ArticlesSoftware TechniquesPhotoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images

Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images

By jean miele | Published May 24, 2013 | Software Techniques

Tagged with: photo-technique photoshop photoshop-tutorial

Look familiar? This is our composite-image landscape from Part 1, with color and tone adjustments.

As discussed in the previous article: 'Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images' (aka Part 1), whether I’m just doing basic 'darkroom' work, or creating a composite image, using Photoshop’s Gradient tool in a Layer Mask is one of my go-to techniques. Quick, powerful, and all but invisible because of their feathered transitions... Gradients are a largely underused tool that should be a part of every power-Photoshop user's repertoire.

This Photoshop tutorial is the second of two articles that focus on using Gradient tools. Gradients (in addition to Brushes and Selections - and even in conjunction with them) offer a fast, easy, seamless way to make local changes to an image. As we saw in Part 1, Gradients are handy for making simple composites. They’re also ideal for fundamental darkroom tasks, like burning & dodging and color adjustments. While most users may only be familiar with a single type of gradient,Photoshop offers many options. Here we're going to be using Linear, Reflected and Radial gradients.

Our starting place for this tutorial is this composite created from two images in Part 1. As we proceed, you can follow along step-by-step using the image above, or you can use your own variation created from the moderate-resolution JPEGs of foreground and sky, provided at the top of page 2, in Part 1.

Picking up where we left off at the end of Part 1, let's use Adjustment Layers with Gradients inside the Masks to selectively deliver darkroom-style adjustments quickly and powerfully. We will complete work on the composite image by making the homestead lighter, more contrasty, and warmer - all of which will make it more interesting. We will also darken the sky, especially at the outside edges of the picture. As with all darkroom work, these adjustments are designed to re-direct attention to the primary subject, in this case the buildings.

Tutorial

Step 1

To add contrast to the homestead, I'm going to add a Levels Adjustment Layer above the pixel layer(s). I found Levels values of 15/1.10/201 look good, but you can choose whatever settings you think best. Using the Gradient tool set to Reflected Gradient, Foreground to Background, set the foreground color to white, and the background color to black. Click+drag up from the center of the buildings to the just above the roofline.

The Gradient created in the Levels Adjustment Layer’s Mask (below) will make the Levels adjustment visible in a horizontal stripe across the canvas. Tip: I often use the Reflected Gradient to adjust color, contrast, or density along the horizon in landscape images; Hold down the Shift key as you drag in order to constrain the angle of the Gradient to exactly horizontal.

Reflected Gradient, white (foreground)-to-black (background). Reflected gradients differ from regular linear gradients by mirroring the same (linear) gradient on both sides of the point where you start dragging.

Checking your Work

At each stage of the process, check your work. Option/Alt+click on the Layer Mask thumbnail in the Layers Panel to see a preview of the Mask. Toggle the visibility of an Adjustment Layer by turning the eyeball (to the left of the layer in the layers panel) on and off. Redo the Gradient if you’d like to change the visible area (a Foreground to Background or Black to White Gradient will replace any previous Gradient) and/or re-adjust the Adjustment Layer to modify its effect.

Multiple Gradients in One Mask

You’ve probably noticed adding a second Gradient when one already exists causes the first Gradient to be entirely replaced by the second. To add multiple Gradients to one mask, or to modify an existing Gradient with additional Gradients, set the Gradient Picker to Foreground to Transparent.

In order to hide the Levels Adjustment layer at the sides of the picture, (as shown in the photograph at the top of this article, and in the layer mask shown below) use a Foreground to Transparent, Linear Gradient, with the foreground color set to black. Click+drag from the edge of the canvas on the left to near the edge of the homestead. Check your work, and then repeat the process on the other side of the picture, so the Levels adjustment is only visible in a feathered oval shape around the homestead, as seen in the mask below.

Reflected Gradient (from previous illustration) - with two Foreground (black) -to-Transparent Linear Gradients added on the sides.

