Date   

Re: Cinque Terre: Results

Dan Margulis
 



On Jun 20, 2020, at 1:33 PM, Ted Lane <ted.lane@...> wrote:

I am not a paid retoucher. I take photos for a hobby, primarily landscapes. I hang out here in an attempt to improve the pictures I take (post processing). My Cinque Terre effort was described by Dan as "Overwhelmingly colorful. Nice yellowness like #502" (#513). I am pleased that my first three case study entries were not criticized for poor color - I am color blind

I should have figured it out from the nature of #513.

(do not see green, see about 50% red).

If that’s true your case is unique. Color-blindness, or Daltonism, can best be described in LAB terms. A man with this condition (there basically aren’t any women) visualizes the B channel just as well as normally-sighted folk do. Their appreciation of the A channel is deficient. It ranges from total inability to about half as much as normal. It does not affect “reds” as such, it is an inability to see the magenta component of reds, and the teal component of natural greens. Meanwhile, the yellows and blues are fully appreciated, and perhaps better than normal.

Your version is exactly what a skilled person with this deficiency might be expected to produce. The blues in the background, the water and the sky, are quite lovely, not overdone at all. The yellows in the village are strong but not out of line with what others are doing.

The problems as perceived by the normally-sighted:

1) Houses and roofs where we expect to see brick-red are instead more of a cherry-red. That’s what happens when you add too much magenta.

2) In the hillside at right the dead vegetation is yellowish, just fine. The green shrubbery stands out like a sore thumb because it is too saturated and tending too far away from yellow. That’s what happens when you add too much teal, which is a more accurate description than “green” of that end of the A channel. 

In short, the only problem with the result is that you overdid the correction in the A channel to compensate for the things you have difficulty seeing. The B channel is excellent.

Clearly I need to figure out how to better address saturation issues, or at least pay as much attention to the question of "how much color" as I do to the question of whether the color is correct.

My suggestion: 

1) convert your finished Cinque Terre file to LAB.

2) as a preliminary move that you’ll never have to repeat in another image, invert the A channel, so that magentas become teal and vice versa. Extremely color-blind persons can’t see a difference at all. I am confident that at the very least you will say that something horrible has just happened to the picture. If you can’t say that, we have to look for other solutions.

3) with the original A restored, now use the channel palette to turn it off, so that you are looking at L and B only. In principle you now see the same thing a normally-sighted person does.

4) Now toggle the A channel back on and off, noticing the differences. Assume that any differences you see, a normally-sighted person is going to be at least twice as sensitive to them. If you do this, I think you’re likely to agree that the green shrubbery in the hills is overdone, and you may also agree that the reddish buildings and roofs have gone too far.

Dan



Re: ACR 12.3: Do You Like It?

Bill Theis
 

Besides being slow and unresponsive compared to the previous ACR, I have not found a work around to apply the recommended presets in the PPW book pages 385 (see Fig 14.9).  I had these as a preset which it now ignores and I'll be damned if I can figure out how their new curves interface works.  this is a serious problem.  Anyone know of a way to do this or go back to the previous ACR somehow?


Re: Cinque Terre: Results

Ted Lane
 

I am not a paid retoucher. I take photos for a hobby, primarily landscapes. I hang out here in an attempt to improve the pictures I take (post processing). My Cinque Terre effort was described by Dan as "Overwhelmingly colorful. Nice yellowness like #502" (#513). I am pleased that my first three case study entries were not criticized for poor color - I am color blind (do not see green, see about 50% red). Clearly I need to figure out how to better address saturation issues, or at least pay as much attention to the question of "how much color" as I do to the question of whether the color is correct.

Ted Lane


Re: ACR 12.3: Do You Like It?

Alec Dann
 

It appears they wanted to make ACR more like Lightroom.

You can change the layout of the right adjustments panel by right clicking it and selecting single panel mode (the equivalent of solo mode in LR) or multi-panel mode (all panels open).  You can also access this setting by clicking the Settings gear icon in the upper right.

