 1TB Caviar Black hard drive is to be used for storage. The motherboard and case will allow for the addition of 2 more disks, should the need arise.

OS: Windows 7 Home Premium

Monitor: Discussing this component of the system is really opening a can of worms. A quality monitor can be expensive, but is also a mission critical part of the digital imaging system. It is used to assess the image, process the image, soft proof the image etc. Clearly, a low quality monitor that is poorly calibrated and profiled can make producing high quality images and prints a nightmare. If one's budget allows, a high quality monitor together with a hardware calibration system is optimal. Some names to look into (and I don't mean to imply that these are the only worthwhile monitors) include Eizo, NEC, Apple, and Lacie.

Well, I hope that this series of three posts will be helpful to others that might be interested in putting together their own 'Photoshop Optimized Computer'.

Photoshop Optimized Computer II

For Part I of this series click here.

Let me begin Part II by explaining what I view as a 'Photoshop Optimized Computer'. Obviously that means a computer whose hardware/software is set up in a way which allows Photoshop to run in the most efficient and fastest way possible. But what special hardware or software is needed to allow this efficiency to occur? How is a 'Photoshop Optimized Computer' (I think maybe I should try to trademark that little phrase before someone else does) different from the standard computer you might pick up anywhere?

In order to answer this, we need to know a bit about how Photoshop itself works. More specifically, we need to know about the software's data handling strategy. Now, I need to point out that my 'day job' has nothing to do with computer programing.....so, if I make a mistake in any of these posts I would be more than happy to have someone out there correct me.

When one opens a file using Photoshop, the program puts the data into RAM. If there is not enough RAM to handle the file, or if in the process of editing the file by adding layers etc the file becomes so large that it doesn't fit into the available RAM, then Photoshop writes that data to a physical hard drive that it has set aside for itself known as the 'scratch disk'. The specific drive or drive volume that Photoshop uses for the scratch disk can be chosen in the Photoshop Preferences. It should be recognized that:

1) Not all the RAM in the computer can be devoted to Photoshop use, as some of it is needed for use by the OS (and 32 bit programs limit the amount of usable RAM to 4 GB).

2) Once the data file gets large enough to require Photoshop to write its data to a physical hard drive things move much slower since the speed at which data can be written to a physical drive is much, much slower than the speed at which it can be stored in RAM.

So what conclusions can be drawn from this information? Knowing that things move much faster when Photoshop has enough RAM to write to tells us that the more RAM the better. And then more! And to allow Photoshop to utilize all that RAM, it would be optimal to use a 64 bit OS in order to remove the 4 GB RAM limit that is imposed by a 32 bit OS.

However, no matter how much RAM is in the system, Photoshop still needs to use the scratch disk to some small degree, even if the file itself fits fully into RAM. For this reason the scratch disk should be optimized, even in systems with a good deal of RAM. How does one achieve this optimization? It can be done in two ways.

The first and most important way is to put the scratch disk on a separate physical drive from the OS (the Photoshop application itself can be installed on the OS boot drive...some say it is optimal to install it there, as opposed to on another drive). That way the drive head can read and write to the scratch disk without having to do anything else. If the scratch disk were on the same physical drive as the OS, that disk's read/write heads would be slowed down by having to perform both the scratch disk duty as well as the reading and writing that the OS requires, such as writing to the page file and other required duties (don't move your page file to the scratch disk....if you don't know what that means just forget about it, as it's not there unless you put it there yourself).

The second way to optimize the scratch disk is to not only put it on a separate physical disk from the OS, but also to make this separate disk as fast a disk as possible. Options thus include, going from slowest (worst) to fastest (best): 5400 RPM drive, 7200 RPM drive, fast 7200RPM drive (no, not a separate type but 'better' because of increased cache, number of microprocessors etc), 10,000 RPM Western Digital VelociRaptor (though many would argue that there are some 7200 RPM drives out there that function faster than the 10000 RPM VelociRaptor) and, finally, a RAID 0 array.

A RAID 0 array is simply using two disks that appear to the OS as a single larger disk. Data is written to the array by splitting it and having half of it go to one disk and half to the other. Therefore each physical disk has to write only half as much and they can both do it simultaneously since each disk has its own read/write head. If one of those two disks fail all the data from the file is lost and can't be reconstructed....but since the scratch disk data is used only temporarily while the file is being worked on.....who cares?