Of course, this could easily have been done with a feathered selection, or with brushes - but the point of this tutorial is to explore the Gradient tool! Still, part of the fun is that you can modify a mask using any combination of tools that introduce black, white or gray. Let's use a soft Brush to further hide the visibility of the Levels layer wherever the adjustment isn't making the picture better. In this case, there’s some nice shadow detail inside the doors and windows of the homestead that's blocked up by the Levels layer.

Use the Brush tool in those areas, painting in black to hide the adjustment and restore shadow detail. Tip: 'Soft Round Opacity Pressure' or 'Airbrush Soft-Round 50%' are good Brush presets for this kind of masking. Because of their feathered edges (which are similar to Gradients) they create smoother, less noticeable transitions.

The third stage of modifying the Levels Adjustment Layer mask: soft brushstrokes added.

Within the Mask on the Levels Adjustment Layer we’ve combined a Foreground to Background Reflected Gradient, two Foreground to Transparent Linear Gradients, and several brushstrokes. We could also create and fill Selections - or erase to modify the Mask. The more I use the Gradient tools, though, the more uses I find for them.

Step 2

In addition to adding contrast on the homestead, let’s warm up the color on the foreground. Create a Color Balance Adjustment Layer. I set mine to +14/-7/-33, Midtones only. You can choose your own settings, or even a different kind of Adjustment layer if you prefer. Use the Gradient tool set to Linear Gradient, Foreground to Background, set the foreground color to white and the background color to black, and click+drag up from the bottom of the canvas to just above the roofline of the building.

This will make the bottom part of the mask white and the top black, with a feathered transition between. Photoshop 'reads' this as: 'show the Color Balance Adjustment layer at the bottom of the image, and gradually make it disappear by the middle of the image.' Check your work once again, and revise the color or the mask, as you wish.

The mask for the Color Balance Adjustment Layer: a simple Linear Gradient.

Click here to go to page 2 of Jan Miele's article 'Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2'

LIKE 9

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: 85

This is a great tutorial.
As an alternative to complex masking for adjusting/manipulating regions of an image Nik software tools with Control Points (Viveza, Nikon NX2) can often accomplish the same tasks more simply. There are also a variety of filters/plug-ins for creating gradients, duo-tones etc not necessarily with this granular degree of control. I suppose if you get used to doing things in a complicated way the method no longer seems complicated to you. Going forward it is difficult to see how renting Photoshop from Adobe will be preferable to adding a feature to the version you own with a plug-in.

0 upvotes

Thanks, Jean, I think my post just went to the next level :^)

0 upvotes

Now that's what this is all about!

0 upvotes

I'm a GIMP user myself, but thanks for this tutorial. Anyone can take a Photoshop tutorial and use it for inspiration even if the step-by-step details don't translate exactly to your preferred photo editing software. Gradient masks are a great tool. And that bit about using foreground-to-transparent for drawing a gradient on top of another gradient -- that's brilliant, never thought of that. Just tried it in GIMP and it works! Great tip, thanks again.

(exits humming "The Farmer and the Cowman Should be Friends" from "Oklahoma"... only with new lyrics: "The 'Shoppers and the Gimpers...")

4 upvotes

0 upvotes

How long before Microsoft jumps on the bandwagon?......

2 upvotes

When you are satisfied with your image don't forget to pay your monthly rental fee.

4 upvotes

@ OniMirage

I still think it is good to openly discus about the future of PS here on DP. Considering the sh!tstorm of responses to Adobe's CC announcement, it seems clear that A LOT of users are moving away from Adobe, more than you and I can imagine. Is it therefore a good idea to keep on posting PS-tips 'n tricks? Perhaps yes for now but how about a year from now, or 2? We'll have to wait and see which software developers will rise above the others with their PS-alternative.

3 upvotes

@OnMirage, Who appointed you Aztec God of the DPR forum? I believe the sentiment expressed belongs on a photography site. I posted in a mature way without spelling a curse word in a childish manner. My post was not directed at the the writer of the article.

2 upvotes

You need to grow up. If you are not bright enough to see that my post and similar ones made by others are not directed at the writer of the article then you are beyond hope.

1 upvote

This is part 2? I must have missed part 1 altogether. Was it titled "How to justify renting photoshop and never owning it"???

3 upvotes

Useful, well written tutorial on an important tool (PS & LR5)... thank you, Jean!
As a previous PS user, i'm still amazed how time consuming even the most basic operations are in Adobe products: This is not entirely the cost of precision, having more control knobs - but also a corporate Adobe signature! (Not that other monopoly holders, e.g. Autodesk, Oracle, SAP etc. are much different...)

One can achieve 80-90% of these excellent results in few seconds flat using, e.g. a humble free Picasa. It all depends where your good-enough threshold is :-). Mitch

0 upvotes

You should write a user-created article that shows how to do this in Picasa.

2 upvotes

Perhaps someone more familiar with Picasa than me can fact-check this, but my understanding of Picasa is that it downsamples your images substantially. I often make prints, sometimes quite large ones, in fact, and I like the flexibility that having a high-res images gives me. (I can always generate a smaller version for email and the web.) Sacrificing full-resolution images for free, fast processing is a good deal if you'll only ever use the pictures on the web; I've heard a couple of heartbreaking stories about people who invested a lot of time and effort (and in some cases, deleted their originals) without realizing they'd end up with low-res files.

0 upvotes

The Picasa software that runs on your computer does not downsample. It is a non-destructive editor. If you edit a jpg and export it to a new jpg file, there will be some compression loss just as you would get from any other application.

You may be confusing the Picasa application with the Picasa Web Albums cloud storage service. If you upload your photos from Picasa to the web albums, the default is to upload a downsized file. You can change the default and upload full-sized images until you run out of storage space (I believe it's 15G free now). The people who complain about Picasa downsampling are people who do not rtfm.

Google is very confusing now with Picasa, the Picasa Web Albums, Google + Photos, the Picnik/"Creative Kit" online editor, and the Nik acquisition all in play. It hope it gets settled out soon. In the meantime, the Picasa application is a good solid photo organizer and basic editor. And I wouldn't take advice from people who delete their originals.

0 upvotes

There are things that Photoshop does really well but not without many steps. I was watching one of Julieanne's tutorials on creating a transparent watermark from a graphic in Photoshop and was astounded at the number of steps. Needless to say, couldn't get it to work but I'm sure that was the fault of my short attention span.

0 upvotes

Wouldn't it have made more sense to make many of these adjustments on the original separate images, before they were combined?

0 upvotes

Definitely many ways to accomplish the same goals! It's all jazz improv as far as I'm concerned, and everyone's got their own style. In fact, making these adjustments in ACR or Lightroom and then doing the masking on Smart Objects from those RAW files would be a great way to go. It's still a little tricky combining gradients outside of PS, and I can't say I'm a big fan of ACR/LR brushes or retouching tools at this point, but that's just a personal preference. It's not so long ago that RAW converters could only perform overall adjustments – but the local adjustment tools get better and better all the time, and we can do more and more work on original nonlinearized data. Surely a good thing!

0 upvotes

I sometimes read articles about big expensive cars. It never occured - although trolls are on those blogs or newspages too - that someone put a comment on the page saying "bah, Ferrari is crap, a Nissan can do the same thing."

B.t.w.: Thanks to the author for this good how-to-guide.

1 upvote

Problem is, Photo$hop is a Lada with a Ferrari price tag.

0 upvotes

Thanks for another clear and informative article. I use some of the alternatives mentioned in this thread, but I think your approach offers a level of control in PS which I will find very useful.

2 upvotes

Really glad you found the article useful Stefan! Thanks.

1 upvote

There is million thing in PS what you can never ever do in ACDSee or in any other program. PS is still the best and will be for quite a long time I think...
The question is good why not use ACR for this end you can work with more bit :-) not as precise of course

0 upvotes

The results are OK but what a painful and time consuming way to get there. Jan - try NX2 or Corel - cheaper and better.

