Photoshop LAB color worth it for newbie?

[Frost]

I'm not necesarily a new person to photography, but somewhat new to digital. I've taken photos since I was 10, and that was back in 1963. I've have view cameras, medium format, Nikon F3, and did darkroom B&W, color and transparencies... it's just the newness of Adobe Photoshop I'm concerned about.. newness to me that is. I saw this book of Dan Margilis at Barnes & Nobel tonight and was VERY tempted to buy it but I wonder if such a book is too deep for me at this time. I'm still learning about using ink dropper, cloner, and other settings in Adobe Photoshop CS. I even bought a book just on CS "In Easysteps".

What's the thought? Is this book better for later after I've learned some of what Photoshop can do?
Many thanks in advance for opionons.:D

[Shay Stephens]

It's your call of course. But you can go your whole life without using LAB and not really miss anything. I think LAB is really over rated here on dgrin.

Not to say it can't do things for a photographer who wants to use lab, but you don't have to use LAB to get to the same places.

[Richard]

What's the thought? Is this book better for later after I've learned some of what Photoshop can do?
Many thanks in advance for opionons.:D
Photoshop is complex, so you have a lot to learn in any event. I picked up the Margulis book after using PS for about a year. For color correction and manipulation, I find LAB much easier to understand and use than RGB. It has speeded up my PP work quite a bit. I was starting from zilch, so if you already have a good grasp of RGB you may not gain much. But you need a good understanding of channels, layers and blending modes to use it to its fullest advantage. You will need that knowledge in RGB as well, of course. I guess the best approach might be to play with it a bit and come to your own conclusions. There is certainly no "right" answer here.

Cheers,

[edgework]

I'm not necesarily a new person to photography, but somewhat new to digital. I've taken photos since I was 10, and that was back in 1963. I've have view cameras, medium format, Nikon F3, and did darkroom B&W, color and transparencies... it's just the newness of Adobe Photoshop I'm concerned about.. newness to me that is. I saw this book of Dan Margilis at Barnes & Nobel tonight and was VERY tempted to buy it but I wonder if such a book is too deep for me at this time. I'm still learning about using ink dropper, cloner, and other settings in Adobe Photoshop CS. I even bought a book just on CS "In Easysteps".

What's the thought? Is this book better for later after I've learned some of what Photoshop can do?
Many thanks in advance for opionons.:D

I've used Photoshop since Version 2.5, in a professional prepress environment. In my color work, I've relied on proven techniques for YEARS. They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Margulis' LAB book proved different. I don't know if it's over rating a book to say that it's altered my entire workflow, but it's certainly true.

LAB can't do everything. It's no substitute for fine tuning skin tones in RGB or CMYK. It's difficult to achieve in LAB the subtlty of a contrast curve to the black channel. And for certain kinds of blending operations, it produces odd results that would never fly.

But the things it's good for cannot be replicated in other spaces. As such, it's become an indispensible addition to my arsenal. And my images look better because of it.

[DavidTO]

It's your call of course. But you can go your whole life without using LAB and not really miss anything. I think LAB is really over rated here on dgrin.

Not to say it can't do things for a photographer who wants to use lab, but you don't have to use LAB to get to the same places.


There are good reasons why LAB doesn't fit into Shay's workflow. Shay doesn't use LAB. I'm not even sure that Shay understands LAB and what it's benefits are. One thing is for sure, LAB can do some things better and more easily than RGB. There are things you can't do in RGB that you can do in LAB. Or if you can do them in RGB, it is much more difficult to do so than in LAB.

Now, having said that, I'm going to add: Shay has WAY more experience with processing images than I do, or more than most of those who post here do. WAY more. So for me to challenge what he's saying is a bit presumptuous. I would also say that for Shay to say that RGB can get you to the same places as LAB is presumptuous as well, since I haven't seen any evidence that he has more than a passing understanding of it.

