emil_ems5

<p>What you are experiencing is the difference between a projected and a reflective image. The contrast range of a reflective image will always be lower than that of the image on the screen, unless you proof your image (in Photoshop) with the appropriate profile for the paper. If you have no proofing equipment whatsoever, i would suggest you the following adjustment to a finished picture, before you convert it to sRGB:<br>

(a) Put in an adjustment layer with a curve. Apply Photoshop's "Darker" option and have the layer opacity set at 25%.<br>

(b) Put another adjustment layer with a curve on top of (a). Apply Photoshop's "Linear Contrast" option and have the layer opacity set at 100%.<br>

The resulting picture will look a bit too light and contrasty on your screen, but the printed image will be a reasonable match with your screen image without those two layers.</p>

<p>No Scott, I did not do any fancy refine edge stuff; as far as I can see from the original file, the mask edges are quite sharp and well-defined. Please note also, that the CS4 version shows a sharp cut-off between the blurred and unblurred regions, whereas CS5 does not. I have had this problem with many a document before, and usually work with sharp mask borders without CS5-introduced edge refinements. </p>

<p>Here comes the same picture again, now from CS€</p><div></div>

<p>I just love applying the Lens Blur Filter to introduce some limited depth of field in some over-sharp pictures of mine. I have done this successfully many times within Adobe CS4 in my latest Apple McPro with OS Snow Leopard. However, after upgrading to CS5 I find that the Lens Blur Filter does not work anymore as it should. There are two problems with it now:<br />(1) The preview does not work properly any more. When increasing the "Radius" in the menu, the whole picture on the screen is getting unsharp, not only the part un-shaded by the mask. <br />(2) After applying the un-sharpening, the transition between the masked area and the un-masked area is not clean, as it used to be. There is always a halo in the unsharp section, where color and luminosity of the still sharp section have bled over. I still have the CS4 version in my computer and can see the difference, when applying the filter with exactly the same parameters in both program versions. <br />I will try to include two pictures, the first from CS5 and the second from CS4, to show you the difference in outcome. You will have to increase the size of the two pictures to see the difference clearly.<br /> Does anyone in the community experience similar issues and/or have found out any remedies for it. Updating CS5 has not helped.</p><div></div>

<p>Matthew,<br>

That was a nice new trick you just taught us! Will save me many a minute in future post processing! Thanks!</p>

<p>Like you, I have always felt uncomfortable with using brush strokes at less than 100% opacity. Instead, I always start by painting black with 100% opacity on a layer mask, and then applying two alternative techniques to tone down the effect:<br>

(1) If, after shading selected parts of the picture shows that too much of the desired effect of the adjustment layer has been hidden away, in a uniform manner, I just lower the opacity of the layer mask itself to bring back some of the desired the effect.<br>

(2) If only part of the hidden areas should be brought back in effect, I just repaint those parts with a brush of less than 100% opacity (painting white instead of black). This is much easier than it sounds, since a small shadowed part can lightened in that way by "covering" it with a larger brush circle and then just clicking once with the brush. I usually start with opacity 50% and repeat the exercise until I get what I want.</p>

<p>I am working on a photo book at the moment. All the necessary CMYK adaptation with profile Fogra 39 (printer's demand) have been carried out on screen. As the next step I would like to proof the pictures on my newly acquired Epson 3880. People in the graphics business here in Sweden seem to use EFI's products for that purpose. <br>

Has anyone here on the forum experience with the program EFI sXpress M v.4.1 Proof license and the paper EFI Offset Proof Paper 9100? If so, I would appreciate your experience with these products. In particular, i would need some advice on the practicalities of using the paper. Does EFI provide a profile for it and, if so, how should I use it properly when printing my CMYK pictures (either in the psd format or directly from InDesign pages or from PDF pages).</p>

<p>I am using Adobe CS5. Is it still possible to import the Polaroid Tool into a modern iMAC machine (Operative system Snow Leopard), and is it worthwhile, that is, is the tool preferable to Photoshop's various de-scratching commands?</p>

<p>I would like to learn more about the "Enfuse"-function in Lightroom. Is this function accessible through ACR as well?</p>

<p>Unless you render the luminosity, you are looking at the print with, completely in line with the luminosity of your screen you will be unable, even with the right print profile in use in Photoshop, to get the print luminosity in line with what you see on screen.<br>

It is rather cumbersome to arrange the light source for the print in this standardized manner. Only professionals like Andrew Rodney tend to use this approach.<br>

For us ordinary mortals, you have to satisfy yourself with the following procedure:<br>