0 upvotes

What really is the point of all this faffing about? The final picture does not look all that different from the original shown in this tutorial and it just seems to be manipulation for its own sake.

0 upvotes

I do this in ACDSee Pro 6 with 2 clicks in 5 seconds. I wish Photoshop will die forever, I hate it, the most complex and complicated photo-editing software on the market, and also the most time consuming, as well as the very most expensive.

The proof is in the pudding, about al the responders on this forum thread uses other programs, I rest my case !

5 upvotes

Much better to do this in ACR, or even LR with the local adjustment tools. Same thing with vignettes. ACR does it so well. A LR fanatic buddy of mine has been all excited by Picture Ninja for a while, but I have not tried it yet.

BTW Roll on June 17th and the Creative Cloud. I'll be getting much more, and paying less. Thanks Adobe for focusing on serious users.

0 upvotes

I got a killer deal my high speed internet introduction rate too. Too bad it only lasted a year before the reaming starts.

Guess there are plenty of people that like that kind of temporary stuff. That is why you see these interest only house payment. Great deal while it lasted then you are screwed.

0 upvotes

Sorry Photoshop..... Capture One now has my attention for this type of work! You wouldn't listen, so we moved on. We outgrew you!

3 upvotes

Good luck trying to do this in Capture 1.

0 upvotes

Don't get all the complaints, though it's par for the course on DPR. The same techniques can be applied in any program but if you are going to do a demo, which one to pick? PS and Elements still account for most users around here.

If you want layers in LR the Perfect Layers plugin is free (onone software) though of you want all the masking options and gradients, you can get the whole suite. Also a plug-in. Works with PSD files too.

But although PSP etc. all do it slightly differently, the technique is exactly the same.

2 upvotes

Thanks, 57even. I couldn't agree more. It's all about how we can accomplish the work on the image. Any software or variations on this theme, that allow you to effectively do what we used to do in the darkroom – redirect attention – that's what this is all about.

0 upvotes

To fix or enhance gradient skies, there is Viveza, HDR software, DXO (within its colour channel selections, especially for filters in B&W), Lightroom and Aperature with brushes, Colour Efex Pro, Alienskin software, Corel suite, Perfect Photo from OnOne, to name a few (or more). Some with plugins to Lightroom, Aperature, not just Photoshop.

However, if one only has Photoshop, this type of article is still good to know, and any free information is always useful to photographers! The advantage of Photoshop, is that its layer features (and masking) are still very strong to use with detailed control, with many options in toolset available without switching to a plug in or other standalone product. Choices of other products are also good to have.

5 upvotes

Very nicely put; thank you for the suggested alternatives. I'm big on alternatives. :D

2 upvotes

Or lazy person like me can just use Color Efex. :)

5 upvotes

I do this in Sagelight. Much easier, although it does not have layers, I don't need them for this. Sagelight has a very good gradient application.

3 upvotes

I think some of the comments below warrant a reconsideration by the editors/authors here regarding "Adobe Only" articles.

Why would a photography site write an article solely about a single vendor's products? Are you trying to say that the product is the "ONLY WAY" to accomplish the desired result?

This should be a "technical article". How to do Gradients. Period. Sure, describe how to do it in Photoshop. Even if the Adobe instructions require more space, you should still include some details about how to do it with a couple of other popular products, or at least give the reader some clues by letting us know what other products Gradients can be done in.

This is a photography site. Not an Adobe site, right? So why do Adobe's products always show up prominently in "how to" headlines? DPR, please stop propping up Adobe and start serving your enthusiast audience: photographers and photography enthusiasts! Help us get off Adobe's gravy train; it is only serving Adobe.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

15 upvotes

Nonsense. The author uses these tools and therefore is providing his workflow/technique expertise for free to the masses who also use PS.

