Photoshop tips for common corrections or improvements

I just got my Photoshop CS.

What I look forward to is learning some of the many tips from the experienced users.

We should start a thread with tips on how to correct common problems or, accentuate photos to look even better. A good friend and I have agreed that 50% of Digital photography is post exposure. So apparently I'm a long way away from knowing what I am doing.

I am thinking of situations of when to use certain features and how you would then use them. Even example pictures would be helpful.

I'm sure I'm not the only one looking for knowledge in this area.

Hi Todd,

I'll start. I shoot almost all my underwater stuff in RAW now and use CS for conversion.

First tip - I go to "shadows" and pull the slider over. For some reason, the Camera RAW clips the deep dark shadows - you can tell since the histogram is pushed over to the right. I pull the histogram back over until it touches on the left and I find my photos have more "depth" that way.

Lots more tips to come...

Cheers

James

I shoot RAW, convert with Capture One to 16 bit JPEG, copy image (Ctrl-J) and apply sharpening to the copy, and add adjustment layers for levels and selective color (and sometimes hue/saturation). Works well, and leaves you with a fully adjustable file that you can tweak whenever you want.

I played with shadows when I first got CS, but haven't found it added anything to my workflow. I'm going to try James' theory just to make sure I'm not missing something!

Anyone want to take a run at explaining curves and how best to utilize it? It is a new feature and something I know can work well based on some brief discussions I had with Herb.

Try out Shadows/Highlights for shots that are dark because of a bright background........

Karl

Anyone want to take a run at explaining curves and how best to utilize it?

That is another tool who use has eluded me. I can't seem to figure it out. Is there a difference between Curves and Levels, or does it do the same thing, and it's just a different way of getting there?

Maybe this will help explain them:

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1014.htm

I'd also suggest folks read up on using adjustment layers....very handy.

That was a very helpful article. Thank You! I had no idea about the eyedropper function while using curves. I still am a bit unclear though, about whether you achieve the same thing...tonal balance... with both levels and curves. Would it be fair to say that one is more for fine tuning than another? Do most folks use both curves and levels but for different things? Just curious....

What I meant, before I was so rudely interupted by Giles...

I find that once someone does some of the post shot editing that the pictures seem to pop and thus be twice as good as they were. Sometimes minor adjustments can make all the difference.

Is photography not supposed to be artistic and thus up to each persons interpretation. Therefore, utilizing tools available to them in the form of PS should not be frowned upon. Some people intentionlly shoot in modes that out of the camera the shots do not look good but, once through a preset RAW processing they sing.

I would also suggest that the time to process far exceeds the time to press the shutter in all cases.

Todd, Tom and all,

Good thread! I'm barely a "weedhopper" on post processing and will gain more coaching in a few weeks under the able guidance of Lazaro, the computer genius at www.thelivingsea.com. He's returning with me to the Bahamas aboard Shearwater May 28-June 3. Then he and I will explore the Keys plus Key Biscayne diving and kayaking back in some mangrove areas. Which brings me to a point.....

A digital camera system is now the starting point for creative photography. As Todd and I have emailed each other about, the basic file should still be framed, exposed, etc. as you prefer. Then the computer process steps in.

The first thing a computer should be used for is EDITING. I can't believe the garbage some photographers can't bear to delete. Fish butts, subjects miles away underwater and more.....Editing is an acquired art and the first test of becoming close to a decent photographer is picking the ones to save for post processing and deleting the rest. No one gets great images every time they click the shutter.....Maybe I'm lucky I became my own worst critic weeding through boxes of slides years after every trip....Anyway, EDIT, EDIT, EDIT.....There should only be a few great images worthy of moving to the next plateau.

I confess to currently using Elements 2.0 with levels, contrast / brightness and then USM for sharpening at this time. Even with (oh my god the horror!) Fine / Large JPEG files...Just starting to play with the white balance choices on my EOS 300D, too. More experimentation needed....

I will dabble sometime this summer in Adobe CS and RAW. Defining the difference between using levels versus curves, plus other details will be great advice for those of us just getting started in this......

David Haas

www.pbase.com/dhaas

Lots of articles on using Photoshop are available on Creativepro.com

Bruce Fraser is the "king" of non-destructive photo editing. Check out his articles on setting up actions to create high-pass sharpening layers, instead of destructive un-sharp masking for instance. he's got articles on using curves and other tools. Some are written for older versions of PS, but are still very relevant.

