Thanks for the correction, Jim. I edited to post to fix so nobody would trip over it in the future. Your additions are also good. Too bad the LR color sampler won't read LAB values, isn't it?

I want to clarify my thinking when I was assessing the color balance and deciding what to do with it. There is no way to know what color that wall really is. There is certainly no reason to think it should be dead neutral. But together with the readings on her face, and the fact that I knew Madelaine wanted a sweet light kind of image, I thought they shouldn't be actually cool. If I just nudged the G and B curves toward darkness a bit in the midtones, it would warm things up and I'd get a look more like 6:30pm than 5pm. And I guess I do have a sense that cold white paint is a little less common for this kind of building than slightly warm. Another clue was that the sidewalk in the sun measured neutral in the original. I'd think this should be warm to show the sunlight. Oh and the shoes do measure a little blue in the original. Well, they might be dark navy right? But taken together with the neutral sidewalk, the cool wall, the slightly too magenta fleshtones (means a little too much blue), it all spelled a case for warming it up, especially in the midtones (shadow casts matters less in this workflow since we will limit color enhancement there with a layer mask.) This is another great advantage of working with RGB curves vs using the neutral point color balance tool of LR. I didn't need to find a neutral point to click on. I could work with flesh, something I knew should be a little bit warm, &etc. I think you can do similar in LR if you understand color temperature, but I think that's every bit as obscure as writing RGB curves and consulting the LAB values. And less flexible, since it can't target particular tones. From what I know of LightZones, it could be a big winner at doing this.

But you see the idea is to build a case out of lots of little pieces of evidence. This picture doesn't have a single reliable neutral spot that you can just "bet the image" on. You need to check around for clues. You need to have an idea of where you are going a little. It might seem like a magic trick, but it comes with experience. And your calibrated monitor is no substitute for looking at the numbers and building an intuition for what they mean. Do this with every image and it won't be long before you will wonder why you never did before.

Mark, what happened to your posts?? You were going to Grad School dude!

Originally Posted by pathfinder Mark, what happened to your posts?? You were going to Grad School dude!

Wha' happen'? I enjoyed seeing the results you got, too!!!!!!!

Work and Home have stretched my time a little thin. When I have time to do this the right way I'll revisit, but I didn't want to leave something hanging out there "half-way."

The actual corrections didn't take long; showing my work was killin' me. On a layered workflow like LightZone's, tweaking the bottom layer means new screenshots for every layer above that. It was making me .

When I start naming files "finalresultthistimeImeanit.jpg" I know I need to step away for a bit.

Originally Posted by MarkR When I start naming files "finalresultthistimeImeanit.jpg" I know I need to step away for a bit.

you have made my day . I thought I was the only person who gave files names like that

Look forward to the revisited version when it's not making you pazzo!

NeiL, the rules for Grad School clearly state that you must include the steps in your workflow, such that I or anyone reading it, can repeat the steps.

You have not done that with this post - Either edit your post to include the steps, or I will delete it...

Thank you

Sure.

It's midnight here now and work early tomorrow...

I'll get to it in the next 24hr. Or delete the post and I will repost.

Thanks.

Neil

We'll wait

Neil, I have deleted your post as >48 hours have passed without any change in its contents. Feel free to resubmit when you have edited your post to GS's criteria.

Originally Posted by pathfinder Neil, I have deleted your post as >48 hours have passed without any change in its contents. Feel free to resubmit when you have edited your post to GS's criteria.

I edited that post. I did not post in a separate new post, but added to the existing post. Did you not see it?

NeiL, the post is still available, but just not visible to readers.

As I read the post, you listed the use of plug ins, but did not offer specific steps with illustrations, such that I or any other reader, could duplicate what you did. That does not meet the criteria for GS.

If you wish, I can pm the text of your post to you, so that you can repost it in Finishing School.. It is a fine post, but it does not meet the specific criteria for GS.

Originally Posted by pathfinder NeiL, the post is still available, but just not visible to readers. As I read the post, you listed the use of plug ins, but did not offer specific steps with illustrations, such that I or any other reader, could duplicate what you did. That does not meet the criteria for GS. If you wish, I can pm the text of your post to you, so that you can repost it in Finishing School.. It is a fine post, but it does not meet the specific criteria for GS.

Understand, and thanks.

I think my version is worth looking at. It is quite different to the other versions. However, the OP and others involved showed no interest, so it seems like it will not be missed.

Thanks for your help. The Grad School deepens the usefulness of dGrin to photographers.

Best.

Neil

Originally Posted by rutt [*]Color enhancement in with channel blending in LAB The next two steps will seem very odd at first and understanding how they work in detail requires understanding all four of LAB, overlay blends, layer masks, and the Apply Image command. I suppose that makes them advanced. On the other hand, they are quick to do and could easily be distilled into actions to make them even quicker. I recommend trying this out without thinking about it too much at first. Then you can always learn more about the relevant tools and ideas.

I have been using a modified version of Dan's PPW, with very good results on all types of shots. However, I've found this particular step problematic, and there's an easy replacement.

As you noted, it requires a fair amount of Photoshop expertise to understand what's going on, along with an understanding of LAB. In addition, the overlay of A and B onto themselves does the same color enhancement in all 4 axes, if you will (magenta, green, blue, yellow). In some cases, you want to limit the enhancement in maybe one of them. Recently, Dan Margulis has noted that you usually want more enhancement in the A than in the B channel. I've found that sometimes enhancing the positive A (magenta) in portraits highlights unwelcome features (makes the nose redder for some, highlights blemishes, etc.).

So I think a simpler way to do this is with curves. I've replaced the overlay move in my workflow with the following LAB curves:





The A curve comes in 18%, while the B curve comes in 10%. I'm not claiming that these particular values are ideal, but they seem to work. The larger point is that you have a fair amount of control here. You can change the slope of the curves, and you can curve the positive and negative parts differently. For example, if you want to enhance the green but not the magenta, you can change the A channel curve thusly:



With the Overlay move, I found myself playing around with Blend-Ifs on various channels, sometimes without much success.

Here you can also control the Opacity of the curves adjustment layer. The one thing this doesn't do that your workflow step does is a reduced contrast enhancement of the L channel, but clearly you can do that too with an L curve, and even set a default (assuming all of this is embedded in an Action).

Photoshop provides many ways to accomplish the same thing, and I don't think debating which one is best is particularly useful. However, here I think there's an alternative to Dan's Overlay move which is both easier to comprehend (explain) and gives you a lot more control.

John Bongiovanni

formidable