Channel mixer to fix a sun flare

I had to fix this photo today:



A gorgeous shot, but there's an unfortunate red sun flare very prominent.

Luckily, it was a very easy fix, which I thought I'd share here.

This is a job for Channel Mixer. I suspect a lot of people have only used Channel Mixer for black-and-white conversions, if they've used it at all. But this kind of problem is just what Channel Mixer was born for.

Here's a closer look at the area:



First thing I needed to do was examine the individual channels, to see where the damage was.

Here's the Red Channel. You can see it's cactus:



Here's the Green Channel. It's looking really good:



Here's the Blue Channel. It's also looking pretty good, but the poor old Blue Channel is always the grainiest of the three, so it's not ideal:



So, what I needed to do was simply replace the Red Channel with the Green Channel in the problem area.

To begin, I made a rough selection of the area. I used Quick Mask, but Lasso would have been ok as well:



Then I made a Channel Mixer Adjustment Layer. Immediately, of course, my "marching ants" selection was replaced by the layer mask. Channel Mixer opens on Red as the default Output Channel, which was perfect for my needs, because the Red Channel is the one I wanted to fix:



To swap a channel is ridiculously simple. I just reduced the Red slider to 0%, and increased the Green slider to 100%. By doing this, I told Photoshop I wanted the red data to be completely replaced by green data on the target output channel. Take a look at the result:



Obviously, I could now see that my mask wasn't entirely accurate, because there was a red halo around my adjustment. So I carefully painted my mask to ensure all the redness was gone:



Piece of cake!

To be honest, sun flares are rarely this easy. Usually it's necessary to adjust two channels, or even all three, and even then there's cloning to be done, or further colour correction. I was lucky that this one was so easy!

Adjustment layers - strength vs opacity

I got sidetracked from another discussion I was having, and decided to find out if adjustment layers behave differently depending on whether you adjust their opacity or the strength of the adjustment itself.

I suspected there would be some difference in results, but I was very surprised at how much difference there is.

So, the experiment went like this: I opened an image and duplicated it, so that two copies of the same image were sitting side-by-side on my screen.

Then, I'd apply the same adjustment layer to both images ... still looking exactly the same, of course.

Then, on the first image I'd reduce the opacity of the adjustment layer to 50%; on the second image I'd go into the adjustment layer and reduce the strength of it by 50% (eg a Contrast adjusment of 40 would be reduced to 20).

To read that description, you might expect that both images would still look exactly the same - not so! In some cases, the difference was remarkable.

Here's an example, using a Photo Filter adjustment layer. On this one, I used the Warming Filter (85) at 50% density, and left the layer at 100% opacity:


Here, I set the density to 100%, but the opacity at 50%:


I'm sure you can see the difference, especially in the sky.

So, I found that the strength and opacity aren't equivalent for Photo Filter. Nor are they equivalent for Levels, Hue/Saturation or Selective Color. Channel Mixer was very close, but not quite the same.

Curves is peculiar. The endpoints don't give the same results when comparing strength vs opacity; but a midtone adjustment is identical! (Well, a modest one, anyway. I didn't test a really strong one that induces clipping).

Brightness/Contrast is also interesting. The Contrast slider gives very different results (strength vs opacity), but the Brightness slider gives almost the same. (I didn't dwell on this one too much, though, because B/C is a completely useless tool, and should never be used.)

The only adjustment layer that seems to give completely reliable results no matter whether you adjust the strength or the opacity is Color Balance. I haven't figured out why.

In all the cases where there was a difference in the effect, I'm not saying that one looks better than the other. They just produce different outcomes, that's all, as the above examples prove.

Ok, so what's the point of all this???

Well, for you, dear reader, possibly nothing. For me, not much, because I usually get my adjustments right the first time, and have little need to re-adjust them later, either by strength or opacity. But the differences I saw tonight will make me extra careful about my re-adjustments in the future.

The reason I wrote this post is that I know there are some people who habitually make their adjustment layers over-strong, then use opacity to reduce the effect to a satisfactory point. I'll be encouraging those people to re-assess their workflow, to see if they're truly getting the best results.

A Duotone method

I saw this asked on a forum, and I thought I'd share this method here.

