If you've ever noticed the colors in the photos you've uploaded looking a bit flat or the detail gone in the shadows it might well be an issue with color profiles.

I helped one of the members recently with this, so I thought a tutorial might be in order.  I'm going to constrain my discussion to the two most common color profiles: SRGB and Adobe RGB. RGB stands for Red, Green and Blue.  For Web work, SRGB is the profile of choice.  For work that you're going to print, Adobe RGB is better.  The pictures below will show you the differences between the two.

Here is a three-dimensional rendering of the SRGB color space with black in the center. Here is the same view of Adobe RGB.

Now look at a three-dimensional rendering of the SRGB color space with white in the center. Here is the same view of Adobe RGB.

What you can see is that the Adobe RGB color space is much larger, providing richer detail.  That's why it's a great choice if you're going to print the images.

I have my camera (Nikon D70) set to capture images in Adobe RGB.  Many of you may also be able to set the color profile that your camera shoots in.  However, there's a twist.  If you don't convert the color profile to SRGB before posting to the Web, the results look flat and lifeless.  Here are a couple examples.

This is a recent image shot in Adobe RGB and uploaded as Adobe RGB. Here is the same image converted to SRGB before uploading. Do you see how much more color there is in the cheeks of the girl on the left in the SRGB version? I'm not exactly sure why this happens but my guess is that the portions of the Adobe RGB space that are outside of the SRGB space get clipped somehow.

If you use Photoshop you can convert color profiles.  In fact, one of the slickest things about CS2 is the Image Processor command.  You get at it from the from the Tools menu in Bridge. It then opens up Photoshop to start the engine.  If you've already got Photoshop open you can access the Image Processor from the File...Scripts menu path.  Here is the dialog box that opens up. There is a check box to tell it to convert to the SRGB color profile. You can also resize the image and convert it to jpeg at the same time.  You can run the Image Processor on batches of images.

I've used iPhoto and Photoshop Elements 3.  Near as I can tell, neither of those allow you to change color profiles. They basically work with what they're given.

So here's my advice.  If you're planning to print images and you have Photoshop then I'd work in Adobe RGB and convert to SRGB for posting on the Web.  If you don't have Photoshop I'd stick with SRGB.  If your camera allows you to set the color profile in which you're shooting all the better.  Chances are if you've not changed the color profile setting on your camera, you're shooting in SRGB.

Hope this helps someone.

   We've all seen the pics where a flat image of a flag or face is mapped around an object like a brick wall, cloth, or wood planks, so it looks like is actually around the object. Like this map around a blanket . Well, how do day do dat?  Normally, it's done by using a displacement map.  What's a displacement map, you ask?

  Displacement maps are grayscale images in psd format, whose brighness values are used to displace pixels in another image based on a set formula. The brightness values effect the image this way:
  Medium Gray (50%)... does not effect the selected image.
  Medium Gray to Black... each step value decrease in brightness moves the pixels in the selected image down and/or right a distance prescribed by you in the distort filter dialog box. Black is max movement.
  Medium Gray to White... each step value increase in brightness moves the pixels in the selected image up and/or left a distance prescribed by you in the distort filter dialog box. White is max movement.

  The dmap can only have one layer but can have more than one channel. If more than one channel the first determines horizontal displacement the second vertical. All others channels are ignored.
  The dmap can be smaller than the image or larger and can be made to fit the image or tiled to fit the image.
  It's usually a good idea to apply a small amount of gaussian blur to the dmap so that PS doesn't spend time trying to map each little variation in the dmap.

  For demo here our dmap is a photo I took of our blanket converted to grayscale image the same size as the target image, 800x600 and has 1pixel of gaussian blur filer applied.

Here's the two pics I used: Flower image for target   Blanket image for dmap

Open target image and select layer you want to displace.
Select Filter-->Distort-->Displace, a dialog box opens. (fig 1)
Setup dialog box as follows...
Enter 10 for both horizontal and vertical scale values.
Check Shrink To Fit.
Check Repeat Edge Pixels.
Select ok, new dialog box opens. (fig 2)
browse to where dmap grayscale psd is stored and select it.
Image should appear slightly smeared in the general shape of dmap like this.

Now we need to overlay the image with the dmap.
Open dmap psd file in separate window.
Select it and Ctrl-A to select all and  Ctrl-C to copy, or drag it's layer over and drop on target window.
Select target image and Ctrl-V to paste dmap to new layer, not needed if you did drag and drop.
Select grayscale dmap layer on target image and change blend mode from normal to hard light and set it's layer opacity to about 65-75%. (fig 3)
Ta da.
Final result!

