Reading mode: Light Dark

Photoshop - the good, the bad, and the misleading.

Go to last post
Cappy said:
...Spend sometime with the folks at
photoshopcafe.com, or planetphotoshop.com, some of the tutorials
will blow your mind.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Great sites Cappy. Another really good one, mostly Flash-oriented, but lots of PS gurus hang out there as well -> http://www.were-here.com (the also have a Photography and Digital Video forum) - probably my favorite design-oriented site on the net.

jizzer
 
C.Pannbacker said:
Thanks for offering the help! Can you recomend any good reads and
links extending on Cappys recomendation?
Click to expand...
The book that taught me most of what I know is "The Photoshop Bible" by Deke McClelland (great writer).

It's one of those 2-inch thick books that covers every detail of the program (and it's called a "Bible" for a reason).

This is my favorite type of book because it literally goes over every freakin' part of the program - even stuff you'll never use and covers the theory behind the program, which is critical IMO for long-term success with PS. And somehow when you read so much it all starts to come together. And I don't read in front of the computer and do tutorials. I read at the laundry mat i.e. I read it like it's a real book;-)

jizzer
 
Frank R. said:
I'm trying out Photoshop Elements. I like the larger tool bar
(friendlier to senior's eyesight) and pre-programmed effects. Are
you familiar with PSE, and if so, which tools is it missing from
PS7.0 that I might need for hobbyist level photo-finishing?
Click to expand...
I am not familiar with PS Elements first hand. It may or may not have everything you need:-( Sorry I can't help more. I would love to say that Elements is just like PS but without the "extras", but more likely Adobe left out just enough for you to need the full-version of PS.

At the very least it should have...
  • Level adjustment? Of each color channel?
  • Contrast/Brightness
  • Color curves?
  • Hue/Saturation/etc.?
  • Duotones?
  • The ability to work with RGB or CMYK color modes?
Filters...
  • Gaussion Blur (the most essential filter I have)
  • Sharpness (I never use this filter...go figure)
I'm probably forgetting something important, but that's basically it.

jizzer
 
Dirk Vermeirre said:
Hi Jizzer,

Great to read your comment on Photoshop, you are so right. It is an
amazing tool, especially for less good pictures and I fully agree
that a perfect image can't be enhanced in PS. I also agree that
there are very less rules or settings for using on each image. This
program has so many possibilities that we can use so many roads to
achieve the same thing. It must be impossible to write a complete
manual for everything that can be done with PS, it would count then
thousands of pages and then even will not be complete. I like to
use it as a darkroom and as you mentioned the most safe changes
takes place in the Image menu and not the Filter menu. Regularly
when I use the filter menu I apply it on a duplicated layer so that
I can erase unwanted or to extreme parts of the image by adjusting
the settings for the eraser. Great to bring the reality of pixels
and how things react on pixels to us so that we don't forget it.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
I completely agree Dirk:) You and I see PS much the same way - NO hard and fast rules. Your eye should ALWAYS be the guide.

jizzer
 
Jim said:
Ok I won't argue about PS filters degrading the image, I've seen it
when using usm and was very curious why the picture actually looked
much worse in some instances, which makes me very happy I always
save the originals untouched. My question is this. In the CP995,
and I'm sure some other CP cameras they have the capability to
adjust sharpness in the camera, I suppose while writing the image.
Would it be better to utilize that and just leave usm alone? I
realize on some images you need it, but I've in past just used it
as a part of the general workflow, on not so great, as well as the
great images. Sounds to me like you're all telling me I shouldn't
do this?
God Bless,
Jim
Click to expand...
At first I didn't know what you meant by "usm" and then over a cigarette down-stairs it dawned on me "Unsharp Mask"! lol

I'm hesitant to make any "all-or-nothing" statements. To me, there are no rules, only criteria. One of which (for me) is that if there is even 1 digital artifact in a photo, my eye gets drawn to it, and I think the picture is basically crappy. So I would be ESPECIALLY wary of using anything in the Filter menu on a picture with a resolution of less than 450 dpi. Most of the cams we're dealing with only do 8.5 x 11's at 200 to 300 dpi. So we're already losing the resolution battle having to deal with a 300 dpi image. (The image degradation the PS Filters produce goes down exponentially as the resolution is increased - so working with a 600 dpi image, you have a lot more flexibility with filters.)

