Your Photoshop Workflow?

[Andy M]

Have been messing about with Photoshop over the last few days, and with the help of Scott Kelby's 'The Photoshop CS2 Book for Digital Photographers' (as recommended by a few of you), and have been semi-pleased with the initial results:





I've also purchased a handful of plug-ins: Velvia Vision, Noise Ninja, The Imaging Factory's Convert to B&W and Pixel Genius' Photokit Sharpener.

But what order should these plug-ins be used?

I do my exposure, white balance, spot patching and cropping outside of PS (in Apple Aperture) and come into PS with a 16-bit TIFF file.

Once in PS do I then do an initial sharpen, followed by noise reduction, colour saturation, another sharpen, and then resize to JPEG?

Also, why do some people recommend converting to 8-bit?

Yours,

Confused

Edited by Andy M on Sunday 3rd December 13:31

[stuart b]

Andy,

I recently came across a very comprehensive workflow description here:-

www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/workflow1.shtml

I haven't had time to work through it all yet (partly because it scares me!).

I am no great shakes at this stuff, but your pre-workflow Photoshop workflow seems to make sense to me.

Views on when to sharpen seem to vary. I have been leaving it to last, but note that in the workflow above I think they do what you do.

[BTW - I have started trying sharpening in Lab Colour mode as this supposedly introduces less noise (go to Lab Colour and then sharpen just the Luminance channel) - there is more detailed info. on the same site above and elsewhere. If you do decide to do this do it only with a 16-bit image]. edit - just noticed that you have a whizzy sharpening plug-in so this is probably irrelevant.

Most of the "whole image" tools in PS seem to work in 16-bit, but if you want to start selecting etc. then conversion to 8 bit is necessary (see workflow tutorial for detail). Not sure if this applies to all versions or not.

I have been playing with Noise Ninja a bit. My current practice is to use it later on (once i have completed any other actions in PS which could introduce or show up noise (e.g. saturation))

Stuart

Edited by stuart b on Sunday 3rd December 18:17

[Andy M]

stuart b said:

I recently came across a very comprehensive workflow description here:-

www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/workflow1.shtml

I haven't had time to work through it all yet (partly because it scares me!).

Hi Stuart,

I was looking at that same workflow yesterday. I'm glad it scared you, as it scared me too!

10 hours processing a single shot?!! I'd like to get away with less than 10 seconds if possible!

Noise Ninja has impressed me quite a bit - have you downloaded the specific profile for your camera? I found it make the images less 'plasticy' and presents a more pleasant result.

When I import my TIFF files into PS they're averaging around 72mb in size. Try to batch process a few of these and, especially when a few layers have been added, it's a bit processor hungry on the old pc! How do medium/large format guys cope?

Answers on a postcard please

[stuart b]

Yes - I've got the specific profile. It's magic! Although in parallel, I seem to be coming to a number of back to basics learnings at the same time - such as if you expose right, you don't start with as much noise! So much to learn but at least it's all fun.

Try using an old laptop with 320 MB RAM - that focuses the mind on quality over quantity a bit New all-powerful PC for Christmas with a bit of luck!

Stuart

[Andy M]

stuart b said:

...if you expose right, you don't start with as much noise!

I posted this a few days ago. Have you read: www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml ?

So long as you don't push up the ISO, or reduce your shutter speed/aperture too much, exposing to the right seems the way to go if you want as little noise as possible

[LongQ]

Andy M said:

stuart b said:

...if you expose right, you don't start with as much noise!

I posted this a few days ago. Have you read: www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml ?

So long as you don't push up the ISO, or reduce your shutter speed/aperture too much, exposing to the right seems the way to go if you want as little noise as possible

Neat Image may be worth a look as well in the noise reduction/removal stakes.

I've used it for a while on scanned 35mm images and been impressed in the main but stymied by film grain quite often.

I threw some digital camera images at it last week, mostly taken at ISO 400 and 800, and was amazed by the results. The shots were taken under a car park light with very little daylight left (just about enough to backlight the clouds) and so were very noisy indeed. Not anymore. Printing at around 7x5 size I can't see any noise at all and these are mostly dark shots with dark colours - Maroon car, black tree silhouettes, deep blue (left like that as part of the colour balance adjustment from the sodium lighting) clouds. All the things that make noise a problem yet the original noise has gone whilst detail is retained - even enhanced using the inbuilt sharpening.

I assume that Noise Ninja can do the same but is you have any images playing up it may be worth checking out Neat Image as well.

[stuart b]

Andy,

Thanks - I'll take a look at the link. Definitely makes a huge difference. Managing the potential conflict between this and the need to avoid blowing highlights is keeping me busy at the moment. Starting to understand why diffuse light etc etc desirable. As I say, long learning curve :-).

LongQ - I haven't tried alternative noise reduction (apart from that in Nikon Capture which is OK, but Noise Ninja seems better). I remember when I picked up Noise Ninja that someone mention that and another (possibly Neat Image).

