Grabbing a 700x700px 100% crop

This tutorial explains how to take a 100% crop of your image at the exact size of 700x700 pixels.  The illustrations here were taken in Photoshop CS5, but this method applies to all recent versions of Photoshop and Elements.

Often I'll ask you for a 700x700px 100% crop if we're discussing noise or focus or any small-detail problems in my Facebook group.

Of course, you can adapt these instructions for other sizes as well.

It's very simple.  When you're ready to take the screenshot, simply press M to choose your Marquee Tool:

(If the rectangle Marquee isn't selected by default, click and hold on the tool to get the little flyout menu, and choose it there.)

In the Options Bar, change the Style to "Fixed Size":

IMPORTANT: Make sure the "Feather" is 0 px.

Then enter "700px" in both the Width and Height fields:

(It's always a good idea to type the "px" part. If you don't, it might default to inches or something else.)

Single-click on your photo and the 700x700 marching ants box will appear. Then click in the middle of it to drag it to exactly where you want it:

Go to the Image menu and choose "Crop":

And there it is - your 700x700 piece of image:

Now save it as a jpeg, ready to upload to Facebook for me to see.

Batch editing in Photoshop - a flawed premise?

One of Photoshop's capabilities is batch-editing ... that is, running an action on a lot of photos at once.  You can record your action, then use the Batch function to apply it to a whole set of files very quickly.

At face value, this seems like an efficient thing to do, right?  Adding speedy automation has to be great for your workflow ... doesn't it?

Unfortunately, in most cases, no.  In fact, this approach might reveal serious problems with your workflow.  Let me explain ...

The ideal workflow goes like this:

1. Make "global" adjustments to the photo in Raw.  This may or may not include white balance, exposure, etc, etc, to the whole photo.
2. Make various "local" adjustments in Photoshop.  This might include cloning and other pixel modifications, and/or tonal and colour adjustments to various parts of the photo using layers and masks.  At the end of this process, the result is a nice clean-processed image.
3. Finally, add artistic effects to the photo, if desired (at the time of writing this post, the "matte look" is popular, for example.)

Steps 1 and 3 are where batch processing can be performed.  No matter which raw software you use, it has excellent functions for applying your adjustments to whole sets of images, very quickly, where the lighting was the same.  If you're not harnessing the power of batch-processing in raw, I urge you to embrace it right away.

And at the end of the workflow, you can definitely set up a batch process in Photoshop to apply your artistic actions to multiple photos at once.  Again, it's a very good idea to do so, if you can.

But batch-processing is impossible at Step 2.  The whole point of Step 2 is that it is unique for every photo.  No two layer masks will ever be the same from photo to photo.  No pimple is ever going to be in the same place for you to batch-clone it out.  Step 2 is entirely manual.

What if there are any global adjustments that you consistently make in Photoshop?  Eg ...

• "I always brighten my photos a bit with Curves"
• "I always run a defog action"
• etc

... then slap yourself upside the head.  HARD.  There are no global functions that should habitually performed in Photoshop as part of the clean editing workflow.  ALL of the global functions can and must be done in raw.  Photoshop is for local work, period.

So I need you to take a good hard look at your raw processing.  That's where you can save yourself time and effort by working smarter, not in Photoshop.

Increasing Bit Depth in Photoshop - Myths and Truths

It is widely accepted that there are benefits to working in 16-bit rather than 8-bit mode for some - repeat some - editing tasks.  Inevitably, there are some incurable nerds who say it's important to work in 16-bit mode for everything, but of course that's not true.  8-bit is perfectly fine for most people, most of the time.

If you're not familiar with bit depth, read this article.

Two scenarios come to mind where 16-bit mode is helpful.  First, those times when you unavoidably need to make aggressive adjustments to your photo in Photoshop, rather than in raw.  And second, when there is risk of banding in your photo (eg a smooth backdrop, or a blue sky).  If you'd like to know more about these scenarios, please visit me in my Facebook group.

In this article I wish to discuss the concept of converting 8-bit data up to 16-bit for editing.  I'm sorry to say there's almost no benefit to this.  Yes, Photoshop does allow you to convert your 8-bit file to 16-bit, but it doesn't truly turn it into 16-bit data.  It just puts the 8-bit data into a 16-bit wrapper, if you know what I mean.

Diagnosing Facebook colour problems

I often notice people complaining that Facebook is changing the colour of their images.  I can assure you this is not true - in fact, Facebook handles colour better than quite a few other sites.

If your Facebook photos don't look the same as when you edited them, something must be wrong somewhere.

So I've designed a page to help you find the problem.

Troubleshooter: When your Facebook photos don't match Photoshop

It's as comprehensive as I can possibly make it.  If it doesn't resolve your issue, you must have a VERY obscure issue :)

Using a Photo Filter layer to fix casts

There are lots of ways to fix colour casts using Photoshop.  Filters are only one.  If you have another method which works for you (eg Curves, Color Balance, Selective Color), this tutorial doesn't intend to sway your opinion.  Stick with what you know.

But this works for me, so it's time I shared it.