  This is just to get you started.  You can increase the H/V scale values for more dramatic effect or only use one, Use the levels on the grayscale dmap to control whether it displaces the dark or the light areas. You can use a photo for the source of dmap or use the filters in PS like the cloud filter. Use your imagination and have fun. If you make something intresting post it so we can enjoy it too.

  As always, this probably has mistakes and/or could be improved. If anyone has suggestions or corrections feel free to add them cause I want to learn too. I did it on the quick but I don't think I left anything major out.

We've talked about other ways of converting to b/w but this one, to me, is probably the best, at least the most adjustable. When PS converts an rgb color photo to grayscale it takes the red, green and blue channels and mixes them in different proportions.  These proportions are stored in software and are based on how the eye responds to color.  We can do it the same way but allow us to control what percentage of each channel is used.

Open the image you want to convert. You should have the layers pallete open if not select Windows-->Layers or hit F7. Should have something like this Figure 1

In layer palette, select background layer and hit <Ctrl-J> to copy current layer to new layer, or drag background layer to new layer icon at bottom of layer palette. Figure 2  You can bypass this step and work on the background layer but I'm used to versions that didn't have adjustment layers and like to keep a virgin down there.

Select new layer, if not already selected or background layer if using it.  Click on half-light half-dark circle at bottom of layer window to open Create fill/adjustment layer menu select Channel Mixer option, or select Layer-->New Adjustment Layer-->Channel mixer. Figure 3

The channel mixer window will normally come up with blue set at 100%. Check the monochrome button and also the preview button.  Adjust values for individual red, green, & blue channels... good start is 45,60,15 respectively. Find a set of values that get the desired result and click ok to save the adjustment layer.  The constant slider lightens and darkens. Figure 4  

If desired, before closing channel mixer you can save the parameters for use next time, or save the generic start values and load them next time you open channel mixer.

You can also create another adjustment layer, a Hue/Saturation layer, and tint the b/w you just made.  Be sure to click the colorize button in the Hue/Sat window. Set the saturation level to about 10-15 for starts and play to your hearts content. Figure 5

You may have already known this technique, if so, sorry to take up your time, if not, then you have another thing to play with in CS2.

Just as Austinspacce said of sharpening...
There are a lot of different ways to convert color to b/w. One way which produces a different tonal feel than the more common RGB->Grayscale conversion is to use Lab color Mode. Lab color mode converts the image to a Lightness, a, and b, channels. The lightness channel is the value component of the image, a is the red-green component, b is the blue-yellow component. What we do is keep the lightness channel and delete both color channels. Here's how:

Open image. Click on Image-->Mode-->Lab Color to convert from RGB to Lab color.
Click on Windows -->Channels to open the channels palette.  You should see a palette with 4 channels Lab, Lightness, a, and b. Drag the bottom channel b to the trash can icon.  The channel palette names will change to Alpha 1 and Alpha 2. Drag Alpha 2 to the trash can icon. You are left with 1 channel that just has the tonal values from the image.  You must convert the color mode to grayscale when done by clicking Image-->Mode-->Grayscale.  Supposedly, if you try to convert back to RGB with no color info you can confuse PS.(I haven't tried it)

You now have a grayscale image with a different tonal structure than just converting to grayscale.  You may or may not like the effect but it's another tool in the tool pouch. Experiment and have fun!
There are other ways besides RGB-Grayscale and zeroing the saturation. If you have one let everyone know about it.

The great thing about Photoshop is that there's a dozen ways to do the same thing, and this includes Sharpening your photograph.

When sharpening an image for presentation the easiest thing to do would be to choose Filter-->Sharpen-->Sharpen. However, there's no control over the results and generally your photo will be over-sharpened to the point of looking jaggy. You can "fade" the Sharpen effect here by choosing Edit-->Fade Sharpen but you have to guess at the percentage you want to change the sharpening, and this might take awhile to decide.

I don't pretend to know the capabilities of all the Sharpening tools in the Filter dropdown menu; there's Sharpen Edges, which seems to choose the highlights to sharpen; Sharpen More, which is even more extreme than just Sharpen; and Smart Sharpen, which can do wonderful work on an image and is worth its own tutorial by some enterprise-minded Photoshop fiend.