How to create a "duotone" effect in Photoshop.

There is a "Duotone" mode in Photoshop, but I've always found it clumsy to use, and in any case it's destructive - it involves not one but two Color Mode changes. It's out-of-date now - it was originally used in the printing industry on non-CMYK jobs. Those days are gone.

Here's a simple method that I've used in the past to create a duotoned image:

1. Open your image. You don't have to flatten layers - that's one advantage of this method. In this example, I've grouped my previous edits to keep things tidy.


2. Choose your two desired colours. Usually you'd have a lighter colour and a darker colour. I'll choose yellow and blue (I can change them later).

3. Make a new Hue/Saturation adjustment layer.

4. Click the "Colorize" checkbox, then adjust the Hue slider to choose the light colour. In this case, I put the Hue slider at 27, and bumped the Saturation up slightly to 30. Now my photo is all yellowish.


5. Make another Hue/Saturation adjustment layer.

6. Again, click "Colorize" and this time adjust the Hue slider to achieve your darker colour. I've used Hue 200 and Saturation 40. Now my image is blue-ish.


7. Press Ctrl Alt Shift ~. (The ~ key is at the top left hand corner of your keyboard). This should make a Luminosity Selection - you'll see "marching ants" all over your image, delineating darker areas from lighter areas. (If this doesn't work for you, let me know. It's different in different versions of PS, I think).


8. Make sure you're working on the mask of the second (darker colour) Hue/Sat layer. If for some reason it's not selected, click on it.

9. Press D to reset your mask colours to white-on-black, if they're not already.

10. Press Ctrl Backspace (or Delete) to fill the highlight areas of your selection with black on your mask.

11. Ctrl D to deselect the marching ants.

At this point, your photo will look vaguely like a duotone, but a weak one.


12. Open Curves by pressing Ctrl M. (Plain curves, not a curves adjustment layer. We want to manipulate the mask).

13. Make a strong S-curve to exaggerate the Duotone. The stronger the S-curve, the more prominent the purple shadows and yellow highlights will become.


I know that must seem a bit complex to read all those steps, but honestly, it's as easy as pie. Here's my result:


The advantage of this method, as with all adjustment layer-based methods, is the flexibility. It's very easy to go back to the Hue/Sat layers and adjust the colours.

Let me know how it works for you!

Bridge ain't bad!

Plenty of photographers are embracing Adobe Lightroom for their raw workflow, and using it most of the time. Paired with Photoshop (any version) it's a formidable force.

(Personally, I won't touch Lightroom until they fix the histogram problem, but that's a rant for another day.)

Anyway, I just wanted to stand up and voice a bit of support for good ol' Adobe Bridge.

Bridge has been packaged for free with Photoshop for a few versions now, and it's getting better and better. It does a heck of a lot of the things that Lightroom can do - batch processing, rating, labeling, etc. And Adobe Camera Raw, which is the conduit for raw files between Bridge and Photoshop, has all the same sliders and functionality that Lightroom has.

I'm aware of hardened professional wedding photographers, who process thousands of images per month, who use Bridge without qualms, and have found no need to switch to Lightroom.

The point is, if you're a bit strapped for cash, don't strain your budget to buy Lightroom immediately. Photoshop is your priority, and Bridge will serve you well.

A tough restoration - progress report

Here's one I'm working on at the moment. I had to promise great things to get this job!

The original - very yellowed, and badly damaged:


And this is where I'm at so far:


Yes, it's true - I do the easy bits first! I'll more or less finish off the background before tackling the subjects. It's also far from finished tonally. The whole left side is missing contrast, so I'll need to address that as well.

Eventually when I finish the job, I'll give the customer the option of black-and-white or a yellow tone to mimic the original. If she wants the yellow tone, I'll use a Levels layer to yellow it up.

The point is, I always convert these photos to true BW to edit them. Trying to restore a photo and maintain a colour tone is an absolute nightmare. Working in BW is much easier.

Stay tuned! I'll post the finished result in the next few days.

Straightening horizons

I had to straighten a pic today, and it occurred to me that not everyone knows the trick.

Thanks to my beautiful wife for this one!