Notice I didn't include a solid state drive (SSD) in the list of options. Though an SSD would be superb for data storage, the OS, or use in a RAID array, the current feeling is that as a stand alone disk it is not optimal (in addition to its being very expensive) for use as the scratch disk. The reason for this is that, while SSDs have blazing fast read speeds, the current write speeds (except perhaps for the super premium Intel E series SSDs) are no faster, and possibly slower, than a fast hard drive. The important fact to recognize here is that, for a scratch disk, the write speeds are much more important than the read speeds. This, then, is what makes the SSD, at the current level of technology, perhaps a sub-optimal scratch disk....or at least a scratch disk that is no better than the current breed of hard drives but costing far more.

So, to sum up:

1) OS and Photoshop on the same drive

2) RAM and more RAM

3) 64 bit OS so that RAM constraints are removed

4) Scratch disk on a second physical disk that is separate from the OS boot disk and

5) Make that separate physical scratch disk a fast one, with a RAID 0 array being optimal.

Want to dig a little deeper? Try this article from the Adobe Knowledge Base or this one, which is exceptional, from Lloyd Chambers. Though the second one discusses performance on a Mac, the information it contains, for the most part, can be applied to a PC as well.

I should mention one caveat, and that is that in this discussion I am assuming that large files are going to be worked on. If you are just working with very small files all of this might not be necessary. But if you are starting with large files (I shoot in RAW format with a Canon 5D MKII) that you then edit with many layers, use smart objects etc....then this info is for you.

Photoshop Optimized Computer I

The time has come for a new computer. I built my current computer myself about 6 or more years ago, and it is showing its age. It crashes when I generate Photoshop files with more than one smart object layer and, when I work on large files, it is frequently unable to utilize certain plug-ins that are begging for more memory. Disk space is also quite low. When I built it, if I recall correctly, I was photographing with a Canon 10D. Equipment and file sizes have certainly changed quite a bit.

The process of building that computer was fun and very educational, as it really taught me about how computer systems work and how components interact with each other in terms of compatibility. However, as much as I enjoyed it, I decided that this time I would not build it myself, simply because of free time issues. After learning the things I did during my last build, one thing was quite clear to me: I wasn't going to buy a prefab, 'mass produced' computer from Dell etc. Having seen the importance of individual components, I wanted to be able to choose exactly what goes into the box and not simply get the hard drive du jour!

I thought it might be worthwhile to write a few posts about the process of thinking through the construction of what will be my new system. I believe that this will be quite apropos to this blog since the computer is being designed specifically with the main goal of being optimized for Photoshop, with other uses being secondary.

So lets begin. First, since this time I wasn't going to be doing the building myself, I had to find a custom computer builder. I was looking for an outfit that received outstanding reviews and referrals, had great customer service, and had components that I 'believed in'. Obviously, not every custom build company will carry every component out there and, while some components had to be chosen from what the builder stocked, I wanted to make sure that they stocked what I would have used myself for the most important components.

So, what company did I come up with that filled these criteria? These guys.....Puget Custom Computers. Though I have not yet put the final order in for the computer, I can say the following: they have great reviews and a very helpful website. And when they say they try to answer inquiries within 24 hours they aren't kidding. Once you save a potential configuration you can have it reviewed by someone at Puget and begin talking about it with them. I have been having a daily 'e-mail' conversation with the person helping me out and they couldn't be more helpful or responsive. I am actually going to be giving him a call tonight for some final help in ironing out the particulars.

Like anything else in life though, it helps for you to have some background knowledge before jumping into things. For that reason, before even starting this journey, I had to do some background research on the state of computer components today.....something I have not otherwise been following very carefully. What's cutting edge, what's mainstream, what's around the corner?

Finally, I had to see if anything had changed in regards to optimizing one's computer configuration for Photoshop and Lightroom use. As it turns out, not much really has changed in that regard since I last built my own computer. Nonetheless, I thought it might also be worthwhile to provide that information in one location, as it might be a useful resource for people thinking about this issue.

I think I will close here with probable plans for two or three more posts on this subject to cover, components, Photoshop optimization, and how I put it all together. Along the way, I will provide links to some really excellent websites that provided me with a good deal of my information.