Alec


Re: ACR 12.3: Do You Like It?

Ronny Light
 

I get to ACR through Bridge. The new GUI takes a moment to get used to but I like it.

 

I like that all the buttons and sliders are on the right side, not left, top, and right—fewer mouse miles.

 

I like that you can hide the filmstrip and that makes the image bigger than it ever was before.

 

Some of the new terminology, optics, and geometry, are different but make sense.

 

There are profiles from Jared Platt and Matt Kloskowski. I never use presets but some may like them.

 

Everything that was in the previous GUI is there plus more. I saw an option to use the previous GUI but I don’t know if that will be permanent. I will use the new one.

 

My favorite feature is that the image can be so much larger. That probably won’t be true in Lightroom.

 

 

Ronny

www.RonnyLightPhoto.com

5010 B Wilkerson Dr., Nashville, TN 37211

 

 


Re: Cinque Terre: Results

Kenneth Harris
 

As far as I'm concerned, the interesting thing about pictures is how they show people's thoughts about what they think they're showing.  That includes capture and post.  Tools can be used to many different ends.   Usually they're not.  Which is good.  Imagine forever being in room where conversation is interesting.  

Ken Harris


Re: ACR 12.3: Do You Like It?

Gerald Bakker
 

Rick, I upgraded PS, ACR and Lightroom Classic just this morning and I agree with your comments. Although I don't use ACR that often (mostly doing raw processing in Lightroom which looks for the most part unchanged) all this moving of interface controls is mostly annoying and doesn't seem to serve any useful goal. I don't mind a UI change, provided it's for the better. Otherwise, it's just frustrating as it breaks the automatisms of a user's way of working.

I also noticed that they changed a lot of the terminology. "Lens corrections" is now called "Optics". "Transform" is now called "Geometry". The Curves interface has changed a lot (have you tried that yet??) with confusing terminology as well. In the Basic panel we have "Whites" and "Highlights". In the Curve panel, it's "Highlights" and "Lights".
--
Gerald Bakker
http://geraldbakker.nl


Re: Cinque Terre: Results

Gerald Bakker
 

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 06:24 AM, James Gray wrote:
I figured there might be others who are serious photographers rather than paid retouchers.
I am in the same position, and I also agree that these exercises are a unique opportunity to learn. When I submitted my corrections so far, I expected without a doubt to be one of the best. That's what you think, right, when you normally do everything alone. How could anyone ever do a better job than what I just accomplished?

When it comes to evaluating the other entrants, I see that someone who has taken a path that I beforehand considered unlikely to be successful, has lead to a wonderful version, albeit very different from my own. For me (I think) the greatest learning effect is on the artistic side: seeing the results of people starting from a different vision, e.g. about the mood they want to convey.
--
Gerald Bakker
http://geraldbakker.nl


moderated Re: Case Study: Colosseum at Night

Dan Margulis
 



On Jun 15, 2020, at 7:30 AM, dmargulis <dmargulis@...> wrote:


Here we have a night shot of another Italian tourist attraction, this one almost 2,000 years old (completed A.D. 80). I wouldn't say it’s an enormously difficult correction, but remember that the Colosseum is where Photoshoppers who did not please the authorities were thrown to the lions. 

A reminder that entries are due in this case study in 48 hours, at 06:00 eastern time Monday/1100Z/12:00 ora italiana

I confirm receipt of entries from the following individuals:
BB
GeB
SB
AD
RG*
HH
DS
JS
RT
*indicates that a corrected version was submitted

Entries from the following were at an incorrect size/cropping and would have to be resubmitted:
RL

Dan Margulis
_._,_._,_


Re: Cinque Terre: Results

James Gray
 

I figured there might be others who are serious photographers rather than paid retouchers.  I fully agree that these case studies are an opportunity to learn how to get better.  I was really thinking of the fact that I have never had the experience of a client telling me the result of my post processing was not what they wanted even after I thought I had done a good job.  I have had the experience of a judge telling my final image was not that great.  However, in those instances the judgement seemed to be more about the original image than just the post processing.  So, I do agree that these case studies are not primarily about who had the best image.  However, it is about what is better about the images that are picked for the par version and what are the specific flaws in the other versions.  Probably more important are the steps or procedures that worked well or that resulted in flaws.  I  think I would find it really difficult to start from scratch on the Cinque Terre image and try to come close to creating the par version as Dan suggested.  I have not actually tried to do that.  I actually like my version of Cinque Terre a bit better than the par version.  That is a lot more than I can say about Niagara Spray and Veiled Bride.  Disaster is probably too strong of a word for my Veiled Bride, but it was not something that I was pleased with.  Niagara was somewhat better, but I was not happy with my result.  No doubt I have learned a lot from the group commentary and Dan's individual evaluation of each image.  I think it is great that Dan is doing this.  At least I can work in RGB and LAB on these images.  When I took his course it was pretty hard for me as many of them had to be done in CMYK.  I really appreciate the opportunity.  I think I have finished the Colosseum, but am not sure what it is supposed to look like.  My goal has been to create an artistically interesting image.

James Gray 


On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:05 PM Robert Wheeler <bwheeler350@...> wrote:
First, I can attest that at least one other participant (me) also arrives without paid retouching experience. My enthusiast photography experience provides a good background for this advanced technical and aesthetic level where I still have quite a bit to learn. Second, I personally find it healthy to frame these image challenges as learning exercises rather than as contests to see whose version is "best." From that perspective, I find it a great advantage to benefit from a group that includes high levels of expertise and diverse perspectives. These exercises, and the group commentary, have greatly accelerated my learning, and I am deeply appreciative of the opportunity to participate.


Re: Cinque Terre: Results

Robert Wheeler
 

First, I can attest that at least one other participant (me) also arrives without paid retouching experience. My enthusiast photography experience provides a good background for this advanced technical and aesthetic level where I still have quite a bit to learn. Second, I personally find it healthy to frame these image challenges as learning exercises rather than as contests to see whose version is "best." From that perspective, I find it a great advantage to benefit from a group that includes high levels of expertise and diverse perspectives. These exercises, and the group commentary, have greatly accelerated my learning, and I am deeply appreciative of the opportunity to participate.


Re: Cinque Terre: Results

James Gray
 

I think I may be at a bit of disadvantage in trying to produce the best possible result in comparison to most of the people working on these case studies.  I have never taken somebody else's image and post processed it for pay or mostly as a favor to anyone.  I have post processed images taken by my wife and colorized an old image of her father (whom I never met).  I enter my own images into competitions and juried shows.  So, I tried to create a result of the Cinque Terre image that might impress a judge in one of those competitions.  That means an image with more drama.  The term used in the LAB book 2nd edition was "phantasmal".  I do not know if that is too strong of a term for what I did with Cinque Terre.  I was satisfied with my moody result.

James Gray


On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:27 AM Dan Margulis via groups.io <dmargulis=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I’ve posted the results of our Cinque Terre study as described below.

 

...

 

The files don’t have people’s names on them, and were random-generator numbered from #501 to #522. As with past studies, we also have a “par” version, #523. To get it, I chose what I thought looked like the five best entrants, and averaged them, each one weighted 20%. This often creates a version that is superior to most if not all of its parents.

 

I’m going to have some things to say about this assortment, but as usual I’d like to open it up to group discussion first. What do the successful versions have in common? Meanwhile, if you’d like to know how your own version stacked up, download the par version and compare the two directly. Do you think you got the same kind of quality? If not, I hope you’ll find further discussion useful.

 

...

 

Search for Cinque_terre_entries_061520.zip
 I look forward to your comments.

