ArticlesSoftware TechniquesPhotoshop CS6: Top 5 Features for Photographers

Photoshop CS6: Top 5 Features for Photographers

By Martin Evening | Published Jul 6, 2012 | Software Techniques

Tagged with: adobe-camera-raw cs6 photoshop software-technique

HDR editing in Adobe Camera Raw 7.1

In a previous article, Extreme contrast edits in Lightroom 4 and ACR 7, I showed how it is now possible to process raw photos that recorded a wide tonal range and successfully edit the tones, just as you would if editing a high dynamic range master. Well, the latest Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) 7.1 update now allows you to edit 32-bit HDR TIFF images, just as you would regular Raw, JPEG or TIFF files. This offers a huge improvement over the HDR Toning controls available in Photoshop, which though effective are still quite tricky to master. I find the Process Version (PV) 2012 Basic panel controls in ACR 7.1 (and Lightroom 4.1) are much easier to manage.

What’s most interesting here is that Basic panel sliders in PV 2012 were very much engineered with the challenges of high dynamic range editing in mind. Now I realize that the rise of HDR-processed images has its detractors. I'll admit I'm not much of a fan of the overly processed look myself. I also dislike the rather obvious halos that result from tone mapping HDR files to create a low dynamic range version.

The future direction of ACR and Lightroom seems clearly set to address such shortcomings though and provide an editing environment which can cope with HDR source files. For now, ACR allows you to edit single exposure images and faux HDR files. Looking forward to the future, I've no doubt camera sensor technology will evolve to the point where we're able to capture much greater dynamic ranges than we can today. The new ACR/Lightroom PV 2012 controls are going to be ideally suited to edit the files from such sensors.

The ACR 7.1 update now allows you to edit 32-bit TIFF images that have been created via Merge to HDR Pro or say, Photomatix, although these files must be flattened, containing no layers.

You can use the Basic panel controls just like you would when processing a regular raw image. However, when editing 32-bit files, the Exposure range adapts to provide 10 stops Exposure adjustment either way.

Here I've set the Exposure slider to a value of -2 in order to reveal more detail in the highlights.

A +2 Exposure adjustment can be used to reveal more of the detail contained in the shadows.

In this final version I adjusted all the Basic panel tone sliders to achieve an optimum adjustment, revealing tone detail in both the highlights and shadows.

The final version shows the results of an extreme adjustment, and while this does venture close to a kind of 'HDR look', the halos are nowhere nearly so obvious as when applying extreme adjustments using Merge to HDR Pro. My personal preference would be aim for a balance between this version and the original one at the top.

LIKE 7

Flag as inappropriate

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies.

Pin It

Print view

Comments

Total comments: 98

I love photoshop cs6. Everything is very nice and organized. Much faster than cs5. Thank you for sharing this post, very unique content. If you have time, please check out my website to learn how to install custom fonts for photoshop cs6 ---> http://realpcgeeks.com/how-to-install-fonts-for-photoshop-cs6-cs5-cs4-cs3/

0 upvotes

To be honest the image in the 'patch tool in content aware' section looks terrible.

2 upvotes

If I ever get in that situation I'll just wait for the other photographer to move.

1 upvote

Best recommendation

0 upvotes

wow. Those blur tools are unreal and useful in my line of work. I'd like to see them ported over to Lightroom, but it's definitely worth it to open photoshop for that level of adjustment. Did they ever get around to adding the Unblur Features that they debuted at the preview event?

http://www.threadless.com/submission/439791/I_Shoot_People

2 upvotes

Adobe's greed may well push folks away from their excellent ACR! If the trend continues, many of us will drift away from ACR (no need for future upgrades of PS CS6). As a former ACR beta tester I am very disappointed. As a photographer I am very confused where PS CS6 is headed - and why! Thomas has more money than he can spend in 100 lifetimes - and good for him! But, meanwhile, Photoshop is taking a beating by many photography groups, forums, blogs, media, and many pros. Will the stock be next?

0 upvotes

This is a perfect opportunity for Apple to develop and introduce a real competitor for Photoshop. I hope it eventually happens.