Here's a couple of links:

http://www.creativepro.com/author/home/40.html

http://www.creativepro.com:80/software/home/57.html

Jack

PS; James - would there be a way to upload actions or other small files to the board? This might be a cool addition...

Yes, you can attach many different kinds of files to your post Jack. One Wetpixel user attached a spreadsheet if I remember correctly - so I think an .atn file would work.

Cheers

James

Because of the way digital cameras are built, no shot will come out of the camera looking its best.

If you're willing to accept that the shot looks ok, but not the best it can be, then you may be happy shooting JPEG with no post-processing. You can also use custom white balance to help here.

Custom white balancing (either during the dive, or after) and setting curves is akin to choosing your film.

Film shooters, you choose Velvia, Provia, or Kodak 25 because you like that film's curve. People choose Velvia because they like the red curve and saturation setting they just don't know it...:-)

Cheers

James

PS; James - would there be a way to upload actions or other small files to the board? This might be a cool addition...

Jack - good idea! I've just added "atn" as a valid file type for uploads. You can also zip it up.

One could also look at it even with film cameras....you concentrate on exposure, getting the shot, etc. and like James said, the film characteristics...but it still has to be "processed," doesn't it? Digital just gives you more control over any processing. I come from an audio background so I still adhere to the adage, "Garbage In, Garbage Out" so I think I might draw the line at "making" a photo in pshop that didn't exist previously (compositing)....Adjusting color balance and cloning out a fish or backscatter to me is perfectly acceptable.

Cloning your fish out isn't 'processing', and the photo would be considered 'manipulated' in wildlife photography terms (which may still be OK, depending what the image is being used for). It's normally kosher to clone out dust spots etc Backscatter is a difficult one, and particularly relevant for us. I remove it digitally from most of my images, which I personally feel is fine. Color balance and contrast and sharpening are variations of film processing techniques, which you can apply and still consider your image to be 'unmanipulated' in most circumstances.

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that cloning was similar to film processing. Obviously it's not. I was just saying where I would personally draw the line. That being said, photo retouching is a big business these days. There's always going to be folks who are purists and those who are tweakers.

I shoot RAW, convert with Capture One to 16 bit JPEG, copy image (Ctrl-J) and apply sharpening to the copy, and add adjustment layers for levels and selective color (and sometimes hue/saturation). Works well, and leaves you with a fully adjustable file that you can tweak whenever you want.

 

I played with shadows when I first got CS, but haven't found it added anything to my workflow. I'm going to try James' theory just to make sure I'm not missing something!

Going from 8bit to 16 bit, what is the added benefit of this. Other than twice as many bits?

Adjusting color balance and cloning out a fish or backscatter to me is perfectly acceptable.

Anything that makes the image more pleasing is good provided the goal is esthetics (as it prmarily is). If the goals are documentary or we're talking about contest rules, that's different. Otherwise, I consider these mandatory, not just acceptable! There isn't any morality to image editing and editing doesn't in any way cheapen the process as some imply that it does. Ansel Adams considered the job only half done when the shutter was pressed. I don't see how digital is any different. My film friends were discouraged by what the saw coming out of their D100's but they were used to shooting Velvia and viewing their results for the first time on a slide table. What we're used to isn't all there is!

Todd asked:

Going from 8bit to 16 bit, what is the added benefit of this. Other than twice as many bits?

When starting out with RAW data, 16 bit preserves the entire resolution of the original image even after gamma is applied (or at least almost). While working in 16 bit, rounding errors will have essentially no impact on the final image since it while surely be displayed on a device with much less than 16 bit resolution. Cumulative color/brightness/contrast adjustments will not degrade a 16 bit image like they can with 8 bit. You should be doing it this way.

If you are starting with an 8 bit image, switching to 16 bit offers little advantage. Rounding errors on adjustments are eliminated but the dynamic range within the zones has already been compromised. If I'm going to make heavy adjustments on an 8 bit image I usually convert it to 16 bit first but that's mostly out of wishful thinking. I'm not at all convinced it helps.

Thanks Craig that does clarify.

My 5000 was running in 8 bit as they all come up in Raw that way so I don't think it mattered much. I am assuming my Rebel is different. I can't wait till May 1st and tax season to end so I can play with the new toys!

Now this healing tool is new from Elements 2, I will have to look into that one. I recall someone looking for it when they were working on my Elements.