Dan Margulis

P.S. The next case study is announced today, look for a separate post.


moderated Re: Case Study: Colosseum at Night

Dan Margulis
 



On Jun 19, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Robert Wheeler <bwheeler350@...> wrote:

Although unsharp mask is not permitted, does the addition of "or similar" mean that all sharpening methods are prohibited? My presumption has been that unsharp mask allows flexibility in radius and amount that, when pushed hard, generate artistic effects beyond what we think of as sharpening. I have assumed that using either of the two sharpening actions from the PPW panel, Topaz Sharpen AI, or other methods aimed at sharpening for screen display would be acceptable as part of a usual correction workflow, but the "or similar" wording prompts this inquiry while we are working on the Colosseum image.

I would say that any use of the Unsharp Mask filter or anything that emulates it (as the Sharpen actions in PPW do) should be off limits. I assume that anything with “Sharpen” in its name is included.

Of course, we do several other things to our images that the MIT retouchers didn’t, but sharpening can make such a difference in quality at such a low cost in time that we ought to exclude it.

I will say that in the Veiled Bride and Cinque Terre images, the MIT retouchers by and large did a terrible job. That’s not the case with Colosseum, a couple of their efforts are likely competitive with ours.

Dan



Re: Cinque Terre: Techniques

Doug Schafer
 

Dan, does this "test" have any validity to tell me if I have over-saturated an image...by looking at this "test" layer?

When image seems done, add a solid color 50% gray (128,128,128) layer at top (or simply add a layer and fill with 50% gray), change the layer mode to 'luminosity' and observe:
Any bright colors are over-saturated? The brighter the more over-saturated?
Is this a true guide? Or just a hint of how to find colors to consider to reduce saturation.

Or is there a "number" in Lab. For example is anything in a or b greater than +or- 60 considered over-saturated (or some other number? and is the number different for different colors?) And how does brightness affect our choice of saturation? For example a darker color should be less saturated than the same color that is brighter...but by how much over the luminance scale? I'm thinking there might be a guide of saturation vs. brightness; for various items like you have shown for colors in the PPW panel colors help: greenery, skin, chocolate, sand, dirt, etc.

Doug Schafer


moderated Re: Case Study: Colosseum at Night

Robert Wheeler
 

Dan,
Although unsharp mask is not permitted, does the addition of "or similar" mean that all sharpening methods are prohibited? My presumption has been that unsharp mask allows flexibility in radius and amount that, when pushed hard, generate artistic effects beyond what we think of as sharpening. I have assumed that using either of the two sharpening actions from the PPW panel, Topaz Sharpen AI, or other methods aimed at sharpening for screen display would be acceptable as part of a usual correction workflow, but the "or similar" wording prompts this inquiry while we are working on the Colosseum image.

Thanks,

Robert Wheeler


Re: Cinque Terre: Techniques

Dan Margulis
 



On Jun 17, 2020, at 4:58 PM, k_d@... wrote:

I can easily tell those that are flat or pale vs. bold in contrast or color saturation, especially when compared to my effort "after the fact".
But that seems too late, except for learning, and learning seems to be a slow process.

I have found a few .atn "tests" for oversat on a grey layer...but not sure if any good; as results vary with different tests run. If color shows then probably it is over-saturated.
I have never found any good measure (except by eyeball experience), of "correct" or best contrast.

Dan, are there any checks we can make (like using histogram for checking black and white points), for checking contrast and saturation?

Since a histogram doesn’t know what the picture is about, it can’t offer an opinion on how much contrast or saturation is appropriate. A photograph of the city of Venice would have a histogram similar to one of the fake scenes of the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas, but these two scenes would need to be handled differently.

A histogram-related possibility that might actually be useful, although I don’t particularly endorse it:

Suppose you have a version of the village in Cinque Terre, and you wish to know whether you should try to add more pop to it.

1) Add a duplicate layer

2) Make a two-second, sweeping lasso selection of the interior of the village.

3) Image: Adjustments>Equalize

4) In the ensuing dialog, choose Equalize entire image based on selected area

5) Reduce layer opacity, remembering that this is only for investigation and no great precision is needed.

The ancient Equalize command was originally known as Equalize Histogram. That’s what it does: it spreads out the histogram in the selected area, which can be the equivalent of adding contrast to it.

This layer is almost certainly useless and should be discarded, but it may give you a hint that you should be trying harder.

Dan


Re: Niagara Spray--comments on individual versions.

Dan Margulis
 



On Jun 19, 2020, at 9:58 AM, Beat C <b.cornaz@...> wrote:

>> Doug wrote : 
>> So the suggestion is each person include how much time was spent fixing the image and include that time with the self process notes.

I like the idea very much.

I don’t think people are going to put a stopwatch on themselves and even if they did, many of us, including myself, would not be inclined to tell the truth under certain circumstances.

I’m not talking about my 2017 versions of the MIT study. The MIT retouchers had to do 5,000 images in a bit over a week. So I think they were limited to about three minutes apiece, So I was trying to do the same. It meant that I could not, for example, do a lot of messing around with the water in the Cinque Terre image.

OTOH, yesterday I did my version of the Colosseum and it took me about an hour because every time I tried to fix something another problem developed elsewhere. When I reviewed it this morning I said the New Jersey equivalent of “I CANNOT believe I am such a bonehead” and started again from scratch, this time taking about 15 minutes and coming fairly close to what I had done in three minutes in 2017, although somewhat better. As for the one I did yesterday, it is unusual for me to spend so much time on one and not be able at least to blend with it, but no, maybe I can give it to the cat. I will post it as a candidate to remind myself of the time I wasted on it.

Private comments from others, particularly the less experienced, often have this experience of wasting time on wild goose chases. They apparently are willing to admit this to me, but perhaps not to the list. I think it’s highly unlikely I would have mentioned my own experience if Doug hadn’t brought up the question of timing.

Anyhow, people can add this information if they like; if not, since I’m reporting what techniques they were using, we can stick to that.

Dan



Re: Niagara Spray--comments on individual versions.

Beat C
 

>> Doug wrote : 
>> So the suggestion is each person include how much time was spent fixing the image and include that time with the self process notes.

I like the idea very much.

Beat Cornaz


ACR 12.3: Do You Like It?

Dan Margulis
 

Rick sent this message to the old yahoogroups, apparently by mistake.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Rick Gordon <lists@...>
Subject: ACR 12.3: Do You Like It?
Date: June 19, 2020 at 4:08:47 AM EDT
To: Color Theory List <colortheory@...>


I just opened up Adobe Camera Raw to find that they've seriously — and in my opinion, horribly — mangled what had been a very nice interface.

Most notably, the panels are now all in vertical sequence, so that every panel is in a different part of the screen, while before, the active panel always originated from the same place on the screen, meaning that you have to move the cursor much more to do things.

They also moved the tools from a row on top to a column on the extreme right, and I don't like that as well either.

They also moved the slideshow from the left column to the bottom row, where they other pictures take up more space on the screen than before, but at least there is a preference for that. But no preference to return to the legacy layout, which I think was way better.

Looking at various comments on the web today, I'm seeing lots of other comments from people who are not at all happy with it; and Adobe is suggesting that they just don't use the current version, though of course, that comes with lost device support and loss of some other possibly good features (though I haven't experimented with them yet).

But I'm curious: Does anybody like what they did with 12.3?

___________________________________________
RICK GORDON
EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING
___________________________________________
WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com



Re: Niagara Spray--comments on individual versions.

Doug Schafer
 

Dan,
Something you might consider on furture image corrections. Simply an idea/suggestion:

I know you personally like to fix images in under 5 minutes. I spend way more time as I am slow, try stuff, and fix stuff....so an hour or two for me is normal and OK as I'm not in business for correcting images. Others may be like you or more like me???

So the suggestion is each person include how much time was spent fixing the image and include that time with the self process notes.

If included it will help sort proficiency/skill and results vs. time.
I fully appreciate anyone that can fix an image to 80-90% in under 5 minutes when I may be 85% in 2 hours.

Your choice, simply an idea.

Doug Schafer

1301 - 1320 of 33257