Focus on Fundamentals: Recommendations for Photoshop Training

> I've been involved in photography for many years.
> I've been shooting digital, but it's time to learn
> Photoshop. Can you recommend a good training or tutoring
> program, CD, book or DVD?

That question leaves the door wide-open to plugging my own wares, but I think it would be more useful to step back and think about what you are really looking for as a serious beginner trying to learn Photoshop or even Elements.

As a beginner, you want to get to understanding what you are doing with Photoshop and get up to speed by the quickest path possible. The desire to get things done quickly and make leaps in progress is an attractive goal, and because it is what users think they want, it drives the market for learning materials that are created. That has led to an abundance of learning resources that promise to make it easy, yet a dearth of good information. Materials that want to win the reader as a friend and up painting a rosy picture, fill out the content with fluff and humor that are easy to read, trumpeting how easy it is to improve your images. Ultimately, these soft texts and programs offer very little but a handful of quick tips, a few sloppy tricks, deflated wow and the failed promise of learning it all fast.

Regretfully, you'll find that just about all of this advertising is a gimmick. Titles like "Learn Photoshop in a Day" lure in readers with a promise, reveal the 'gimmick' ("...using 24 one-hour lessons!"), and then fail to provide anything of real substance. On the other hand, titles like "Suffering for Photoshop" or "Difficult Methods for Pretty Pictures" won't tend to attract readers, and optimally the hope is that Photoshop should be easy to learn. But the whole premise of learning something as complex as Photoshop in such a small amount of time is absurd. If you are learning a lighter mood may make you comfortable in the new terrain, but what you don't need are materials that are entertaining (presentation without substance), materials that just repeat the Help menu, materials you can get for free if you poked around the internet, and materials that ultimately leave you with no sense of what to do with your images -- and fail to give you a good idea how to work with images intelligently and safely. "Just trust me" is a favored line, for example, of one well-know Photoshop author when it comes to color management suggestions, and the somewhat sour advice offered routinely causes more problems than it cures. It is quick and easy, but ultimately harmful and wrong.

From my perspective, the best place to start as a beginner is with solid fundamentals:

* An introduction to navigating the interface and setup (including some basics of color management)
* A plan for handling images once they come off the camera (proper ideas of file types, sizing, and storage)
* A background on the tools you need to work with day-to-day
* A plan for working with every image you encounter
* An idea of what you want to accomplish

This may not be the most exciting list if you need to experience learning like it is a carnival ride, but it is terribly practical and gives you a solid foundation to build on and expand from. Know where to find tools and navigate and you will have a sense of comfort. Handle images correctly and you can experiment and learn without causing your source images harm and store them safely and efficiently. Find out what tools to use every day will help you avoid those that can cause damage to your images while using those that are most efficient. Define an outline to follow and you take decided steps forward rather than ambling randomly from one technique to the next experimenting and wasting time hoping something fabulous happens during click-and-pray. Practical, refined methodology yields the best and most consistent results.

Resources for learning are numerous. Some people will learn best from books or DVDs or even online courses and tutorials. I would suggest that you take a wide approach and use a variety of resources. First, don't neglect Adobe's Help. It is a great free resource for learning about individual functions and features and how to apply them that comes with the program. Tutorials online are hit-or-miss depending on the source, and many of them contain information that is harmful to your images -- take them all with a grain of salt. You'll have to weed through them. But truth be told many of those same harmful techniques were duplicated from the all-too-common Books and DVDs that contain unfortunatate misunderstandings and misinformation, and were compiled by marketers or other opportunists who saw the huge market for Photoshop and image editing training. That is, many materials are compiled by professional trainers and professional writers rather than people with real day-to-day experience in image editing.

Online courses come in many types...from those that have lessons sent out without any ability to interact with the instructors to those that offer full access to industry experts (see betterphoto.com). Of course those range in price accordingly. The advantage of the latter is being able to actually interact with the expert teaching the course (rather than just having their picture on it) and get explanations and answers to your questions. In this day, even books and DVDs have the opportunity to offer online areas for Q&A, and very few do. I think readers should have access to authors (as I have offered for all my books since the first one), and those who don't offer that are essentially refusing to support their materials. (see my open forum for my new layers book: http://photoshopcs.com/forum)

Some disagree that you should ever need training, and that the best method for learning Photoshop is to simply get in and play. That is valiant, and if you have infinite time, this may be a viable option. If you can't afford books, DVDs or other training, then it certainly makes sense. But as the only resource of learning, unguided exploration of such a vast program is penny wise and pound foolish. Why learn about tools you won't ever need for image editing? Why waste time learning to apply features that harm your images? And how do you grow to understand the theory behind the tools by just the click-and-pray method of discovery? It will be hugely time consuming and very costly in its own right. Having been one who learned Photoshop when there were no books, and no experts, it took many times longer than it could have to get up to speed. These days there is the opportunity to ride on the experience of those who have spent time figuring out what is really important. There is something to be said of apprenticeship in learning any trade. Making an investment in formal materials should at least supplement any 'learn as the wind blows' mentality if images and image editing are important to you. I do think you will retain a lot more by jumping in and experiencing the pain of learning...but I also think base fundamentals can stop you from getting burned.

