Digital BW, The Print

I am re-reading "Real World Scanning and Halftones" now that I have 
recommitted to doing some printing digitally.  Currently on Ch. 6 
p85 ;-)

Again, the equipment I'm using is an Agfa DuoScan (transparency & 
reflective) which if I remember has a maximum _optical_ resolution of 
1000x2000 SPI - and then printing to an Epson 3000, 1440x720 DPI.


I have never understood to my satisfaction what level of scanning 
would be 2x (& I understand lower is ok to about 1.5x) the level of 
the Epson printer.

It was also interesting to read that if the middle tones are 
consistently mucking up, it may require a better quality scanner.

Virgil, I summon thee, come to the shores and lead me 
through...Linotype-Hell <g>

Thanks
Cleavis

on 10/20/01 1:24 PM, lyonscox@... wrote:

> I am re-reading "Real World Scanning and Halftones" now that I have
> recommitted to doing some printing digitally.  Currently on Ch. 6
> p85 ;-)
 
> I have never understood to my satisfaction what level of scanning
> would be 2x (& I understand lower is ok to about 1.5x) the level of
> the Epson printer.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know, but if your output will be to an
Epson printer, who's halftone is a more randomized dither than that of the
typical rosette pattern of off-set press, I'm not sure the same formula
applies.

From a more empirical standpoint, and from observing the collective wisdom
of several lists, a file size of, or above, 240 PPI at print size should
serve you well.

Todd

> Again, the equipment I'm using is an Agfa DuoScan (transparency &
> reflective) which if I remember has a maximum _optical_ resolution of
> 1000x2000 SPI - and then printing to an Epson 3000, 1440x720 DPI.
> 
> I have never understood to my satisfaction what level of scanning
> would be 2x (& I understand lower is ok to about 1.5x) the level of
> the Epson printer.

This formula works to determine the dpi required for offset press. 1.5 or 2
times the line screen = the dpi of the file.  I typically send a 300 DPI
file to offset... this covers a 150 to 200 lpi image setter.

The Epson printers don't require this formula. I use 1440 divided by 3 = the
maximum dpi required for an Epson... but less works well too. I typically
use between 240 and 480 dpi files for my Epson output at the 1440 setting.

Carolyn

> I am re-reading "Real World Scanning and Halftones"...

That is a book I would highly recommend.  It has a lot of very good
technical background information not detailed in other PS type books...

I was wondering if people are using the Epson Stylus RIP to print 
their photographInk prints?  I don't seem to have mine installed 
correctly.  Just another reason to be eager to see the print 
exchange, see how far off I may be.


A link that corroborates the 240 to 480 dpi.  Not that it needed 
corroboration :-) 
http://support.epson.com/webadvice/wa0216.html

Another question.  To know that I have the image scanned 
correctly...wouldn't the Photoshop/Image Size-resolution be between 
our 240 & 480 for quality.  Or to ask another way, where do I confirm 
in Photoshop the resolution of the scan?

I have doubts that...I just have doubts really. 
 
Thanks,
Cleavis
<snip>

>This formula works to determine the dpi required for offset press. 
>1.5 or 2 times the line screen = the dpi of the file.  I typically 
>send a 300 DPI file to offset... this covers a 150 to 200 lpi image 
>setter.

>The Epson printers don't require this formula. I use 1440 divided by 
>3 = the maximum dpi required for an Epson... but less works well 
>too. I typically use between 240 and 480 dpi files for my Epson 
>output at the 1440 setting.
> 
> Carolyn

> Another question.  To know that I have the image scanned
> correctly...wouldn't the Photoshop/Image Size-resolution be between
> our 240 & 480 for quality.  Or to ask another way, where do I confirm
> in Photoshop the resolution of the scan?

Clevis,

The apparent good wisdom of your book aside, what most people do is to scan
at the highest resolution their scanner is capable of, before it resorts to
interpolation. This is referred to your scanners "native" resolution. In
most cases this resolution will give you the sharpest scan the scanner is
capable (drum scanners are different as they use apertures which can allow
for various "native" resolutions.

Now to your question: in Photoshop go to the IMAGE menu and scroll down to
Image Size. Uncheck the Resample Image check box. With this box off, changes
you make in this dialog box will not change your image pixels, so you can
alter your size settings, or resolution settings, without fear of altering
your data. Now as you change either of your images dimensions the other
dimension will change accordingly. Remember, since you aren't altering image
data, a change to any of these settings will have a proportional effect on
the others, as all you are changing is the scale of the image. Thus, alter
the image size and read the images resolution at that size. Or, set the
resolution to 240 PPI to read what size your image will be at that
resolution.

Most people just allow the resolution fall where it may, provided it is at
least 240 PPI. Remember, at this point we are discussing data which as yet
has not been resampled up or down by the scanner. If your resolution at your
print size would be lower than 240 PPI, you will get differences of opinion,
and probably need to test for yourself regarding whether or not to resample
the image up to 240 PPI, or print at whatever resolution your file is. I
haven't done much printing below 240 PPI, though the few times I tried, I
did get acceptable results down to 150 PPI. What is considered acceptable
will vary by how critical people want to be, the nature of the image itself,
the quality of the scan, the printer model in use, and whatever else I'm
forgetting. On the other hand many people find that Photoshops resampling is
acceptable up to a 100% size increase.

This Image Size dialog box is where you would do that resampling. You'd
check the "Resample Image" checkbox and enter your desired resolution. Most
people find that resampling softens the image, so a touch of UnSharp Masking
(USM) will be required to compensate.

Confused yet? Hope something in there was useful.

Todd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., lyonscox@m... wrote:
> I was wondering if people are using the Epson Stylus RIP to print 
> their photographInk prints?

Cleavis, though StylusRIP does give some postscript ability, it's 
usefullness as a CMYK RIP is very limited. There is no indepedent 
control over your black channel, black is generated exactly as it is 
in the Epson RGB driver, and CMY values are taken out as K is brought 
in. No rich black is available. It's buggy, slow, and cumbersome.
Many of us were trying to use it for quads before PressReady or Piezo 
came out, since it used the Epson screening and was smoother than 
other RIPs, it was a pain.
Let's just say, if it was included with your printer, it's worth about 
what you paid for it. Vaguely useful for proofing page layouts that 
include EPS files and type.
Except for postscript the RGB driver will do everything it can do with 
much less hassle.
Tyler

Much thanks 
Todd, yours answered/clarified my question exactly :-)

& Tyler, always thankful for knowledge of where to not waste my 
time.  Both responses very helpful this morning.

Next general printing Question...to one and all...

When you do the first print (or proof) and are able to discern those 
pesky discernable dots in the highlights, are you just selecting & 
removing them; letting the paper be the complete tone in those areas?

Most of the time I've presumed an image for PhotographInk prints [my 
temp answer as to what to call 'em 8-) ] should be heavier in tone to 
avoid speckling in the highlights.

Boy is the print exchange going to help me for expectations of the 
process.  Each print I get from the Lyson Inks with Cone driver is 
very palladium like, FWIW.

Thanks
Cleavis

>[snip]  Each print I get from the Lyson Inks with Cone driver is 
>very palladium like, FWIW.
>
>Thanks
>Cleavis

I think I remember that you're printing these on a 3000?

With which Lyson inkset(s)?

Thanks.

Sam

Sam,

I'm using the Lysonic E inks that I purchased from the following 
link...
http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/archival_inks/lyson_inks.html#LysonicE

This is a full color set & I have been printing in RGB.
I had tucked the info sheet in with the ink cartridges and might try 
their recommended settings which requires a couple of adjustments in 
the advanced settings/color management location (+3brightness, 
+3saturation, -5magenta)...I should also download their own profiles 
which I have yet to do...printing on Arhces Hot Press (which I like).

"Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@v...> wrote:

> >[snip]  Each print I get from the Lyson Inks with Cone driver is 
> >very palladium like, FWIW.
> >
> 
> I think I remember that you're printing these on a 3000?
> 
> With which Lyson inkset(s)?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Sam

Question...after two snip & copies - 

...The point of this is to use the 24 bit mode and put the lines at 
different points to smooth out the transition. I'm not a fan of 8-bit 
adjustments (or the non-partitioning workflow if a 4-ink printer is 
being used) because they result in more visible artifacts...
snip from Paul Roark I believe?

...(off list snip from Ron Harris webpage cited earlier, I liked 
reading that)
...Software: My choice for a digital darkroom program is the standard 
one, Adobe Photoshop.  Once the image is scanned into Photoshop, it 
consists of a bed of pixels.  If the resulting image is an '8-bit' 
image, each pixel will be one of 256 shades of gray.  A "12-bit" 
image would have pixels with 4,096 possible shades of gray.  These 
shades of gray, of course, make up the tones in the image.  If the 
pixels are small enough, then the image appears to be continuous.  
The printer cannot generally make use of 4,096 shades of gray, but 
having this much information in the file while working with the image 
until it's ready for printing helps to keep the image from being 
degraded as it is manipulated in Photoshop...<end snips> 

BACK TO THE QUESTION given this 'info'...When I bring something into 
photoshop 5.2 IT won't let me utilize most of the controls other than 
levels in 16 bit mode...so if you must immediately convert to 8-bit 
to manipulate why bother scanning higher??? Especially if chances are 
256 greys are going to do it any way since the printer range is maxed 
out?

Tbanks Cleavis
(whose fav book often is "Questions of Hu") :-)

Cleavis,

The idea is that the more you can do in 16-bit before dropping down 
to 8-bit the better.

I scan in 16-bit and do general levels and curve adjustments before 
moving to 8-bit. This way the adjustments in 8-bit will not be as 
extreme and fewer tones dropped.

You can also work around by creating a duplicate of the file and work 
on that in 8-bit. You can then create adjustment layers and when you 
have everthing the way you want it, things like levels and curves can 
be saved an then applied to the original 16-bit image.

Give this a try and then print both the 16 and 8-bit images and see 
if there is a difference in the final print.

Martin Wesley


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Cleavis" <lyonscox@m...> 
wrote:
> Question...after two snip & copies - 
> 
> ...The point of this is to use the 24 bit mode and put the lines at 
> different points to smooth out the transition. I'm not a fan of 8-
bit 
> adjustments (or the non-partitioning workflow if a 4-ink printer is 
> being used) because they result in more visible artifacts...
> snip from Paul Roark I believe?
> 
> ...(off list snip from Ron Harris webpage cited earlier, I liked 
> reading that)
> ...Software: My choice for a digital darkroom program is the 
standard 
> one, Adobe Photoshop.  Once the image is scanned into Photoshop, it 
> consists of a bed of pixels.  If the resulting image is an '8-bit' 
> image, each pixel will be one of 256 shades of gray.  A "12-bit" 
> image would have pixels with 4,096 possible shades of gray.  These 
> shades of gray, of course, make up the tones in the image.  If the 
> pixels are small enough, then the image appears to be continuous.  
> The printer cannot generally make use of 4,096 shades of gray, but 
> having this much information in the file while working with the 
image 
> until it's ready for printing helps to keep the image from being 
> degraded as it is manipulated in Photoshop...<end snips> 
> 
> BACK TO THE QUESTION given this 'info'...When I bring something 
into 
> photoshop 5.2 IT won't let me utilize most of the controls other 
than 
> levels in 16 bit mode...so if you must immediately convert to 8-bit 
> to manipulate why bother scanning higher??? Especially if chances 
are 
> 256 greys are going to do it any way since the printer range is 
maxed 

> out?
> 
> Tbanks Cleavis
> (whose fav book often is "Questions of Hu") :-)

on 10/28/01 1:37 AM, Cleavis wrote:

> BACK TO THE QUESTION given this 'info'...When I bring something into
> photoshop 5.2 IT won't let me utilize most of the controls other than
> levels in 16 bit mode...so if you must immediately convert to 8-bit
> to manipulate why bother scanning higher??? Especially if chances are
> 256 greys are going to do it any way since the printer range is maxed
> out?

Cleavis,

This is a big topic, one open to much debate, so don't expect definitive
answers. 

The deal is this, and I'm gonna be brief (Austin jump in when I get it wrong
;-). Scanners really only scan one way, and that is raw. They read your
analog data and convert it/write it out as linear digital code. This results
in a raw file, which when you see it as an image, it's dark and tonally
compressed (flat). To adjust it from this raw state requires software
manipulation of the data/image. This happens after the raw data has been
written. Your scanner's software (through it's driver settings) can do this
for you somewhat behind the scenes, and when your image opens from the
scanner it will already be adjusted. Or you can bring the raw data into
Photoshop and do the adjustments yourself - which is how I typically work.
The reason I do it this way is control. With PS you can view your data/image
at any magnification you want, crop, rotate, etc. and with history and
whatnot, undo mistakes.

Okay, to your point. There are a good many more controls available to you in
PS in 16-bit mode than just Levels. You can do Curves and Selections and
several filters. The big thing you can not to is Layers, and that IS a big
shortcoming, but there are workarounds. A recent issue of PEI magazine had
an article by Bruce Fraser where he shows how you can dupe the file, convert
the dupe to 8 bit, work your masks and layers on the 8 bit file, then load
those adjustments onto your 16 bit file. However, this is obviously more
time consuming, but it's very doable.

I split the difference. My method is safe and convenient (I'm used to it
anyway), but it's drawback is the need for huge hard drives or other storage
capacity. 

I capture my raw highbit data and archive that untouched. But first I dupe
it. The dupe I work globally (without selections) using Levels then Curves
in 16-bit to about the same point that I'd get by using the scanners driver
software. So now I have a nicely adjusted file that is tonally adjusted at
least as well as what the scanner would give me in 8-bit, but I have it in
16-bit. I dupe that then save it. The dupe of that I now convert to 8-bits
and start working that with selections and curves and sharpening; whatever I
want, anything and everything, and save that with all layers intact.

So now what I have is three files for this image: the raw scan, the 16-bit
globally adjusted file, and the 8-bit finished file. I keep these three
together in a folder of their own, and they are each somehow sensibly named
to reflect their mode. That there are three versions per image is why I need
lots of storage.

With this, I scan once, and can always go back and start over from scratch
with the raw file, or either adjusted file. The thing is, if I ever get to
where I feel that the local adjustments I made on my 8-bit file were
destructive to the image, and would have been better done in 16-bits, I can
load those adjustments, layer by layer, from my 8 bit file onto my adjusted
16-bit file, and with that I have the ease and control available from 8-bit,
with all the tones available from 16-bit. So it's very safe and flexible.

The truth is I've yet to find it worthwhile to load my 8-bit adjustments
onto my 16-bit image, I just stay with the 8-bit version. But I reserve the
ability to do it if changes to image processing (like more radical ink
separation curves are utilized) or better print output, make it more useful
in the future.

Confused yet?

Todd

> on 10/28/01 1:37 AM, Cleavis wrote:
>
> > BACK TO THE QUESTION given this 'info'...When I bring something into
> > photoshop 5.2 IT won't let me utilize most of the controls other than
> > levels in 16 bit mode...so if you must immediately convert to 8-bit
> > to manipulate why bother scanning higher??? Especially if chances are
> > 256 greys are going to do it any way since the printer range is maxed
> > out?
>
> Cleavis,
>
> The deal is this, and I'm gonna be brief (Austin jump in when I
> get it wrong
> ;-). Scanners really only scan one way, and that is raw. They read your
> analog data and convert it/write it out as linear digital code.
> This results
> in a raw file, which when you see it as an image, it's dark and tonally
> compressed (flat). To adjust it from this raw state requires software
> manipulation of the data/image. This happens after the raw data has been
> written. Your scanner's software (through it's driver settings)
> can do this
> for you somewhat behind the scenes, and when your image opens from the
> scanner it will already be adjusted.

That is pretty much correct.  Some scanners have LUTs (Look Up Tables) that
get "loaded" with your "curves", and these curves get applied to the raw
data in the hardware before the data is sent back to the computer.

One of the things is the newer PCs are just so damn fast, that really not
much has to be done in the scanner any more...and the setpoints and tonal
curves can easily be done "on the fly" by the scanner software on your
computer.

The main reason for "using" high bit data is specifically for tonal
adjustments and setpoints.   Other than that, I don't see any large
advantage to using high bit data...but I don't apply any of the PS filters
at all, so I really couldn't say if it would be better done in high bit or
not.

Personally, I just get my tonal curves and setpoints perfect in my scanner
software, so I only use 8 bit data in PS anyway...but that is mostly because
my scanner software has good setpoint and curve tools (as well as a built-in
histogram ;-).

>>various SnipS<<
> 
> much has to be done in the scanner any more...and the setpoints and 
tonal curves can easily be done "on the fly" by the scanner software 
on your computer.
> 
> Personally, I just get my tonal curves and setpoints perfect in my 
scanner software, so I only use 8 bit data in PS anyway...but that is 
mostly because my scanner software has good setpoint and curve tools 
(as well as a built-in histogram ;-).

I love mail, thanks for the replies all.

Austin... the scanning software is pretty good for the Agfa Duoscan, 
including a histogram I believe.  And to clarify, "setpoints" is the 
setting of white point & black point?

Are adjustments similiar from neg to neg for you (all)? Giving you 
that confidence in 'perfect'ion.
I am supposing, scanning is like the rest of photography - 
you get familiar with your equipment and know how it will translate 
from stage to stage ... additional comments on scanner settings are 
appreciated.

Cleavis

> Austin... the scanning software is pretty good for the Agfa Duoscan, 
> including a histogram I believe.  And to clarify, "setpoints" is the 
> setting of white point & black point?

Yes.
 
> Are adjustments similiar from neg to neg for you (all)? Giving you 
> that confidence in 'perfect'ion.

So far so good ;-)

Martin,

> I scan in 16-bit and do general levels and curve adjustments before 
> moving to 8-bit. This way the adjustments in 8-bit will not be as 
> extreme and fewer tones dropped.
>
snip
> 
> Give this a try and then print both the 16 and 8-bit images and see 
> if there is a difference in the final print.
> 
Hhhmmm, it seems I can only print in 8-bit.  Curves and Levels are 
basically the only tool available in 16-bit.  No dodge/burn in 16-
bit, which I'm accustomed to being a tradition B&W printer at heart.

16-bit just not seeming that useful...?

Cleavis.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Cleavis" <lyonscox@m...> 
wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> > I scan in 16-bit and do general levels and curve adjustments 
before 
> > moving to 8-bit. This way the adjustments in 8-bit will not be as 
> > extreme and fewer tones dropped.
> >
> snip
> > 
> > Give this a try and then print both the 16 and 8-bit images and 
see 
> > if there is a difference in the final print.
> > 
> Hhhmmm, it seems I can only print in 8-bit.  Curves and Levels are 
> basically the only tool available in 16-bit.  No dodge/burn in 16-
> bit, which I'm accustomed to being a tradition B&W printer at heart.
> 
> 16-bit just not seeming that useful...?

Cleavis,

There has been a lot of discussion around this point both pro and 
con. You have nothing to lose by making initial levels and curves 
adjustments in 16-bit and those adjustments in 8-bit can lead 
to "posterizing" the image if the adjustments become too drastic.

Local burning and dodging in 8-bit do not present that risk.

My own feeling is that 16-bit is probably overkill for B&W and that 8-
bit is marginal. 10 or 12-bit would have been just fine but we will 
live with 8-bit for a lot of our adjustments until Adobe gives us 
full 16-bit functionality.

Go ahead and work in 8-bit. The odds are that you will not encounter 
any serious problems but keep 16-bit in mind if you run into trouble 
with a problem or marginal negative.

Martin Wesley

on 10/28/01 9:14 PM, Cleavis wrote:

> Hhhmmm, it seems I can only print in 8-bit.  Curves and Levels are
> basically the only tool available in 16-bit.  No dodge/burn in 16-
> bit, which I'm accustomed to being a tradition B&W printer at heart.

Clevis

Allow me to continue to contribute my anal retentive spin on things. I come
from a traditional dodge and burn background too BTW, but this is digital,
so lets use it for what it's worth , and what digital does well is allow
CONTROL. The PS dodge and burn tool is almost as primitive as what I can do
with my hands on graded paper, with the exception that you can isolate your
moves to highlights, midtones, and shadows. It's okay. Mostly what I don't
like is on large files there is a delay between what you do and what you
see, then it's hard to undo your mistakes. But I have something far, far,
better to offer.

I prefer to work with adjustment layers, layer masks, and curves. It's a
little complicated at first, because you need to understand curves,
selections, and layer masks, all at once, but once you get it, doing it is
cake.

Say you want to manipulate an area. Take your lasso tool and set a fairly
broad feather for it (how broad depends upon file size, how large an area
you are selecting, and how detailed your selection need be. I work on
largish files so my feather is usually 30-100 pixels. With the lasso loosely
trace the area you want to manipulate. This will give you your marching ants
selection. Immediately go to the adjustment layer pull down menu at the
bottom of your layers pallet and select Curves. What this does is
automatically create a Curves adjustment layer WITH a layer mask which
represents the selection you just made. With the curve you can very
specifically and acutely do whatever type of manipulation you want to the
area, be it dodge, burn, or often of more interest, increase or decrease
contrast, and it will be limited to the area of your mask/selection. Okay
your curves move. At this point that adjustment layer is still the active
layer in your layer pallet, so if you were to start to paint on the image
you'd actually be painting on the mask of that layer. This is good because
this is how you fine tune the selection. Painting black on the mask makes it
so your curve will not affect that area, painting white makes it so it will
affect that area, grays allow for partial effect.