(1) Optimize the print for the monitor<br>

(2) Preview the print with the right print profile. When setting up the print profile, use the command "View/Proof Set-up/Custom/SIMULATE PAPER COLOR".<br>

The last subcommand is very important. If you quickly toggle between proofing on and off you will notice that the picture viewed under the profile will appear darker and less contrasty than the "pure" monitor picture. I have found that the following adjustment is useful as a starting point to bring the picture viewed with the profile closer to the "pure" picture:<br>

"Curve/Lighter/Opacity 25%" + "Curve/Linear Contrast". Adding those two adjustment layers to the picture will many time be sufficient, but you should use them only as a starting point to get the printed picture as close to the picture on the monitor as possible. The ultimate test is of course to print the picture and view it under your standard light.</p>

<p>Patrick,<br>

I am just now working on the separations for a book. It will contain images in the 8x10 (inch) size as well as in the 2x3 (inch) size. The printer will print at 200 lines per inch, which translates to a demand of 400 pixels per inch in the pictures. For output sharpening I am using NIK Sharpener Pro 3.0 Output Sharpener.<br>

The details for the NIK are: Halftone sharpening; Viewing distance "Up to 2 feet"; Paper Type "Coated"; Printer resolution 205 lines/inch.</p>

<p>The issue I am having is that the program seems to apply the same degree of sharpening to the small pictures as to the large. On the screen, the small ones seem then to be much more sharpened than the big ones, since they obviously contain a much larger amount of small details, having been downsized by more than 50%. Should I accept this method by NIK, or should I follow my instinct and tone down the sharpening of the small pictures (by putting the opacity of the output sharpening layer to, say, 50%)?</p>

<p>Patrick,<br>

Thanks for clarifying the "common knowledge" for us amateurs! Does the 25% verification rule for magazines also apply for production of (fine) photo books?</p>

<p>Julie,<br>

The reaction you describe is a fact of life but its strength varies with the kind of monitor you are using. With my MacBook Pro the effect disappears as you describe. With my Eizo Monitor, the effect stays if I diminish the size of the picture by a factor of 2. For instance, at 50%, and 25% magnification it stays, but not at 33% or any in-between. You may wish to check with your monitor whether the "divide by 2 rule" works, since it is common knowledge that, psychologically, the effect of sharpening can be best observed (and judged) at 50% magnification! </p>

<p>I am afraid I have to disagree with some of the comments. I am a semi-professional photographer myself, but of rather advanced age (65) who learned Photoshop two years ago. I have also Lightroom (got it for free when buying a printer). After spending a week or two on the programme i realised that it was very confusing for me. Whereas Bridge (comes with Photoshop) is a rather straightforward picture presenting and working programme, the data base approach used in Lightroom to organise pictures is in my view not so intuitive and appears too demanding for me, since you have to work a lot with search midgets etc. What professional photographers like and need, to have a fully searchable database of their hundreds of thousands of pictures, I don't need for my few thousands, which I keep organised in simple "ledgers".</p>

<p>In short, if you are a photographer with more modest ambitions, either of advance age or realising that you never will become a full professional, just stay with Photoshop and do not spend a lot of time unnecessarily to go into Lightroom's alternative world of photo processing. I may add that essentially all photo processing functions of Lightroom are present in Photoshop as well (in its ACR function). </p>

 

<p>JDM,<br>

Just to make myself clear: I also use the lens correction filter regularly (from ACR) to do the correction specific for my Nikon camera lense. However, I hesitate using the vertical correction filter to correct keystoning. Without having tested this in detail i still have concluded that this correction does not preserve the proportions of the object to be corrected. I do not seem to get the same results as by applying, symmetrically, the EDIT/TRANSFORM/PERSPECTIVES in Photoshop. Having said this, I have not carried out any exact comparison between the two approaches, so I would not mind standing corrected if you can show me proof to the contrary. </p>

<p>Thanks Scott, but it did not become active even then. But I have discovered since then what was the problem. I use to work with ACR files saved into Photoshop as Smart Objects. Those cannot be dealt with in the manner described, they must be rasterized first.<br>

I have now tried the crop tool for correcting perspectives and have to say that, although it is easy and quick, it has some serious drawbacks as compared to using the Command EDIT/TRANSFORM/PERSPECTIVES. </p>

<p>(1) It is usually not pleasing to the eye, neither does it the picture any good, to correct the keystoning by a fully 100%. All experienced photographers know this and stop the correction a smite earlier. This cannot be done using the crop tool, at least not with any precision. In contrast, its is easy to do with EDIT/TRANSFORM/PERSPECTIVES.</p>