Focus on fundamentals from the outset rather than tips, tricks and 'wow' can form a net of safety for your experimentation. For example, I had a self-taught student that thought they knew a lot about Photoshop, and found out in my course that her routine for the past 3 years of image editing had been systematically ruining her images. She resized all images smaller and saved as JPEG to save space as soon as the images came off the camera, and resaved over the originals when she edited. That original source for her vacations, memories and other photography had been compromised, and potential detail permanently lost. It is not simply wasting time at that point, but obliteration of years of photographic work -- as sad as losing photos on a crashed drive, and with no options to even do it all over again. The student's predicament was a tragedy, but there was no way to reverse it...and she is not the only one. It could have been different had she learned her fundamentals first.

Puttering has its place and is very important to learning, exploring, and confidence...but it is a single avenue that can also lead to misconception and disaster. Certain practical, fundamental things are just not intuitive and learning to deal with them can save hundreds of hours of frustration, or even catastrophic loss. Whatever the source you use to get off on the right foot, exploring and experimentation is best done in concert with learning fundamentals.

I hope that helps!

Richard Lynch

The Adobe Photoshop Layers Book for CS4 was just released in mid-March ('09)! Get it on Amazon: http://aps8.com/taplbcs4.html. The book has 60 new pages of material, including a section on making manual HDR conversion the layers way. All of the exercises and materials have been reviewed and updated. That said, techniques aim at being timeless and accessible for many versions of Photoshop and Elements as well. This is a book for the serious-minded.

For those looking to learn Photoshop fundamentals, I teach a Photoshop 101 course at betterphoto.com recently updated for CS4 and Elements 7 (Photoshop 101: the Photoshop Essentials Primer). The course covers my outline of fundamentals from the bulleted list above and helps get you started enjoying and experiencing the program without the frustration and potential disasters. Betterphoto courses allow interaction with the instructor as well as other classmates.

What Color Space Do I Use (Part 2)

[Continued from Part 1]
In the previous entry in this blog, I discussed some of the theory involved in choosing a color space. Let's look at my current workflow as an example.

My Choices
I choose to use an AdobeRGB (camera)>sRGB (convert to sRGB in Photoshop)>sRGB (add an sRGB profile to send to print) workflow for what I believe are sensible reasons based on my long experience in digital imaging.

I capture in AdobeRGB for a few reasons:

*I have a high-bit digital image sensor that captures at least 12-bits -- or 16 times the number of colors captured in 8-bit images. With 16 times the number of colors as 8-bit, most or all of the 8-bit sRGB colors will be captured If a few are not, I’ll never know.
*The added range may come in handy at some point when technology becomes enhanced and if not, conversion to 8-bit RGB for output should not create much unusable color.

On the other hand, I work in sRGB as a working space for several reasons:

*I like the concept of working with color in ranges that can be properly displayed on my monitor.
*I seldom output to CMYK, but instead use light-process (LED/color laser) printing.
*The process and service I use all the time requests sRGB files, and tests with AdobeRGB have proven the service’s request to be right--for this closed system.
*sRGB is a broadly-used 'default' color standard, that even in systems where profiling fails to make a good translation, the results are within a predictable range. AdobeRGB images where the profile is dropped will usually desaturate drastically. I don't want that problem for the small potential benefit.
*I am not sure that I can define it as a benefit when "better images" would mean NOT matching what I see on screen...I'd have to define it as luck.

I print to light process as it is more efficient than using ink, and the results are closer to what I see on my monitor, as well as more durable.

My closed process (closed, meaning I just about always do the same thing) ending with a need for RGB dictates most of the rest of the workflow, and my decided preference for seeing all the color I work on, solidifies the outline. One of the keys to any successful workflow is testing, which means taking an image and trying to process it both ways, and seeing if the result is better either way. "Better" to me can only be defined by the ability to match the screen...and that really eliminates AdobeRGB as a benefit, as if I can't see the colors that Adobe RGB can produce, any benefit of additional color – beyond what I see on screen -- would naturally not match.