The beauty of this method is many fold. You can decrease it's effect overall
by lowering the layers opacity, you can constantly alter and perfect the
mask till your selection is perfect. You can reopen your curve and tweak it
to perfection, you can duplicate the entire layer with mask to increase it's
affect, and more....

Anyway, I'll stop now until I perceive you care to know more about the finer
points of this process, but I highly recommend you give it a try. As you
work the image, keep making your selections and creating a separate adj.
layer for each one, and give it it's own curve manipulation, then perfect
the selection through the mask. If you make a mask you don't like you can
trash it separately from the curve and vice versa, or you can trash them
both together and start again, so the control is immense.

Todd

Snip

> > Anyway, I'll stop now until I perceive you care to know more 
about the finer points of this process, but I highly recommend you 
give it a try. As you work the image, keep making your selections and 
creating a separate adj. layer for each one, and give it it's own 
curve manipulation, then perfect the selection through the mask. If 
you make a mask you don't like you can trash it separately from the 
curve and vice versa, or you can trash them both together and start 
again, so the control is immense.
> 
> Todd

Todd,

I had done a lot of reading and exploring of photoshop a while back 
and forgotten some of the discoveries.  Catching Ron Harris' site 
reminded me of the layers.  I have printed out your directions, it 
makes sense, in opposition to dodge/burn, & will explore it more over 
the next weeks.

Thanks for the considered & detailed responses.

Cleavis

Cleavis,

Another nice alternative to the dodge and burn tools,

Make a new layer, fill it with 50% gray im Overlay mode.

Select different levels of gray from the swatches pallet, use the 
airbrush tool at a low percentage and paint into the Gray layer.  
Levels below 50% lighten, levels above 50% darken. Very 
controllable, very adjustable.

You can also use selections and fill themm with different levels 
of gray to affect larger areas.

Butch

Cleavis,

Also check out some of the workflows posted in:

Files > Image processing and workflows 

for good Photoshop tips. Especially Carol's and Tyler's.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Cleavis" <lyonscox@m...> 
wrote:
> Snip
> 
> > > Anyway, I'll stop now until I perceive you care to know more 
> about the finer points of this process, but I highly recommend you 
> give it a try. As you work the image, keep making your selections 
and 
> creating a separate adj. layer for each one, and give it it's own 
> curve manipulation, then perfect the selection through the mask. If 
> you make a mask you don't like you can trash it separately from the 
> curve and vice versa, or you can trash them both together and start 
> again, so the control is immense.
> > 
> > Todd
> 
> Todd,
> 
> I had done a lot of reading and exploring of photoshop a while back 
> and forgotten some of the discoveries.  Catching Ron Harris' site 
> reminded me of the layers.  I have printed out your directions, it 
> makes sense, in opposition to dodge/burn, & will explore it more 
over 

> the next weeks.
> 
> Thanks for the considered & detailed responses.
> 
> Cleavis

The other really useful too re- dodge and burn w/ masks is the gradient,
which I find especially useful when dealing with old negatives with light
leaks, streaks, etc.

Thanks, Todd, for the concise yet complete explanation- it will help me even
though I thought I knew how to do it!  I for one would like to hear more...

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA 


on 10/29/01 9:40 PM, Todd Flashner wrote:

I prefer to work with adjustment layers, layer masks, and curves. It's a
little complicated at first, because you need to understand curves,
selections, and layer masks, all at once, but once you get it, doing it is
cake.

...Painting black on the mask makes it
so your curve will not affect that area, painting white makes it so it will
affect that area, grays allow for partial effect.

...Anyway, I'll stop now until I perceive you care to know more about the
finer
points of this process...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Todd wrote:
> 
> CONTROL. The PS dodge and burn tool is almost as primitive as what I can do
> with my hands on graded paper, with the exception that you can isolate your
> moves to highlights, midtones, and shadows. It's okay. Mostly what I don't
> like is on large files there is a delay between what you do and what you
> see, then it's hard to undo your mistakes. But I have something far, far,
> better to offer.