Is LAB overrated here on dgrin? Maybe. Certainly by some, probably by me. But take a look at Edgework. He's a professional retoucher, not a photographer. He won't work without LAB these days. Maybe that's the difference, Shay's interested in getting more shots (he gets paid by the shot, in essence), and Edgework's looking for better results in a shorter period of time (LAB is much faster with certain kinds of work). The kind of work that Edgework does is different than what Shay does, hence their different takes on LAB.

Now to your question: is LAB right for a n00b? Shay's right, it's up to you. LAB's a lot of fun and very, very powerful. But, especially for a n00b, you don't need it. Will you get better results faster with LAB? Sometimes to often. It really depends on your temperament. I like the way LAB works, it works in a way that my mind can understand more easily than RGB. That's the main reason I use it. And I've seen measureable results where LAB is better than RGB in certain instances. But it's not enough for anyone to say you HAVE to learn it and use it.

[Frost]

Nothing teaches us better than experience, and experience has failures that guide us to know what will or won't fly... at least for the moment. I decided to go ahead and buy the book when I found a printed piece of paper on my desk that had it listed at Amazon.com for $34.64 inlucing the shipping. I'll have it so I can refernece it and hopefully learn a bit more about layering, overlays, and the Luminance and A and B channels.

Film only had one thing. Latitude and lack thereof. :D How you developed was sometimes more important than how you shot. I could expose for the hightlights and then develop for the shadows, but with digital, it's a matter of recorded pixels and rendering of colors within the pixel structure. Kind of reminds me of building a composite with different overlays.

Lots of nice little tools or concepts or even recipies for doing something, but you can't burn the cake unless you turn on the oven.
BTW I'm the chief cook at home, besides being an Associate winemaker here in Michigan. Think I'll do a little Photoshop cooking and at least if I flub, I don't have to scrub the pan:thumb

[MarkR]

Good job! My first Photoshop book was Katrin Eismann's Photoshop Restoration and Retouching, 2nd ed. It was hard going, but they say the easiest way to learn to swim is to start in the deep end... :1drink

Having said that, the LAB should be only part of your arsenal. Check out also Professional Photoshop and Katrin's books as well. Good stuff.

[Antonio Correia]

...I think LAB is really over rated here on dgrin.
...
Do you think that Margulis is among us undercover ? :rofl

[Shay Stephens]

I'm not even sure that Shay understands LAB and what it's benefits are.

http://forums.shaystephens.com/graphics/caveman.jpg

I also don't like or use curves. And I mostly don't like the history brush. And, um, all those special sharpening plugins, I don't like those either.

[DavidTO]

I also don't like or use curves. And I mostly don't like the history brush. And, um, all those special sharpening plugins, I don't like those either.


A simple man. I can respect that. You're missing out on curves, though, I gotta say....

(BTW, LAB could fix that pink sky of yours :D)

[Shay Stephens]

You're missing out on curves, though, I gotta say....

That's what they tell me :wink

[rutt]

There's a very simple way to tell if this book is going to pay off for you. Try my LAB pop tutorial (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1108502). Or look at the reading group threads for this book. I wrote this with the newbie in mind, at least as much as possible. If you can't follow, you probably won't be able to follow the book. If you can follow and it works for you, then, yes, you should buy the book. You won't be able to sit down and read it in one sitting. But it's an instant classic and teaches a revolutionary and very powerful way to think about color enhancement.

[Shay Stephens]

See, here's my problem. You can get almost the same results by just upping the contrast by 20 and the saturation 10 on the original truck/barn image. And it only takes two steps and all of 15 seconds.

LAB may be powerful, but you don't need "the jaws of life" to open a beer can :wink

There's a very simple way to tell if this book is going to pay off for you. Try my LAB pop tutorial (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1108502). Or look at the reading group threads for this book. I wrote this with the newbie in mind, at least as much as possible. If you can't follow, you probably won't be able to follow the book. If you can follow and it works for you, then, yes, you should buy the book. You won't be able to sit down and read it in one sitting. But it's an instant classic and teaches a revolutionary and very powerful way to think about color enhancement.

[edgework]

See, here's my problem. You can get almost the same results by just upping the contrast by 20 and the saturation 10 on the original truck/barn image. And it only takes two steps and all of 15 seconds.

LAB may be powerful, but you don't need "the jaws of life" to open a beer can :wink

Bumping up the saturation does not have the same effect as steepening the a and b curves in LAB. That's not an opinion. It's verifiable. Increasing saturation simply removes the contaminating colors: cyan from reds, yellow from blues and magenta from greens. Since those are the colors that help provide detail, you quickly reach a brightly colored mess.

Lab curves do something very different. They pull colors apart and increase and define the subtle variations in tone and hue, as well as intensifying them. It's an effect not possible in RGB or CMYK.

Using curves in Luminosity mode in RGB will still result in a red shift as you darken shadows for contrast. There is no corresponding shift in a contrast move to the lightness channel.

All sharpening moves are cleaner in LAB.

Color cast removal is much more precise in Lab due to the fact that you can target neutrals without ruining the more vibrant colors. In RGB or CMYK, a color imbalance in shadows, with, say, magenta too high, will impact true reds as well, if you try to lower the magenta in the shadows.

Adjustment layers can be more precisely targeted with Blend If sliders in LAB using the Red, Green, Yellow and Blue ends of the scales.

The list goes on. These are not obscure, arcane operations. These are the types of normal production moves that make any image better. They work better in LAB.

[Shay Stephens]

That sounds impressive I'll grant you that, yet, the results from bumping the contrast and saturation of the original image look nearly the same as going through all the LAB hoops.

Here is the original image:
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/photos/51572826-L.jpg (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/photos/51572826-L.jpg)

Here is the image with the LAB editing:
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/photos/51574273-L.jpg (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/photos/51574273-L.jpg)

And here is the RGB image with the contrast +20, saturation +10, USM (75, .5, 0)
http://www.shaystephens.com/forums/truck-barn-RGB.jpg (http://www.shaystephens.com/forums/truck-barn-RGB.jpg)

The list goes on. These are not obscure, arcane operations. These are the types of normal production moves that make any image better. They work better in LAB.

[rutt]

Shay, I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone as smart as you and who I respect as much as I do you.

LAB is a colorspace not a single technique that uses that colorspace. The technique from chapter 1 of Margulis' book (and my tutorial) is something that's easy to teach, helps a lot of pictures, and serves as a nice introduction a large body of knowledge and techniques, of which Crawford listed just a few. Not everyone will enjoy having and employing this knowledge. But it is knowledge and many people, beginners and experts both, have found it very useful.

[Shay Stephens]

I don't want this to be a "gee Shay is pretty dim" debate. So please, look at the posted photos and compare them. Hopefully the posted images will show that you can do the same thing in RGB for a majority of the images out there.

I'm not saying LAB has no place in a workflow. But I do believe it is being promoted in an unbalanced way here at dgrin.

Shay, I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone as smart as you and who I respect as much as I do you.

[David_S85]

Shay's version looks better to me than the LAB'ed version.

[rutt]

Shay, I don't even know what we are arguing about here. I said you are smart. I said I respect you. I said that my tutorial and chapter 1 of Dan's book are intended as introductions to LAB for beginners. They both present this single technique, the tip of the LAB arsenal. Many have found it a useful introduction to Dan's LAB techniques. Many have found those techniques useful. You don't happen to be one of them. To each his own.

Are you actually upset that we've used this forum to try to discuss and teach the techniques from Photoshop LAB? Are you upset that others have found it useful?

[Shay Stephens]

Rutt, please read what I posted. I don't want this to be about me or about you or anyone else. It's simply an RGB vs LAB example. I am trying to point out the differences in the photos processed in LAB and RGB. Could you comment about those differences in the posted photo I linked to?

I am not arguing that LAB can't be useful. I am arguing that RGB can do (faster and easier) a lot of things LAB is (in my view) overly promoted for.