0 upvotes

Apple has to work extra hard if they want to make something that can compete with Adobe Photoshop.

I have used Aperture before and I just find it too basic and under-developed. IMHO, for an Apple product the user interface really sucks. I think Lightroom is a better alternative.

One option I think would be for Apple to purchase Corel, Nik Software or a similar Company for the brain power in the image processing field (and patents like Control Points) and come up with a really usable interface that doesn't need a 600 pages book to learn.

In the meantime right now I think there is not much more than Photoshop for professional image work. If you have a better alternative let me know. I'm willing to explore options. BTW, GIMP doesn't count - it's free but it's also another user interface nightmare.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

What are they doing? They made Lightroom wonderful and affordable. I'm a photographer first and pixel diddler second so of course I got LR4 and absolutely love and praise it. I have CS5 and it is good. I've hardly scratched the surface and out comes CS6 ...at great ongoing expense.
I simply can't spend that kind of money monthy on something I only use to edit 2 or 3 % of my work. It seems like the Lightroom group got their development and marketing acts together while the CS team came up with a money extraction machine.
The price structure, cloud system and lack of support for older versions (sure I can buy a new camera AND new Photoshop to edit the photos) tells me they are setting themselves up for a big fall. Some of the inexensive low cost programs are going to suddently become practical through performance improvements and a groundswell of rejection and adoption of those programs will leave the CS team asking themselves "why did we choose to bite the hand that feeds us"

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

They made Lightroom more affordable because Apple made Aperture dirt cheap. That's the only reason why.

3 upvotes

I'm not sure I understand. It seems you don't need it so why the fuss.
Adobe does offer DNG converter for free, though I do wish you could update camera raw separately.

0 upvotes

"...a must-have feature for any landscape/architectural photographer...", I think for architectural photographer in the sense of technical geometry correctness may benefit from it, but for a landscape photo art, where any geometry correction would destroy the art itself, and would consider the lens as garbage since it cannot produce image "correctly".

I do graphic designs, and sometimes photography. With newer CSes, I benefit a lot more in designs or manipulations, than photography. CSes are less for photographers, IMO.

0 upvotes

New features can be good in PShop, but I'm more old school and the older versions still work here for general photo editing. I wish camera makers would make their cameras capture stuff like I see it via the controls for once so we needn't have to edit our photos so much afterwards. Capturing a good photo of a moment in time should not require post-processing in this day of high technology. All the stupid new gizmo options on digi-cameras are useless if they don't capture the moment well by the user and PP work is required.

0 upvotes

I got a survey from Adobe and after the questions about paying a monthy fee instead of purchasing, they asked how often do you upgrade? I thought it was interesting that one of the options for answering was "every other version" which seems to be about right.

0 upvotes

It really does come down to the price, unfortunately. I love PS, but $50 upgrades seem a more reasonable cost for these features.

2 upvotes

As far back as I remember you always had the ability to name/rename a layer. This was possible in CS5, but some idiots, managed to take away this option, or hid it so it is hard to find. Why is it so common lately for programs to take away perfectly useful and important features (or change where they are) in subsequent newer "improved" versions ?

Put it BACK!

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting

1 upvote

What are you talking about, it works the same as it does in your desktop. You click the layer name, it highlights, you rename it...

2 upvotes

Hey Graybalanced,

Thanks for the information. I was looking for it to work the same way as it used to in CS5 etc, where it was a menu option after right clicking. So I never tried a left mouse click. With Windows Explorer you right click and choose Rename.

I guess I would claim that it was there but hidden from anyone who expected it to work the way it used to.

In any case I'm delighted that you rescued me from ignorance.

Dan

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

The content aware demo is not good. You see that the same rocks and water are duplicated. And the bigger rock is floating in the air. There was something supporting it behind the blue man.

