In my last post I used the Warp function to make a page curl effect, but it looks a bit flat.

In this video I add a couple of shadows and a highlight and use Warp again to get just the right shape.

Can’t See The Video? Click Here

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Its a helpful feature of Photoshop but can test the patience of a saint sometimes. Here’s an example of when I wanted to use Photoshop’s Warp function but it just wouldn’t do what I wanted.

In this video I convince Photoshop that up is down and back is front.

Can’t See the Video? Click Here

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The adage “it’s better to be safe than sorry” is a good one to keep in mind. Of course, you may not have the luxury of taking the images yourself. Let’s say, just for arguments sake, that after years of begging and pleading, you finally get the image of your great-great grandparents from the cousin who’s been promising to send it, forever, and the image is less than perfect. The image is in bubble glass, the lighting made for a lovely color-cast and there’s only one shot, from straight on, which made for some fairly wicked distortion. The odds of ever getting shots from other angles is slim-to-none, since this one was years in coming, so what do you do now?

The color cast problem can be dealt with in the usual way, but what about the distortion?  First, take a minute to see what direction the distortion is going in. Look at the example above, see how it sort of fans out and back at the top and out to the sides?  I guess that would be the obvious direction, since it’s bubble glass, but flat glass can be distorted like this, too, depending on a number of factors, such as where you’re standing in relation to the picture and the lens on your camera.

So, now that you have that distortion direction in mind, duplicate your original layer (you have to keep your ‘before’ reference copy, after all, you know!) by one of three methods: right click on the layer itself and choose Duplicate, go to the Image menu and choose Duplicate or use keyboard shortcut Ctrl (PC) or Cmd (Mac) + J, and then transform (Ctrl or Cmd + T) Now right click the image and choose Distort. Since the distortion of the image fanned out at the top, bring the top handles of the Distort Transform slightly out to the sides. This may seem counter-intuitive, but what it’s actually doing is bringing the image back towards the viewer where it was distorting back away from the viewer due to the bubble of the glass. Also bring the bottom handles in, slightly, towards the center to line everything up a little better.

Next, since the glass bubbles out, we’re going to bring it back in, some. While still in Transform mode, right click on the image, again, and select Warp. Bring the center of each side in a bit to make what was convex more concave.

If your people are looking a bit on the skinny side after all that, right click again while still in Transform, and select Free Transform. Pull the side handles out a bit until the image looks right.

Lens Correction Filter

I can hear many of you, now, asking why I just don’t go to Filter > Lens Correction to fix the distortion?  The answer is…you can!  Especially if you’re not a control freak like someone we know who may be writing this article…If you do, just keep the same bits in mind, that is, geometric distortion (concave) and vertical perspective (bringing the top handles of the distortion transform out and the bottom handles in).

So whether you correct lens distortion on your own by eye, or you let Photoshop’s Lens Correction feature help you out, it’s easier than you think to bring an image back into perspective!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

In this video, I look at two actions and show you different ways of examining them.

Can’t See The Video? Click Here

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Can’t see the video? Click Here

* Lens correction is also available in Lightroom 3

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

To illustrate the capabilities of the Masks Panel, we’ll start with a basic two layer composite image. The bottom layer contains a simple texture, like so:

The second layer contains a graphic element, that we want to modify so it is only partly visible. Here’s what we’ll add as the second layer (called “Swirls”):

Next, we’ll create a layer mask using the gradient tool, a mask that will fade the visibility of the top layer. Remember our mantra “black conceals and white reveals.” And recall that any gray color will partially reveal, according to the level of gray. So here’s our method:

1. In the Layers Panel, select the Swirls layer and click the “Add Layer Mask” icon.

2. Select the Gradient tool and choose the Black, White gradient (third one in the dropdown list).

3. With the layer mask active, drag a gradient diagonally across the image:

Notice how the Swirls layer fades out in the gray area of the gradient, and is completely visible in the black area. This is the basic premise of a layer mask.

Now, what about the Masks Panel? Let’s take a look at it now (Window > Masks).