Unless you can prove the DPR is actively banning articles of this genre covering alternate software suites, I suggest you either a) be quiet b) write up your own article on gradients using product X.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting

18 upvotes

Good points. But I will not be quiet. :)

10 upvotes

Then I can't wait to see your articles ;-)

5 upvotes

The reason there are so many tutorials on Photoshop isn't just because a lot of people use Photoshop. It's also because doing most things in Photoshop requires so many steps that how-to lessons are appropriate. Photoshop what software people call "powerful" which means complex.

2 upvotes

DJ says "Then I can't wait to see your articles".

So now all of a sudden you have decreed that I should be an author, without even knowing me or my qualifications? Oh I get it, you really don't want me to write any articles, you just wanted to shut me up.

I see what you did there. ;)

6 upvotes

I'm merely suggesting an alternate way for you to spend you time online.

Instead of whining about free stuff on a free site that will undoubtedly help many who actually use PS, maybe you can do something positive that will benefit the community.

Maybe you can spend your time writing about other software alternatives, like Adrian did up above (and you seemed to like that), or maybe you can thank Jean for taking the time to post on here about a technique that some may not be aware of. Or maybe you can simply say nothing and keep your Adobe hate to the Adobe hate threads (which I've actively participated in BTW).

Your comments are basically not constructive. I for one would rather tip my hat to those who contribute rather than just hate on whatever the topic of the day is. That way, those who do contribute continue to do so and know that they are appreciated.

See what I did there? Change your frame of mind, you'll live a much longer and happy life.

Have a nice day.

Rob

4 upvotes

Mr DJSphynx -
Do you ask your butcher to surgery for you as well?

If you are not an editor why should you start writing articles? This is like asking a busdriver to pilot an airplane.

Comment edited 6 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

Anyone can submit articles to DPR, there are many examples of community members submitting tips and techniques.

But you know what, forget I said anything. You guys are right. Here's a recap of where I went wrong:

- DPR is biased towards Adobe
- DPR is pushing Adobe's agenda
- Jean is a lackey for Adobe
- Shame on everyone who might actually find this information useful since they are tacitly supporting Adobe
- Other products can do a much better job and do it faster (just wished I knew which ones and how)
- Butchers are good surgeons

There, no more controversy, you win.

Happy?

3 upvotes

There are so many other fabulous tools other than Photoshop...let's quit the lovefest with Photoshop on this site.

16 upvotes

Capture One is much faster and better for gradients at the raw level. Even lightroom is better and not overly complicated like Photoshop, I don't have 20 minutes to do each gradient.

8 upvotes

The same can be done in Paintshop Pro - No need to use Photoshop for this.

While DPreview is a large community mainly focussing upon amateur photographers (and single professionals) I would like to ask DPReview's editors to start focussing upon different software now Adobe doesn't want to serve the amateur photographer or smaller professionals anymore!.

Meaby this question is good for another poll

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

29 upvotes

Even at the risk of receiving bucketloads of hate replies, I'm going to say there is a simpler way to do this - just buy a grad filter and stick it on your lens. This Photoshop debacle should have cast a 'back to basics' warning sign, but people just keep asking for a substitute software. A missed opportunity.

16 upvotes

Manuel is right on the money. Alternative software "how to" articles are an unmet need, however. I no longer have any gradient filters (or star filters or .. well, you name it) for any of my cameras, and that's an expense I can't swing at the moment. For now I am happy to stick with the UV and Polarizing filters because I can pretty much do everything else in the computer. If the computer application is not Photoshop, it's probably cheaper than any good quality filters.

1 upvote

Just a Photographer: I agree. DPReview should be more attentive to the needs of its audience. It would be interesting to learn precisely HOW MANY readers (and % of total) actually have Photoshop.

It's very possible that this article was written to an imagined target audience that is not reflective of the actual audience of DPReview.

1 upvote

"It's very possible that this article was written to an imagined target audience"

Or maybe it wasn't?

Why don't you write an article about your favorite software package and submit it to DPR? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time and wouldn't it help the overall community?

I'm no Adobe apologist, I'm not moving from CS6 and I'm ditching LR, but come on, are people really complaining about "free"?