My tool of choice is File-->Sharpen-->Unsharp Mask. It seems to be the easiest way to find the right balance between crispness and softness in an image. Try it on an image of yours. When you choose it, you'll be confronted with a dialogue box. Type in these settings and see what you think: Amount: 50%. Radius: 1.0 pixels. Threshold: 0. You can experiment as much as you like, of course, to get the most pleasing result.

I just discovered (via PhotoshopTV) a great addendum to this hint. Open your image, which is more than likely in RGB mode. Convert it to Lab Color by choosing Image-->Mode-->Lab Color. Then, in the Channels Window (activated via Window-->Channels) click on Lightness and then apply the Unsharp Mask filter. Convert back to RGB, and you'll see a difference in the quality of the sharpness. By choosing to work just on the light parts of the image, it really sets it off against the darker.

Here's an image where I've applied the Unsharp Mask filter at the settings mentioned above: RGB.
And here's the same image opened in Lab Color and then the same Unsharp Mask settings: Lab Color. What do you think?

If you have your own methods for sharpening an image for presentation I'd love it if you shared them in the comments below. Please focus on sharpening, though--save other hints for future posts!

This Tech Help Guide will explain how to design and assemble blue and greenscreens and backdrops for photos and video, as well as how to easily and inexpensively build a portable frame to support these backdrops out of PVC pipe or metal conduit.
homemade greenscreen

Shooting stills for product shoots or whatever can be a real pain due to light bouncing off of the item causing hot or bright spots. If the item has a high gloss finish it can drive you nuts due to blown out highlights.

Put the object you are shooting in a tent. It works wonders. No direct light = no hot spots.

The size of the tent you need depends on the size of the objects you will be shooting and how much room you have. The one I built is about 3' X 3'. Bigger than most will need but if you have the room, go for it. If you have a folding table like a card table, make it to fit on it.

You will need:

2. 10' lengths of 1/2 inch plastic pipe (sch 40) is fine
   
   
4. T fittings
   
   
4. 90º elbows
   
   
4. End caps
   
   

Glue (don't bother with the cleaner)

A white sheet or material to cover the frame

Cut 2 pieces 24" (for the legs) and 2 pieces 34 1/2" from each 10' length. You should have a 3" piece left. Cut it in half. What you are looking to end up with is this when you are done. Dry fit it before gluing and work on a flat surface. Here is a close up of one of the corners so you can see how it goes together. Note the one do not glue joint. This will let you pull the legs off so it will store flat.

This shot shows the  white paper background and floor in place. Use one long sheet and let it curve at the bend to give you a seamless look. Don't fold it. Now get your material and make your tent. I ended up a bit short on the sides. You really want it all the way to the bottom, across the top and down the back leaving the front only open. Place your lights to  the side or from the top depending on how you want the shadows to fall. You do NOT want them shining in from the front. Remember.... we don't want direct light on the subject. You don't have to use strobe. Good old Home depot type shop lights will work fine but remember.. not too close. You don't want to burn down the house.

If you saw the violin post I made you saw what can be done in the tent. Here are a few more I took using it. Put a sheet of clear plexi glass in the bottom and play with reflections. Leave the plexi out for a more "normal" look. I ever mention that I like hats?

That should keep you playing and in where it's warm for a while. Feel free to ask questions.

Moose asked me to do a "tutorial" on how I did the IR pic yesterday; I'll try, and just pray y'all can understand it.  I apologize in advance for the quality of the pics that will be in this story.  I never realized how hard it is to take close shots of a computer screen until I tried it today.   The program I used is Adobe Photoshop CS2.

First, open the image you want to work with.  Keep in mind, when converting a color image to IR, you get better results if you use an image that has lots of greenery in it.  Once you get the image open, click on the image icon at the top of the page and duplicate the image.  Close the original, and just work with the duplicate.  Once you do this, click on the layer icon and, in the drop down, go to New Adjustment Layer then over to channel mixer.  Once you click here, another box will pop up; click  ok here.  Next, the channel mixer box will pop up.  Be sure to check the Monochrome box in the lower left hand corner; when you do this, the image turns grayscale.  You use the adjustments under red, green and blue to make the image b/w.  If you're doing a landscape, the green needs to be maxed out at 200; for portraits, the red needs to be at 200.  Play with the red and blue (or green and blue) until you have the effect you want.  The constant slider near the bottom of the box changes brightness.

Once this is done, click on the layer icon again, and in the drop down, click on flatten image. From here, click on the filter icon, go down to blur and click on gaussian blur.  Blur the image using the  radius slider; you can watch the change as you do the adjusting.  For images that are 25MB, the slider should be between 5-20 pixels.  For a 5MB image, it should be between 2-10 pixels.