1 upvote

It's important to realize that Photoshop is a product aimed at a wide audience of photographers/graphic designers. I'm a designer who values any tool that will help me quickly adapt an image for a particular use. As an example, let's say I have a great photo of a couple but it's cropped too tightly and I need more background. The content aware tool is a great way to quickly and easily add the additional image area I need.
I agree for a fine art photographer and sometimes a designer too, there are more elegant ways to retouch a photo. On a deadline however it's a time saver.

2 upvotes

Yep. Before "CS" era of adobe, they called their products simply Photoshop 5, Photoshop 6, Photoshop 7...
By simply rebranding the products, they have been selling the same thing in last 20 years

1 upvote

Agree with CameraLabTester. What's in CS6 for photographers? I don't like LR and I'll stick with CS3 forever.

0 upvotes

Agree, I'm still using CS3 does everything I need and more. Too many people are caught up with always having to have the latest version whether they need it or not.

0 upvotes

A few things are the ability to take advantage of 64 bit architecture for better memory se (only 4gb max in cs3) , many useful compositing/masking features (quick selection - yes!), many useful camera raw features etc..

Once you start using the new features you can't remember not having them - I agree it's an expensive habit.

But cs3 was a while ago and certainly you're getting your money's worth.

0 upvotes

Adobe Photoshop is slowly running out of gimmicks to catch consumer cash.

The decline began in the Adobe Photoshop 7.0 era

5 upvotes

PS7?

0 upvotes

Nothing new that cannot be done in PS7 or PS6 or even in PS5.
If you know what you are doing.

0 upvotes

So what was the huge change between PS4 and PS5 that made all future iterations redundant, Pero?

2 upvotes

Photoshop 4.0 (not the CS4) introduced excellent typography options, also the the introduction of CMYK color profiles who were easy applicable so the color correction became easy it should be etc.. Today, I'm using CS5 and my workflow is mostly the same since PS5. Your creativity is not in conjunction with the version of PS you use. It is your imagination that creates beautiful photos, designs..

3 upvotes

I would love to see ACR incorporate film negative linear gamma 'raw' scans into its algorithms. Currently I'm fudging about using ColorPerfect plugin via VueScan, and the neg scans are messing with the Lightroom digital file workflow. It would be great to incorporate this into ACR :)

1 upvote

Adobe Photoshop is the most bloated piece of software on the market... photographic or otherwise. If they'd spend half the energy on streamlining the product they already have, vs. continually releasing a stream of releases with minor tweaks, they might have a much larger audience.

Yeah, I get it about those who have already invested years in learning the hidden secrets of the megalith. Frankly, I'd rather spend the time photographing.

When are people going to say enough with the frosting. Please bake a new cake?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

6 upvotes

I don't get it. Do you not like the software because it's bloated, or because you can't use it properly?

8 upvotes

Lightroom was the new cake: A complete tool for photographers to manage, develop, share, and print photos. Photoshop can do a lot more, but for basic photography you don't need it.

4 upvotes

But they wouldn't have all the money.

It cost 699. Now they think people are stupid enough to subscribe to it for $50 a month for the cloud version.

That's 600 a year every year.

2 years 1200
3 years 1800

No wonder people keep pirating software.

6 upvotes

Really? More bloated than Acrobat?

4 upvotes

How are they not streamlining the program when they've rewritten so many functions for multicore and GPU, and rewritten so many features to be easier and simpler? The crop tool is simpler. The lens corrections are far superior to the old "perspective crop." The Print dialog is much better than it used to be. Sometimes it seems like people are just complaining and not really paying attention.

2 upvotes

If you want the streamlined version get Photoshop Elements at 1/7 the cost

0 upvotes

The content aware with all the tool is impressive

1 upvote

Before the spot healing brush strokes applied at the end, there is obvious grass in the rock where the head was - not very impressive at all. The final version is not bad, I acknowledge.

On a separate point, pity about the dark tree top, likely a result of a graduated ND filter.

2 upvotes

This is a joke, right? (content aware) I had PS CS6 for 25 days. Sent it back and re-installed PS CS5. Too many bugs. Maybe the revised PS CS6 will have these corrected. For whatever reason Adobe has always in the past (anyway) always comes up with the .1 or .2 version that fixes many bugs.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Not much difference. I've been correcting spherical distortion for years using a negative value spherize filter in PS6. I do like that you can selectively adjust distortion in CS6 ! Show us something more dramatic ?

