Here’s another question I received last week that I thought I’d tackle on my own instead of farming it out to the Experts.

The Question:

Is monitor calibration essential to a serious amateur? Or do you think it’s something that can be overlooked? If so, can you recommend a quick easy way to do it?

My Response:

In short, yes.  Even if you never make a single print from your digital photos you will most likely share them on the internet.  As a “serious amateur”, I assume you want those images to look their very best to all who see them.  You wouldn’t spend all that time traveling to gorgeous locations, crafting beautiful compositions and processing them in the digital darkroom if you didn’t want to create the very best images possible, would you?  Working in a color managed environment is the final step in that workflow.

There are several monitor calibration products available.  In the last few years I’ve used 3 of them.  Currently I’m using the X-Rite i1 Display 2.  It’s easy to use but most importantly, it’s accurate.  It also doesn’t cost an arm and a leg, which is always nice.  This unit retails for $259.00.

Other options for monitor calibration hardware:

I can’t recommend this unit but in the interest of fair reporting the Datacolor Spyder 3 Pro works for some people.  It didn’t work for me and the color management experts I know don’t have kind things to say about it.  A product I have not used is the Pantone Huey, which retails for around $90.  I’ve read decent reviews on it and I have a couple clients who are happy with its performance.  You might do your own research on the Huey to determine if it will fit your needs and budget.

I hope this helps.  If you have any follow-up questions don’t hesitate to post them in the comments section.  We’re here to help!

Do you have a preferred method of calibrating your monitor?  Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments section and you might just help out a fellow photographer! 

I recently engaged in a lively conversation on twitter with a fellow nature photographer about “getting it right in the field.”  Those of you who know me, especially those who have taken one of my workshops, are familiar with “get it right in the field” as I used to preach it regularly.  I frequently declared that using graduated neutral density filters in the field was superior to doing HDR or image blends on the computer.  Admitting that I’m wrong has never come easy for me.  Just ask my wife.   However, here and now, I admit that I was wrong and maybe even a little arrogant to make such a blanket statement.

As I now see it, there isn’t anything at all wrong with using GND’s, HDR, manual image blends or exposure fusion interchangeably.  Different situations call for different tools.  Is it wrong to stitch a panoramic image from several digital captures instead of using a dedicated pano camera?  Absolutely not!  Is it cheating to convert a color digital image to black and white instead of using black and white film to capture the image in monochrome?  Of course it isn’t.  So why should we frown upon combining exposures to increase dynamic range?

I still carry 2 and 3 stop graduated neutral density filters.  I’ll break them out at times when using a filter works better, or easier, than doing blends.  But there are times when a digital solution exists that works better than the analog equivalent.  And there are times when there is no analog equivalent.  If you’re photographing a waterfall inside a dark forest there isn’t a filter available that will even out the exposure.  The solution?  Bracket exposures and combine them in the digital darkroom.  It’s the right tool for the situation and there isn’t a darn thing wrong with that.

I experimented with high dynamic range imaging (HDR) back in 2008 using Photomatix Pro.  The possibilities were exciting but I never really received satisfactory results and I abandoned it’s use.  There are nature photographers who are creating stunning HDR images, but I wasn’t one of them.  Royce Howland of Canada is, in my opinion, one of the best of the best when it comes to creating gorgeous HDR photos that maintain a very natural appearance.

After HDR I started experimenting with manual image blends.  The results can be pretty spectacular but the process of blending multiple images by hand is tedious and time consuming.  And, it isn’t a technique that is easily mastered.  It takes time and practice to learn, although the learning curve can be minimized through a workshop or one-on-one instruction.  Of all the photographers who frequently use this technique, one of my favorites is Guy Schmickle.  He’s also a heck of a nice guy who now offers custom photo tours and Photoshop training for those who don’t want to waste any time learning to blend images.

Recently I read a good blog post by Kevin McNeal describing a relatively new technique called Exposure Fusion.  In essence, Exposure Fusion is an automated technique for combining multiple exposures for increased dynamic range.  The primary difference between Exposure Fusion and HDR is that Exposure Fusion creates images that are much more natural in appearance without having to do additional processing such as tone mapping.  Photomatix Pro includes HDR and Exposure Fusion, allowing you to choose the technique that will work best for your situation.  I started experimenting with Exposure Fusion in Photomatix Pro recently and am very excited about the possibilities offered with this technique.  In my admittedly limited tests, the results have been very natural with no visible artifacts common to HDR, i.e. haloes, ghosting, etc.