I am providing here, hopefully, a balance, and offering evidence that I hope people will look at and come to their own conclusions as to whether or not they need LAB for most situations.

Are you actually upset that we've used this forum to try to discuss and teach the techniques from Photoshop LAB? Are you upset that others have found it useful?

[rutt]

Shay, you did a very nice job with this image. It looks really good to me. There are differences between yours and mine, but both look lots better than the original.

There. I hope that settles that issue.

For me, though, the real point was to answer the original question. Should Frost buy Dan Margulis' book. There was a lot of debate, probably not that useful to Frost. I pointed to my tutorial as an easy way for Frost to get a taste and make a decision. The book is likely to appeal to beginners who like the tutorial and want to find out more.

Why turn it into a huge debate?

[Antonio Correia]

... and many people, beginners ..., have found it very useful.
I absoletely agree with this.
It helped me improving my pictures even before I began to study the book itself.
And I am only at the begining...:):
:thumb

[edgework]

Rutt, please read what I posted. I don't want this to be about me or about you or anyone else. It's simply an RGB vs LAB example. I am trying to point out the differences in the photos processed in LAB and RGB. Could you comment about those differences in the posted photo I linked to?

I am not arguing that LAB can't be useful. I am arguing that RGB can do (faster and easier) a lot of things LAB is (in my view) overly promoted for.

I am providing here, hopefully, a balance, and offering evidence that I hope people will look at and come to their own conclusions as to whether or not they need LAB for most situations.

At the risk of stepping in it bigtime, I'm going to weigh in on precisely the terms you request, with this stipulation up front: I don't suggest that these versions are better than yours, given that I have no access to your vision or your intent. They do, however, demonstrate what can be done in LAB that cannot be done in RGB.

http://edgework.tripod.com/samples/truck_full.jpg

This image is without question over the top. I pushed it farther than would normally be expected, but it makes the point. Note the detail that has shown up in the tree covered hills in the background, the suddenly interesting lawn colors and patterns, the leaves in front of the barn and the barn itself. All simple moves, all straight out of the LAB book, not possible in RGB. No sharpening, just blends and curves.

http://edgework.tripod.com/samples/truck_half.jpg
Reducing the entire set of moves to 50% still gives a significant improvement.

[ginger_55]

I use it all...................and add tricks as I go! LAB gives me fast results.

Everything I took here: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=28681

I used LAB on all three channels. Nothing fancy, but it was fast, clean, etc. Then I did a few other things. I had it down to a workflow by the time I was through.

And I have that other book on order, the one they are going to do next, or something. I looked at it at Barnes and Noble, ordered it from Amazon. It is expensive, yet looked like a must have book to me.......oh, can't think.

Items Ordered Price 1 : Photoshop Masking & Compositing (Voices That Matter) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735712794/104-1207149-7860743?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) [Paperback]
By: Katrin Eismann
$38.29
Amazon Prime: Two-Day Shipping is free - 1 item(s) Gift options: None

By waiting I could have gotten another 5% off. But it doesn't have LAB.
So that is a detriment. However if one builds a big enough library.........why argue which book, they are all invaluable! Smile.

Gotta pick and choose. Some books can be bought used pretty cheaply, but they are often "how to shoot" books. I am looking at buying one now, for about 10.00 with shipping.

I think Scott Kelby is best for beginners.............and go from there, but then some people like to skip all that. I do things as needed, so am coming a bit late to the LAB table.

ginger

[ginger_55]

Shay, I have read in many places that "contrast" should never be touched....... now, when, how do I reconcile that info?

By the way, I loved your version.

Poor skinned cat! Many ways to do it, but I did think that contrast did something terrible. That levels was/is better. Or curves???

I think I read too much, smile. Maybe get one book, author, and stick with that!

ginger (When can I use the "contrast" thing and how did it get such a bad rep?)

[dlacouture]

Hello all... Been following this forum for some time (and learned a lot from it!), and this is my first post...