HDR

For the last few months, I have been trying to learn all I can about the HDR process before giving it an initial attempt on my own. Two video training CDs and two books later I think I have a handle on the process and how it works.

In my mind (as well as the minds of many others), there are two extremes to the process. On one end of the scale is the use of the process to deliver 'photo-realistic' results, and at the other end of the spectrum are results that have variably been called "comic-bookish", "illustrative", "surreal", or "hyper-realistic". Although my artistic tendency is to stay at the photo-realistic end of the spectrum, I am open minded and can see how, in some circumstances, a move towards the other end of the spectrum can likewise produce very interesting results. In the end, of course, the direction that one's artwork takes is totally up to the artist.

So I am posting my first foray into the HDR processing technique. I was attracted to this tree by the strong graphic lines of the limbs. Since the shape was what I was primarily drawn to, a black and white presentation seemed to be most appropriate. What I was hoping for here was a look that went just a bit beyond photo-realistic in order to give the tree a slightly surreal "spooky" look. The color images were processed in Photomatix and both converted to black and white and toned in Silver Efex Pro.

Tree I
Copyright Howard Grill

How Do You Learn?

I recently had a very interesting insight into myself....or, more accurately, how I learn.

I have always been a 'book learner'. By that I mean that my most efficient way to learn something new has been to get a good book and sit down with it and digest it at my own speed, making sure that I understand everything as the lessons advance. That is how I learned Photoshop and that was the way I made it through various institutions of higher learning. That's not to say that lectures weren't important. But, in a pinch, I always felt that I could get most of what I needed out of the book with lectures and other multimedia highlighting what the most important and practical issues were.

Well, I surprised myself recently. Several months back, I bought a couple of Michael Reichmann's downloadable video tutorials from The Luminous Landscape. I did this in the hopes of learning something new, but also because I thought that a video with Reichmann and Jeff Schewe would be entertaining. And it was, but along the way I surprised myself by feeling that I was learning more than I thought I would.

With this insight, I pursued the idea that perhaps I didn't know as much about my process of learning as I thought I did. So I followed up on this by buying Brooks Jensen's workshop PDF and Folio tutorials on DVD and loved them. In fact, I previously reviewed the PDF tutorial. Once again, I learned a great deal....even more so from this tutorial as I really had no insight into how to make a PDF book prior to watching the DVD. I found the same to be true when I ordered an HDR training DVD from Kelby Training. I have another DVD from Tony Sweet coming in the mail.

I thought I knew the most efficient way that I was able to learn, but am glad that I ended trying out a new approach that is both enjoyable and effective. If you haven't tried learning from a multimedia DVD it just might be an unexpectedly worthwhile approach. It was for me.

Absurd

I recently wrote a post entitled "Trusting Photographs" , in which I mentioned a two part post called "Photography And Truth". In these blog installments, I wrote that I was surprised that there was an expectation on the part of many, if not most, viewers that fine art photography should depict ‘the truth’. In reality, there are decisions made by the photographer including focal length, in camera cropping, and shooting in RAW format (to name a few) that explain why most photographs are ‘untruthful’ to at least some degree.

I was recently looking at a highly regarded photography magazine when I read something that I found to be totally absurd and which reflects back on this whole issue of 'truth' in photography. I won't mention the magazine or the particular photographer, but suffice it to say that the photographer had his superb fine art portfolio published and, in an the accompanying article, says " I very seldom change the actual situation, I just make it more dramatic. I use Photoshop, I never use any plug-in to make the photos more dramatic."

I find this a self-contradictory absurdity on multiple levels. The situation isn't changed...just the degree of drama?? It's OK to use Photoshop, but not a Photoshop plug-in (which itself just uses adjustments available in Photoshop)???? Methinks you protest too much.

Can't we just agree that there is no crime in using Photoshop or Lightroom to make adjustments to fine art photographs in order to express our artistic vision? Can't we just disclose to the public that with todays RAW format adjustments have to be made to the out of camera image in order to restore it to what the scene looked like, and that any such restoration is significantly related to our memory and experience of the location? Photoshop and Lightroom (or similar image editing software) is simply an integral part of photography in the digital age. In my opinion, using them does not somehow denegrate a photograph. And, yes, I also think it is OK to use plug-ins!