In the end we’re all photographers who like to create beautiful images.  We’ve all got our preferences whether Canon vs. Nikon, digital vs. film or filters vs. the digital darkroom.  There is no right or wrong.  Find the tools that work best for you and use them honestly and unapologetically.

Got a thought you’d like to share on this topic?  Feel free to post a comment.

Things have been pretty hectic this week and I haven’t had much time to write blog posts.  Today’s is very short, but oh so sweet.

I found this little gem online at Smashing Magazine.  Every keyboard shortcut you can learn and use in Photoshop will save you time.  This free cheat sheet makes it easy to find them.  Thanks, Smashing Magazine!

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/02/10/photoshop-keyboard-shortcuts-cheat-sheet-pdf/

When it comes to finding my way around the digital darkroom I’m a little on the lazy side.  I don’t mind doing things the hard way if the hard way is the only way.  But when an easy way exists it’s a pretty sure bet I’m gonna take it, so long as the results are at least as good as those gained from doing things the hard way.  Such is the case with black and white image conversions done using Nik Silver Efex Pro.

I started using Photoshop in 2002.  In the 8 years since I’ve converted a few color images to black and white.  Some turned out well, others not so well.  Okay, they sucked.  As Photoshop, and now Lightroom, have progressed it has become easier to do conversions with the built-in tools.  Even so, the results I’m getting with Silver Efex Pro are far better.  Remember that part about how I like things to be easy?  Well, Silver Efex Pro is pretty much idiot proof once you watch the free video tutorials on the Nik website.

Enough chatter.  Here’s what I like about Silver Efex Pro:

• Film types – Waaaaaaaay back before digital capture we used this stuff called film.  Photographers were weird about film.  We all had our favorite films, in both color and black and white, and we used them religiously.  Silver Efex Pro has a library of black and white film types that includes 18 popular films.  Mouse over a film type and you see an instant preview of your image as if it were photographed on that film.  When you find one you like just click on it to select it.  Cool!
• Here’s where things get super duper interesting.  Let’s say you select a film and you mostly like the results, but you’d like more or less grain, more or less contrast, a vignette, or a brighter or darker image globally or locally.  No problem!  All of this and more can be accomplished within Silver Efex Pro, making it easy for you to quickly customize your black and white image.
• Remember using colored filters with black and white film to darken skies or brighten foliage?  No?  Me either.  But, Silver Efex Pro includes a selection of filters that digitally create a similar effect.  With film if you didn’t like the effect you didn’t find out about it until after you processed the film, which resulted in wasted time and money.  With Silver Efex Pro if you don’t like the result, just de-select the filter and you’re right back at square one.

Those are the technical bullet points.  From a less technical, more emotional standpoint, what I really like about Silver Efex Pro are the results.  As I’ve mentioned, I’ve never been all that good at conversions.  It was an area of the digital darkroom where I was certainly deficient and that’s a bummer because I thoroughly enjoy good black and white photography.  With Nik Silver Efex Pro, I can now enjoy my own good black and white photographs.

What don’t I like about Silver Efex Pro?  Honestly, I haven’t found anything I don’t like.  It’s intuitive, it works and the results speak for themselves.  It’s just a solid piece of software that does exactly what it’s supposed to do.

UPDATE: I had to call Nik regarding a minor issue I had with the software download at purchase.  I expected the typical tech customer service nightmare.  What I got was a friendly, knowledgeable and very helpful person on the end of the line who resolved the issue within minutes.  Say what?  Yeah, good customer service from a tech company!

Wanna see some black and white images created with Silver Efex Pro?  Okay…see below.

I have no affiliation with Nik Software.  I’m just a happy customer.  There are lots of us, too.  If you’re one of ‘em, or even if you aren’t, feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts about Silver Efex Pro.