Shay, I have to say that although you nailed the colors just right in your RGB version, the sky is slightly burned compared to the Lab version...

I don't know if this is avoidable (surely so).

I'm not advocating for RGB or Lab here (don't quite know how to use them yet!), but just having a look at your photos...

From what I understand, Lab, RGB and CMYK all have their uses, and each one can be better than the others in some precise situation.
Most of the time, what you can do in one can be done in the others...

That's all!

[Shay Stephens]

Ginger, you read too much :D

What is contrast? It is bringing in the black point and the white point simultaneuosly. If you didn't want to do it simultaneously, you can use levels or curves to bring in the white point and black point separately as desired.

When you place all your trust and faith in what the experts say, then the problem is one stops experimenting for themselves to see what works best for them. The very fact that contrast has such a bad rap is case in point.

Saying contrast is bad but levels or curves is good is like saying A person should never ever come in contact with dihydrogen monoxide because it kills thousands of people every year. Dihydrogen monoxide is the chemical name for water, and while true that people die from water every year, without it we are in big trouble.

Shay, I have read in many places that "contrast" should never be touched....... now, when, how do I reconcile that info?

By the way, I loved your version.

Poor skinned cat! Many ways to do it, but I did think that contrast did something terrible. That levels was/is better. Or curves???

[DavidTO]

Ginger, you read too much :D

What is contrast? It is bringing in the black point and the white point simultaneuosly. If you didn't want to do it simultaneously, you can use levels or curves to bring in the white point and black point separately as desired.


I believe she's referring to the PS command "contrast", which is a blunt hammer, and a poor tool compared to curves or even levels.

[Shay Stephens]

Hi Rutt,
My question was and still remains

Could you comment about those differences in the posted photo I linked to?

Not looking for platitudes. I genuinly want to debate the differences between LAB and RGB for everyday uses. Most are dodging the issue very artfully. So I will assume no one wants to talk about it. Fair enough.

Shay, you did a very nice job with this image. It looks really good to me. There are differences between yours and mine, but both look lots better than the original.

[Shay Stephens]

When I asked "what is contrast" it was rhetorical. And as mentioned, contrast is the same exact thing as moving in the white point and the black point in levels or curves simultaneously.

If you move the sliders the same, then curves and levels will give you the same exact results as that achieved by using contrast. Contrast is just a shortcut to doing it.

I believe she's referring to the PS command "contrast", which is a blunt hammer, and a poor tool compared to curves or even levels.

[colourbox]

I could expose for the hightlights and then develop for the shadows, but with digital,

Actually, in digital, you still want to expose for the highlights (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml) and develop (RAW convert) for the shadows, to optimize signal-to-noise and minimize noise.

[mercphoto]

I understand what Shay is trying to get across, but I'm not sure if everyone does. He isn't saying Lab isn't useful, he's just saying its over-hyped. And it very well might be. Shay's truck and barn was rather impressive, but Edgework's a bit more so. I've been slowly reading the Lab Color book, and it is a lot to digest. Dan himself points out that some shots are much better suited to Lab than others, and some problems cannot be fixed in Lab but can in RGB. Lab does not appear to be a magic bullet to fix all photos, but it does seem to have its place. Dan specifically points out that vivid colors can be a problem in the Lab space, and a lot of my racing photos start out with vivid colors, for example. (think about it, nobody paints a race car a drab color...)

I need to get Dan's other book on color correction. If there is one thing that appeals to me about Dan more than anything, it is his mathematical approach to photography. Not only am I very strong mathematically, but I have color vision issues. It can be hard for me to identify certain types of color problems, or to visually when I've gone too far at times. Doing things by the "numbers" has an obvious appeal to someone like me. :)

[pathfinder]

Actually, in digital, you still want to expose for the highlights (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml) and develop (RAW convert) for the shadows, to optimize signal-to-noise and minimize noise.
This is an excellent article - trying to get folks to understand just how much data is lost by centering a histogram can be difficult, but this article really does it well.:):