<p>(2) Similarly, to get a pleasing and realistic result, the correction should work as it does with large format cameras (using the shift-lens facility). This means that proportions should be maintained throughout the correction process. This cannot be done by using the crop tool (and neither can it be done by using the LENS CORRECTION/VERTICAL CORRECTION tool in ACR. Again, this is possible to do with EDIT/TRANSFORM/PERSPECTIVES. The way of doing this is to, symmetrically, draw the picture apart on top and push it in on the bottom (respectively dragging and pushing the upper and lower corners of the correction rectangle).</p>

<p>I read J.K.'s "Link" that describes how to use the cropping tool in Photoshop to rectify keystoning. I was very impressed by this description and the possibilities it seemed to open up for me. However, when trying the approach in question in my Photoshop CS5 Extended, the rectangle "Perspective" which you are supposed to check, didn't light up, that is it was not working; so I could not follow the instructions provided in the link. Has this useful feature been de-activated in CS5?</p>

<p>Ruchika!<br>

I always apply edge burning in post-processing according to a technique I learned from Scott Kelby:<br>

(1) Use the rectangle selection tool to draw a rectangle some 3-5 centimeters, 1-2 inches (depending on the picture size) into the picture.<br>

(2) Apply "Modify/Feather/200-250 pixels" Command<br>

(3) Create new layer. A mask will automatically appear. Invert that mask<br>

(4) Change layer blending to "Multiply"<br>

(5) Dial down opacity to low value (starting with 20%) and vary until you achieve desired effect.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Keith,<br>

I am producing photobooks in InDesign for offset (halftone) printing. I always import the photos from Photoshop into InDesign in their exact final size as they appear on the pages and, before doing that, I apply at that precise size (1) Unsharp mask at 10 - 50 and (2) output sharpening using the NIK sharpening programme (which allows you to dial in output sharpening for half-tone printing). When comparing the NIK sharpening with Photoshop's Smart Sharpening, I have the impression (by inspecting the screen at 50% enlargement) that Smart Sharpening at 150 - 1.0 gives me about the same result.<br>

Finally, I output the book in PDF format, where the PDF file is prepared in accordance to my printer's specifications and sent to them as PDF file. <br>

You do not need to prepare any JPEGs for halftone printing. Either the Indesign file itself or the PDF file prepared as above should be acceptable to the printer. Otherwise, i would use another printer.</p>

 

<p>L.J.<br>

Here is a technique I have applied in a similar occasion: <br>

Step 1: Make a layer mask where you single out the sky (should be white in the mask, all else black). A good way of doing this (in Photoshop newer than CS4) is to use "Color Range" in the mask table.<br>

Step 2: Copy the picture onto a new layer (with the above as layer mask) and use the EDIT/TRANSFORM/WARP Command. After having pressed that button, you just drag the "good sky" over the "bad" and, "Volà", your sky problem is solved!<br>

I hope this helps!</p>

<p>Caillum,</p>

<p>You repeatedly ask whether Photoshop CS5 is up to the task and I can assure you that it most definitely is. Of course, there are a lot of specialized products out there to spend your money on but I would start by learning in detail how the panoramic function in Photoshop CS5 is working.</p>

<p>I have done hundreds of panos using CS5, among them a 180 degree's view from my balcony out of 16 pictures and they have all worked out well, give or take some minor adjustments. And please note that my panoramas regularly involve buildings with all the perspective issues that arise. Furthermore, all my underlying pictures have always been taken free-hand, which means that they are not an ideal starting point for making panos.</p>

<p>Some hints: Don't use Photoshop's automatic photomerge command straight away. What you should do is load all your underlying pictures in one document as layers, all on top of each others.</p>

<p>Before doing that, make sure to (approximately) correct converging lines. For instance, if you cover a scene with four pictures, to enlarge your view both horizontally and vertically, it is wise to correct for perspectives in ACR before loading the pictures into Photoshop proper. For instance, the upper row should be vertically corrected by -25 % and the lower row by 25 %. This is being done by the Command LENS CORRECTIONS/MANUAL/TRANSFORM VERTICAL (the exact numbers will depend on you photos, this is a starting point). This correction will have to be accompanied by adjustment of the width of the pictures, once loaded in Photoshop, to arrive at a rough initial fitting. </p>

<p>Thereafter, highlight all the loaded layers in your document and apply the command EDIT/AUTO-ALIGN LAYERS. This will show you how the merged picture will look like. At that stage you may already be satisfied with the alignment and proceed by applying EDIT/AUTO-MERGE LAYERS. This provides you with a complete pano on top of the loaded initial layers. </p>