I received a really good and quite timely question about soft proofing earlier this week.  I’m in the process of searching for a new printmaker and soft-proofing is a critical step when you’re working remotely with a lab, especially when your prints will be delivered directly to a client without you ever actually laying eyes on them.  I queried the experts and received not one but three awesome answers from Nat Coalson, Guy Tal and Andy Biggs.  All three of these guys offer killer workshops, some of which include comprehensive digital darkroom and printing components.  Thanks for the great Q & A, dudes!

The Question:

I have a question to submit, one that I haven’t found a straightforward answer to online, despite a lot of looking. It regards soft proofing, in my case using downloaded profiles from print labs before ordering prints online. I’m using CS4.

I understand how to use Proof setup>Custom, I even feel like I understand rendering intents pretty well, but I don’t quite understand how to proceed once I’ve activated the proof setup and my image begins to look dull. What is the workflow from here? I assume the next step is editing the image until it looks more acceptable. Any tricks or advice for this stage? And how should the resulting image be saved once it is ready (taking into account that many mail-order labs specify sRGB files)? How do “Assign Profile” and “Convert to Profile” figure in here?

The Experts Respond:

First, Nat Coalson said - Even with a perfectly calibrated display and great profiles your monitor will ever perfectly match any print. The reason is simple: your display is transmissive (emits light) and a print is reflective (reflects light). On your display, pure black is the absence of any light being emitted. On a print, pure black still reflects some light.

In other words, the black on your monitor will ALWAYS be “blacker” and deeper than what you see on a print. At the other end of the scale, the whites will ALWAYS look brighter on the monitor than on a print.

All that being said, you CAN and SHOULD expect to be able to get accurate, predictable color. Especially if you’re willing to soft proof and make adjustments for each print.  This requires training your eye to correlate what you see on the display to how it will look on the print.

In Photoshop, start with your photo in whatever color space it happens to use (and always make sure to Embed profiles when saving).

Make sure you’re using the following settings for your proofing setup (note this is for photographic printing, not prepress proofing):

Choose View > Proof Setup > Custom

In the proof setup dialog box:

• Proof Conditions: choose the profile for your printer/paper combination
• Preserve numbers: NEVER ENABLED
• Rendering Intent: try both Relative and Perceptual (see next section)
• Black Point Compensation: ALWAYS ENABLED
• Display Options (On-Screen): BOTH should be checked – simulate paper color and simulate black ink.

These last settings for “simulating” the printed output is one of the most crucial parts to successful soft-proofing. It’s also one of the hardest parts to master. These buttons are what Jeff Schewe has referred to as the “make my image look like sh*t buttons”. But you’ve gotta use them. I’ll explain more about this in a minute.

Once you’ve got the settings just like this, make sure to save your preset. I would save one using relative and one using perceptual.

Here’s how do the actual soft-proofing and adjustments:

First, with your master working image open, choose Image > Duplicate; using Merged Layers is fine. We’re making a copy of your print file to use as a temporary reference. We’re going to keep the reference visible while we soft proof and make adjustments to the master file.

Now, with two windows open showing the same image, place them side by side or top and bottom, depending on the orientation. You can do this with the commands under Window > Arrange, or just drag the windows into place. You just need to be able to see your photo in both windows. Also, keep track of which is your original master image that will be printed, and which is your reference. I’d recommend arranging your windows in the same way every time to avoid confusion.

Click the window to make sure you’re in the original, master document and enable soft proofing for your desired proof condition. You will notice immediately that it looks different (and worse) than your reference.

VERY IMPORTANT: Don’t enable soft proofing on the reference window!!

Now, with soft proofing enabled, make adjustment layers in your master print file to try to get it to look as close as possible to the reference image. During this process, you can try both the relative and perceptual versions to see which one you like better for each image.  But remember, like explained above, your soft proof and your reference will NEVER look exactly alike if you’re doing this correctly.

What you will see is that the reference file looks bright, vivid, and beautiful – just like your master file did before you enabled soft proofing.  Your master file now looks dull, lifeless and flat. And depending on your paper and profile, some may look worse than others. For example, if you are printing to a photo paper, it will look closer to the reference than if you’re proofing for a canvas (which will look totally washed out!)

