jean miele

jean miele

Lives in United States Brooklyn, NY, United States
Works as a Photographer, Artist, Educator
Has a website at www.jeanmiele.com
Joined on Sep 19, 2007

Comments

Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

rpm40: Trust me when I say that the vast, VAST majority of buyers of these cameras don't know what RAW is, and don't care. Same goes for f2 lenses. These get sold to skiers, beach bums, college kids going on vacation... Even so, they don't sell a lot of them.

I understand the desire for a high end enthusiast style tough cam, but the market for that type of camera would be even smaller. At least I give Olympus a little credit, that they dipped their toes in that water with the TG.

CHDK equivalent for Olympus, I meant.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2014 at 19:22 UTC
In reply to:

rpm40: Trust me when I say that the vast, VAST majority of buyers of these cameras don't know what RAW is, and don't care. Same goes for f2 lenses. These get sold to skiers, beach bums, college kids going on vacation... Even so, they don't sell a lot of them.

I understand the desire for a high end enthusiast style tough cam, but the market for that type of camera would be even smaller. At least I give Olympus a little credit, that they dipped their toes in that water with the TG.

RAW = Freedom. It's not about the necessity of spending more time editing. When I've got a camera like this in the water while shooting sailboat racing, I want the couple of stops of latitude that RAW provides. Going to the effort, and ending up with burnt highlights, or noise due to underexposure, is just sad. RAW files mean you can end up with perfect pictures, even if the initial exposure was a little off. JPEGs are like shooting slide film. Miss the exposure, and you're screwed. Even with the smaller chip and slower lens, this camera with RAW would absolutely rock! Wish there was a CHDK equivalent for Panasonic. Although for $250 this camera still sounds awesome.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2014 at 18:00 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images article (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

puppy8: Hi
It would be much clearer if you show the layers panel so that we understand what you are talking. Without the steps in picture, the instruction is kind of gibberish, we get lost

There are three layers panel illustrations on page 2.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2013 at 15:16 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images article (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

Now that's what this is all about!

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2013 at 16:18 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images article (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

Acmespaceship: 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...")

:)

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2013 at 13:28 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images article (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

migus: 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

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.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2013 at 15:09 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images article (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

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!

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2013 at 15:02 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images article (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stefan Stuart Fletcher: 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.

Really glad you found the article useful Stefan! Thanks.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2013 at 14:51 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images article (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: 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.

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.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2013 at 14:48 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images article (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

Spectro: 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.

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.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2013 at 14:43 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images article (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

tabloid: 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.

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.

Direct link | Posted on May 27, 2013 at 15:43 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images article (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

mantra: 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!

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.

Direct link | Posted on May 27, 2013 at 15:37 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

martin45: Thank you Jean for your useful example of using gradients in a mask. This is an easy method to deal with a common problem.
I preferred the original sky though. What I did was to duplicate the original background layer and then use the Multiply blending mode. This was a little too much so I reduced the opacity to around 65%. Then I used your straightforward example to add a mask with a gradient. For the gradient I reduced the opacity to 30% and applied gradients several times to mask the grass and cabin as well as the clouds on the upper left partially. Then I added an adjustment layer to saturate the dry grass and cabin in the foreground. In the mask for this adjustment layer I used your method again to mask the sky from the top down to just allow the cabin to get saturated. This was way better than using selections or painting in a mask. Thanks again.

You are very welcome, Martin45. Thank you. It's fantastic that you were able to integrate using a Gradient in a mask; that was my goal in creating the tutorial. And your "variation on a theme" sounds just great. Jazz improv, right? ; )

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2013 at 16:05 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: Improving photographs working on levels, curves, contrast, saturation, filters, lights, shadows, gamma, as well as using HDR techniques, photo stacking, etc.., is deontologically appreciable, because the final result, however, isn't a fake: only a picture improved.
Techniques such as the one here illustrated, however, leave me puzzled because goes beyond the Photography and entering the creative montage. Which often has a great artistic value.
But that's not Photography.

If photomontage isn't a part of photography, that's bad news for me, and a bunch of other people. Pretty sure Jerry N. Uelsmann (as Amadou mentioned earlier) is a photographer. Not to mention Carleton Watkins, Gustave LeGray, Henry Peach Robinson… and W. Eugene Smith. Smith, unarguably one of the icons of photojournalism, wasn't above creating the occasional photomontage, as evidenced in this recent NY Times Lens blog entry: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/w-eugene-smith-i-didnt-write-the-rules-why-should-i-follow-them/

The way I see it, we all love photography, and there's room in that word for all of us, regardless of the kinds of pictures we like to make.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 20:36 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: Improving photographs working on levels, curves, contrast, saturation, filters, lights, shadows, gamma, as well as using HDR techniques, photo stacking, etc.., is deontologically appreciable, because the final result, however, isn't a fake: only a picture improved.
Techniques such as the one here illustrated, however, leave me puzzled because goes beyond the Photography and entering the creative montage. Which often has a great artistic value.
But that's not Photography.

