Photoshop for duffers
Posted by: Bosh on 07 April 2005
I upgraded my PS elements 2 to 3 to manage RAW files, then bought a copy of CS to following reading William Cheungs "switch to digital" book as he says CS has better ways of doing certain procedures and more controllability than elements 3 does. I am now working my way through Cheungs tutorials
What I have found initially disconcerting though is that the RAW conversion for PS CS and Elements 3 give different results (evident visibly and on the curves) even if you use exactly the same settings
The other "problem" is CS is so powerful it is a bit overwhelming and I am wondering if I need to learn Elements 3 first or can anyone recommend a complete duffers guide to CS
I would appreciate a step by step guide to the fundamantals such as
1. When to use exposure or brightness on PS RAW conversion
2. Should I leave files at 240ppi (Cheung advocates changing to 300ppi)
3. Do you convert in 8 bits or 16bit
4. Why does an "embedded mismatch" come up on RAW conversion asking me if I want to convert Adobe RGB to sRGB IEC?
etc, etc, etc
Thanks in anticipation
What I have found initially disconcerting though is that the RAW conversion for PS CS and Elements 3 give different results (evident visibly and on the curves) even if you use exactly the same settings
The other "problem" is CS is so powerful it is a bit overwhelming and I am wondering if I need to learn Elements 3 first or can anyone recommend a complete duffers guide to CS
I would appreciate a step by step guide to the fundamantals such as
1. When to use exposure or brightness on PS RAW conversion
2. Should I leave files at 240ppi (Cheung advocates changing to 300ppi)
3. Do you convert in 8 bits or 16bit
4. Why does an "embedded mismatch" come up on RAW conversion asking me if I want to convert Adobe RGB to sRGB IEC?
etc, etc, etc
Thanks in anticipation
I get a computer arts magazine which I can't find right now.
However in the raw plug in is a choice to pick <Something> 98.
Apparently this is the best work space to work in, plus if one pluggin is in one workspace and the other in a different one then this might explain the differences you see.
As ebedded profiles I think this is to do with coloursync, I think on PC there is a utility to set the workspace for all your devices from camera to printer, I won't even pretend to explain because I have no idea.
16bit and 8bit, well probably not for you to worry about, but 8bit allows full use of all the filters.
The more resultion you have to work with the better, however there is a cut off with what most printers can handle. Although a printer will say a res of say 2400, thats how many drops of ink it can place on a sheet where as the res on screen is significantly different. If you were to set the res at 2400 the printer would simply throw out data, 300 is the normal res to work in and should be sufficient for most printing needs.
As for when to use exposure, well this I guess comes to down to what you wanted to achieve from the picture
However in the raw plug in is a choice to pick <Something> 98.
Apparently this is the best work space to work in, plus if one pluggin is in one workspace and the other in a different one then this might explain the differences you see.
As ebedded profiles I think this is to do with coloursync, I think on PC there is a utility to set the workspace for all your devices from camera to printer, I won't even pretend to explain because I have no idea.
16bit and 8bit, well probably not for you to worry about, but 8bit allows full use of all the filters.
The more resultion you have to work with the better, however there is a cut off with what most printers can handle. Although a printer will say a res of say 2400, thats how many drops of ink it can place on a sheet where as the res on screen is significantly different. If you were to set the res at 2400 the printer would simply throw out data, 300 is the normal res to work in and should be sufficient for most printing needs.
As for when to use exposure, well this I guess comes to down to what you wanted to achieve from the picture
Bosch,
You haven't asked any duff questions.
1. Don't use exposure or brightness. Use the "mid tone" adjuster in "levels" to get the required lightness and then play around with saturation to bump colours back up - for starters.
2. Change files to 300ppi.
3. Do all the colour, level, saturation and contrast changes in 16 bit. The 8 bit conversion is the last thing you should do if you have to.
4. If your camera allows you to change the colour space, change it to Adobe RGB (1998). Change the Adobe CS setting to the same, by edit - color setting - working space - Adobe RGB (1998).
I would concentrate on CS and disregard all other software.
The difference between srgb and adobe rgb is quite high. Here's a very large enlargemment of a test, I did a while back, to see the difference. Both have been saturated to show up the results more. No other manipulations have been done (which makes the result even more impressive as the more changes you do, the greater the difference)
Pic 1. shot and opened as srgb. Notice how much less the colours are graduated and how it appears broken up?
You haven't asked any duff questions.
1. Don't use exposure or brightness. Use the "mid tone" adjuster in "levels" to get the required lightness and then play around with saturation to bump colours back up - for starters.
2. Change files to 300ppi.
3. Do all the colour, level, saturation and contrast changes in 16 bit. The 8 bit conversion is the last thing you should do if you have to.
4. If your camera allows you to change the colour space, change it to Adobe RGB (1998). Change the Adobe CS setting to the same, by edit - color setting - working space - Adobe RGB (1998).
I would concentrate on CS and disregard all other software.
The difference between srgb and adobe rgb is quite high. Here's a very large enlargemment of a test, I did a while back, to see the difference. Both have been saturated to show up the results more. No other manipulations have been done (which makes the result even more impressive as the more changes you do, the greater the difference)
Pic 1. shot and opened as srgb. Notice how much less the colours are graduated and how it appears broken up?
Pic 2.
This was shot and opened as Adobe RGB (1998).
The colours are better graduated.
Saving them as 35kb files has ruined all the tonal qualities, so you'll have to take my word for it.
This was shot and opened as Adobe RGB (1998).
The colours are better graduated.
Saving them as 35kb files has ruined all the tonal qualities, so you'll have to take my word for it.
Many thanks for your support an input it is much appreciated. I am using an EOS 300D (or will be when it comes back from repair - one of the CF slot pins has adopted a strange angle after 6 weeks use despite kid gloves - never had any probs with SD cards 
)
)