I need to correct something I said above. I said that using selections and stuff didn't work in 16-bit. That was complete brainfade. I should have said layers (and many filters).

Stuart

[Mr Whippy]

Andy M said:

stuart b said:

...if you expose right, you don't start with as much noise!

I posted this a few days ago. Have you read: www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml ?

So long as you don't push up the ISO, or reduce your shutter speed/aperture too much, exposing to the right seems the way to go if you want as little noise as possible

Isn't that only with higher bit raw images though?

Does a jpg save the info in reducing sized chunks too? Ie, using 50% of the data for the highest stop exposed? Thought jpg at least was linear? Or thats what I gathered from Luminous Landscapes text, but I might be wrong !!??!

Dave

[Andy M]

I don't think it applies to JPEG's. The whole point of it - from what I understand - is that you can open up the shadows in post processing. Although possible with JPEG, I think it's more than likely you'll just end up with an overexposed photo.

[andybuk99]

i would say the most important thing i learnt when turning to digital from film was to sharpen at the very end of the workflow, when you know what size the image is being reproduced at and what format it is being printed/used on. so many people apply generic sharpening and although it may look fine on screen it can look bloody awful when printed.

[Andy M]

andybuk99 said:

i would say the most important thing i learnt when turning to digital from film was to sharpen at the very end of the workflow, when you know what size the image is being reproduced at and what format it is being printed/used on. so many people apply generic sharpening and although it may look fine on screen it can look bloody awful when printed.

Yep, my thoughts too, but it appears many people recommend doing a staged process of sharpening.

The sharpener I use recommends a 3 stage process (taken from LL):

1 — Capture Sharpening: This is applied right after the image is imported from the RAW converter or scanner. It is intended to restore any sharpness lost during the image capture process. All sharpening should be turned off in the RAW conversion program (or the scanner software).

2 — Creative Sharpening: This is comparable to the sharpening process that is usually applied to an image, and is the area where the most effort and "creativity" will be applied.

3 — Output Sharpening: This is applied to an already sharpened image, and settings are based on the size and type of output.


I suppose my question is: how do I make sure than I'm not unnecessarily degrading the quality of my pictures by using the plug-ins in the wrong order?

[Bacardi]

Just had a quick look through 'Step-by-Step Processing of Photographs using Photoshop' I guess it's OK...ish for what it says i.e. doing it all in PS. A few thoughts though:

PS is destructive to your files. Try applying some curves to a file then check the histogram. The white stripe gaps are missing information. Working in 16bit helps, also helps keep banding down in smooth areas, so if you are going to do large adjustments keep it 16.

Unless I missed it, the article didn't mention applying tonal adjustments using adjustment layers. This is much less destructive as you can revisit the adjustments and it only applies them once to your finished flattened file.

Better still, do all the tonal/contrast/colour balance adjustments in your RAW processor. Doing it in PS shuts the gate after the horse has bolted.

stuart b said:

[BTW - I have started trying sharpening in Lab Colour mode as this supposedly introduces less noise (go to Lab Colour and then sharpen just the Luminance channel)

That's an old method. You can achieve the same result by applying sharpening and then 'fade' and selecting 'Luminance' as the blending mode.

The general rule of thumb is to apply sharpening as the last step, as adjustments to sharpened files are more destructive.

stuart b said:

I said that using selections and stuff didn't work in 16-bit. That was complete brainfade. I should have said layers (and many filters).

Layers work fine in 16bit. Most 'effect' filters don't work.

Andy M said:

Also, why do some people recommend converting to 8-bit?

Not sure what apps support 16bit these days but in the past, pics destined for print had to be 8bit as the likes of Quark Xpress wouldn't support bigger. It's as much about practicality as anything. Providing your file doesn't need excessive adjustments I wouldn't bother with 16bit. e.g. I've Just finished a little shoot with 82 finished shots. 81 X 22mpx @ 8bit CMYK = 6.8g as opposed to 16bit =13.7g and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

With straight pics, I hardly use PS in my own workflow . All the work is done in the RAW processor along with sharpening. I then use PS for the odd bit of dust removal and making contact sheets.

Andy M said:

When I import my TIFF files into PS they're averaging around 72mb in size. Try to batch process a few of these and, especially when a few layers have been added, it's a bit processor hungry on the old pc! How do medium/large format guys cope?

A Cray super computer comes in handy ;-) Multi shot backs can pump out 500mb files. Scanning backs up to 1.7gb Montaging them together can be troublesome. If I need to work with large files or multi layer (say 30+ layers), I use an old OS9, mac only app called 'Live Picture'. Ground breaking in it's time but dead and undeveloped for 10 years, it can still make PS look stupid. Not as many filter effects but it can montage together 30 500mb files plus effects and adjustments, say 100 layer in total, all in realtime (no time bars) with only 32mbs ram! Pig to learn mind you.

I wouldn't worry to much about what order you apply filters but I'd keep noise reduction towards the end (adjustments will aggravate noise so you won't know how much to apply earlier on) and sharpening last. be careful you don't go round in ever decreasing circles here as noise reduction soften the pic and sharpening increases noise .

[LongQ]

Bacardi said:

<lots of interesting stuff from one who needs to know ....>

I wouldn't worry to much about what order you apply filters but I'd keep noise reduction towards the end (adjustments will aggravate noise so you won't know how much to apply earlier on) and sharpening last. be careful you don't go round in ever decreasing circles here as noise reduction soften the pic and sharpening increases noise .

Hmm.

Maybe it depends on your source and what you are noise reducing for and from?

LL's suggestion about noise reduction early in the Post RAW processing makes some sense to me, in that other changes may well create more 'clumps' of noise making truly smooth noise reduction almost impossible. At the same time for certain images early sharpening may also help edge delineation results for noise reduction processes. Neat Image allows the adjustment of both noise and sharpness at the same time (and some other stuff I really have not got to grips with).

If you are processing from film, especially scans of higher speed 35mm, the balcancing act of trying to keep grain under control and free of sharpening effects whilst not losing too much detail from the available sharpness can be more than challenging I have found. High contrast digital images can be a similar problem, but something more balanced responds much more cleanly to the processes, at least that what I believe I have noticed.

In otherwords flows may need to be significantly amended according to subject matter and source material. Is that right or am I thinking I am seeing some clear variations in technical content when in fact I am not?

[Bacardi]

LongQ said:

Maybe it depends on your source and what you are noise reducing for and from?

I'm talking about digital capture, primarily. Best thing is to avoid in the first place... if poss. Keep iso low and shoot the histogram to the right.

LongQ said:

LL's suggestion about noise reduction early in the Post RAW processing makes some sense to me,

Do you mean post as in 'after' or another post about RAW processing on LL? I can't see it mentioned in the article above, only a mention for Dust and Scratches. I apply noise reduction at the RAW processing stage if needed. Capture One, my tool of choice, does a fairly good job but if needed, I'll use Ninja later.

The more you can do at the RAW stage the better (applies to scanning too). Titing about with it in PS after the event is an uphill struggle. Think of it like Hi Fi, garbage in, garbage out. If you haven't got a good front end extracting all the info, the amp and speakers can't make it up out of nothing.

LongQ said:

If you are processing from film, especially scans of higher speed 35mm, the balcancing act of trying to keep grain under control and free of sharpening effects whilst not losing too much detail from the available sharpness can be more than challenging I have found.

That's what I mean, going around in circles. I don't scan much but grain is different from noise and I don't tend to try and eliminate it. If anything, it's what makes film.... well.... film.

LongQ said:

In otherwords flows may need to be significantly amended according to subject matter and source material. Is that right or am I thinking I am seeing some clear variations in technical content when in fact I am not?

Different horses for different courses. Regarding the workflow tutorial on LL, it's maybe worth noting what Michael Reichmann says at the beginning. With all of this image manipulation and processing, there are many ways to skin a cat.

Michael Reichmann said:

It is neither gospel nor the only way to accomplish the various tasks. Some approaches will be found to be overkill for many users, while experienced users may prefer alternate techniques. Take from it what you need. Don't follow it slavishly.

i.e.

Luminous LandscapeArticle said:

16.2. Change Master to Lab mode (Image>Mode>Lab Color), the sharpening space of choice.

Not according to Martin Evening (Photoshop for photographers.. he knows a little), who says "converting to Lab mode is an old and outdated technique, bad for the image and completely unnecessary"

So take everything you read with a pinch of salt. If you want another useful sharpening technique try this one (needs CS2):

Disable sharpening in your RAW converter (so you'll start with a fuzzy file) and instead use CS2 "Smart Sharpen" set to Amount 100, .9 radius; Shadow Tab: Fade amount 100%, Tone with = 30, Radius 1; Highlights Tab: Fade Amount 100, Tone width 65, radius 1.
Then apply the Noise Filter with all sliders set to zero and the last slider "Sharpen Detail" set to ~40 (more or less to taste.)

Does a nice job with less halos than USM.

Cheers

Edited by Bacardi on Tuesday 5th December 00:00

[LongQ]

Bacardi said:

Lots of useful and interesting things.

I have scanned through the detailed article but it dates from 2002 and there are a couple of much less detailed overviews which are a little more recent.

In those MR provides more of an overview of the total process with a view to keeping it simpler and with minimal intervention if possible.

I'm not that familiar with CS (don't have CS2) but I have been playing with Lightroom a lot and I'm quite impressed with what can be achieved fairly easily, though serious noise reduction does not seem to be within its remit yet. Maybe in the final released product?

The other factor is that working on images that start life a .jpg s suggests a different set of early process considerations, especially where lens quality issues may come into play but can be resolved.

As for sharpening I saw something in the last 24hours or so (but can't remember where and don't seem to have bookmarked it!) that seemed to suggest something along the lines of creating an edge outline mask and just sharpening on that. Does that make sense or not? I may have the terminology wrong - it seemed to relate to a CS2 menu feature though.