At the top of the Masks Panel, we have a thumbnail of our layer mask. Below that, we have two sliders, which will be the focus of our effort today. We’ll start with Density. This slider controls the opacity, if you will, of the layer mask. It essentially fades the black areas of the mask towards gray and eventually all the way to white. Note that it starts at 100% density.

If we reduce the density, we see the backs in the layer mask trend towards gray – which allows more of the layer to show through the mask. For example, setting the Density to 75% gives us this result:

Notice the change in the layer thumbnail, and the fact that the Swirls layer is showing through our mask over the entire image (although it still has the gradual fade).

The cool thing about these changes using the layer mask, is that they are totally non-destructive, and completely reversible and changeable. You can close the document, shut down your computer, and come back tomorrow, and you can open up the Masks panel and make further changes to any of the controls. In that respect, the changes using the Mask Panel are not unlike Smart Objects.

Let’ look at the Feather control. If you’ve been following this series, you’ll recall that in the tip on selection basics, we created a mask using a basic lasso tool selection, then went in with Select > Feather to give it a soft edge, before creating the mask. Here’s a quicker, adjustable way to achieve this same effect.

We’ll add a new layer to our composite, and create a very rough (VERY rough) selection with the lasso tool:

Next, we add a layer mask using the same process as above. Remember, when we have a selection active, the layer mask is created according to the active selection:

Now, just adjust the feathering to get a nice soft edge (I used 50%). Again, fully adjustable, non-destructive, and you can change it any time in the future:

I hope this gives you a taste of what the Masks Panel can do, and some ideas for how to use it in your own work flow. Next time, we’ll explore a bit further and look at the rest of the options in this panel. See you then!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Can you remove the watermark from this photo for me?

Well, yes, I can. Anyone that’s fairly competent with tools that have been in Photoshop since the beginning (i.e. Clone Tool) can remove a watermark, which  makes all the people getting all up in arms over the Content Aware features in CS5 pretty funny, actually. However, just because I can doesn’t mean I will. In fact, let me be blunt: I won’t. There’s no reason you’d need me to take a watermark off your own photo – none I can think of anyway. But while we’re on the subject of watermarks, if you put watermarks all over your photos, maybe you should reconsider that. Personally, I think the only thing a big fat ©in the middle of the photo, or your name repeated over and over across the entire image does is prevent people from seeing your work. If someone wants your photo bad enough, go back to the beginning of this answer and read the part about “anyone that’s fairly competent”, again.

I’ve heard you say (over and over) that retouching and restoration are not the same thing, but I know a lot of people that say “retouching” and mean restoration. Why do you keep saying that?

Because they aren’t the same thing. While it’s true that old school restoration artists referred to their craft as “retouching”, I still maintain they are two different disciplines. Restoration is the art of restoring, literally, something (a photo, a painting, a house) back to its original condition. If it’s done correctly, you use original material – in the case of digital photo restoration, this might mean borrowing areas, or pixels, from the original to repair damaged areas, or, if there’s no other choice, materials as close to the original as possible. For example, if there’s a football player in the damaged photo and he’s holding something, one can assume by taking the context of the photo into consideration, that the object is not a loaf of bread or a baby, correct? So compositing and integrating a picture of a football into that space would not be amiss. Retouching, on the other hand, is a form of photo manipulation, changing aspects of the photo, taking away from and adding to the original. That’s not to say that aspects of retouching are not ever used in restoration, and vice versa, but they are two different disciplines. Not all retouch artists are restoration artists any more than all restoration artists can do retouching. I like to think of it this way: Retouching is taking a photo to the next level; restoration is taking it back to the first level.

I took my old photos to a photographer and the restorations were awful! Since restoration is part of photography, all photographers know how to restore, right?