I agree with Todd, I use curve adjustments to dodge and burn, sometimes
overlay and multiply/screen, depending on image. It gives a much cleaner,
smoother tonal adjustment.  I prefer to use a large soft brush, adjust the
size of the brush as you go. I use a low opacity brush stroke on my masks
allowing me to go over and over until I get the adjustment level I desire.
If you learn the keystroke shortcuts soon you'll be flying.

Carolyn

> Thanks, Todd, for the concise yet complete explanation- it will help me even
> though I thought I knew how to do it!  I for one would like to hear more...
> 
> Bill Morse


Well, I hope I didn't make it sound like I had oodles more to offer, just
some tidbits and shortcuts.

First off, for painting on masks a pen and tablet are really nice. I use an
Intuos 6x8 size and it's great. I think the newest (which I don't have)
comes with a cordless mouse too. Either way with this thing plugged into USB
you can have your mouse plugged in and your pen at the same time and just
switch back and forth at will.

The pen allows you to either vary the brush size or brush opacity by the
pressure you apply. I use it to vary opacity, so I typically just keep Black
and White as my foreground/background colors and use pressure to vary the
paints opacity while I paint on the mask. Keep a hand on the key board by
the bracket keys to adjust the brush size.

Sometimes it's useful to see what your mask looks like overlaid over the
image. To do so, shift+option+click on the layer mask. Same keystroke turns
the overlay off. I find this overlay veiw really useful. To disable the
layer mask from the layer, shift click the mask. Ditto to reverse.

One great thing about masks are they are stored selections, so once you have
a mask and you want to reactivate it as a selection, just Command click the
mask. Say you want to do two separate treatments to the same area, make your
selection and your first adjustment layer. CMD+Click the layer later to
reactivate the selection and pull a new adjustment layer. The first one
might have been curves and the second Hue/Saturation.

Sometimes you isolate an area with a mask and want to do one treatment to
that area and another treatment to everything else, so you CMD+click the
mask to activate it as a selection and make your move, then CMD+Shift+I
inverts the selection so you can do your other move on everything else.
Sharpen one, blur the other?

As an aside, recently I was working an image that had really uneven
development in the sky, and it looked lousey. I tried isolating the sky and
doing a strong gaussian blur, but I didn't like that. Undo. Use the same
selection and create a Curves adj layer. I severely flattened the curve,
making the sky area really low contrast, and that looked much better than
the blur.

The other thing to keep in mind with masks is they are just grayscale
images, so anything PS can do to a grayscale image it can do on a mask.
Sometimes it's useful to do a levels move on our mask. For instance if you
used a brush that had too soft an edge, you can contract your levels end
points which will add contrast and tighten the edges of your mask. Sometimes
you worked with too hard a brush, so you can do a gaussian blur on your
mask. You can draw a selection on your mask and manipulate it separately
from the rest. Drawing gradients on masks can be really useful.

As Carolyn mentioned you can also change the entire adj layer's apply mode.
Things like overlay, and multiply can be useful. Sometimes just duping your
layer to double it's effect is useful.

Here's a way I sometimes make or at least start a mask, rather than painting
on it. Say you want to isolate the clouds in your BW landscape. Draw a rough
selection of the sky. Go to menu Select>Color Range. From the pull down menu
select highlights and okay it. This has just activated your clouds as a
selection. Create an adjustment layer while the selection is active and
badda bing, masked layer for your clouds.

Also, for complicated masks where you've already made some masks for the
image, you can combine parts of masks with each other through copy and
paste.

I think that's about all else I had. The thing to keep in mind is that masks
are grayscale images and you can to any treatment on them that PS allows to
a grayscale image, and that a mask is just a stored selection, so once you
have one it can be useful for many things, just CMD+click it to activate it.
The Option+Shift+click trick to view it in overlay mode is also really
useful.

Anyway, I think much of this is confusing to many, and is mostly esoterica.
Mostly what I do is what I described previously: draw a rough selection with
a well feathered lasso tool, pull a curve, then touch up the mask as needed.

Todd

Oodles and oodles... it's always nice to read that others use the same
oodles!!  :-)  Great post Todd.

Carolyn

> 
> Well, I hope I didn't make it sound like I had oodles more to offer, just
> some tidbits and shortcuts.