As for Margulis and LAB, he knows there are 10 different color channels - LAB- RGB- CMYK - and he uses whichever will work the best and the easiest. His book is also a very sneaky way of teaching Photoshop commands that many of us did not use or understand well previously. :):

[Shay Stephens]

http://edgework.tripod.com/samples/truck_half.jpg
Reducing the entire set of moves to 50% still gives a significant improvement.
So here is my version done in RGB

http://www.shaystephens.com/forums/truck-barn-RGB1.jpg

The steps needed to reproduce the results:
copy original layer
paste image and set blending to "color dodge" with 20% opacity
levels 30,110,190 [edit note, I changed it from 180 to 190 it looked a little too bright (reload image if needed)]
saturation +15

Now I do notice what little sky was in the original is now pretty much gone. I would have to move to spot editing to bring it back, but I am limiting myself to global editing here. So one point for curves :wink

[DavidTO]

What I've learned is to not go up against Shay in PS, since like I've said so many times, he has WAY more experience than me.

No one here that I know of has more experience in PS than Edgework, and his result is much better to my eye.

Now the question is: is it LAB, or is it Edgework? After all, that's what he gets paid for, retouching. Shay gets paid for shooting first, processing second.

[Shay Stephens]

Ok good, we are starting to get somewhere.

And just for the record, this is not a us versus them debate. It's LAB vs RGB.

So what specifically do you like better in Edgeworks version? Is there anything concrete you can point to?

his result is much better to my eye.

[DavidTO]

Ok good, we are starting to get somewhere.

And just for the record, this is not a us versus them debate. It's LAB vs RGB.

So what specifically do you like better in Edgeworks version? Is there anything concrete you can point to?


Well, the sky, obviously, but you already conceded that point.

For me, it's the grass, it's a deeper green and a more believable green to me.

The reds in the barn and the rust is the other big difference, and I know that Edgework could easily boost his a bit. In yours the reds are probably closer, but are a bit much. If 100% on the reds is perfection, yours is 110% and Edgeworks is mebbe 85%. To my eye, at least.

I would also like to see the contrast somewhere between the two. I think you went too far and Edgework not far enough.

Overall, Edgework's looks like the nice, safe treatment you'd give a pre-press image (makes sense, since that's what he does), and yours is a bit more brazen with highlights and contrast.

[dandill]

... It's LAB vs RGB.What I have been grateful to learn from the Margulis LAB book and the posts by edgework, rutt, and others on the reading group threads is that, rather than "versus", some things are better done in RGB, some in LAB, and some in CMYK. For me, having this flexibility is the gift of those ten channels.

[Shay Stephens]

You're right.

some things are better done in RGB, some in LAB, and some in CMYK. For me, having this flexibility is the gift of those ten channels.

[DavidTO]

I think that part of what's going on is that this extremely powerful color space (LAB) has been largely ignored for so many years. Look at Edgework and the shift in his workflow once he read Dan's work. Changed it forever. It's a big shift for many of us, and perhaps the pendulum is going too far...I don't know. But yes, 10 channels. CMYK is the one space I know the least about and need to dig into. I also need to get better at RGB. Well, LAB for that matter, too. It's a never-ending learning curve.

[Shay Stephens]

Overall, Edgework's looks like the nice, safe treatment you'd give a pre-press image (makes sense, since that's what he does), and yours is a bit more brazen with highlights and contrast.

That is a good point. My output focus is usally for cutomer viewing and not machine reproduction (other than photolab output of course). My output target would be closer to the typical dgrin user I would think since they are looking to get a nice image to look at.

I would also like to see the contrast somewhere between the two. I think you went too far and Edgework not far enough.
I think so too. I already pulled the brightness back about ten, but I could probably go more and still keep a nice zippy look that the masses would enjoy looking at. But I do tend to err on the side of zippy :wink

[Shay Stephens]

Yay!!! Balance :D:clap

I think that part of what's going on is that this extremely powerful color space (LAB) has been largely ignored for so many years. Look at Edgework and the shift in his workflow once he read Dan's work. Changed it forever. It's a big shift for many of us, and perhaps the pendulum is going too far...I don't know. But yes, 10 channels. CMYK is the one space I know the least about and need to dig into. I also need to get better at RGB. Well, LAB for that matter, too. It's a never-ending learning curve.