So ...In-Camera Sharpening vs. Sharpening is PS? I guess "technically" the correct answer is supposed to be to set the camera to not sharpen at all...since you can never take the shot again.

But I personally don't trust that approach and unfortunately I'm at a loss to tell you technical reason why...other than I think Sharpening is a horrible thing 99% of the time.

If it were ME, I would leave the sharpness setting at "Normal" because that's the setting I believe Nikon has "optimized". And it saves me from having to do it in PS.

In fact, the reason I now own a Nikon and not a Sony is because Nikon images don't need Photoshop to stand up. They are already color-corrected. They are sharp. They are a little over-exposed (blown highlights) but I've learned to compensate by shooting a little under-exposed (and then applying Auto Levels in Photoshop, which 70% of the time is great...the other 30% you'll have to do a manual Level adjustments).

Finally, as far as Unsharp Mask goes, here's a situation you WOULD use it (and notice how different this is than what we're trying to do)

1.) Scan an old photo at 600 dpi.
2.) Use Median Blur to remove specks, dirt, scratches, pimples etc.
3.) Use Unsharp Mask*

my setting almost ALWAYS look the same...350%-500%, with a pixel radius of between 0.1 and 0.9 (less than a pixel!) with the Threshold at 0.

4.) Resize the image from 600 dpi to 300 dpi to cover up all the mess from the filters;-)

So from my experience, "USM" is used strictly to clean up bad images.

Hope this has helped. I love Photoshop, but Filters are always degrading (although I would agree to their use at the

jizzer
 
FJBrad said:
... Once an image is sharpened in-camera,
if it's too much, your stuck.
Click to expand...
I would define "Sharpening too much" as any amount of Sharpening that produces artifacts or is just unpleasant. IMHO you will not see "over" sharpening from the camera UNTIL you go over the "Normal" setting.

To me, the cam does a fine job of "Regular" sharpening, so I prefer to leave that function in camera.
Member said:
I sharpen every image that comes
comes up on my monitor, some more than others.
Click to expand...
Well I certainly would not do that, but that doesn't mean your a "dunder-head" LOL. Just different strokes for different folks!:-)

jizzer
 
What u all think about B&W.

Is it better to shoot B&W from he camera or play at the PS and turn it from color to B&W?
 
Robert Beacon said:
Do you think it is possible that because you are so knowledgeable
about Photoshop that you are in danger of starting to" look down
your nose" at people who are not as experienced as you (no offence
meant) This can happen subconsciously It comes across as if you are
preaching ( again no offence meant) Apart from this your post is
informative!
Click to expand...
I am VERY sorry if I came across that way. I did consider how my post was going to be taken, and I tried my best to be not condescending.

I did think a very long time before I posted that. I tried to approach it from a positive rather than a negative. At the time, I was actually out-of-my-skull after reading some really absurd things about Photoshop and thinking to myself "Stop the madness!!"

Photoshop is really very straight-forward, and not difficult at all. But even the simplest thing can be made hard with an overly-complicated and confusing explanation. And I was seeing a lot of "here's my settings" and no explanation of theory. I just felt I had to somewhat set the record straight to those that would listen.

Even when it comes to cameras, there's a lot of hocus-pocus. To me, you either have enough light, or you don't! Subject is in focus, or it's not! All the rest is details and tools to help you get there - but NOTHING is written in stone.

jizzer
 
indeed~

well said...

PHOTOSHOP WE LOVE YOU!
jizzer said:
Robert Beacon said:
Do you think it is possible that because you are so knowledgeable
about Photoshop that you are in danger of starting to" look down
your nose" at people who are not as experienced as you (no offence
meant) This can happen subconsciously It comes across as if you are
preaching ( again no offence meant) Apart from this your post is
informative!
Click to expand...
I am VERY sorry if I came across that way. I did consider how my
post was going to be taken, and I tried my best to be not
condescending.

I did think a very long time before I posted that. I tried to
approach it from a positive rather than a negative. At the time, I
was actually out-of-my-skull after reading some really absurd
things about Photoshop and thinking to myself "Stop the madness!!"

Photoshop is really very straight-forward, and not difficult at
all. But even the simplest thing can be made hard with an
overly-complicated and confusing explanation. And I was seeing a
lot of "here's my settings" and no explanation of theory. I just
felt I had to somewhat set the record straight to those that would
listen.