At the outset, I must remind you NOT to attempt to fix casts by adjusting white balance.  Raw edits such as white balance are for the whole photo ... the "greater good", if you like.  Try to turn a blind eye to areas of cast while you're choosing the correct white balance for the overall photo.  (I know, I know, it can be hard.)  The truth is, sometimes choosing the correct white balance will make casts look even worse, and this will scare you.  Stay strong, friend.  Photoshop is the place to worry about casts, not your raw program.

This tutorial is demonstrated in Photoshop CS2, but the method works just the same in all recent versions of Photoshop and Elements.  It assumes a basic knowledge of adjustment layers and masks, which are the beating heart of Photoshop - if you can not easily follow these instructions, I urge you to consider my little Layers and Masks Class.

The other thing you need is familiarity with "colour pairs".  Every colour has its opposite colour on the colour wheel:

Resizing photos in templates (PS & PSE)

If you've ever had trouble resizing a photo in a template without stretching it out of shape and making it look all wonky; don't worry, you're not alone. It's easy to get confused, because for some reason Photoshop and Elements have opposite default settings. So if you have Elements and have been trying to follow Photoshop instructions, or vice versa, it might have gone badly for you.

So I've created two videos - one for Elements, and one for Photoshop.  I hope they help clarify things.

These videos specifically discuss the resizing step of the template workflow. They don't explain setting up the clipping masks, or placing the images, or anything like that. If you need assistance with those broader issues, I've written tutorials here and here (plus some more here, here and here).

Here's the Elements video:

Here's the Photoshop video:

Using Photoshop's Gradient layer

This one is for Julie, from my Facebook group.  Julie wanted to remove the distracting bright orange toy from this photo, and was having trouble cloning it out.

Now, let's be clear - cloning definitely is the "correct" way to do this.  It could be done with some patience, using this method.  But when I asked Julie if she'd be happy with the "lazy solution" (my area of expertise!!!) she said yes.

So, here we go, Julie.  I did this in Photoshop CS2, but it'll work in all versions of Photoshop and Elements as far back as I can remember.  This method uses the Gradient layer, which I've discussed a little in other tutes, particularly regarding skies.

First, I used the Lasso Tool to roughly select the background:

Resetting tools

Sometimes, just occasionally, one of your tools will start misbehaving in Photoshop.  It might be the Text Tool which is putting enormous spacing between letters and you don't know why; or it might be the Crop Tool which keeps cropping to a fixed shape even though you've got no values in the Options Bar; or it might be the Clone Stamp Tool which won't sample the right colours ... or whatever.  You know, any one of those annoying little glitches that can happen with any software, any time.

If you're lucky, the problem can be fixed by simply resetting the tool.  You do this via the little "Tool Preset Picker" at the left end of the Options Bar, then going to the submenu, and choosing "Reset Tool":

This won't solve every Photoshop problem you ever have, but it's an important little troubleshooting device to have up your sleeve.

What is "clean processing"?

"Clean processing" is a term you'll see frequently on photographic forums, and especially in my Facebook group.  To a degree, everyone has their own interpretation of the concept, but maybe it's new to you.

In a nutshell, a clean-processed image is one to which it's not obvious that any editing has been performed (even if it has).  The kind of image that makes somebody say "Wow, you're a good photographer!", rather than "Gee, you're good at Photoshop!".

A clean-processed photo has no particular effect or style applied, and as such, it should sit as comfortably in your portfolio in five or ten years' time as it does today.  However, it does provide the basis of all other editing styles.  Consistent clean processing means consistent and predictable results from your artistic editing, especially if you use actions or presets.

Of course, even within the narrow description of "clean", there is room for personal interpretation.  You may prefer your images warmer or cooler, or brighter or darker, or richer or paler, than the next person.  But in general terms, a "clean" image is one where the whites are white, the blacks are black, and the grays are gray.

Is it quick?

Maybe, maybe not.  It depends on how good the original photo was.  Clean processing might take a few seconds, or a whole hour.  The point is, nobody can tell.

ColorMunki Create - thumbs down

A recent addition to the monitor calibration market is the Pantone ColorMunki Create.

In reality it's an X-Rite device, like all the other ColorMunkis, but it's badged by Pantone and sold as part of a "professional colour creation solution" package, which apparently enables you to choose sets of colours, build colour palettes ... blah, blah, blah, I don't know.  I didn't look into that stuff.

I bought it because I wanted to see if it's a viable option for people seeking a low-cost monitor calibrator.  And I'm sorry to say it isn't.  It gives even fewer calibration controls than the Spyder Express, and that's really saying something, because the Express gives you very little control.

So, my advice remains the same as it has for a while now.  The bare minimum device for anyone serious about their monitor calibration is the X-Rite ColorMunki Display; and anyone who is more than average serious about it should go for the X-Rite i1Display Pro.

However, having said all that, I will (when I get a chance) be writing a tutorial for the use of the ColorMunki Create, for anyone who has one.  It'll be included with the other calibration instructions on my website.

As always, if you have any questions about monitor calibration, or anything else, please visit me at Ask Damien.

Note: This device is also marketed as the ColorMunki Smile.  Again, it'll give you no reason to smile at all.