Right! And all pilots know how to fix planes, right? It’s all aviation…right? First of all, speaking in the digital sense, of course, the last time the damaged photo had anything to do with photography was when it was taken (unless you take a photo of the photo before restoration, but that’s the next question). Not every photographer knows, or wants to know, how to use Photoshop. Some are really good, brilliant even, at taking great photos directly in the camera! Some know how to do editing adjustments to their work in Photoshop , of course, but what part of taking pictures and adjusting their photos has anything to do with repairing a 100 year old photograph? I do believe that photographers, who happen to have excellent Photoshop skills, have a better chance at becoming a great restoration artist because if they’re great at their craft, photography, they have a great “eye”, something essential in great restoration. If you don’t have any artistic sensibility at all, you probably aren’t cut out for the work, anyway, because knowing and understanding the composition and structural and physical elements in a photograph are crucial to successful restoration, especially if you’re ever going to rise above the basics. Sure, most people can fix a few spots here and there, but only an artistic eye is going to be able to do the really hard stuff. That’s why artists, especially those who know human anatomy, are also great candidates for exemplary restoration artists. Let’s put it this way, I’m a fairly competent photo restoration artist and I know enough about Photoshop to, probably, be considered an expert. I also own a camera. But you won’t ever be catching me out claiming to be a photographer, or a pilot, either, for that matter…

I want to restore my photos; is it best to scan or photograph my originals?

This is probably the question I get the most and the answer is: it depends. I know, I live to be difficult, but the truth is there is no pat answer. Sure, I know people who state loudly, for all to hear, that you should always, always I say!, photograph the original. I will lay you odds, right now, that those people have, at least some of the following:

a)      A good camera (also a good bet that it’s a DSLR, not a point & shoot),

b)      A lighting set up of some sort,

c)       Filters

d)      A copy stand

e)      At least a modicum of photographic talent

Why do I say this? Because I have a Canon S70 point & shoot, no lighting set up, no filters and no photographic  talent and frankly, when I try to photograph originals, they pretty much come out on the “suck badly” end of the Wowser Scale. In other words, friends, you most likely won’t be able to take a photo of your original, bending over it while it’s lying on the kitchen table under the overhead light and expect it to be better than a scan. Then again, if the scanner retailed for $29.95 at Pipi’s Bargain Electroniks Sooper Store when you bought it last month, the point & shoot thing might not be all that bad. It’s all relative, you see. A decent scanner with good software is always going to out trump a camera outfit you don’t have. At the same time, if you have both a good camera set up and a good scanner, I suggest trying both to see what results you come up with and go with the best one. That being said, sometimes you won’t have a choice. If you have an original that cannot go into a scanner, for instance, such as a convex oval crayon portrait in (or out of if it’s not broken and flat) its frame, no matter what type of camera you have, a photo of it will be better than nothing at all. At least there would be a digital record. If you’re lucky enough to have a number of them, or any old photos in their original frames, it might be worth it to rent a camera set up, or ask a friend to bring theirs!

Thanks for bearing with me! I hope this answered someone’s question, somewhere!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Can you remove the watermark from this photo for me?

Well, yes, I can. Anyone that’s fairly competent with tools that have been in Photoshop since the beginning (i.e. Clone Tool) can remove a watermark, which  makes all the people getting all up in arms over the Content Aware features in CS5 pretty funny, actually. However, just because I can doesn’t mean I will. In fact, let me be blunt: I won’t. There’s no reason you’d need me to take a watermark off your own photo – none I can think of anyway. But while we’re on the subject of watermarks, if you put watermarks all over your photos, maybe you should reconsider that. Personally, I think the only thing a big fat ©in the middle of the photo, or your name repeated over and over across the entire image does is prevent people from seeing your work. If someone wants your photo bad enough, go back to the beginning of this answer and read the part about “anyone that’s fairly competent”, again.

I’ve heard you say (over and over) that retouching and restoration are not the same thing, but I know a lot of people that say “retouching” and mean restoration. Why do you keep saying that?

Because they aren’t the same thing. While it’s true that old school restoration artists referred to their craft as “retouching”, I still maintain they are two different disciplines. Restoration is the art of restoring, literally, something (a photo, a painting, a house) back to its original condition. If it’s done correctly, you use original material – in the case of digital photo restoration, this might mean borrowing areas, or pixels, from the original to repair damaged areas, or, if there’s no other choice, materials as close to the original as possible. For example, if there’s a football player in the damaged photo and he’s holding something, one can assume by taking the context of the photo into consideration, that the object is not a loaf of bread or a baby, correct? So compositing and integrating a picture of a football into that space would not be amiss. Retouching, on the other hand, is a form of photo manipulation, changing aspects of the photo, taking away from and adding to the original. That’s not to say that aspects of retouching are not ever used in restoration, and vice versa, but they are two different disciplines. Not all retouch artists are restoration artists any more than all restoration artists can do retouching. I like to think of it this way: Retouching is taking a photo to the next level; restoration is taking it back to the first level.

I took my old photos to a photographer and the restorations were awful! Since restoration is part of photography, all photographers know how to restore, right?

Right! And all pilots know how to fix planes, right? It’s all aviation…right? First of all, speaking in the digital sense, of course, the last time the damaged photo had anything to do with photography was when it was taken (unless you take a photo of the photo before restoration, but that’s the next question). Not every photographer knows, or wants to know, how to use Photoshop. Some are really good, brilliant even, at taking great photos directly in the camera! Some know how to do editing adjustments to their work in Photoshop , of course, but what part of taking pictures and adjusting their photos has anything to do with repairing a 100 year old photograph? I do believe that photographers, who happen to have excellent Photoshop skills, have a better chance at becoming a great restoration artist because if they’re great at their craft, photography, they have a great “eye”, something essential in great restoration. If you don’t have any artistic sensibility at all, you probably aren’t cut out for the work, anyway, because knowing and understanding the composition and structural and physical elements in a photograph are crucial to successful restoration, especially if you’re ever going to rise above the basics. Sure, most people can fix a few spots here and there, but only an artistic eye is going to be able to do the really hard stuff. That’s why artists, especially those who know human anatomy, are also great candidates for exemplary restoration artists. Let’s put it this way, I’m a fairly competent photo restoration artist and I know enough about Photoshop to, probably, be considered an expert. I also own a camera. But you won’t ever be catching me out claiming to be a photographer, or a pilot, either, for that matter…

I want to restore my photos; is it best to scan or photograph my originals?

This is probably the question I get the most and the answer is: it depends. I know, I live to be difficult, but the truth is there is no pat answer. Sure, I know people who state loudly, for all to hear, that you should always, always I say!, photograph the original. I will lay you odds, right now, that those people have, at least some of the following:

a)      A good camera (also a good bet that it’s a DSLR, not a point & shoot),

b)      A lighting set up of some sort,

c)       Filters

d)      A copy stand

e)      At least a modicum of photographic talent

Why do I say this? Because I have a Canon S70 point & shoot, no lighting set up, no filters and no photographic  talent and frankly, when I try to photograph originals, they pretty much come out on the “suck badly” end of the Wowser Scale. In other words, friends, you most likely won’t be able to take a photo of your original, bending over it while it’s lying on the kitchen table under the overhead light and expect it to be better than a scan. Then again, if the scanner retailed for $29.95 at Pipi’s Bargain Electroniks Sooper Store when you bought it last month, the point & shoot thing might not be all that bad. It’s all relative, you see. A decent scanner with good software is always going to out trump a camera outfit you don’t have. At the same time, if you have both a good camera set up and a good scanner, I suggest trying both to see what results you come up with and go with the best one. That being said, sometimes you won’t have a choice. If you have an original that cannot go into a scanner, for instance, such as a convex oval crayon portrait in (or out of if it’s not broken and flat) its frame, no matter what type of camera you have, a photo of it will be better than nothing at all. At least there would be a digital record. If you’re lucky enough to have a number of them, or any old photos in their original frames, it might be worth it to rent a camera set up, or ask a friend to bring theirs!

Thanks for bearing with me! I hope this answered someone’s question, somewhere!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

If you look closely, you’ll notice that there are a couple in the middle that don’t fit into the other categories, and today we’ll take a look at one of them: the Difference blending mode. As the name implies, this mode is useful for finding the “difference” between two layers, but it also has some creative uses as well. In this tip, we will focus on the more utilitarian purpose, and see how Difference mode can help us to align and analyze images.