0 upvotes

Lanscape photographer with fish-eye .. um yea. Straightening what lines? Mountains? Trees? Rivers? Yea everything in nature tends to be "straight as line". :D

For urban landscape photographer (where fish-eyes are somewhat normal), yes. But for nature landscape photographer, not really.. and its not something that PTlens cant do..

1 upvote

Concerning HDR editing in 32 bits you don't need CS6 : if you have CS5 and LR4.1 you can do the same : choose the 3,5,7 photos you want to combine and then choose "Merge to HDR" once this is done in PS, choose save as a 32 bits file; when you are back to LR4.1, you will be able to tweak that 32bits HDR with process 2012 just as if you were using CS6 and ACR 7.1 ; indeed, you have ACR 7.1 in LR4.1.

5 upvotes

The wide angle filter needs a Ken-Rockwell style before-and-after mouse-over. To my untrained eyes all I see is a slight straightening of lines.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

Seriously now, can someone claim that we 've seen miracles in Ps after the version CS2? Anyone with the CS2 plus the plugins that a serious user needs is almost ahead of the CS6. Pls add LR too..

0 upvotes

CS2 has some serious bugs in scripting and CS3/CS4 added plug-in support to scripting. CS2 is not without its own problems. As for miracles there in God's domain no man will ever be able to create a universe. CS2, CS4,CS5 and CS6 have more bugs then CS3.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Seriously, now, can someone tell me why Photoshop is necessary for photographers at all? It's designed for graphics folks. I haven't found a need for it for processing photos for a decade. LR does what I need for 999 out of 1000 shots, and the other .1% can be dealt with by PS Elements no problem.

5 upvotes

I concur with ljfinger entirely. CS is not a tool for photographers. I don't even see the need for Elements, what with a tool as powerful as Lightroom (or its super smart alternative, the DxO Optics Pro).

0 upvotes

I stopped at 4
I would start a new version for photographers if I were Adobe
make it easy to mask, use framing actions, etc

0 upvotes

You've obviously never used one of the newer version. Content-Aware fill, newer versions of Camera RAW, the photomerge/stitching/HDR tools, and more are all light years ahead of CS2. I upgraded from CS2 to CS4 and it was worth it for better ACR alone. Then I upgraded to CS5.5 and was wowed by how much better it did many things I regularly use Photoshop to do. You should download the demo.

5 upvotes

"I don't even see the need for Elements, what with a tool as powerful as Lightroom (or its super smart alternative, the DxO Optics Pro)."

I pretty much just use Elements for compositing and the occasional clone/heal nightmare that LR can't handle. Can't do that in Lightroom. Still, like I said, 1 in 1000, if that.

0 upvotes

If you look at the new feature list on Wikipedia, the "miracle features" list actually accelerated after CS2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_version_history

If you don't need the features that were added after CS2, all that means is that your needs are simple, and Photoshop was never the program you should have been using in the first place. You were overpaying because you were over-speccing your tool, like buying an expensive wrench that is supposed to be for racing teams, not homeowners.

Furthermore, if you tried to pay for enough plug-ins to match what CS6 does, you would have paid more in plug-ins than for the retail price of CS6.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

I'm always fascinated by the logic that revolves around "if I don't need it no-one should need it". It usually followed up by "If you do need it then something's wrong with you." I assure you that Photoshop offers so many features that photographers need.
One use - in my case -is that frequently have to photograph dark rooms with movies and videos playing. This requires masking layering and compositing. New features like quick selection etc helps take the sting out.

Others have different needs - Photoshop does it and does it well.

0 upvotes

Does the standard license which is 831 euro's for CS6 include the usage/installing on two or three computers (of the same owner?) I own a laptop and desktop and cannot find if I can use CS 6 on both.

0 upvotes

I think that there is no policy of any sw company taht denies to use its sw in both your own desktops and laptop....