Here’s the part about training your eye and understanding the situation. What you see in the Photoshop soft proof really IS closer to your print than the reference version, because Photoshop is simulating the black ink and paper white as described by your profile.  Which again, will never be exactly like that of the print.

(Sorry it took a while to get to the simple answer

You will need to add adjustment layers to get the soft proof to match the reference as closely as possible. I usually end up with a curve layer to open up shadow detail and brighten the image overall, plus a Hue & Saturation layer with Saturation set at somewhere between +5 for photo paper and +20 for canvas.

When you’re done, group the adjustment layers together and name them for your proof condition.  You don’t need to save the reference file.

To save files for the print vendor or service bureau: After doing all your adjustments and flattening the file you can use Convert to Profile to change the file to a specified color space, such as sRGB, etc. (If you’ve been embedding profiles when you save files, “Assign color space” doesn’t have any use in the workflow.) Or, if the lab specifies it, you can convert to the same printer/paper profile and rendering intent you used for the soft proof. In any case, when you save the file, make sure to embed the profile.

With some practice, I promise that you can get to where you can tell from your soft proof what the printed image will look like. And you will find that what looks like dull, washed out blacks on your display actually comes out as rich, deep blacks on your print. Over time your eye and brain will begin to tie the two results together and doing soft proofing with adjustments will give you just what you expect.

Nat provided some screen shots to give you a visual on his technique.

Next, Guy Tal said - Nat already covered the workflow so I’ll just add a couple of things on a technique I teach at my workshop:

Rather than trying different rendering intents in case one just happens to fit, I always use Relative Colorimetric. In this mode, all in-gamut colors are preserved and I only have to worry about re-mapping the out-of-gamut colors, which I prefer to do manually (Perceptual, on the other hand, remaps all colors to fit into the target space, which usually requires more work to restore the right look later).

In order to reign in those out-of-gamut colors, I turn on Gamut Warnings which will highlight them in grey. I find the most useful control for bringing colors into a small color space is Saturation, so I add a Hue/Saturation layer, and drag the slider left (de-saturate) until the grey warnings are gone. Of course I reduced overall saturation so the image looks pretty dull at this step.

Now comes the fun part:

Click on the Hue/Saturation layer mask, and fill it with black. This essentially eliminates its effect so color is back to normal and the grey areas are back.  While the mask is still selected, use a soft white brush at 50% opacity to paint over the grey areas and watch them magically disappear.

Voila! You only corrected those colors that don’t exist in the target space.  Everything else is just as vibrant as it was in your master file, and it only took one layer.

Finally, Andy Biggs chimed in - I do exactly what Guy does. It is quick and easy, and usually doesn’t need to be done very often. Keep in mind that soft proofing for me usually shows the deficiencies in the media type than anything else. In other words, matte papers do have a reduced gamut from a luster paper, and I usually do small tweaks to make my image look good for that specific media. For example, I may create a new layer in Photoshop to adjust the overall, not local, contrast of the image.

Update: I received an email from Melanie at West Coast Imaging with a link to another fantastic article about soft-proofing.  Thanks, Melanie!

Update – Feb. 3, 2011: Rich Seiling over at West Coast Imaging wrote an excellent blog post titled “The Myth of the Screen to Print Match“.  While not specifically related to soft-proofing, this post will help you understand why it is unlikely you’ll ever get a perfect match between what you see on your computer monitor and what comes out of your printer.  Nothin’ like setting expectations to eliminate disappointments, right?   

Got something to add?  Don’t be shy.  Leave a comment!

All text and images are provided courtesy of Younes Bounhar and are protected under copyright laws.  I invite you to link to this article but please do not re-post the content without prior approval from Younes.  A huge “thanks” goes out to Younes for writing this article and allowing me to publish it on my blog.

In this article, I would like to discuss an alternative method that can not only replace GNDs in some circumstances, but offers significant advantages over both GNDs and the automated HDR options. This technique involves blending multiple exposures using masks and layers in Photoshop. Now, I don’t mean to re-open the debate of “getting right in-camera vs. take it and fix it later approach”. Neither do I pretend that this option is the end all be all, mother all of all options. If you dislike spending time on your computer, this is probably not for you. If on the other hand you believe that you should use every tool you have at your disposal to make the best image you can, then buckle up and jump on board!