Just choose your Measure Tool (probably hidden under the Eye Dropper Tool) and draw a rule along the horizon (or another desired horizontal or vertical line in the photo).

Then go to Image > Rotate Canvas > Arbitrary. Voila! You'll find the angle of the rule is automatically entered there, so all you need to do is hit Ok, and the photo rotates to the perfect angle!

Blend modes ... seriously! WTF?

I just watched ... well, I shan't name names, but it was a brief series of videos on the "important basics" of Photoshop. It started well - Layers. Yes, layers are critically important, no argument there. Opacity. Ok, I guess opacity is important, in a way. Masking. Yes! Masking is damned important, though most people don't use it intuitively, in my opinion. (Article: The right way to use layer masks)

Number 4 - Blend Modes.

C'mon, give me a break!

I see the use of layer blend modes in post-processing very often on the "beginner" forums I frequent. I suspect the author of the aforementioned videos is largely responsible for this.

Blend modes are not for enhancing images. Try talking to a pro photographer, or going to the RetouchPro forum (where the real experts hang out) and mentioning blend modes. If you're lucky, you'll be laughed at politely, and gently pointed towards Levels and Curves tutorials. If they're in a mood, you'll be flamed mercilessly.

I understand why they're popular among JSOs. They give a quick "wow!" to your photos. Without examining too closely, they appear to improve your photos. They even appear to give you control over your editing.

It's an illusion.

Blend modes give buggerall control, and can't be relied upon to improve your images under close scrutiny. A Screen layer lightens shadows, but blows out highlights. A Multiply layer darkens light areas, but it clips shadows. An Overlay/Soft Light layer creates midtone contrast, sure, but it brightens highlights and darkens shadows without control; and it does it uniformly, which is rarely desirable.

No, ditch them. Take genuine control. Read histograms, use Levels or Curves, master selections. You'll never regret it.

Choosing the right colour space for your workflow

I'm writing this post in response to a particular question on the Australian Photography Forum, but it's a question I see asked everywhere I go.

"What colour space should I work in?"

Such a short question, but with such a complex answer. There's no way I can cover every aspect of this matter - heck, there's been whole books written about it - but I hope I can give a bit of guidance. There are so many variables to consider, and ultimately, personal preference plays a big part. (I'm going to try to keep this brief, but I bet I don't! And I'm going to try to keep it objective, but I bet I don't do that either!)

Let's look at the main contenders:

sRGB: As far as I know, the "s" stands for "standard" ... well, if it doesn't, it should. (In my view, it could also stand for "safe" and "sensible".) It's an approximation of the gamut of the "average" imaging device - monitors and printers. In truth, the devices upon which the standard was modeled have long since been superceded, but the standard remains reasonably sound. sRGB is the required colour space for the internet, and for all consumer print labs (and some pro ones).

Adobe RGB: This is a slightly bigger gamut, and is probably the "standard" of the future. At the moment only the very high-end monitors have a full Adobe RGB gamut, but I guess more and more will achieve it. The really good inkjet printers achieve a fair slice of Adobe RGB, and even exceed it in some colours.

ProPhoto RGB: This is a ridiculously big colour space that (I think) encompasses all visible colour. Needless to say, it far outstrips the colour reproduction capabilities of any monitors or printers currently available.

How do you choose your colour space?

Well, if you shoot in Jpeg mode, you choose it in the camera (ProPhoto isn't available). If you shoot Raw, you choose it in your raw processing program.

How do you choose the right one for you?

Well, I want to start by very firmly saying this: If you have no experience in colour management, use sRGB. I don't care what you read in a book, or saw on a forum, or some bloke told you at the pub. If you don't know the basics of ICC profiles and the conversion thereof, dabbling with the larger colour spaces will end in tears.

sRGB is your best friend. If you use sRGB throughout your workflow, you don't have to think at all. Like I said, the "s" stands for "safe".

Having said that, a little knowledge about colour management is easy to come by. There's plenty of good books and sites about it.

Ok, assuming you understand the basics of profile conversion, how do you choose the right colour space?

Well, there's two ways of looking at it:
(1) Choose the space that's relevant for your current workflow; or
(2) Choose a "future-proof" space, ie one that allows you to take advantage of potentially bigger gamuts of the imaging devices (monitors and printers) that you might have access to in the future, assuming you want to re-visit your old photos at that point.