Flower Images

In my last post, entitled 'Too Many Choices', I mentioned that I was going to post a recent image that was a result of using experimentation to try to achieve a particular result that I already had in mind.

Rudbeckia I
Copyright Howard Grill

I have enjoyed taking flower photographs for quite some time, but have not printed too many of them as it is hard to do original work when it comes to this subject. For some time, I have been struggling to figure out how to portray the simple form and shape that I see in flowers in a way that I find satisfying.

After thinking about it for some time, I realized that I wanted to emphasize the flower's form and so thought about a pure black and white portrayal. But this didn't seem to instill in the images the sense of life that I was looking for. I decided to try toning the monochrome image, and this moved the final photograph closer to what I was looking for, but it still fell short. Ultimately, I tried experimenting with adding textures to the image and this seemed to bring out what I was looking for.

I am curious as to what people think about this appearance, as I am considering embarking on a series using this approach.

Too Many Choices?

Photographs can be post-processed in a multitude of ways. High-key, low-key, highly saturated, black and white, tinted, duotone, combined with underlying textures.....and the list goes on and on. While the multitude of options certainly opens vast creative opportunities, it can also be daunting. It can be easy to become 'frozen' with indecision, in which case having all those choices actually becomes a hindrance.

As I was thinking about this issue, I realized that there is no 'right way' or 'wrong way' for an image to look. A photo can be successfully processed in any of many different ways and still look great within each different style. The trick is to know how you want it to look and, once that is accomplished, to be able to get the image to that endpoint.

I am not at all advocating that one should give up experimenting with different techniques. Such experimentation will build experience in order to help know what the options are when considering how you want an image to look. In fact, in my next post I plan to show an image that I made using just such experimentation. But I used the experimentation to try to figure out how to get to an end result that I already had in mind. Overall, it just seems to me, that, in order to avoid becoming 'lost' when starting on a creative journey, it is helpful to have at least some idea of what the ultimate destination might be.

High Pass Filtration

I usually don’t post information about Photoshop techniques simply because there is an entire universe of websites dedicated to Photoshop that are run by folks who are far more Photoshop savvy than I could ever hope to be. However, every so often I run across a technique that I find really interesting and so, on those occasions, a post about it seems reasonable. Such is the case with High Pass Filtration. Please don’t consider this to be the definitive ‘how to’ regarding this technique but, rather, a jumping off point to look into it in a more sophisticated manner if it seems of interest to you.

The reason I found High Pass filtration interesting is that while ‘surfing the net’ I have occasionally come across images that seem to have a somewhat ‘enhanced’ sense of reality that gives them a very three dimensional appearance. The effect seems somewhat similar to the HDR effect, but tuned down. When I have followed discussions about such images the photographer will often say, when asked, that the image in question was not processed with HDR software.

So, it whet my interest when I ran across a technique which, by description, seemed to be one way to generate this effect. It is done by using the Photoshop High Pass filter to increase contrast. I knew that this filter could be used for sharpening and, of course, contrast enhancement is a form of sharpening.

At any rate, here is a way to use this technique in order to see if it will achieve a desirable effect (plus I made my own little addition to what I read). Once the image you are considering using it on is complete, duplicate the image and flatten it, but don’t sharpen it yet. Now the image consists of only a background layer. Duplicate this background layer twice and click the icons to turn these duplicate layers off, making them invisible. Now click back on the background layer to make it active and go to the Photoshop filters and choose High Pass (Filter>Other>High Pass). You get a dialogue box in which you can choose a radius. Choose 75 pixels to start, but this is obviously a ‘jump off’ point for experimentation. Your image will now look totally disgusting. Don’t worry….just click on the duplicate background layer which is directly above the layer that was just filtered to make it active and then click on the icon to make it visible. The image now returns to the way it looked before starting this whole thing because it is a duplicate of the original at 100% opacity lying on top of the filtered image. Now the fun begins. Change the blending mode of this layer from normal to overlay and the image undergoes an interesting change.

Perhaps the effect is too much? That is why I added the second duplicate layer (which is not visible at this point) on top of the others at the start of the technique. Click on that layer to now make it active and click on the icon to make it visible. The image now appears as it did before starting. But turn down the opacity of this topmost layer to let the filtered look come through and see how you like it.