First, a bit of an overview of what difference mode does. It compares the colors of the current layer to those below, and subtracts the two to arrive at a resulting color. This has three special secret effects:

1. Blending with pure white as the color will completely invert the image. This provides the same result as using the Image > Adjustments > Invert command.
2. Blending with pure black as the color has no effect at all. Recall that black pixels have a tonal value of 0, so subtracting 0 makes no change.
3. Blending two identical colors together will result in pure black. Since the values are the same, when subtracted, the result is 0, which is the value of black.

We can see this in action below. We’ll start with this image:

Now, let’s add a new layer, with a simple black to white gradient. Change the layer’s blend mode to “Difference” and you can see that the white part of the gradient has inverted the image, while the black part has left the image unaffected:

This demonstrates special effects 1 and 2 from above. Now let’s look at special effect #3.

First, we delete the gradient layer. Then, duplicate the background layer and set the duplicate to “Difference” blend mode:

Notice that, although you can clearly see the images are the same in the layers panel, the net result of subtracting the two (Difference mode) is that the entire image turns black. The main point to realize is that this happens because EVERY pixel is the SAME.

What if we take the move tool, and nudge the top layer to the right a few pixels? You can do this my selecting the Move tool (V) and using the arrow keys to nudge one pixel at a time. Notice that even with a move of one pixel, there is a noticeable change. Take a look:

You might start to see where I’m going with this: you can use this feature to line up layers, one on top of another, by nudging them into position. Modern versions of Photoshop (with Photomerge) have some pretty sophisticated stitching capability, so this isn’t always as useful as it once was. But it can still get you out of a bind, and it works on any document regardless of how many layers you have.

For example, I worked on a project recently in which I was scanning in an entire front page of a newspaper – a 30-year-old newspaper, brown and aged, with creases, dust, you name it. Now, my scanner isn’t the size of a full newspaper, so I had to do it in segments. And, with the sad condition of the paper itself, Photoshop’s Photomerge feature wasn’t cooperating – so, I had to stitch by hand.

Here’s a view of a couple of layers I was trying to align:

You might be tempted to lower the opacity, but that’s really hard to see. Let’s change the upper layer to Difference mode (temporarily):

Notice how in the overlapping area, you can see both layers, and you can see that they are not aligned. Grab that move tool, and get a rough alignment by dragging the top layer:

Notice how the closer you get to alignment, the more areas turn black? No, it’s time to switch to the arrow tool and start nudging one pixel at a time:

You’ll know you have the best possible alignment when a one-pixel nudge in any direction results in more color appearing. You’ve reached the center of alignment (don’t forget that some images might require rotation or resizing to get the alignment perfect). Once your image is in alignment, simply change the blend mode back to “Normal.”

One last tip for today: you can use this not only for alignment, but for analysis. Recall our image from a few weeks ago when we looked at softening with Overlay:

What if we wanted to do a quick check to see where we made our modifications and retouches on this image? We simply duplicate the original, bring it to the top of the stack, and set the blend mode to “Difference:”

Now the differences are visible, but at this resolution, and without a good monitor, it is really hard to see! Can we do something about it? Of course!

Let’s add a new layer to the top. Fill it with white, then set the blend mode of the new layer to “Color Dodge.” BOOM! The lighter areas are amplified and it is easy to see where we made our retouches from the original image:

I hope you found today’s tip useful! Stick around for next week, when we will explore some of the more artistic ways of using Difference blending mode.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

 When I did….I heard angels sing. I realized I could make eyes shine, and make faces more beautiful in Lightroom. Don’t get me wrong, I love photoshop…but I like to spend time outside shooting, not behind my computer…so any trick I can learn to shorten my workflow, makes me happy!!!

 This is my raw image….

 After applying a couple presets from my workflow set…

Click to Enlarge

 Better, right? But you can see the beautiful Miss Shana has AMAZING EYES! I would have ran an action on them in Photoshop in the past….but now I click on the brush on the right

Click to Enlarge

Click A then choose a preset (I used ASD: Work It- Pretty Eyes as Brush A…this sharpens and brightens) or create your own and painted over the eyes

Click to Enlarge

Then I picked Brush B (used preset ASD:Work It-Pretty Faces) and painted over the skin…this made it brighter and softer.

 wow….look at those eyes!!!! All in one program.

Click to Enlarge

Go try it out…. have fun!!!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites