Friday, September 12, 2008

The Psychology of Color Management and Calibration

The cliche experience that many have had is watching a family member trying to master the color on the family TV set. The people-centric medium of TV makes us to look at images where the color being off becomes unbearable and unnatural because skin tones just look wrong. We all know what skin tones should look like so we are compelled to change the screen to make the skin tones look as we expect. It's natural to trust that the color being broadcast to your TV is correct, only changing the settings on the TV can make it right. Hopeful TV color experts twiddle the controls trying to achieve a vague balance that only they can, while everyone else sits idly looking on hoping thing would be alright soon, impatient with the technology, wondering why it can't just be right in the first place -- or if adjusting it is the thing that is screwing it up.

People are more apt to assume that what they see on their computer monitor is accurate when they pull it out of the box. Monitors are not constantly replete with skin tones that remind us that something may be off, as you spend considerable time using it for other activities like checking email or word-processing, which has nothing to do with skin tones at all. When a digital photographer sees a face, it might more often be in Photoshop, where they just change the color with tools in the program offered for that type of control. Regretfully, changing the color and trusting what you see in Photoshop and on your monitor can lead to martian prints and web postings of people in your images, and a quandary: why should color that looks correct in one place be off or plain wrong in another.

The answer is Color Management.

As they say, a little knowledge can be dangerous. Knowing enough to adjust the color in Photoshop doesn't turn out to be enough to make the color right. While some will come to the conclusion that the poor results have something to do with color management, just what they need to do to work with color management is less clear. They may revert to familiar territory and seek out the computer's brightness, contrast and color controls figuring this is how they have to make adjustments fiddling like you might do with a TV. They might get close and even get lucky with this method, but generally nothing could be worse. Adjustments made with the monitor controls as a means of color management end up being a best guess at what everything should look like on screen, and a compromise much like the TV expert's attempts at balancing RGB with the primitive TV controls. Guessing is not a good approach to color.

Some may go a little further and read a few web postings that have to do with adjusting color on their monitor, and these will range from the incorrect to the absurdly simple to the horribly technical ones that you are not quite sure are written in English. Naturally, the TV-color-minded inclination that "it is just color, how complicated could it be..." pushes people more toward accepting the absurdly simple and incorrect approaches. Some may take it a step further to seek out help from an expert (who may be anyone from a well-respected authority in Photoshop or color management to a neighbor who knows "a bunch about computers"). Regretfully the better answers (like the book Real World Color Management by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting, a 500+ page book) may be long and involved and daunting from the outset. On the other hand, getting the color right doesn't require getting a college degree in the subject, and such extensive study may be unnecessary for common folk, who, after all, just want the right color.

Those who want the right color without the doctorate end up taking suggestions from friends or people on forums, or look for the 'right' way to set up their color management. Truth be told, there is not one right way: more than one method will work. In fact, any method of color management that makes sense will work...but the other side of the coin is: the same color management scheme just doesn't work for everyone, and some will work better than others. The best way to get the color right and pick an applicable color management scheme, is, in my opinion, understanding the shorthand version of what you want to achieve and applying the simplest steps possible to get there.

The basics of color management requires:

  • Calibrating your monitor
  • Creating an ICC profile (usually part of step 1)
  • Setting up color management in Photoshop or Elements (and perhaps other programs) correctly
  • Setting up previews/screen proofing that make sense (Photoshop, not Elements)
  • Applying appropriate color tagging to your images

If you neglect any one of these, you are gambling with your color results, plain and simple. If you do a few and not the others, you are not necessarily any better off than doing none at all. More frustrating, if you don't do them all, things may work sometimes, and not others, and you'll never be able to tell why. But attack each of these components with the intent to know why they are important, how they apply, and how to apply them, and you'll have the skeleton of color management, which is enough to hang your color on. You get skin on your skeleton when you define the purpose of what you are trying to achieve. Do you print to the same printer all the time? Do you print to many? Do you post images to the web exclusively? Do you print and post? Do images all come from the same camera? Do you have many sources of images (multiple cameras, images from friends, clients, etc.)? All these questions filter into your color management choice.

This is not the first time I've mentioned color management in my blog, and it won't be the last. Here are some other Color Management entries:


These additional resources should give you some background on making better color management choices.

For more info on approaching color management seriously, I have a 4 week primer course at betterphoto.com called From Monitor to Print that will work you through these 5 essentials, and test your results, making you color competent in a short amount of time with the least amount of work. You'll want to look into good calibration tools like the ColorVision Spyder (by the way, I posted an article on 9.11.08 about using the ColorVision Spyder Express to calibrate a dual monitor system -- which the manufacturer says is impossible). You can also simplify your color life by finding a system and sticking to it (don't change printers, papers, profiles, inks, or services without a plan).

Competent color handling is more than just calibration, but don't get psyched out. Make the effort to know what to do, and you can put it safely behind you.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 21, 2008

The Photoshop Options You Should Never Use

Amongst the plethora of screens and functions and the thousands and thousands of options that you have in Photoshop and Elements for correcting, changing and composing your images, there are some options, features and functions you should never use. It might seem inconceivable that Adobe would put options you shouldn’t use in the program, but they are there, and some of them are named to sound downright savory. These features lurk in the user interface, and users make the same mistakes over and over by using them. The features and functions that you shouldn’t use span every nook and cranny of the program, from opening your images, to correcting, through saving/printing. Users apply them again and again until they learn what these features and functions are and to avoid them because of the damage they do to their images.

The list of features is tremendously long spanning all versions of Photoshop and Elements. Instead of listing all the features, let me simplify the list by making a few generalizations:

  • Don’t ever apply features just because they appear on a dialog and you feel obligated to move a slider or click a button.
  • Don’t ever apply features that don’t improve your image or your vision for it.
  • Don’t ever apply the features you have not experimented with enough to know how to apply with predictable results.

The crust of this biscuit is simply: don’t feel obligated to use features just because they appear on screen and in the program or ‘sound good’. What you should use are the features and functions (and buttons) that make sense, fit your workflow, and improve your images. Features that ‘make sense’ means that you know what the features do before you apply them to finish images, and not that you ‘click-and-pray’.

For example say you open the Levels dialog — which is an imperative tool for image correction. Once the dialog opens, you could click the Auto button. You could also click the White Point, Black Point and Gray balance eyedroppers and apply those — some tutorials may even suggest it. But, even if your image seems to improve on your screen, you may not be doing the image integrity any favors. The fact is that even brilliant features used incorrectly can run counter to what you really want to do for an image or even ruin it. It may be easy to go the fast way and click an Auto button, and it may produce pleasing results at a glance, but it can also compromise your images. And what is the biggest objection to applying things the right way? People want it quicker, and they will ultimately accept speed while sacrificing quality…For my images, it is unacceptable to sacrifice quality to save a few moments. It doesn’t make sense to spend lots of time to learn how to take the best pictures, lots of money to get good equipment, and toss away the quality of the images you captured because you can’t be bothered to spend time getting the corrections right.

Tools you shouldn’t use include those that might damage your images, as well as those you simply don’t know well enough to apply. That is, the list of tools you shouldn’t use is virtually different for every Photoshop user based on their level of experience and what they know. The list will change as you learn and gain experience with the program.

Regretfully learning the tools takes time. However, you can use your time learning more efficiently and cut time from experimentation and exploration. The first thing to do: make a short list of tools you know you should explore. Just start listing those you think you should know better. Don’t list more than 30. Make them tools that you think are important (you may find out otherwise). Next set aside a time — 15 or 20 minutes a day — to explore those features/functions. Plan to explore just one tool a day for as many days as there are tools on the list. To begin your exploration, learn the basics of any feature using the Help materials provided by Adobe. The information there will tell you the way the function was designed to perform and how to apply it. This is a useful starting point: you’ll find out how a feature is applied. Help will tell you little or nothing about the best way to use a feature. Reading up shouldn’t take more than 5 minutes.

Next try applying the feature/function on an image according to the instructions to see how it behaves in practice. Try to give it a workout using all the possibilities you can think of. Apply it to several different images. Spend between 10 and 15 minutes ‘playing’ with the tool. That should serve as your introduction, and you will probably learn a few things you didn’t know before. However, you’ve probably learned just enough to be dangerous…you may be able to apply the tool, but that may not tell you what it really does and why it works, and that can affect how you use it productively.