A few comments:

1) I have only played around with this technique a bit and found that there are some images that it truly enhances and others that it totally destroys.

2) If an image is found that would benefit from this technique, the entire process can obviously be performed within the original file by duplicating the entire image and placing the entire image on a new layer and working from there.

4) It really is difficult to duplicate this effect with curves....I tried.

3) With the image size being so small, and with the effect being toned down with the topmost layer blogs don't really lend themselves to really demonstrating the effect well…..so, if it sounds interesting, play around with it on your own images and see what you think. With that in mind I am posting one example. The only difference between these two images was the High Pass filtration step.

Pre High Pass Filtration
Copyright Howard Grill

Post High Pass Filtration
Copyright Howard Grill

Black And White

I have always admired black and white photography. The ability to convey feeling through only shades of gray is truly amazing. It has been some time since I did any black and white imaging, though I originally started that way with my home darkroom when I was in 9th grade.

One of the reasons that I have not done much black and white work has been the difficulties that have accompanied black and white inkjet printing over the years. However, these problems have clearly been decreasing rapidly. Lightroom and Photoshop CS4 have made converting color images to black and white much more intuitive. I have also been contemplating buying one of the newer printers that, based on all I have seen and read, are quite capable of producing beautiful monochrome prints.

With this in mind, I recently started 'playing' with some of my already processed color images to see what they would look like in black and white and how 'good' a conversion I could do. For an initial try, I rather like what I was able to produce, at least in terms of how they look on the computer monitor.

"Fluidity"
Copyright Howard Grill

"Siren's Song"
Copyright Howard Grill

"Dreamscapes #1"
Copyright Howard Grill

"Water Painting"
Copyright Howard Grill

LR/Enfuse For Blending Multiple Exposures

Maybe everyone out there already knows about Timothy Ames' LR/Enfuse, but I sure didn't. For that reason, I thought I would post some information in case anyone else out there is as in the dark as I am. I found out about the Lightroom plug-in when I happen to run across a positive review of it in Photoshop User.

So what does LR/Enfuse do? It is a plug-in for Adobe Lightroom that allows one to blend multiple exposures that were taken of the same image in order to get a final image that preserves both highlight and shadow detail (for when the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of the camera's sensor). There are various non-HDR techniques to blend images, usually involving one exposure taken for the highlights and another one taken for the shadows. However, LR/Enfuse allows you to blend multiple shots easily.

I downloaded and installed the plug-in yesterday and am very much looking forward to giving it a try. I am not very fond of the "HDR look" myself and so am looking forward to seeing what type of results I might get from the plug-in. As I said, it has gotten great reviews.

Want to give it a try yourself? It can be downloaded here. There is a trial version available for free (limited only in the maximum file export size), but I went for the unrestricted version, which only requires that you make a donation of any size to Mr. Ames to support developing the program.

Adobe Photoshop CS4 Upgrades

There has been some interesting discussion on the Adobe forums as well as on several blogs about the upgrade path to Photoshop CS4. This effects me personally, so I thought I would interrupt my posts about the Zion workshop I attended to write (rant) about the upgrade issue.

When Photoshop CS3 was released, consumers were faced with the option of upgrading to CS3 or the CS3 Extended version. The differences to me were initially a little vague, as I suspect they were to a number of people. The new extended version was to have 3D tools as well as some other image stacking options that I thought were not in the Non-Extended version. The 3D tools were, indeed, unique to CS3, though I believe the stacking options were actually available in the Non-Extended version as well. I decided to go with the brand new Extended version as I wondered if I might find some of the tools useful....if I ultimately found that I didn't need them I thought I would just end up going back to the Non-Extended version with the next Photoshiop release. Even though it was another $100-150 or so I figured I would give the Extended version a try and see what it was all about. Or so I thought.

I ended up never using any of the options or tools that were unique to the Extended version of Photoshop. Out comes Photoshop CS4 and CS4 Extended. My plan was to upgrade back to the Non-Extended version of Photoshop CS4. As it turns out, there is no upgrade path being made available by Adobe back to the Non-Extended version. Apparently, they want the consumer to be 'locked in' to the more expensive Extended version. Once 'Extended' always 'Extended'.