5 upvotes

I will not be moving to the cloud, so CS6 will be the last Photoshop I've bought. And I'll probably be using it for quite some time to come.

However Adobe was clear in their wording that they don't want to serve the enthusiast market anymore. Therewith its needed to give us tutorials to get us going with other software NOT from Adobe and show us that there is more then just Photoshop.

A massive switch can only occur if the audience knows of the competitors capabilities. We have a saying in my country that says: To be unknown is to be unfavorable...

And that is what is happening right now with software that is capable of doing the same thing as Photoshop but of which the larger audience does not have any knowledge about.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

So why don't you enlighten us and write an article about the software you like to use that also does gradients?

0 upvotes

Because I don't have the time to do so.
But I see out of your comments that you are more then willing to do so :)

1 upvote

You have time to whine about a free article that helps those that actually use PS but you don't have time to put together a small how to for a competing product, even point form?

I use PS so I don't have the knowledge to create a tutorial on gradients using another software.

0 upvotes

DJ's strategy here is to make demands of people who simply voice an objection or provide alternative ideas. Demands to the point that are intended to embarrass or scare us back into silence.

I do not need to be a surgeon to have an opinion that it's wrong to remove the wrong kidney.

I do not need to be an auto mechanic to have an opinion that my own mechanic is incompetent. Or good, as the case may be.

I do not need to be an author or a publisher to have an opinion on an article or even an editor's choices regarding whether or not the article or the scope of said article is appropriate.

And no, I don't need to write an article in order to properly demonstrate that or to put my opinion into words.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

"I do not need to be a surgeon to have an opinion that it's wrong to remove the wrong kidney."

Comparing kidney surgery to this is absurd. Moreover, you pay (one way or the other) for a kidney surgery and auto mechanics. The article above, well, it's free. Did I mention that the article above is free? Do you realize that the site that this free article is hosted on is free?

"I do not need to be an author or a publisher to have an opinion"

This is true. So why don't you actually comment on the content of the article? Could Jean have done it better? Is there a step missing? Are there inaccuracies in what he's written?

"even an editor's choices regarding whether or not the article or the scope of said article is appropriate."

Well, that's where the whole "free" thing comes into play again. You're not paying anything as far as I know, so you have one of three options: 1- email DPR directly and suggest alternatives 2 - go elsewhere 3 - whine

Option 3 is the easiest I guess.

0 upvotes

DJ I think you start reading my comments first before posting.
Where did I say that I don't like the article?

I said that it would be good for DPreviews' editors to reconsider Photoshop tutorials for other software because Adobe does not want to serve the enthusiast photographer anymore.

There is no reason to write articles and give examples with software that most people can not afford to us in the future anymore, unless you are being paid by Adobe to keep people on board and want to push them towards a renting model that sits in the cloud.

I am not an editor so you can ask me to write an article, but that is like asking a butcher to do surgery.

1 upvote

"I said that it would be good for DPreviews' editors to reconsider Photoshop tutorials for other software because Adobe does not want to serve the enthusiast photographer anymore."

It's free. DPR is posting a free article for us to consume. If DPR is given a free article on the same topic using another software, neither you nor I have proof that they would not post it. Until then, I give DPR the benefit of the doubt.

Also, it's not because Adobe won't serve the enthusiast market that we should then be completely deprived of tutorials. I, like many, have CS6 PS. So this is good, and will remain valid for many years to come.

Perhaps people won't be able to afford the software in the future, but this tutorial discusses techniques that can be used in the *present*.

"I am not an editor so you can ask me to write an article, but that is like asking a butcher to do surgery."

I've written extensively on safaris to help others, I'm not a butcher, auto mechanic or editor either.

0 upvotes

"And no, I don't need to write an article in order to properly demonstrate that or to put my opinion into words."

But you do need to if you want to put your money where your mouth is. Want to facilitate change? Then help.

0 upvotes

Agreed. Now that Adobe has become the enemy of freedom of choice, I'm all for hearing about alternatives. I want to learn what else is possible.

1 upvote

I do the same thing with PhotoPerfect at a much lower price.