Even when it comes to cameras, there's a lot of hocus-pocus. To me,
you either have enough light, or you don't! Subject is in focus, or
it's not! All the rest is details and tools to help you get there -
but NOTHING is written in stone.

jizzer
Click to expand...
 
John Lai said:
jizzer ,
Are you saying that in camera sharpening is better because PS
filters (native sharpening & plug-ins ) degrade the image (loss of
details)? The general advice on this forum is to set in-camera
sharpening to low and doing the sharpening in PS. The reason stated
is that in camera sharpening is irreversible. Could you please
comment.
Click to expand...
Isn't in-camera blurring irreversible too?

I would go against the general advice myself. Sharpening in PS is to me a very last-ditch effort. Plus, I feel the camera's "Normal" sharpness setting is the one that's "optimized" the best for the camera.

I get the feeling a lot of folks are using Sharpening when they really want more contrast or "punch" out of the image. But I may be wrong. I just hardly ever see the need for sharpening myself. If i do need some sharpening, I use Unsharp Mask with a very small (0.1 to 0.9) pixel radius, threshold at 0, and amount somewhere between 350% and 500%

But really the rule should be: Does the picture look better? If it does, then use it!

jizzer

jizzer
 
Robert Beacon said:
If the Threshold is set to 5 then there would be no sharpening
applied to the grey pixels as mentioned above It means that pixels
with a greater difference or above will be sharpened only Proper
sharpening definitely enhances an image
Click to expand...
Hmmm...why exactly would the number 5 mean that those greys wouldn't get crushed?

I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree you. I don't believe Sharpening is needed ("proper" or otherwise;-) on most images, in fact I think it degrades them.

I think having "rules" in art is very dangerous and misleading.

jizzer
 
FJBrad said:
So, what do you think, Jizzer. Can you enlighten us on the relative
merits of in-camera sharpening versus PS USM, or no sharpening at
all?
Click to expand...
I personally would leave Sharpness at the "Normal" setting in-camera. Who says PS sharpening is better than Nikon's? I think that's quite a stretch for something as simple as a sharpen filter. Sony knows how to do a sharpen too, so does Canon. So it's not like Photoshop has a monopoly on the sharpen filter.

I use the Sharpness on the camera because I don't want to HAVE to use Photoshop!
Member said:
although sharpening results in less pristine data being
preserved, and sharpness adds apparent sharpness, rather than
actual sharpness...
Click to expand...
Great way to put that. Photoshop is only "apparent" sharpeness. "Actual" sharpness comes from the lense of course, which is why I think that focusing on Photoshop's sharpening abilities is putting the cart before the horse. The camera is where all the real magic happens;-)
Member said:
do you think this is a reason not to use it in
preparing an image for print or display?
Click to expand...
NO!! I think you should use whatever LOOKS best. Period. If the "apparent" sharpness has the result of making the picture look better, then use it! If it doesn't, don't use it. I'm only saying to use your eye as a judge, and don't think there's anything in Photoshop that will always make a picture better (no hard and fast rules!). PS works it's magic on lousy photos, and it's my belief that a "perfect" picture would not benefit from Photoshop one ounce.
Member said:
Or are you just suggesting
that USM not be used and saved as a master file, but only on a
copy?
Click to expand...
I keep the master file, as well as every revision seperate (mypic2, mypic3 etc.) No sense in thowing away something that could save your bacon later;-)

jizzer
 
TomGR said:
What u all think about B&W.
Is it better to shoot B&W from he camera or play at the PS and turn
it from color to B&W?
Click to expand...
I would think that shooting in color and then converting to B&W in Photoshop would give you the most flexibilty.

However, not being an experienced photographer, I can't be for sure. It may be really helpful to actually shoot in B&W since you will get feedback in B&W from your viewfinder right away. Also, B&W is easier to see contrast, so it may help your shots to shoot with in-camera B&W.

If it were me, and I knew for a FACT that I was making a B&W print, then I would probably go ahead and shoot in B&W. (Because there is NO chance that later I will want it in color.)

jizzer
 
1.) I am not trying to be a know-it-all. I will immediately shut-up about Photoshop if nobody wants to hear it. But I am here to help those who want or need help. You can email me at [email protected], or better yet, ask your question in this forum...

http://www.were-here.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=8

My favorite website, with forums about all kinds of topics. Very friendly, helpful, but somewhat juvenile crowd;-) Ask a question, and you'll have 5 correct answers within minutes.