Now, this seems particularly unfair to me. Certainly I wouldn't have made the Extended choice had I known that I would be locked in for another $150 cost with each and every subsequent Photoshop release. I am not the only consumer who feels this is unfair. Apparently some Adobe employees do as well. John Nack, in his blog speaks about the lack of on upgrade path back to the Non-Extended version (I call it an upgrade-downgrade). In his post from the end of September he talks about Adobe preparing an upgrade path from Extended to Non-Extended. Unfortunately, either this has not occured or has occured in a somewhat obscure and rather opaque fashion.

What do I mean by obscure and opaque? Well I (and many others in different posts) asked questions about the whole upgrade route on the Adobe Forum. One responder states that if one calls tech support (but not customer service) they will give you an unlock code to make the upgrade that will work only once and only be active for about an hour. Now, I don't know if that is true or not, and, frankly, I won't be able to find out because I can't make that call in front of my home computer during 9-5 business hours. However, even if it is true, is this, as they say, any way to run a business? What if I buy a new computer and want to reinstall the program? What if the program crashes or gets corrupted and I want to reinstall it? What about putting it on my laptop? What about.....well you get the idea. You can read the forum thread here.

It seems to me that Adobe should allow the upgrade from the Extended to Non-Extended versions (which seems only fair), and allow it as a clearly stated option with a distinct and easy mechanism for anyone to do the upgrade without jumping through all sorts of hoops. I am sure that from a programing standpoint this can not be all that difficult. It is equally hard for me to believe that the Adobe marketing division could not or did not anticipate this sort of problem.

OK, I am done with my rant now!

Doing Too Much: A Change In Workflow

Lately, I have been re-examining various aspects of my workflow and have come to the realization that I am doing too much. I am not talking about having too many projects (though that may also be true...I have found that the more you have going on the less you actually accomplish). Rather, I am talking about what I am doing to my individual image files.

In an attempt to reach my view of 'perfection', I find that I end up making many small adjustments to various parts of the image that probably have little effect on the final print as well as deciding after conversion from RAW that I prefer the image with a marked boost in contrast, color temperature, saturation, etc. At that point I may have so many layers that it would become time consuming to go back and rework the RAW file and so I make the adjustments on more layers in Photoshop. To warm or cool the color temperature in a reversable way I end up merging the entire image to a new layer and applying a photo filter, which further bloats the file. Sometimes, by the time I am done in Photoshop, I am now getting the sense that I have pushed the pixels too far in many instances.

I have made a change to my workflow that I hope alleviates this problem. Previously, I was using PhotoKit Sharpener (fantastic product) for both capture sharpening and output sharpening (and creative sharpening, if needed). There was a downside to this (and many upsides). The downside was that despite the ability to open an image coming out of Lightroom or Camera RAW as a smart object, I could not do so because PhotoKit would not work if the background layer was a smart object.

As it turns out, the newer versions of sharpening in Lightroom and Camera RAW were designed with much input from Jeff Schewe and the late Bruce Fraser. This sharpening was actually designed to implement capture sharpening only....and I had not been aware of this. So now I am using the sharpening in Camera RAW or Lightroom to apply my capture sharpening. The downside to this is that it is going to take some further learning and experimentation to implement. Capture sharpening in PhotoKit Sharpener was much easier....you just picked your camera resolution and clicked a button. However, the upside far outweighs this. For one thing, the file sizes are going to be smaller without the capture sharpening layers (one could flatten them into the background layer, but I never did) and, most importantly, if I decide I want a significant change in contrast, exposure, color temperature etc I can simply click the smart object and make the adjustments to the RAW file (and even change the capture sharpening settings) and have them applied to the entire image (assuming I haven't duplicated the entire image onto a separate layer for some reason, which does occasionally happen).

In this way, I can make post-processing changes while leaving the pixels less 'manipulated'. I should mention that I still use PhotoKit Sharpener for my creative and output sharpening. I do think that I am going to be happier with this method of working.

Adjusting The Color Yellow

I have frequently found adjusting the color of yellow flowers (or anything yellow for that matter) in Photoshop to be difficult. It seems hard to get the yellow color to be pure and saturated. Often, there tends to be a greenish hue to the yellow that seems hard to eliminate. Here is a great tip to help solve that problem.

