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

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

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

Add a "Gradient" layer:

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

Here's what it will look like:

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

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

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

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

Preparing files for a wrapped triptych canvas

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

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

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

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

Skimmed it?  Good.

Fixing Chromatic Aberration

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

See it around the hat in this photo?

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

The bl**dy Adjustment Brush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brush Tool - Difference Between Opacity and Flow

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proof Setup: Working CMYK: Not really

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

Now it's set to "Wool":

The Wide Gamut Myth

Or: Why you must work in sRGB

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

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

Weddings: A plea to all photographers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

-----


Footnote:

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

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

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

Distortion or Perspective Correction Tutorial [Elements]

If you have Photoshop, please go to this page instead.

This tutorial is for those times when you need the lines in your photo to be straight and square.  It'll be most useful to real estate photographers, but everyone has a problem with lines from time to time.

Apology: I don't know how this method works if you use Lightroom in conjunction with Elements, sorry.  But Lightroom has its own distortion controls in the "Lens Correction" tab, so try those and see if they give you sufficient control.

Step 1: Open

Process your raw file in ACR in the usual manner, then press "Open Image" to bring it into Elements.

 

(Distortion is like Liquify - it must be done as the very first step in your Photoshop editing workflow, immediately after your raw editing, before any layer work.) 

Distortion or Perspective Correction Tutorial [Photoshop]

If you have Elements, please go to this page instead.

This tutorial is for those times when you need the lines in your photo to be straight and square.  It'll be most useful to real estate photographers, but everyone has a problem with lines from time to time.

Step 1: Open

Open your image in Photoshop.

(Distortion is like Liquify - it must be done as the very first step in your Photoshop editing workflow, immediately after your raw editing, before any layer work.)

Step 2: Convert

Immediately go to Layer>Smart Objects>Convert to Smart Object:

It's critical for your image to be a smart object when transforming or distorting.  Smart objects can be manipulated as many times as needed, and never lose their original quality.

How aggressively can I crop?

So you shot wide, but now you (or your customer) would like the photo cropped aggressively for a tighter composition.  How far can you go and still be printable?

I've written before about "The six megapixel guideline".  There's a school of thought that any file over six megapixels can be printed at any size you like - no restrictions.  I hasten to add this only applies to GOOD photos - ones with great focus and clarity - nothing blurry or noisy.

You might personally decide that six is too small for your standards.  You might choose seven, or even eight. You need a baseline.

Here's my example photo - my daughter chasing an enormous bubble:

Let's say I want to compose it tighter.  How tight can I go, and still have freedom to print any size I wish?

I must interrupt the narrative here to remind you: Never crop during editing!  More info here.

To find out, you choose your rectangular marquee tool:

Make sure your Info Panel is open, and set its units to Pixels:

Draw a marquee roughly where you'd like the crop to be:

Then look in the Info Panel, to see the pixel dimensions of the section you've drawn:

Multiply those two numbers, and the answer is your megapixels.  Remember, "mega" means "millions of".  So you're hoping for an answer of 6,000,000 or greater.

In my example, I multiply 1295 x 1848 ... and get 2,393,160 ... not even 2.4 megapixels!  Nowhere near enough to be useful.  So in this case, I have to abandon my idea of a tighter crop for print.

Of course I can crop tighter for web, since web files are tiny.  And I can print small - 1295x1848 will give me a 6x4 or a 5x7 ok (more info below).  But printing big is out.

If your selection is greater than six megapixels, then your image has passed the first test.  Then you have to proceed to the second test, which is to check the focus and quality.  Zoom in to 100%, and make a frank assessment of what you see.  Are you satisfied that it's razor sharp?  Are you happy that your ISO was low enough?

If you give the quality the thumbs up, then you're good to go.

So, how big can you print?

I've stated that, loosely speaking, a good quality photo that's greater than six megapixels can be printed as big as you like - print it on the side of a truck if you like.

But what about files under six megapixels?  Well, I've created a graph to roughly guide you.

Let's be very clear - this is NOT a bible.  It's a guide only.  Of course you should do your own testing and make up your own mind.  And remember, this graph assumes files of excellent quality and focus:

The green zone is the "Cautious Zone".  That's how big you can print if you want to be ultra-safe.  The red zone is the "Bold or Desperate Zone", for when you really want a bit bigger.

Note: For canvas, you can roughly double the print size in the above graph.

I hope this helps.  Needless to say, please visit me at Ask Damien if you have any questions.