Enter Exposure Blending

Let me first start with a disclaimer: as I indicated above, this is not a panacea, or some miracle recipe. Exposure blending is very useful but does have some limitations: it simply does not work with scenes containing moving objects. Also, when dealing with trees or grasses blowing in the wind, it can get tricky and sometimes even unworkable. That said, I find that exposure blending beats HDR programs by a long shot because the results are more realistic looking (personal choice here) and it avoids the muddy toned images that HDR programs often result in.

The Setup

So, what is exposure blending exactly? As its name suggests, it involves taking several exposures of the same subject and “mixing” them in Photoshop using layers and masks.  It is imperative that the framing be identical for each exposure, so it is important you use of a tripod, and ideally a remote release to minimize vibration and motion. The exact bracketing required varies from scene to scene and depends in great part on the dynamic range of your camera. Using my Nikon D700, I simply set it on “matrix metering” and take 3 exposures: 0, -1 and -2 stops. If you are just trying your hand at this, I would definitely recommend trying at least +2 to -2 brackets (5 images total), then adjust accordingly once you get more comfortable. Ultimately, however, only two exposures are usually necessary (0 and -2). I will sometimes blend in parts of a third one if I need more details in the shadows, but that is rarely required.

Blending Exposures

Now on to the blending.

1)  Once the images are uploaded on the computer, process each exposure separately in RAW then open both exposures in Photoshop (here 0 and -2 stops).

2)  Go to the darker exposure, select all (command+A), copy (command+C) and paste it on top of the lighter image (command+V).

3)  Select the top layer (dark) and while pressing the alt button, click on the “add layer mask” button.  This will create a “see-through” mask that will come in handy later to “paint-in” details from the dark exposure onto the lighter one.

4)  In the layers panel, select the channels tab.  Photoshop allows you to create a selection based on the luminosity values in the image. In essence, at the click of a button you can select all the “light” pixels. You can do so by pressing the command button and simultaneously clicking on the RGB channel icon.

5)  You should now see a set of “marching ants”, indicating a selection appear on your image. While this can be used as your mask, I find that going one step further will provide an even better selection. To do so, press shift+option+command and click on the RGB channel icon one more time. This will intersect the previous selection with itself and select a narrower set of light values. You can repeat this as many times as you want, but I find that two selections (step 4+5 combined) are sufficient.

6)  Now move back to the “layers” tab and make sure to select the dark mask we created earlier in step 3, by clicking on it.

7)  Select the eraser (press E), select a large brush (400 px) with 0% hardness and ensure the opacity and flow are set at 100% (top panel). Make sure that black is your foreground colour (you can toggle between foreground and background colours by pressing X, if black is not already one of your colours, press D to revert to default colours, then press X to select black).

8)  Here is where the magic happens: simply start erasing over the overexposed portion of the image (sky and/or reflections for example). You will now see that the darker layer is literally being painted over the lighter one. Because the selection is completely self-feathering, you need not worry too much about being very precise with your painting. I usually find that a few passes with the eraser are necessary to bring all the colours out. Notice that while the sky is being uncovered, the areas in the shadows (e.g. buildings or foreground) are hardly touched.

9)  That is it. Once the result satisfies you, you can merge your two layers and continue on with your usual post processing routine.

10)  If you feel that you are still lacking a bit of detail in some of the shadow areas, you could use an overexposed frame (+1 or +2) to paint in the necessary detail. To do so, simply copy the overexposed frame on top of your other layers. Then, create a “see-through” mask as done in step 3. Select the Eraser, set the opacity between 25 and 40% and flow at about 50%, make sure your foreground colour is black. Then select the mask and start painting over your image in the areas where you would like to reveal more detail. Since the opacity of your eraser is low, multiple passes may be required to achieve the desired result.

The process may sound a bit daunting at first if you are not familiar with masks and layers but once you give it a go you will see that it is fairly straightforward and the results will surely speak for themselves!

About Younes:

Younes Bounhar is a ridiculously talented photographer and super nice guy from Canada.  He offers group workshops and fine art prints, and is a frequent contributor to Photolife magazine.  I encourage you to visit his website for inspiration and check out his blog for a steady stream of helpful information.