All that said, if you are more adventurous than me and don't mind working on color that you will not see on your monitor, an AdobeRGB workflow may be adopted and used with success mostly in a closed workflow where results go to a CMYK printer. However, should the AdobeRGB workflow be adopted, you will need to be diligent about following the process and being sure the profiles are not dropped, or the result will be a sometimes serious desaturation and compression of dynamic range. This happens because when a profile is dropped (or if it is not included on save), devices will likely assume an sRGB profile, or something very close, and remap the colors in the image: the 'broader' range of colors is mashed down into the 'smaller' space and the result is less impressive than just starting with sRGB and sticking with it. Also, images with AdobeRGB profiles posted to the web either using browsers that do not recognize profiles, or which drop profiles as part of processing will result in the same desaturation and loss of dynamic range.

Why Do I choose This?
My conclusion to this point is that I can certainly get an AdobeRGB workflow to produce results, but I am not convinced that these are 'better' – and I am not convinced that the added risk of color trouble is worth the potential gain. AdobeRGB images may be brighter in print, and in some cases may show a difference, but that surprise may not be accurate in the sense that what you see on your monitor is NOT what you get in print. Things may change in the future, but now, with the broad popularity of the RGB workflow (having shifted with the advent of digital cameras and inkjet printing conversions), sRGB seems a more stable and reliable flow. That may change at some time in the future.

Your Choices
If you have read all the way through this entry and the last, hopefully the sense of this comes through. You can get results with either color space –- or other color spaces not mentioned. But what you choose to use needs to make sense to you, to where your images originate, the processes you choose, and those choices need to blend with your workflow rather than being considered as independent. My considered opinion is that my workflow is best –- for ME. Yours may be different, but hopefully you have made your choices for good reason. If you have not calibrated your monitor, have no real concept of how to make the best corrections to your images, and don’t make other sensible choices in your digital imaging, don’t be quick to blame your color space. There is more to making good images than choosing a color space.

Those are all considerations for a latter blog entry.

Postscript
If you have enjoyed this entry or found it useful, you might like my new book The Adobe Photoshop Layers Book. It will be out in July of 2007!

What Color Space Do I Use? (Part 1)

Question:
I've been trying to come to terms with color management and working color space. What color space do you use, and which is best?

Answer:
Short Answer: I use sRGB. There is not really a 'best' color space, though I find sRGB best and most consistent for what I do.

Color spaces are confusing to most people, and become a heady topic for debate. It is good to know at least the basics before making a choice between which to use. I have my preferences after 15 years of working with digital color, and they have changed with the technology...but let's look at some concepts. In part two of this entry, I'll add in a discussion of why I choose the color management settings that I do.

The "Best" Way...
Working color spaces have trade-offs and advantages, or there wouldn't be choices. If there were a 'best way' to handle color it would likely be handled automatically (e.g., Adobe would put best practices in place programmatically). I consider sRGB as a "realist" color space. It is based on standard monitor display--you deal with colors that can be safely seen on screen (16 million of them in 8-bit). AdobeRGB portends to make color that is better apt for printing--it extends beyond the model of colors you can safely see on your monitor to map colors available in print that are not 'seen' on a monitor (also 16-million in 8-bit). The fallback of sRGB is that it doesn't have a representation of a broader color set. AdobeRGB is said to have a 'broader' color model, but most people don't know what that means: to me it means the set number of colors is mapped differently--not that there are more or even necessarily 'better' colors. People do a LOT of arguing about the potential advantages of using either sRGB or AdobeRGB as a working color space.

In a perfectly theoretical arena, you'd want to work with images in optimal conditions: colors that you would be able to see on screen would readily translate into print. There-in lies the rub. RGB and CMYK reproduce different color sets. RGB is color theory based on light where red, green and blue make up all the potential colors on your monitor; CMYK is color theory based on ABSORPTION of light, as inks of cyan, magenta, yellow and black that represent all colors in print. While slightly over-simplifying here, RGB favors reds, greens and blues to the slight failing in representation of cyan, magenta and yellow. CMYK favors cyan, magenta and yellow with a failure in being able to represent the brightest reds, greens and blues. Though CMYK has an additional 'color' (black), it does not add representation to the theoretical space: black is added to compensate for the inability of ink to be perfectly efficient in absorption...black helps compensate the CMY model so that it will have a full dynamic range. Such things as the physical properties of the ink, paper, and available light will contribute to the lack of perfect performance in ink absorption. All this really means is: the colors represented by CMYK and RGB are different, and what you see on your monitor is not the same as what printing in CMYK can represent.