When Is It Done?

I would like to take another brief interlude from the rock images to mention an issue that I have been thinking about lately.

I have noticed something in my own work and am wondering if others have had the same experience (yikes, could it really be just me?). When I am in Lightroom going through my RAW files to choose ones that I want to work on further, I will frequently make some quick changes to exposure and saturation etc and perhaps even open them in Photoshop to add a quick curves layer. I do this to try to quickly see the potential of an image since the RAW files are, by definition, fairly flat looking.

Using this process, I pick out images that I want to continue working on in order to ‘perfect’ them. I might work on a chosen image for quite some time. Some of the work is general to the image. By that I mean that it would be needed no matter how else the image was processed. I am referring to spotting the photo as well as cloning out errant objects as well as objects that I noticed ahead of time but could do nothing about, such as small signs and the like. Getting the crop right would also fall into this category.

But then I start working on the aspects of the image that are changeable and dependent on the ‘feel’ I want to give the photograph. This includes things like local contrast, saturation, fine tuning the exposure etc. The funny thing is that while sometimes the result looks far, far better than the starting point after the quick Lightroom adjustments, there are other times (and though they are not the majority, they are still not at all infrequent) when I look back at the quick starting point that I had generated only to find that, even after all the manipulations and effort, I like the starting version of the image better.

I wonder if there is something in those first quick adjustments that allows one’s intent or pre-visualization of the image to come out. Frequently, I wonder if I am doing too much to an image, or if the many minor adjustments that I might spend time making are even noticeable. I think knowing when to stop is a big hurdle to overcome, at least for me.

Anyone have thoughts about this?

Photoshop Disasters

Deep down, we all love Photoshop. But, sometimes, things can go a bit awry. With photography that generally means that we have ended up in the trap of oversaturation or poor contrast. In the field of graphic design things can get worse......much worse!

How much worse and how often? Turns out quite frequently. And not only work by amateurs....as you will see many of these bloopers are in ads put out by very large corporations. The errors, sometimes small, sometimes big, and very frequently funny have a place where they go for all to see and that place is a blog called Photoshop Disasters.

Check it out here and know that others have erred far worse than you!

Lightroom Presets II

I have previously written about the use of presets in Adobe Lightroom. With presets, you can just scroll your mouse over the name of the preset in the Develop Module and get an immediate idea of how the image might look if treated in a certain fashion, such as black and white, cyanotype, sepia toned etc.. The preview one gets is not necessarily how the finished product would look, as the application of a preset serves only as a starting point, but it does give a very good idea of whether it is going to be worthwhile following a particular creative route.

With the winter being quite dreary where I live , I recently bought some lilies to photograph, and the results, I think, give another nice demonstration of how presets can really guide one down a path. Here was my original image of a yellow lilly, which I thought was somehow lacking, but yet seemed to have some promise:

Copyright Howard Grill

I felt that it just needed 'something else', and so brought it into the Develop Module of Lightroom and quickly scrolled through a number of my presets. I became intrigued by the look of the image both sepia toned and done in a cyanotype appearance. I ultimately decided to go with sepia toning and after applying the preset and tweaking a few of the settings ended up with this image, which I personally like quite a bit more than the original:

Copyright Howard Grill

Just another nice example of the benefits of Lightroom, which I use in conjunction with Photoshop. Need to get some presets? Try here and here.

Fakery

Several months ago I wrote a short post entitled “Photography And Truth”, which can be read here (Pt. I) and here (Pt. II). “Photography And Truth” was ultimately published on Uwe Steinmueller’s Outback Photo as an essay which contained more photographs than the original post, with the added images being used to illustrate the points that were being made. If there is an interest, that version of the essay can be read here.

The reason I bring up the essay, is that I ran across an interesting article on the Photopreneur blog entitled “The World's Most Famous Photoshop Fakes“, which I thought served as an interesting follow up to it. In “The World's Most Famous Photoshop Fakes“ , the Photopreneur authors present some of the most notable historic ‘news’ images that were ‘doctored’ in some way, many through the use of Photoshop. Several of the fakes were images taken on film and subsequently altered without the use of Photoshop. Oh my, you mean analog photographs can also lie?

It is an in interesting article and well worth having a look!