Lesley Jones
Otherwise know as Zooey
So... is there such a thing and how much does it cost in terms of software, time and memory? Until recently I was a total novice in terms of editing. Some kind soul at work gave me a free CD off the front of a magazine to get me started. It was something like Elements 2.0 Lite and I used it for a while to enter photographs in our fortnightly newsgroup competitions. Then my husband bought me Elements 3.0 and later I upgraded to Elements 6.0, which I used until Christmas last year.
Until about two years ago, I couldn't get my head around layers and made all changes on the background layer, so when you see me say in here that I have to re-scan a negative, you know why. Then I moved on to having adjustment layers for levels and hue/saturation. About a year ago the penny dropped and I finally figured out how to paint in adjustments using a mask. I still don't use any selection tool and I don't think I ever will.
Move forward to last October and a three day trip to Yorkshire where I finally got the chance at some "proper" landscapes...
... and banding in the sky.
It seemed as though working in 8 bit was the problem, so I bit the bullet and bought myself CS5. Now seeing as I only used about 5% of Elements, I probably use 1% of full Photoshop. It did get me on the ladder though, but I don't intend to upgrade. Ever. Not at those prices!
My husband bought me a Martin Evening book for Christmas and I spent the entire holiday browsing from one end to the other. I know a bit more, but I also know there is a whole lot more that will forever remain a mystery. At least I won't have banding in the sky again.
My thoughts on the title of this thread are that I don't like it. I mean... you can use such a workflow to totally trash an image and you can edit carefully on the background layer and not block or blow a single pixel. I would rather think of it as liquid editing. I think I now have total "editability", but it costs a lot in memory. I don't shoot a lot - my A700 is now four years old and I think I am up to image 1,350 or something like that. So for me, file size isn't a huge problem, but I do worry when my images creep over 350 Mb. Some are over 400 Mb.
Perhaps I shouldn't detail my workflow because apart from that book (which said nothing on the subject), I don't have time to research anywhere else. I may be doing it totally wrong, but it seems to work for me. In an effort to spark a bit of debate and maybe help a few of us learn something in the process, this is what I do:
RAW processing with presets for lens correction, removal of sharpening and removal of noise. My eyesight is very poor, so I took settings from the book and went with that. Unless I need another exposure to fix blown highlights, I do very little in RAW and certainly no graduated filters. Just white balance, a little mid tone contrast and nothing blocked or blown. File saved as DNG.
File opened in CS5 and pre-sharpening done with Photokit. This creates such a huge file that I merge down. It seems pointless having the ability to go back and change this one.
Then I convert the layer to a smart object and the file size shoots up alarmingly. No matter though - you can then add multiple filters without increasing the file size more than a few Kb.
To edit pixels, I right click on the new smart object and edit. This gives me another tab which is a PSB file. Then I create a transparent layer and make the pixel changes on that. Closing the tab gives you the option to save.
I rarely crop, but sometimes I shave off a small amount to remove any distraction. It took me ages to use the crop tool properly as I didn't realise it cropped AND resized. Is it just me, or is this just wrong? Anyway... crop tool with ratios set for 35mm format and the resolution box blank - this won't resize the image. I hide the unwanted area so I can go back if I wish.
At this point I would correct any issues with the horizon. Again - this can be adjusted later if necessary.
I don't do a huge amount with filters - I tend to stick with the ones that allow you to play with light, so graduated neutral density, darken/lighten and sometimes the reflectors in either gold or silver. At the end I sometimes add a tonal contrast filter. Each one remains editable under the smart object and the individual control points can be changed as well. I like control points.
Then I will add adjustment layers - levels and hue/saturation. Rarely I will make other adjustments and apply them to selected parts with a mask.
At this point I am probably done. (Please forgive any errors as I'm not doing this in front of Photoshop). The cost of software to enable smart objects is high, but there are other benefits and I'm glad I made the move. It can be fairly time consuming, but as I don't shoot a lot, I edit even less and it gives me a chance to unwind in the evenings. File size is still horrendous though and I save as a PSD (there may be issues with this - does anyone have any thoughts?)
How does your workflow compare?
Until about two years ago, I couldn't get my head around layers and made all changes on the background layer, so when you see me say in here that I have to re-scan a negative, you know why. Then I moved on to having adjustment layers for levels and hue/saturation. About a year ago the penny dropped and I finally figured out how to paint in adjustments using a mask. I still don't use any selection tool and I don't think I ever will.
Move forward to last October and a three day trip to Yorkshire where I finally got the chance at some "proper" landscapes...
... and banding in the sky.
It seemed as though working in 8 bit was the problem, so I bit the bullet and bought myself CS5. Now seeing as I only used about 5% of Elements, I probably use 1% of full Photoshop. It did get me on the ladder though, but I don't intend to upgrade. Ever. Not at those prices!My husband bought me a Martin Evening book for Christmas and I spent the entire holiday browsing from one end to the other. I know a bit more, but I also know there is a whole lot more that will forever remain a mystery. At least I won't have banding in the sky again.
My thoughts on the title of this thread are that I don't like it. I mean... you can use such a workflow to totally trash an image and you can edit carefully on the background layer and not block or blow a single pixel. I would rather think of it as liquid editing. I think I now have total "editability", but it costs a lot in memory. I don't shoot a lot - my A700 is now four years old and I think I am up to image 1,350 or something like that. So for me, file size isn't a huge problem, but I do worry when my images creep over 350 Mb. Some are over 400 Mb.
Perhaps I shouldn't detail my workflow because apart from that book (which said nothing on the subject), I don't have time to research anywhere else. I may be doing it totally wrong, but it seems to work for me. In an effort to spark a bit of debate and maybe help a few of us learn something in the process, this is what I do:
RAW processing with presets for lens correction, removal of sharpening and removal of noise. My eyesight is very poor, so I took settings from the book and went with that. Unless I need another exposure to fix blown highlights, I do very little in RAW and certainly no graduated filters. Just white balance, a little mid tone contrast and nothing blocked or blown. File saved as DNG.
File opened in CS5 and pre-sharpening done with Photokit. This creates such a huge file that I merge down. It seems pointless having the ability to go back and change this one.
Then I convert the layer to a smart object and the file size shoots up alarmingly. No matter though - you can then add multiple filters without increasing the file size more than a few Kb.
To edit pixels, I right click on the new smart object and edit. This gives me another tab which is a PSB file. Then I create a transparent layer and make the pixel changes on that. Closing the tab gives you the option to save.
I rarely crop, but sometimes I shave off a small amount to remove any distraction. It took me ages to use the crop tool properly as I didn't realise it cropped AND resized. Is it just me, or is this just wrong? Anyway... crop tool with ratios set for 35mm format and the resolution box blank - this won't resize the image. I hide the unwanted area so I can go back if I wish.
At this point I would correct any issues with the horizon. Again - this can be adjusted later if necessary.
I don't do a huge amount with filters - I tend to stick with the ones that allow you to play with light, so graduated neutral density, darken/lighten and sometimes the reflectors in either gold or silver. At the end I sometimes add a tonal contrast filter. Each one remains editable under the smart object and the individual control points can be changed as well. I like control points.
Then I will add adjustment layers - levels and hue/saturation. Rarely I will make other adjustments and apply them to selected parts with a mask.
At this point I am probably done. (Please forgive any errors as I'm not doing this in front of Photoshop). The cost of software to enable smart objects is high, but there are other benefits and I'm glad I made the move. It can be fairly time consuming, but as I don't shoot a lot, I edit even less and it gives me a chance to unwind in the evenings. File size is still horrendous though and I save as a PSD (there may be issues with this - does anyone have any thoughts?)
How does your workflow compare?