2.) Photoshop is an essential tool for anyone serious about making digital pictures of any kind. It may sound like I don't like Photoshop but nothing could be farther from the truth. I just know it's strong points and limitations.

But IMHO no other program even comes close to Photoshop. You MUST have it. It is industry-standard, and you are safe learning and investing in it.

3.) Photoshop with a 600+ dpi image, and Photoshop with a 300 dpi image react differently. Since most of Photoshops (cooler) operations are image degraders, the more rez you have going into it, the better. Graphic artist typically use 600+ dpi images. At that resolution you can airbrush blemishes away all day long, add funky filters etc. and (almost) no matter how much Photoshop degrades the image, it's still a BIG image and everything is smooth. Unfortunately, CP5700 owners and the like don't have that luxury. That's why having proper colors, exposure, and focus IN CAMERA are extra important for us. Photoshop won't take us far at this resolution.:-(

4.) Completely off the subject, but good print resolution isn't "written in stone" either;-) No one can tell a difference between 300dpi and 288 dpi. I'll even go as low as 144 dpi (I like to keep in multiples of 72) for B&W newspaper ads. If I'm doing a poster I can actually get away with as little as 72 dpi!! Why? Because a poster is so big that a person never views it up close, and the "apparent" resolution is just as good as a poster at 300 dpi (except with a quarter the file size).

5.) To learn a "feel" for what Photoshop is really doing, open a picture and focus on a small area of pixels. Zoom In (Command +) to the pixels and inspect them. Then apply a filter, and again inspect the small area of pixels. You'll then be able to see artifacts from each manufacturer of digital camera. If you really want to highlight the artifact difference between different cams, open a picture from each cam in Photoshop, then set the Saturation at 100%. It will completely blow out the image, but it's interesting how each manufacturer treats "blocks" of pixels.

6.) CP5700 has "blown highlights". This is practically the same as having a permanent sharpening filter. This is another reason I'm not in favor of using the Sharpening with this cam. It doesn't need it to my eye.

7.) Photoshop's primary purpose is to "fix" photos that are not up to par for one reason or another. Since most of us aren't that good as photographers, this will come in mighty handy;-) Just don't think being able to fix something in Photoshop makes you a better photographer.:=)

ok, must sleep. Good night guys!:-)

jizzer
 
jizzer said:
I have seen a lot of folks in this forum that don't know a lot
about Photoshop. That's ok of course, but what disturbs me is to
see people treating certain settings like it's "the law."
Click to expand...
Then again, you may want to brush up on your knowledge as well. Photoshop doesn't care about "DPI" or "PPI" until you go print. So, any measure of pixels in relation to a physical measure such as inches, is completely meaningless in terms of retouching on screen. And certainly useless with regards to filters. What amazes me is that so-called Photoshop "experts" can't get this through their skulls.

I've been using computers and working with computer graphics since before Photoshop was a wet dream in the minds of its creators. So there.

But generally I agree with you. It still surprises me how people seem to be running this multi-hundred dollar program without much of a clue. This is not an application for the green nor for the casual user. Many people would be far better off with Elements. The same priciples regarding pixels apply of course. :)

Bruno
 
jizzer said:
FJBrad said:
... Once an image is sharpened in-camera,
if it's too much, your stuck.
Click to expand...
I would define "Sharpening too much" as any amount of Sharpening
that produces artifacts or is just unpleasant. IMHO you will not
see "over" sharpening from the camera UNTIL you go over the
"Normal" setting.

To me, the cam does a fine job of "Regular" sharpening, so I prefer
to leave that function in camera.
jizzer said:
I sharpen every image that comes
comes up on my monitor, some more than others.
Click to expand...
Well I certainly would not do that, but that doesn't mean your a
"dunder-head" LOL. Just different strokes for different folks!:-)

jizzer
Click to expand...
I leave sharpening off in-camera, which is why I sharpen every image in PS. Each image gets individual treatment in USM depending on the subject matter, lighting and desired effect.
--
Be the pixel.
950/990/995/4500 Mac/PhoSho5.5
FJBrad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top