In order to help you make that decision, let's break down your workflow into the relevant parts.

Part 1 - what you're shooting

Let's get something damn clear to begin with - sRGB is not a "small" colour space. The average portrait or landscape photo has a colour range that fits nicely within sRGB. I'd estimate that 80% of photos that 80% of people take don't have colours that exceed the limits of sRGB.

However, you don't have to look far to find subject matter that has colours too bright for sRGB. Sunsets, for example. Those brilliant orange skies are likely to cause Red channel clipping in sRGB. Bright floral photos will do it, too. Etc etc.

This is a good time to reiterate the importance of shooting in Raw. If you're not, I encourage you to start doing so. Raw capture allows you to choose a colour space that suits the photo, and/or manipulate the colour gamut of the photo to fit the chosen space. In short - Raw is awesome.

So, here's your first consideration. Think about what you shoot, and whether you're capturing super-bright colours.

Part 2 - the screen you're editing on

So many people forget about this when they're choosing a space. What's the point of choosing a larger space if you can't see it??? As I said earlier, there are more wide-gamut monitors becoming available, but a heck of a lot of us are still using regular-gamut monitors. (I've invested in a small Eizo monitor that cost more than my first car, and it's a brilliant bit of gear, but it doesn't exceed the sRGB gamut.)

If you're using a regular-gamut monitor, there's no point in saturating colours out of sRGB, because the screen will just stop showing you an accurate representation of them. And once you're editing colours you can't see, you're asking for trouble.

I've written a long and eye-wateringly boring article related to monitor gamut here, if you're interested.

Part 3 - the end result

At the end of the day, you take photos to show people.

Any photos that go on the web must be sRGB - there's no debate about that. sRGB is for web.

Printing might be different. The average lab will reproduce sRGB adequately, but may not be able to go much bigger in gamut. But of course it depends on the calibre of the lab you use, and the type of media you print on. Prints on canvas will have a different gamut to prints on Lustre paper, which will be different again from prints on Metallic. And RGB prints will differ from inkjet prints.

I can't give more advice than that. You really need to consult your lab and find out their specific advice and requirements. Some might even give you their actual print profile with which to soft-proof and see exactly what gamut you've got to play with.

Ok, with all that in mind, let's go back to the two options I gave you earlier.

Option (1): Choose the space that's relevant for your current workflow

Let's say you shoot bright things, and even have a wide-gamut monitor, but only show your images on the web. What's the smallest gamut in that equation? sRGB, for web. So there's no benefit of working in a larger space.

But what if you shoot bright things, and have a wide-gamut monitor, and show your images on the web, and print them on your wonderful wide-format Epson printer? Well, that's different. You want to be working in a bigger space that takes advantage of the Epson inks, then converting down to sRGB for the web.

Ok, how about if you shoot bright things, but just have a regular-gamut monitor? Well, you've got to choose the space that you can see when you're editing, so that would be sRGB. Frankly, it doesn't matter what output you choose.

And lastly, if you only shoot "normal" colours (portraits etc), then just make it easy for yourself and choose sRGB. You don't need that extra colour gamut, so why bother?

I hope this makes sense.

Option (2): Choose a "future-proof" space, ie one that allows you to take advantage of potentially bigger gamuts of the imaging devices (monitors and printers) that you might have access to in the future, assuming you want to re-visit your old photos at that point.

If you're a forward-thinker, this option is for you.

If you are editing photos and thinking "I'm going to save up enough money for one of those amazing inkjet printers and a wide-gamut screen, then I'm going to print this baby, and it's going to look AMAZING!" ...

... or, if you think "This Adobe RGB Epson printer is great, but I bet in a few years Epson will develop new inks that are even brighter, and I wanna piece of that!" ...

... then you should be working in a suitably large colour space to satisfy your future self.

(Please note, if you're editing in ProPhoto RGB, you must work in 16-bit mode in Photoshop. Otherwise you're likely to get banding.)

Well, if you've read this far without falling asleep, you're amazing. I hope some of it made sense, and that it helped a little. All comments and criticism welcomed.

Of calibration and brightness

The most significant difference between expensive calibrators and cheap ones is the ability or inability to control your monitor's Brightness ("luminance").

The more expensive devices (such as the i1 Display 2 that I have) allow you to set a luminance target (usually between 80 and 120 candelas), then guide you to adjust your screen's Brightness setting to hit that target.

The cheaper devices don't have this functionality, which is a pity, because screen luminance has a great deal of influence on print matching.

I'm a big fan of my expensive calibrator, but I'm not here to preach "you must spend lots of money". Any calibration is better than no calibration, and you should only spend what your budget will allow.

So, if you have a device that doesn't control Brightness (such as the Spyder Express range), you need to take matters into your own hands a bit.

Generally speaking, all monitors are too bright when you first install them. That's great for gamers and movie-watchers, but lousy for imaging. So before you calibrate, you need to reduce the brightness of your screen to a suitable level for print matching.

Now, if there's an exact science to this, I'm not aware of it. It's just a matter of reducing the Brightness until the screen looks roughly like the print. (Remember, ignore colour at this stage, it's just the brightness you're focusing on.)

Here's some general advice about comparing prints to your screen.

The thing is, you'll probably be a bit cautious. A "correct" screen looks awfully dull if you're not used to it! Y'know how if you've been outside in the bright sunshine for a while, then walk into your house, everything seems really dark for a few minutes until you get used to it? Well, it's kinda the same here.

But anyway, reduce your brightness to a level that seems ok, then maybe just browse the web or something for ten minutes, and let your eyes get used to it. Once you're satisfied with it, then you can calibrate your monitor.

Ultimately, the proof of calibration is in the printing. Edit some photos on your newly-calibrated screen, then get them printed at a reputable lab. If the prints look good, pat yourself on the back. If the prints are a bit dark, you might need to reduce your brightness a little more.

Of course, if your prints look too light, you might need to increase the brightness a bit ... but that's pretty rare!

Calibration is important, and nowhere near as complex as people think. If you've just bought your first calibration device, I congratulate you on your wise move, and wish you all the best. You won't regret it.

Measure the resolution of your screen

Have you ever measured the exact resolution of your screen?

By "resolution" I mean the PPI (pixels per inch) value. Confusingly, there are two definitions of the word "resolution" - one refers to PPI, and the other refers to pixel dimensions, which you probably already know - my screen is 1280x1024.

I'll be writing more about the two definitions quite soon, so stay tuned!

It's really easy to measure your screen's PPI:

1. Make a new blank document in Photoshop, and set it to 1000 pixels wide. (It doesn't have to be 1000 - if you have a smaller screen, maybe 700 or 800 will do.)

2. When the blank document opens, make sure you view it at 100% (by pressing Ctrl + if necessary). You might need to hit your Tab key to temporarily hide all your palettes.

3. Measure the width of the document by holding a ruler or measuring tape up to your screen. (Be careful not to scratch it!) Jot down the measurement in inches.

4. Then just grab your calculator and divide 1000 (or whatever you used) by the width in inches. The resulting value is your screen's resolution.

I made a 1000px image on my screen, and it measured 11.575 inches wide. 1000/11.575 = 86.4ppi.

I bet you ten bucks that your LCD screen has a higher resolution than 72ppi. 72 is an out-of-date standard, but a lot of people cling to it stubbornly.

Ok, so what's the point?

There's only one purpose for this that I can think of, but it's a handy one. Have you ever gone to View > Print Size and been disappointed that Photoshop didn't actually show you the image at the right size?

If you go to Edit > Preferences > Units and Rulers in Photoshop, you can enter your precise value in the Screen Resolution field.

Then, when you've got an image open and you choose Print Size from the View menu, it will give you an accurate representation of your image size on screen.

Plus, if you're as nerdy as me, it gives a warm glow of satisfaction to be able to say "I know the exact resolution of my screen - do you?"

Training course is a hit!

I've now presented my new and improved Raw Photographers' Training Course twice - once face-to-face, and once online. Both times it went really well!

Thanks to Reg (Brisbane) and Angela (Florida) for their eager participation, enthusiastic feedback, and helpful suggestions.

I've got several little improvements to make before meeting my next trainee - Beth from Toronto - in a couple of days.

Now I need to find time to begin developing the more advanced training modules that I've been promising! Advanced Levels and Advanced Hue/Saturation are next on my list.

New Year's Resolution

So, I know I'm a few weeks late, but here it is. I resolve to stop selling my restoration services too cheaply this year.

When you're starting a business, it's too easy to think "Oh, I'd better quote a competitive price, so that I get the business". I've been more guilty of that than most.

Well, screw that.

I've built up a damn good restoration portfolio, and people can see that I do great quality work. If they want the best, they can pay what it's worth. If it's too much for them, so be it.

I know I'll lose a few customers this way, but it's time I stopped using up precious work and family time for very little return.

Wish me luck!

Skintones too orange!

I see this lament on forums quite a bit. "How can I fix this photo? The skintones look too orange."

Well, the thing is, skintones ARE orange. That is to say, they exist on the colour wheel between the primary colours of Red and Yellow. And what colour is between Red and Yellow? Orange.

Admittedly, the usual skintone is much closer to Red than Yellow, but there's a yellow component to it, nonetheless.

So, if a skintone looks so strongly orange it's offensive, the solution may not be to change the colour. Very often it's simply an issue of over-saturation.

Ok, great. Can we just desaturate it, then?

Alas, no. Desaturation often does terrible things to skin, and I've never had much success with it. As with many things in Photoshop, there's no such thing as a "return trip". Very often, if you saturate something by 20%, then desaturate it by 20%, you don't end up where you started.

So, I'm afraid you have to re-trace your steps, and find the adjustment you made to over-saturate in the first place. The solution lies in not making the mistake in the first place - prevention is better than cure, as they say.

Needless to say, an Adjustment Layer-based workflow is essential to be able to re-trace your steps and fix earlier problems.

You've gotta subscribe to this

If you're not already a subscribee (is that even a word?) with Tim Grey, I strongly recommend it. Just go to his page, and enter your email address.

Ask Tim Grey

He sends free daily emails with various post-processing tidbits. I've been getting them for a few years, and they never fail to be fantastic. Always worth reading.

Each daily email invariably contains a plug for his training DVDs, but please don't let the advertising aspect put you off - these are comprehensive, detailed answers to real digital imaging questions. He really knows his stuff.

There is also an option for a paid membership, which gives you extra privileges. I'm too much of a tightass for that, but the free membership is excellent all the same.

What's the purpose of monitor calibration?

This was asked on a forum today, and I thought it was worth elaborating a little ...

Why do we calibrate?

The common, and obvious, answer is "to make our prints match our screen". Alas, it's not that simple.

If we were to assemble a checklist of all the things that have to be perfect for a print to match our screen, it would look like this:

[ ] Properly calibrated (and profiled) monitor
[ ] Suitable lighting conditions for editing
[ ] Correct use of colour spaces and ICC profiles
[ ] Soft-proofing
[ ] Lab properly profiled
[ ] Lab regularly calibrated
[ ] Suitable lighting conditions for viewing prints

I'm sure I've missed some steps there, but the point is, there's a lot of ingredients in this recipe.

Monitor calibration is the first and most important factor. If you're not calibrated, you can forget about reliable print matching, no matter how good the other steps are. But by the same token, a well-calibrated monitor doesn't mean anything if you don't use profiles correctly, or if your lab isn't doing things properly at their end. All the links in the chain have to be sturdy.

So the real answer to the question "why do we calibrate" is "because it's an important element in making our prints match our screen".

Would ya quit cropping???

I was sent two wedding photos a few days ago, to be tidied up and printed on canvas. The bride had a couple of editing requests (beer bottle cloned out; background lightened), and asked for two 40x50cm prints. Easy enough.

Oooohhhhhh .... bugger!

Whatever bright spark took the photos (I'm assuming a low-end professional) decided that since one of the images was of the happy couple standing tall and close on a pathway, it would be a good idea to crop a bit narrower. So he/she cropped a 2:3 portrait image to almost a 1:2 portrait image.

Good thinking, Einstein!

A handy little PC app

Well, I think it's a good time for another post. The kids are asleep for the night, and my wife got an iPod Touch today, so she's buried in that. I don't expect to see her for a few hours! (Although I find it fundamentally abhorrent to have an Apple device in the house, I must admit it looks like a cool gadget!)

I was talking to a Forum Friend yesterday, who was having trouble saving a file. She was getting RAM errors when trying to save a jpeg image. Admittedly it was a big image, but her computer has RAM coming out its ears, and plenty was allocated to Photoshop, it seemed.

Anyway, I invariably flounder when it comes to system-related issues, and this was no different. I embarrassed myself by making a lot of stupidly obvious suggestions that she had already tried herself, to no avail. I was ready to throw in the towel, but then I suggested this handy little program:

CleanUp! by Steven Gould

It's a free app that a Tech guy put me onto a few years ago. It does what it suggests - it cleans all the muck out of your Windows system.

It worked! My friend was able to save her file. There were happy dances all round.

I highly recommend this program. I run it once a month, and it really helps my system speed.

New training course - so far so good

My project over the Christmas period was to overhaul and re-launch my Photoshop Training Course.

The primary goal was a new dedicated class for Raw photographers. Up until now, there has merely been a Raw Module tacked on to the regular training course, but that wasn't entirely satisfactory. So I remodeled the training from the ground up, to provide a really comprehensive service.

This morning the new class had its debut! I trained a lovely lady named Angela from Florida, USA.

(Huh? Aren't you in Australia, Damien? Yes, but this is the age of the internet, remember? I can train anyone, anywhere!)

It was great! I found a few little kinks that need to be ironed out, but all in all, I was rapt with it, and I'm pretty sure Angela was too.

We'll catch up again for Part Two of the course in a couple of days, and I'm really looking forward to it. This is the perfect start to my new year!

Too big for the scanner!

A lady contacted me to fix her damaged photo. I think it's about seventy years old, and was more of a painting, really ... it had clearly started life as a black-and-white photo, but was wonderfully hand-painted in the style of the time. Does anyone still do that, I wonder?



I couldn't scan it, because it was in a metal oval frame, and boy, it was in there good! I wasn't going to place that frame on my precious scanner bed, and in any case it was too big.

Luckily, my wife has recently acquired a Canon 5D Mark II - 21 delicious megapixels! More than enough for this kind of reproduction. So I asked her to photograph the photograph.

Other people will know more about the technical aspects than me, but I know she used low ISO for best quality, and small aperture for fantastic sharpness. And, of course, she shot in Raw. The result was a great file for me to work with.

It took a while, but I think it came up a pretty well. Certainly the customer is rapt with it. She has ordered a big print for her mother's wall.

So this is blogging, eh?

Well, here I am.

I'm usually hopeless at keeping up with what's modern and trendy (just ask anyone who's seen my dress sense), and it's been no different this time. "Blogs? What are blogs? Oh, they'll never catch on!", I've been saying, as I use my crude stone tools to chip some HTML code into the wall of a cave.

In fact, if it weren't for the enthusiasm of my favourite "Moms", and the persuasion and assistance of my beautiful wife (whose nerdiness exceeds even my own) I still wouldn't be here. I'd be ... I dunno, conversing with loved ones, or taking in some fresh air, or something ... but instead, here I am.

So this is my blog. I intend to fill it with snippets of my latest work, bits of advice about Photoshop and colour management, and probably the odd rant about Adobe RGB. *shakes fist* And maybe, just maybe, people will read it.

For those who don't know me, I'm a Photoshop tragic. I have a part-time home business which I fit around helping with the care of our two beautiful children. I restore old photos, retouch new photos, fix dodgy photos, liquify flabby photos and beautify ugly photos.

I spend way too much time on the internet, but hey ... if you're reading this, then you probably do too ;)

I'm also a gymnastics tragic. I've been involved in gymnastics for ... heck, most of my life; as a competitor, coach, judge, and advocate. Turns out I'm getting too old for it now - just ask my right knee which is presently recuperating from a ligament reconstruction :(

My websites:
Belle Photography Brisbane - canvas printing, retouching, restoration and Photoshop training
My personal site - My Photoshop portfolio, plus some tutorials, articles and other stuff