Ciao, Giuseppe. Thanks for commenting. You're not the first one in this thread to say "that's not photography" or some variation on that theme. Personally, I think “photography” is a BIG word. I doubt Sir John Herschel could have imagined that the term would grow to encompass such a vast range of uses, processes, media and intentions when he popularized it in 1839. From the beginning, our beloved "painting with light" was diverse and ever changing, and has grown into a spectrum that spans art, documentary, family snapshots, advertising, pornography, scientific research, and a thousand gradations and variations between. It includes nearly a hundred distinct photographic processes (so far!), ranging from daguerreotype to Hipstamatic, and is presented on an impossibly wide array of media and substrates, including glass, metal, paper, and LCD, to name just a few. *more below*

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 20:36 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

aja2: Is there anyway to add this to my favorites or bookmark this article within DPR? I don't have time to read the whole thing but am very interested in the subject, since I needed to learn how to do this months ago!

Sure, aja2. There are a few possibilities. I use both Evernote and Instapaper to save things for later reading. (There are also many other services like these.) Another possibility is to simply "print" the browser page as a PDF, and save it to your hard drive. Whichever method you choose, you'll need to save page 1 and page 2 of the article individually. Glad you found it helpful enough to want to refer to it again : )

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 20:02 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: Why not invert from left to right (mirror) the dark sky image, so that it works with the direction of the shadows on the structure? The main problem I see with this, is that to me, it is not a believable composite, because first, the building is so bright it looks like it's in broad daylight, but there's this dark sky over it, and second, the point where the skies may be lightening up is on the left, while the shadows imply a light source from the right.
I understand it's just an example and the point of the article is otherwise, but I feel that while we're on the topic of making "believable" composites, light source, light intensity and contrast, and direction of shadows still have to be all taken into account, to make it work. And this is part of the job with such an undertaking.

Feel free to download the jpegs from page 2, and try it yourself. That's why we're providing the practice images :-)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 12, 2013 at 16:27 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

happypoppeye: Now ...what would be the disadvantage of just using another layer of the same photo and erase what you would want from there ...instead of the gradient layer ...I guess just using a different layer type...

What you're suggesting would certainly work. Rather than adjusting pixels and erasing (if I understand you correctly), making the desired adjustments to the RAW file or using masked Adjustment layers (we'll cover that in part 2) is a better way to go for one simple reason: this kind of non-destructive editing allows you to more easily experiment and change your mind. A few commenters have suggested processing the RAW file of Picture 1 to darken the sky. Some have even suggested processing Picture 1 twice (once for the sky, once for the foreground), and then masking the two together in Photoshop. These are both viable possibilities. I'd suggest taking a second look at the "Layer Masks and Gradients Explained" on page one of the article. Hope this helps.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2013 at 18:05 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

HubertChen: Dear Jean and dpreview,

Thanks so much for a well thought out and concisely explained Article. It promises to solve a problem nagging me since long. I am very much looking forward to part 2.

I live in Guangzhou, south of China. Lovely place except there is smog most of the time, which can render as bad as plain white (non) sky in a shot. Your technique -- if I can get it to work-- promises to be swift enough to make images work which otherwise I would not even try to shoot or trash later on anyways. I can't thank you enough for this inspiration!

Thank you for your comments, Hubert. As a landscape photographer, I've always wanted to go shoot in China. In fact, I just saw a beautiful exhibition in New York this week by Chinese photographer Wang Wusheng. (His photographs were made far from where you live, in Northern China.) These are a wonderful example of "straight" photographs that are absolutely transcendent. For me, the question of what makes some photography exceptional is always interesting. Most other dichotomies seem kind of beside the point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/27/photographer-wang-wusheng_n_2534810.html
I hope you'll find part 2 useful!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2013 at 17:42 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

l_d_allan: Very helpful article. Thanks!

I am not at all a "purist" as far as the "composites are not art mindset / camp". YMMV and my 2¢

I've been struggling with getting decent composites with winter trees in the foreground. As the author points out, that's a difficult compositing task. "Refine Edge" and "Color Range" haven't been coming out all that well. Neither has the Fluid Mask plug-in.

While this could be a case of "a poor craftsman blames his tools", I'm hoping that the Gradient mask approach you describe will not only be simpler, but work better.

It's not you. We've all been led to believe that silhouetting two pictures together in Photoshop is easy. In fact, it's one of the hardest things to do, especially when there's fine detail, like tree limbs. For some reason, maybe it's just human nature, I notice that even photographers with lots of darkroom experience reach for a selection tool first when they're in Photoshop - even though that's an approach that wasn't really available to most of us in a traditional wet-darkroom. (I actually tried using litho film and pin-registration a few times, but I think most people just stuck with the old fallback: cardboard.) Counter-intuitively, I think it's possible to get much better results by blending images together, rather than trying to cut them out. This approach emulates the way we used to approach burning & dodging in the darkroom: feathered and blended edges, created by moving the cardboard as we exposed the paper. The Gradient tool seems made for this.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2013 at 17:03 UTC
Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »