How I've been sharpening for web lately

I've seen much discussion recently about sharpening methods for web, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.  As always, my intention is to help you understand the process, not just follow steps by rote, or rely on actions.

I must say my web sharpening method (and taste) have evolved a bit over the last few years, but I'm happy with where I'm at now.

I usually use Unsharp Mask, and that's what I'll be discussing here.  To get the best value out of this post, I strongly recommend you read my thorough explanation of USM here, and my overview of web image practices here, if you haven't already.

So, I edit my image, I save the master file, blah blah blah.  Then, when I'm ready to prepare a web-size proof, I flatten the layers, then resize to the appropriate pixel dimensions.  Remember, your sharpening will be for naught if you don't get the size exactly right beforehand.  To resize I use either the Crop Tool, the Image Size dialog, or Fit Image, depending on the circumstances.  I use plain ol' Bicubic method for interpolation, but that's because I'm lazy!  You should experiment with the Bicubic Sharper method to see if you like it better.

Shift while brushing

I have been surprised to discover that not everybody knows about the Shift key.

Lol!  Obviously everyone knows about the Shift key.  What I mean is, not everyone uses it in conjunction with their Brush Tool, particularly while masking.

The principle is perfectly simple - try it yourself and see.  Take your brush tool, and click once to paint a dot somewhere on your image.  Then hold down the Shift key and click somewhere else.  The Brush Tool will automatically draw a straight line between one point and the other.

Now, I guess you mightn't have to paint straight lines all that often, but gradual curved lines are a fairly frequent matter, at least for me.  For example, if I'm masking around someone's body, the Shift key is my best friend.  Rather than trying to paint the mask freehand, I can do it much faster and easier with a series of Shift-clicks around the subject.

There were only three or four clicks in the above line, whilst holding down the Shift key.  In this way, I can mask around an entire person in lightning-fast time.  Once I've done the outline, I can easily fill in the rest of the mask with the Paint Bucket tool.

Tips for photographing old photos for restoration

The following post is by my beautiful wife, Lara:

Every now and again, Damien is given old, fragile photographs to be painstakingly restored.

Generally he scans them (sometimes in a few different pieces) but sometimes they're too big for the scanner, or are too fragile to be scanned.  In those instances he needs me to photograph them for him instead, and he asked me to share some tips on how to do this.

The role of masks when cloning

Some things are easy to clone; some things are really hard. It all depends on the photo. Cloning a speck of dust from a blue sky is a piece of cake, but the same speck on somebody's face can be a nightmare.

In this post I want to discuss cloning something out from behind something else. When an undesirable object directly intersects behind your subject, it takes some careful work to ensure a realistic result. BUT ... most people assume that the careful work has to be performed with the Clone Tool itself. Not so.

The secret - if laziness can be called a "secret" - is to be really loose and rough with your cloning. The careful part comes with the subsequent masking.

Urban Processing: Some Ideas

I think urban processing is cool. The right photo, with the right "gritty" editing, looks modern and eye-catching. I guess it's not to everyone's taste, but I love it.

There are various tutorials and actions available to give your photos an "urban" look, but not every photo responds desirably to these standard methods, and anyway, do you really want your photos to look the same as everyone else's? You'd like your portfolio to be unique and memorable.

I'd like to share two simple methods for you to try. Two methods, but infinite variations - no two photos will ever look the same.

(The trouble with not being a photographer myself is that I don't always have a ready supply of images with which to illustrate tutorials. Therefore, I am indebted to Beth Ritchie, Danielle Mavrick and Kristen Parker for their permission to use the lovely photos herein.)

Question: Do Photoshop's Color Settings matter?

Answer: Not much.

This is a question that comes up quite a lot.  It usually goes something like this:  "My PS Color Settings say sRGB, but my images are coming out in Adobe RGB.  WTF?"

(Actually, not many people say "WTF?"  I just added that for emphasis.)

If you shoot Jpeg, the colour space of your photos is set in your camera.  If you shoot Raw, the space is dictated by your raw processor.  In either case, Photoshop will usually honour that profile, regardless of its own "default" setting.

So, what is Photoshop's "RGB Working Space" useful for then?  Well, only two things, really.  One is when you make a new blank RGB image, it will assume that space by default, unless you specify otherwise in the "New" dialog.  The other is when you open an image without a profile of its own, Photoshop will give it the default profile for as long as it remains open (but it won't save it with that profile, unless you tell it to).

Neither of the above circumstances arise a whole lot.  For most of us, most of the time, we need to concentrate on setting the colour space where it matters - in Raw.

In ACR, you can choose your space in the Workflow Options (at the bottom of the screen).  In Lightroom it's an export option, I believe.

The part of the PS Color Settings dialog that really matters is the "Color Management Policies" section.  Unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise, make sure those are all set to "Preserve Embedded Profiles".

You can find more information about Photoshop's Color Settings in my article here.

Bit depth ... explained by cake

In conversation today I was asked to explain 8-bit vs 16-bit. Let me say at the outset that I'm on a no-sugar diet, so I'm craving cake! I can't stop thinking about cake. Mmmm ... cake ... Folk who know me know I can explain most things with cake analogies, and bit depth is no different. Here goes ... The purpose of editing in 16-bit is to completely negate the risk of visible degradation during pixel editing. You'll be most familiar with this degradation as "banding" - where large areas of similar detail "break up" and leave visible blockiness after editing. Blue skies are notorious for it, and so are white backdrops. I discussed banding and bit depth a little in this post, and this one.

All about monitor calibration

The answers to every question you've ever asked, wanted to ask, or didn't even know you were supposed to ask ...

What is a monitor calibrator?

It's a small hardware device that you place on your screen to perform the calibration process.

They vary in size and shape between brands, but loosely speaking they're about the size of a mouse. They are USB-powered, and come with software to control the process. They function equally well on both Mac and PC (I'm not aware of any calibrators that only work on one platform).

What is monitor calibration?

What we commonly refer to as "calibration" is actually two consecutive processes - "calibration" and "profiling". This distinction is important.

Resolution and resolution

Some of my readers would have seen my post entitled "Let's talk about Resolution" on the CM forum a few months ago. I've just updated and expanded it, and added it to the articles on my website: Resolution and resolution I hope it helps clear up some of the confusion that surrounds this topic.

"Extract then copy" vs "Copy then extract"

If you need to take someone or something out of one photo, and place them in another photo, it takes some finesse to make it look right. The size has to be right, the angles have to be plausible, and the colour and direction of the light can make or break the job. All of those things are fodder for another post on another day. Right now, I want to talk about the cut-and-paste job itself. Adobe give us plenty of ways to select part of a photo - magic wand, pen tool, lasso tool, marquee tool, quick mask, quick selection tool, color range, etc, etc. With each new version of Photoshop, the options become more numerous and powerful. Over time, you'll master some or all of these methods. Here's the thing - if you want to put part of one photo into another photo, it's easy to assume that you need to cut that part out, then copy it across. NO. If you do it that way, you need to be 110% certain that your selection is perfect before you cut and paste. And frankly, it's impossible to be certain about that. No, the best method is to copy the whole image across (or a generous relevant portion of it, anyway). Then use your favoured selection/extraction method to create a mask on that layer, to simply hide the unwanted background. This way, you've got infinite control over your selection, and if you discover that you messed up and gave somebody a three-fingered hand, or something, you can easily modify the mask to fix the problem.