<p>Once you have gained some experience in this type of processing, you often will find that some fine-tuning and masking of layers, accompanied by a manual merging of the layers, done by yourself, will provide a superior result. But the above instruction will give you a panorama, against which you can compare your continued efforts.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot, Patrick, for contributing with your experience. I work with an Eizo screen and Eizo itself is recommending a luminance of 80 for that screen for screen proofing. I find 90 to be quite agreeable to my eyes, more than that would be tiring if working a longer period. But I note your comment and will see whether higher luminance provides more even illumination without banding.</p>

<p>It is good of you to point out the difference between proofing for CMYK and proofing for Epson. However, I was trying to get to the root of another, more fundamental issue: that many photographers (of course not the real experts like you and Andrew) have a psychological tendency to keep the picture too dark on the screen, since it makes the picture more saturated and glorious in this way. This is a problem when printing, since the print will look too dark, even if it matches the screeen with comparable illumination. </p>

<p>I have found a way to overcome my own weakness in that regard, by systematically putting on a "straightjacket" before sending the picture to the printer, be it Epson or CMYK. But, if I understand you right, you apply a similar "straightjacket". My suggestion to apply a curve with Photoshop option "Lighter", toned down to 25% opacitiy, makes my picture about 5% lighter at the mid-point. This is a bit like your 3-5 % compensation, don't you think?</p>

<p>I am just now in the process of adapting a lot pictures for print in a book, so I am fighting the same battle as you are, even if the profile I am using (Fogra CMYK), is a bit different from the profiles that come with your Epson.</p>

<p>I have done the necessary mechanics: monitor calibration and monitor at 90 luminance. However, there still remains the HUGE DIFFERENCE between the picture's appearance (in all its glory) on the screen and the comparatively poor representation you will get in print, due to the different manners of illumination (direct vs. indirect). </p>

<p>I have found the following steps to be useful in getting the print as close as possible to my vision, as exhibited on the screen. </p>

<p>1 After finalizing the picture to your full satisfaction, turn on the Photoshop function View/Proof Setup/Custom. Once there, put in the profile for your printer and paper. Thereafter, check option "Black point compensation". Additionally, and THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, check the option "Simulate Paper Color". The last named option makes Photoshop diminish the contrast of the screen so that i equalizes, more or less, the contrast range of your printing paper, as printed upon by your Epson printer.</p>

<p>2 Now pushing buttons Command+Y (on the Mac) will toggle the proofing view on and off. Do this several times and you will be amazed by the difference between the two views. With the proofing view on, the print in general appears (1) darker, (2) less contrasty and (3) less saturated in specific colors, mostly saturated red and blue (sky for instance).</p>

<p>3 Now change the file so that the proofing version gets as close as possible to the original version. I found that this usually takes two simple operations (could be combined in one). (a) Choose adjustment layer "Curves" and check option "Lighter". Apply this option at 25% Opacity; (b) Choose again adjustment layer "Curves" and check option "Linear Contrast". Apply this option at 100% Opacity. These two adjustments put you very close to the best possible adaption.</p>

<p>4 Adjust minor details in picture as you find necessary. This could involve, for instance, adjusting colors out of printing range (tint or saturation) and increasing local contrast in deep shadows, which sometimes looks "washy" even with the adjustments in step 3.</p>

<p>Andrew Rodney has done us an excellent service with his article "Why are my prints to dark". However, he does not go into detail on what I am talking about here. That you have to force yourself to make the file a bit lighter and contrasty to get it closer, in print, to what you perceive on the screen.<br>

I hope this helps!</p>

 

<p>Jan,<br>

I left some comments on the photos on Flickr. But I am not sure whether you understand the mechanics of it. I shoot a lot of landscapes and have always to use the technique of multiple exposure/development in ACR. Most of the time, it takes three exposures/developments to get a good picture, each to be applied to a separate part of the photo. Most of the time, the foreground is too dark and the sky (or snowy tops of mountains) too light. What you do is to develop each part to perfection in ACR. Then you load the result as Smart Object into Photoshop. Your basic exposure becomes (as Smart Object) the background layer. Each new exposure is then loaded as Smart Object on top of that layer. You add a mask, filled in with black and then paint in with white the part of the picture you want to past on the background layer. The use of Smart Object allows you to go back and reprocess each exposure if you would find that you have overdone or underdone the original processing.</p>

<p>I am currently working on a photo book and would like to invest in a good printer and program for color proofing the pages, which contain a mixture of text and pictures. I have already acquired an Epson 3880 printer. But the Epson driver does not support printing from PDF files. I have heard that the program Colorproof eXpress is a rather good bargain for color proofing from PDF files. Does anyone in this Community have any experience with this program? Does it provide ready made profiles for proofing papers as well as ordinary photo papers, such as, those provided by Epson?</p>