Adios Adobe!

8 upvotes

This would have worked much better with the original sky I think, on this image now it just accentuates the fact the light is coming from the wrong direction.

Image aside, thank you for the tutorial.

1 upvote

hi
wow
thanks

is a good idea work in 16bit to have gradients with more shading ?
in short more back and white shading

thanks again!

0 upvotes

Hi Mantra. Yes. It's a good idea. Working in 16-bit means you can push the image further before bad things start to happen, and that includes the Gradients inside Masks. What's surprising is that even in 16-bit, banding is still an issue sometimes. It almost seems like even in 16-bit, the dithering inside Masks behaves as you'd expect in an 8-bit file. As I mention towards the end of the article, adding Noise usually fixes any problems with banding, regardless of bit-depth.

0 upvotes

Now that PS is going CC, I wonder which software will be used for tutorials like this in the future.

16 upvotes

Im pretty sure it will be still PS. Old habits die hard, plus gradient tool isnt exactly limited only to PS, neither most of other stuff..

1 upvote

All very nice...but its done to a jpg.
It would be much nicer if all this could be done to a raw image, and then once corrected (in raw) converted to a jpg as a final finished image.

I wish there was a 'Photoshop Raw' with all the same menus that the ordinary photoshop has for jpg manipulation.

1 upvote

Learn how to use Lightroom and you will have 99% of what you ask, version 5 will even include radial gradients

7 upvotes

What you are wishing for has a name: CNX2. You start there and finish in Photoshop....at least I do it that way.

0 upvotes

Why can't you do it to a raw file? Place the raw file as a smart object and use it inside the main Photoshop program. Possible since CS2. What's the problem?

PS.
I find the final image overcooked.

2 upvotes

This sort of thing is much easier done in Capture NX2 with a couple of U-points.

4 upvotes

You might not believe it but not everyone uses nikon

15 upvotes

"I find the final image overcooked."

Well i don't know. Compared to most of the cooked images out there on the internets this is very very mild. Just seeing the final image i'd say it looks natural enough.

Judging from the strong and lengthy shadows below those (i guess) wooden beams, there must have been fairly strong sunlight indeed. So if you ask me, the original was underexposed anyway.

1 upvote

LR functions exactly the same way whether you're editing RAW or jpeg, and you can do all that's described in the tutorial (though it's not a pixel editor like PS). Nice tutorial though, foreground-to-transparent tip for combining gradients is great.

1 upvote

I always work on tif files in ps

0 upvotes

h2k's right, at least about using Smart Objects ;) And the only reason the example images are jpegs is so they'll load faster. All of the original work was done on high-res PSDs created from RAW files.

0 upvotes

To: bigdaddave

You may not konw Capture NX works on JPG and TIFF as well. It is really easy to use. Same thing can be done in one minute.

0 upvotes

As near as I can figure, Viveza with same u point adjustment looks like it was developed from Capture NX type software. Are both NIK software? Viveza plugs into PS but also Lightroom and Aperature. I would use Viveza over Capture NX as my personal preference.

0 upvotes

this is actually a useful article. Most of the tip article in the past yo have to dig around on this site. Most people using photoshop might already now this, but still good for beginners.

6 upvotes

"dig around on the site" Agreed. I had suggested a while back to have a Post-Processing Forum for all the various software and techinques that are out there. The Retouching forum will touch on some of this information, but is a specialized sub-set of post-processing in general.

2 upvotes

Fine article. Good technique. I use it all of the time.

2 upvotes

Hello

I don't think that this was mentioned, but you can use curves and levels to adjust the layer mask directly and that you can add to a layer mask by experimenting with the various gradient options like overlay and multiply.

Mike Engles

1 upvote

Agreed, Mike Engles. Thanks. Just as you can add Noise to a Mask, Masks can be adjusted with Curves and Levels – although doing this thru the Masks Panel allows for even more power and flexibility than adjusting thru the Image>Adjust menu.

1 upvote

Total comments: 85