[Thusie]

Well,
For me, it's the grass, it's a deeper green and a more believable green to me.

But see I'm the opposite, I like the grass color is Shay's best. Looks quite natural for the time of year, going into fall, for my neck of the woods anyway.

I know enough about any of this to be in one camp or the other and I like both corrections. BUT to me Edgeworks looks like a picture, and a fine one, Shay's looks like what I would see if I was standing there.

[pathfinder]

Highly saturated images look good on the web, but are going to be desaturated by rendering them to paper and ink, via the Rendering Intent chosen at the time of printing.

Maybe Edgework will comment on this fact also.

[rutt]

There really are two different issues:

What is LAB good for vs RGB and CMYK.
How to teach color enhancement to beginners.

I'm very interested in both these issues, but I thought this tread was about teaching beginners. That's what I was thinking about when I wrote the tutorial and since it's the title of the thread, I wanted to mention the tutorial.

The intended audiance of the tutorial was beginners. I wasn't even trying to make the best possible edit of that image, just one that illustrates the technique and serves as a starting point for future learning. Should a beginner start with LAB? A beginner has to start somewhere, after all. When I wrote the tutorial I was trying out the concept that LAB might be a good place to start, at least for some people.

Since Shay is obviously NOT a beginner, the tutorial wasn't aimed at him. Shay wants to know what can be done in LAB but not in RGB. Frankly, this isn't a topic that I'm that interested in. Can't say why exactly. Maybe it's because I never had a workflow I was satisfied with before I learned about LAB from Dan (in a class long before he published the LAB book.) Now my workflow is LAB centric, but I use the other color spaces for specific purposes, such as getting deep shadows without plugging them (CMYK), and first order color balancing for mixed casts.

On the other hand, Dan Margulis is VERY interested in this topic. Almost every chapter in the LAB book takes pains to explore the difference between what can be done in LAB vs the other color spaces. If you want to read a very strong presentation on this topic, read Dan. He has spent 20 years thinking deeply on these topics. I can't do better.

In the fall Dan is going to publish a new edition of Professional Photoshop. It will include NO LAB techniques. Dan says he will make references to the LAB book where appropriate, but he won't recapitulate content. The books will complement each other. I intend to read that book very carefully and I'm sure I'll learn a lot and probably have a more balanced view and be a better retoucher at the end.

As to comparing the Shay's version, my version, and Edgework's, well the main thing I see is that they are all three a lot better than the original. I'm traveling right now, and have to look at them on my notebook, so it's hard to do a very detailed comparison.

[Frost]

Personally, I liked the contrast snappy image of Shay, but do concur it could tone down just a wee bit. That said, what happened to the tree limbs in the upper right of the photo? Before, in LAB there were tree limbs, and lots of small flimsy limbs and branches. In the version of Shay (last 2 pictures posted) the limbs seem to have dissapeared.

To be very honest, I did not even know there was another color scheme besides RGB until I came to this forum. I found out that there is the Cyan Magenta Yellow and Black AND there is the Luminence, A color chanel and B color chanel. So that all three or any of them can be adjusted to help a picture. I am kind of purist and try to make the images out of the camera the least they need to be fiddled with. I have shot images that needed some work and some that needed nothing. Also I have worked with scanned images of old color photographs that defnitely improved with some post processing. How to accomplish this is of great interest to me. Grandma Ettie should have gray hair, not blue, and her skin should not look like she spent the summer on some beach in Bermuda, basking.:D

I cook a lot and have a lot of things in the kitcen. I have a great assortment of knives. a couple I rarely use. I'm not about to throw them out because they get used so little. There are times I'll cook a roast in the oven over long periods, and other times I cook it in this crock pot. The end result is pretty tasty but I still preferr to "burn the gas!"

I might find the RGB a better use on some items, but then if I don't know about LAB or the other CMYK, I sort of deprive my photo editing abilities to trying to cook with 2 paring knives and the grill outside. I'll eat, but hope you all like steak!! LOL So what I can take it that LAB can be overated, but has it's place for learning.. and that RGB can do some things and do them well, considering the indiviual print.

BTW here's the winery cat, straight out of the camera, and just resized.
No PP.

[Frost]

Downloaded the original and played with it a bit on my computer. I miss the clouds in the high contrast. Also I didn't want to loose the small branches. The ice box and car behind it needed to be part of the picture. Never noticed the VW until I looked at it really well. The front bumper on the pickup needed help. I hope it doesn't look too gaudy to you all. I'm just starting out.



Vern

[edgework]

Overall, Edgework's looks like the nice, safe treatment you'd give a pre-press image (makes sense, since that's what he does), and yours is a bit more brazen with highlights and contrast.

Now, now. Let's be fair about it. If you refer back to my original post, http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=255634&postcount=23 you'll note that the "nice, safe" version you're referring to is the dumbed down version, where I reduced all the LAB moves to 50% intensity, trying to keep it in line with the original fairly conservative moves Shay posted.

If it's intensity you're after, look at the original in my post.

[XO-Studios]

(I know I replied to Edgework, but this reply really needs to go in this thread)

I am somewhere between beginner, and semi-pro in Photoshop, that is, I am well above average in certain things, and barely passable in others.

One of the things I have noticed about myself is that I have a bad eye for colors and color cast. While I can do lots of these things in RGB (or CMYK although I seldom use CMYK except to check if my skin color is believable), I have also learned to do these things in LAB. What appeals to me as an engineer, is that I can look at numbers, and the fact that a neutral color is 0,0 (a,b) or close there to. If I put an eye dropper on a white, black or a neutral, LAB will guide me the right way, as often I can not tell.

For me while I can also do these things in RGB, I simply do not have a good eye, and LAB often gives me better results faster as it steers me away from my unreliable eyes, towards numbers that my engineering brain likes (a lot)

Another issue to mention, and I have been there myself, is that Shay is likely to get way better results out of camera than the majority of us, I know I am one of those people that should learn to be better in camera, and reduce my pp.

So in conclusion as a beginner, you should check out some color spaces, and see if it fits. My biggest peeve with LAB was that it is NOT intuitive, but once over the hump, it is pretty darn good.

FWIW,


XO,

[Frost]

I'm sorry. I thought I had the original picture, but what I had downloaded was a resized small jpeg of the original. AFTER I found the original and downloaded that large megapixel sized jpeg, I adjusted a bit. I did note in this picture that who ever took the picture originally, "rutt?" that there was a small speck of lint on his image sensor. It can be seen in the sky almost directly above the jutting hill on the left. That is not a cloud, it is a "blotch" It really shows up when shutting down the luminosity and is very prominent. However, here is my rendition so far of the barn. I've seen these FORD trucks before and looks to be in the 1950's vintage, say a 1955 or so. Looks like thre is a Ford Mustang in the barn behind the truck as well.

[Frost]

The lint on the sensor. Dust it could be said, but more like very fine thread. It shows in the dark imaging I did.:uhoh

[DavidTO]

It's your call of course. But you can go your whole life without using LAB and not really miss anything. I think LAB is really over rated here on dgrin.

Not to say it can't do things for a photographer who wants to use lab, but you don't have to use LAB to get to the same places.


Just to set the record straight, Shay has changed his tune (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=29980) a little on the subject of LAB.

You should. This was the first time I saw a LAB result a couldn't match or top in RGB. I tried a quick edit last night by cloning in RGB, it turned out ok, but not as good as what you got. I am going to try it in LAB. The results you got in a few minutes were superior.