Making Compensation
There are all sorts of ways that technology tries to compensate for the difference, such as providing printers with additional colors, or allowing translation using color mappings and embedded profiles. Adobe claims that AdobeRGB is a better model in representing the potential of CMYK, because it maps to more CMYK colors than sRGB. It is generally argued that AdobeRGB is more geared to printing images because of its mapping to print colors and that sRGB is better on screen based on its mapping for colors associated with monitor display. The idea is intreguing, in that the color sets promise to allow you to do more direct correction of assoviated colors optimized for a particular use. Yet the reality is, just like RGB and CMYK have different colors, you can't see AdobeRGB color with reliability on an RGB screen...it becomes a conundrum. One solution used to lie in converting to CMYK and that works for those doing certain types of printing, but is really not as helpful for most people who just send images to a service, or run them out on a home inkjet.

There are practice of using color profiles (and embedding them in your images) helps describe the color in an image to different devices, acting like a type of translator. If you work in a color space and place a profile in your image, the THEORY is that you will be able to send that file to other devices (printers, monitors) that will recognize the color mapping and interpret it correctly. Once the device can interpret the color, in theory it shouldn't matter what color space it is in: If the colors can be translated and interpreted, the results should have a reasonable chance of matching.

The problem becomes defining what is supposed to be matched. If you are in sRGB, and you match what it looks like on screen, that may make sense, but using Adobe RGB if you match what is on screen you aren't taking advantage of the broader color space; if you match what is not on screen, you can't ever see what you are adjusting. But the problems just start there whether you use sRGB or AdobeRGB. Add to the problem the fact that not everything prints as CMYK. If AdobeRGB gives you better CMYK and you print to a light process or display images on the web, it may not really offer an advantage. Another issue is the reality that color management theory doesn't always work in the real world: profiles can get dropped (intentionally or not) or remain unused by devices. When you consider the world might not be perfect, you have a better picture of the real mess and why color management becomes such an issue for debate. One person swears by how they achieved success in their workflow and another opposes as they achieved success a completely different way. The fact is that they may both be right, either for the right or wrong reasons.

And the Answer Is?
So the answer to the question of whether you should use one working space or another is: either sRGB or AdobeRGB can work...but you need to accept the advantages and disadvantages of either workflow. Which will work better for you may be answered by taking a look at your workflow as an entire process. That is, based on how you work with images, your choices for what is best in adopting a workflow should be based on what you do with images, rather than what someone else does--whether or not they do it with success. In the next entry we'll look at the workflow I use and why I've made the choices I have to give you a peek into a considered workflow.

POSTSCRIPT
I've just finished writing my new book The Adobe Photoshop Layers Book. It will be out in July of 2007.

What Do I Do With Photoshop?

Question:
I am fairly new to Photoshop, but rarely use it because I don't know what to do with an image. In your last blog entry you mentioned having a 'workflow'. I guess you mean by that a process to follow when editing images. Can you tell me what I'm supposed to do?

Answer:
Short Answer: Yes. Have a workflow and use it with every image.

Working with images isn't random. You shouldn't just fiddle with some filters and auto-corrections and hope to suddenly stumble on something to make your images look good. What you really want to do is outline a process to follow so you are sure your images will look their best every time.

A good workflow takes setup into account as well as image correction.

1. Calibrate your monitor, create an ICC profile, and make color management decisions
   
2. Store your original images safely
   
3. Evaluate the image (composition color and tone) to develop a list of things to correct (in steps 4-8)
   
4. Make general color and tone corrections
   
5. Make small damage corrections (dust, etc.)
   
6. Make composition changes (cropping, replacing, removing objects...other 'heroic' measures)
   
7. Make targeted color and tone corrections.
   
8. Add enhancements (soft-focus, sharpening, etc.)
   
9. Save the working/layered version of the working image
   
10. Save a purposed/final image for output/use
    

Even long-term users of Photoshop may not have a sensible workflow in place, but the fact is that it can save tons of time and account for consistent results.If asked which is the most important of the 10 items above...I'd have to say you need every one of them to get the most out of your images. If you are missing any of them, you'll want to consider adding them to your workflow.

• Calibration and color mangement decisions can greatly affect your outcome
  
• Storing your images is essential to ward off data loss
  
• Evaluating an image tells you what to do and keeps you on track with corrections
  
• Having an order to your corrections helps you correct logically so you aren't taking on the wrong issue at the wrong time (color correcting a hat that is the wrong color before color correcting the whole image makes no sense)
  
• Storing your layered work can save tons of time in making later changes or enhancements
  
• Saving your final image separately allows you to make the best image for any purpose (e.g., a downsized JPEG for the Web, a full-sized EPS or TIFF for print)

With a workflow established, you'll never be puzzled about what to do with your images and you'll be ready to explore them the same way every time, checking over your list so nothing gets missed.

I teach a course on betterphoto.com that will help with workflow issues. It is called From Monitor To Print, and helps you establish a full workflow, covering all 10 items in the list. You can find the course here:
http://www.betterphoto.com/photocourses/RIC01.asp

If you are simply uncomfortable with Photoshop, you may need even more basic help, which I can provide in my Photoshop 101 course, found here:
http://www.betterphoto.com/photocourses/RIC03.asp

But whether you take a course or not, take notes on what you want to do and establish a workflow. It will save you time, and probably money as well!

Learning Photoshop

Question:
What is the best way to learn Photoshop?

Answer:
Short answer: There is not one 'best way'.

Many people are daunted by trying to learn Photoshop. There are hundreds of tools and infinite possibilities. Infinite. You can pick an image and do anything with it...even create an entirely different scene. But the point of working with images would seem to be to improve what you have taken, and not to turn a picture of a cat into an elephant (by applying the "turn this into an Elephant" filter, of course!). Most people will not expect to accomplish such transmogrification, and what would be the point when you could make the result simpler with a visit to the local zoo?

One of the reasons users find Photoshop daunting is that they try to learn too much—or even all of it—at once. A better approach for most people will be to learn a-tool-at-a-time. Pick a tool, read about the tool in Photoshop or Elements Help (press Command+/ or Ctrl+/ [mac/pc]), then open an image and explore the tool by applying it. Don’t look so much for expert results as the opportunity to learn how the tool behaves. That experience will go a long way toward incorporating it into your workflow. 15 or 20 minutes a day puts a new tool into your belt.

Further, and following this line of logic, you can limit the tools you look at to only those that are more practical for what you want to do. If you will be working with digital photographs for the sake of editing and improving them, you can virtually ignore whole sets of tools, and in the case of Photoshop, an entire application (Image Ready). in my courses and books I have a list of 30 or so core functions and tools that you can pretty much expect to incorporate into your work with any image. Some of these are terribly obvious, like Open and Save, but you quickly get into the heart of a tool set that helps you stay focused on correction and the task at hand. People hem and haw about Curves and how important they are to correction, and honestly I think they are a bit of a hack the way it is often described to use them, and at this point in my editing I rarely use them at all. Levels are a far more accurate and useful tool, except in specific circumstances. But the point is that with a significantly limited set of tools, you can accomplish what you need to in editing almost any image...as long as you know which to use.

That said, some people will find books most helpful, some DVDs, some online courses, some live seminars, a rare few personalized instruction, and others just poking about in the program. Having learned Photoshop at a time where there were no books or tutorials, I would suggest that poking around can be effective, but it is likely to be the slowest method of learning unless you already have a lot of digital imaging experience with another program. Any one of the products that help you learn Photoshop will likely cut months and years off learning. Here are a few things that will help:

1. Get acquainted with the interface. Learn about palettes and menus and where the tools are stored. ( See my Photoshop 101 course on betterphoto.com for an outline).

2. Have a goal in mind when opening Photoshop rather than just hoping it will do something for you or that you will suddenly feel inspired. Do you want to improve images from a recent shoot? Learn color correction? create a new logo? The answer to the question "what do I want to do?" will give you direction and save time.

3. Take a note from your own learning history and follow the path that has been most successful for you in other endeavors. If you have been successful learning in a classroom, take a course; if you learn from books, take a look at the books in a local store and see what looks most interesting to you.

4. Don't expect to be an expert overnight. Personally I have been using Photoshop daily for about 15 years. I learn something new every day. It could be about the program, about my images, about seeing, composition, settings, whatever...but there is always something new in thee program as long as I allow myself to see it. Becoming an expert will likely take months or years.

5. Establish a base workflow, including a solid color management setup, good step-by-step correction practices, and test your output. You will be following a similar set of steps for most images unless you will be doing a lot of work to them. Outline your process or borrow someone elses (see my Workflow course on betterphoto.com).

6. Experiment with limitations. Don't give your self open-ended amounts of time to try and achieve an effect by applying filters willy-nilly. Again, have an idea of what you want to achieve, and allow yourself 10-15 minutes to experiment with a result rather than running all over with it. At the end of the time, post the image to a Photoshop forum somewhere and ask for help in what you want to achieve. Try my forums found through http://hiddenelements.com

I hope that helps people get on track toward learning Photoshop in their own way. If you have questions feel free to send them for future editions of the blog. Send to Richard Lynch thebookdoc@aol.com