To learn proven techniques for the best way to apply features, may take a lot more effort, and sometimes weeks, months or even years of study, depending on the complexity of what you are trying to accomplish. It is the kind of time that not everyone can dedicate to learning. Sampling tutorials found on the web may be helpful, but choosing the right tutorials can be tricky and may not be cohesive with a holistic approach to image editing. Some tutorials may actually contradict one another, and it will be hard to sort the good tutorials from the bad, and the harmful. Beware of tricks and tips that you can’t get to work on images other than those used in the tutorial. Even some books that promise quick results or that are a series of effects may never do much to improve your process with image editing. A scattered approach that does not rely on solid process may prove more confusing than helpful. Many tutorials may be well-meaning, written by people who are excited about sharing their new-found successes. However, good intent doesn’t make for a good tutorial — and it may be that what you apply can harm your images…and it may be difficult to tell the difference.

Consulting books and courses by experts in the field, designed to get you up to speed, can save you time and effort. An expert’s years of experience can go to work for you by helping you steer toward the best features and how to use them — saving time in exploring the program. Just as you would invest in your camera or additional equipment like lenses, invest in yourself to gain the skills you need to make the best images…don’t expect the equipment or the program to do-it-for-you (you may want to read my blog about “magic tools”).

So, do yourself a favor and start a list of tools you shouldn’t use today, before you damage another image. Stop oogling at tools that sound like the solution to all your problems, and learn about yourself and what you really need to know. Focus on those that you know and that you can use productively to make your images better. I’d be glad to hear which tools are on your lists, and happy to help you answer your questions about them!

PS — There have been some changes and updates on the hiddenelements.com and photoshopcs.com layers websites that you may want to check out…with more to come. I added some elements 6 materials to hiddenelements.com and a switch to php page building so the site will be easier for me to maintain. I also added some materials to fill out the ‘under construction’ pages on the photoshopcs.com site. I look forward to hearing from visitors about the changes.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 27, 2008

What Makes a Good Photo?

A topic that comes up again and again in my classes and presentations in one form or another is "What makes a good photo?" There is no simple answer.

However, there are pure, simple facts of what comprises good photography. Good photography takes into account many things: lighting/shadow, composition, exposure, subject, story, color, contrasts, sharpness, depth of field, and more -- often intangible -- things. A good photo is one with great orchestration of the facets of photography, that ends in a pleasing image. Likely there is a little bit of luck tossed into our salad of preparation, positioning and equipment.

There are no bonus points for dangling from helicopters except in that it may offer the right perspective. A great moment, whether captured of a penned animal or one in the wild, is still a great shot. Whether they look while standing knee deep in mud or sitting in a plush armchair, the final image is what the viewer sees...no less or more because of the subject or how it was captured. Passion for a subject should be evident in the photography of it.

There is no one philosophy that will capture a great image, but any great image will encompass all these things. I think the ideals are reinforced by the perceptions of Ansel Adams, and I have collected a few of his attributed comments here:

Mr. Adams on a good photograph:
  • A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
  • A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed.
  • A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words.

On the rules for making a good photograph:
  • There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.

On luck in making photos:
  • Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter.

On perspective of observing photos:
  • A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into.
  • There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.

On how to take an image:
  • To photograph truthfully and effectively is to see beneath the surfaces and record the qualities of nature and humanity which live or are latent in all things.

On photography and the creative spirit:
  • No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.


To me, wherever there are opportunities, I am glad to share the joy of photography, at whatever level...photographs need not be marred by griping discussion for what an image could have been, if only...Shots can be satisfactory as an amateur or professional, and only your own expectations of what is good will change. Images can be explored in greater depth and improved in image processing to bring out more -- as Adams often did himself as an artisan in the wet darkroom, which today we can all explore without chemicals using Adobe Photoshop or Photoshop Elements.

As you explore your photography on whatever level, and as your skills develop, enjoy it for what it is. Enjoy a sense of accomplishment in how you improve or improve your images, and your skills. Resist the urge to be overly critical and poison the water that keeps your interest in images and photography growing.

A good photo is always the one you are about to take, and it can be better for what you learned from the experience you gain as you shoot.


Improve your photography with post-processing using Adobe Photoshop and Photoshop Elements. Richard's Photoshop Courses can help you get more out of your images and your investment in Photoshop and Photoshop Elements.

Labels: , , , ,