0 upvotes

Yes, i think 2 u can use. And if you do it via Creative Cloud, i believe one copy can be Win and the other can be Mac. Or so i think.

0 upvotes

Need some advice. I am planning on buying either the Canon 5D Mark iii r Nikon D800 very soon - not because I am a pro but really because I don't want to upgrade for a few years. Can someone tell me if software choice is dependent on the hardware, or are application like Adobe Photoshop CS6 suitable for workflow of either of these cameras? Thanks

0 upvotes

The software works identically regardless of camera choice.

2 upvotes

D800 image files will be big so you might want to add memory to your computer to process them, and they will fill up hard drive space more quickly.

1 upvote

Thank you, both. This is helpful.

0 upvotes

Is the unscharp fix in it? http://edudemic.com/2011/10/adobe-photoshop-unblur/

0 upvotes

That is a technology demo. It won't be available for a while.
Also it was revealed later that the images they used were artificially blurred, so it wasn't exactly real anyway.

1 upvote

I'm unfortunately an occasional user of CS4. Could anyone tell me whether they have fixed the following problems in CS6:
1. Have Adobe finally managed to implement the RH mouse control to, for example, enable the setting of a clone point without having to simultaneously dab the alt key whilst pressing the LH mouse control?
2. Does the overlaying of images for stitching or stacking now work properly?
3. Does PS6 manage to stitch more than two images correctly and in less than half an hour on an i5 machine?
4. Do the stitch projections now work.
5. Have they provided a NX2 style selection pen to replace the almost completely useless lasso tool?
I'll carry on using PTGUI, NX2 and Corel until these problems are fixed.
BTW I'm not trolling. I'm genuinely disgusted that Adobe can ask 650GBP (or 250GBP for an upgrade) for such half-baked software.

0 upvotes

1. There are some RH mouse options, but the alt/opt key is still required for the clone source
2. Yes
3. N/a
4. Yes
5. No

These answers are my experience and yes, I agree that PS is overpriced.

1 upvote

look great
but what should i do ?
save -2 and +2 16 tiff file with camera raw
after?
should i load these 2 files in camera raw????
i did not understand how can i perform an hdr inside acr 7.1

thanks

0 upvotes

Hi Mantra,

you can't create HDR files within ACR.
you have to first merge the files with different exposure into a 32bitHDR file using another program.. for example: photoshop / Photomatix etc..
the update only allows ACR to recognize HDR files and give you more control over the file.

1 upvote

thanks !
in short the new acr can read photomatix (for example) hdr file,right?

0 upvotes

Must be me but CS5 and 6 may give you fancy tools you might want, but they're not things you actually need.

1 upvote

Yes they are.

0 upvotes

CS6, most buggiest PS ever!

0 upvotes

Bill Gates states CS7 will fix that and give you great new innovative features sign up now and preorder CS7 it will be the greatest Photoshop evey .... till CS8

0 upvotes

Yeah.. and Apple has a 10MP front facing camera available in an iphone already.. but it won't be released for 5 more years because they need to first release the iphones with a 5MP, 6MP, 7MP, and 8MP camera..

Companies are in the game to make money.... if you don't like to pay, then use freeware/shareware...

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Not sure what Bill Gates or Apple have to do with Adobe...?

Competition drives quality and features, and Photoshop has become so much the de facto standard that few people choose any alternatives. They do exist, but mostly end up playing catch-up, or switch to producing Photoshop plugins instead...

2 upvotes

Looks great!

0 upvotes

Well I just ordered the upgrade a couple days ago . Skipped CS5 altogether. It was time.

0 upvotes

A great tool for photographers that have the skills to use it.
I spent 20 years in a darkroom and the last 10 years using PS.
Lightroom is part of my workflow and PS is used when needed to finish.

2 upvotes

CS6 will become usable when its many bugs are exterminated as is its not a program I will use.

1 upvote

I'm not picking on you or anyone else, but all the comments I hear about bugs makes me think that either you're trying to run a new piece of software on an aging machine or you're having problems with the software that you can't figure out. It's not a simple program to learn and after 10+ years I'm still running into challenges. I have a two step process when I run into problems. 1. I'll take advantage of Adobe's Help search and 2. If I'm really stuck, I'll post a question on Adobes web-based Forum - http://forums.adobe.com/community/photoshop
Just like here at DPReview, there's a whole community of Photoshop people willing to help you.

2 upvotes

Have you any idea how bad this patch tool example is? You've ended up with two identical rippled areas in the water where the tripod legs were eliminated. What is needed here is a more 'content aware' photographer/editor!

9 upvotes

+ 1! Not bothering to clone out the repetitions etc is just hopeless. 15 minutes work for anyone who half-knows how to use PS (and I base my opinion on using CS3!.

0 upvotes

Too much edition makes the photo a photocrop made by Photoshop. Do we need a good camera and lens?

1 upvote

Yawn.

0 upvotes

I think he has a point. This is supposedly for photographers and our job is to get as much right in-camera and then use PS for fine tuning

1 upvote

Always a great product especially with academic pricing.

0 upvotes

A preposterous comment. What proportion of users has access to "academic pricing"?
How about "Always a great product especially if you're a merchant banker"?

0 upvotes

That would be millions of students, teachers, and lecturers.

Academic pricing is particularly valuable for students, allowing them access to great tools like this which they perhaps could not otherwise afford.

Some of those students will become the next generation of photographers.

You need to consider the larger picture, SeeRoy.

3 upvotes

Looks like the content aware fill mode ended up putting a patch of grass on the rock on the best case (very strict), but the "minor" spot healing cleaned it up? I think that's worth mention!

2 upvotes

OK, I have to say: the artificial radial blur and tilt shift blur are things I truly dislike. When blur has nothing to do with focus it just makes me annoyed, and detracts from the image in my opinion. These "features" are not a draw, to me.

5 upvotes

Well I guess that just plays off of your aesthetic sense. For something with a traditional photographic look it doesn't fit but for a more fantastical photo-manipulation it could work very well.

Photography is one of many different art forms that derive from the capture of still imagery.

1 upvote

I was using photoshop 3 about 20 years ago,

0 upvotes

Probably a typo

0 upvotes

Fixed.

0 upvotes

Mr, Evening,
Thank you for taking the time to point out these PS CS6 photography tools. I am also appreciative of your Lr4 and PS CS6 books. They have been quite helpful to me.

Thank you

0 upvotes

Ditto what Art said. I'm a illustrator and photographer both and can't understand the flack that Photoshop is getting in this thread. I use it constantly in both endeavors, and it works well. Lightroom may be just fine, but I've used Photoshop beginning with version 7.0 and have few complaints.

0 upvotes

I purchased 3 and 4

Use Lightroom for photos
and CS4 for web design

Just can't be bothered to keep upgrading for minor tweaks

Rob

1 upvote

The price of this software has always kept me away. I prefer to use PP as little as possible and so bought Corel Paint Shop Pro X3 for $30.
Does heaps more than I need. So more than happy with that thanks.
To use CS I think one would need to be a very serious PP user.

0 upvotes

Out of all these heavily marketed (by Scott Kelby & Co) new features in CS6 only the new ACR 7.1 makes sense.

But all these ACR 7.1 improvements are available at a better price in LR4.1 No need to upgrade you PS.

0 upvotes

Problems arise when a company has a monopoly and needs to raise revenue by forcing people to buy upgrades. Get a new digital camera and you have to purchase the latest version of Photoshop. My first version of Photoshop was 3 and that was because Adobe bought out the software company whose product I was using and killed the software. They did that with the company that produced the product that became Lightroom, Adobe did it with Pagemaker, and they did it with Macromedia which produced Freehand and Flash. Adobe has through the years bought up its competition until now there are no competitors for Illustrator, InDesign, Photoshop, etc. and Apple is not really a competitor when they only produce software versions that will run only on Apple computers.

This is reflected in the price of the Adobe software and their low level of customer service.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 98