Next, click on the edit icon and in the drop down, go to fade gaussian blur.  Once the box opens up, change the mode to overlay or screen.  Just play with different modes to get the effect you want.  Drag the opacity slider to the left to reduce the effect of the blur.  Where it should be set varies with each image.  

You are done, and ready to save your new image to wherever you choose to save it.  

When you hear "That is a High Key or That is a Low Key print" it would help to know what they are talking about.

When they say "High Key" what they mean is that the print is prodominantly with light tones. When they say "Low Key" they mean that the picture has prodominantly dark tones.

If you are trying to make a "High Key" or a "Low Key" print you have to have the correct background and subject. If you are taking a picture of a white dog and you would like to make a High Key print you would use some type of light background. You would not use a black background. The same thing if you would like to take a picture of a dark brown dog and you would like to make a Low Key Print, you would use some type of dark background. You would not use a black background as the black or dark brown dog would not show.  

For a High Key effect your light must be full and soft. Fill lights on the shadows should be as strong as the key light. Backgrounds must have their own lights otherwise they will be too dark. For a Low Key effect do the opposite.  

LOW KEY examples are found here....http://www.lafterhall.com/hurrell.html
HIGH KEY examples are found here...http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Apib

Tutorials on how to achieve HIGH KEY in photoshop, you may have to play with some of the adjustments to suit your own likings.

http://www.graficalicus.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=135

http://www.escrappers.com/hikey.html

One more link to a ton a fun PS tutorials on just about anything.

http://www.worth1000.com/tutorial.asp

Hope this helps out.

This is the Final Section on JPEG's TIff and How to Resize and Save for the Web.

In this section, I will give some recipes for resizing and saving for a couple different skill levels and also a Short Lesson on Print Sizing

[Part 2] [Part 1]

I stumbled on some tutorials for Photoshop

Photoshop Killer Tips
Photoshop TV
Layers Magazine

These seam to be worth the time to watch and browse.

Part 2 - TIFFs and Photoshop Files.

 OK, now that we have identified the problems with JPEG (and actually for some people these are not problems) how can we do things differently to overcome the shortcomings of JPEG's. Well let's use a different file type. We will use a Non-lossy File type. The most common of which is the TIFF file.

[Part 3] [Part 1]

There are three modifications Photographica can make to your image: It strips out any extra information in your file, it can possibly resize it, and it can possibly crop it.

This short article will inform you what goes on behind the scenes when you upload your image to Photographica. By knowing what kinds of things we do, you can ensure your image looks the way you intended.

Preserving your image quality from Camera to its final use, whether it is printing or Web use such as Here on Photographica or E-mail is very important.

This article, in three parts, will discuss the most popular File Formats and how best to use and save files using each format. And then finally, how to Resize and Save your Photo Files for the best possible use, here on Photographica and elsewhere on the web.

[Part 3] [Part 2]

A little birdy sent me a very detailed list of keyboard shortcuts for Photoshop CS.

I don't know about anyone else, but I live for keyboard shortcuts! I find that using the mouse can be very time consuming when working in Photoshop, and a lot of these shortcuts are very useful...

I tried this tutorial out and it worked great. Thought I'd share it with you all.

http://www.photolinks.com/resources.html?p_page=color-white.html

I'm not sure how many of you are Mac users, but there's been a request to provide some information on how to properly resize photos for optimum display on Photographica.  I volunteered to tackle this assignment on the Mac side.  For now I'm just going to deal with the resizing issue.  Perhaps someone else will take on the file format topic.

If you need help on doing this and you're using a Mac, I figure you're not into Photoshop in a big way, so I'm going to tell you how to do it in iPhoto.  I've used screen captures to show you how to do this.

First you want to select photo(s) that you want to export and then choose the Export command from the Share menu.  A dialog box pops up. Make sure that the File Export button is selected at the top.  Select "JPG" from the Format dropdown menu.  Click the radio button that says "Scale images no larger than:" and then set the width at something like 800 or 900 pixels.  The height will scale automatically.  Hit the Export button.  Next you'll see the Save As window. All you need to do there is name the file and choose where you want it saved.  After that you can upload the image to Photographica in whatever method you use (Web or FTP).  One thing to be sure of is to select the option that says Do not resize these images automatically. Otherwise your picture may come out fuzzy once uploaded.

So here is the resulting resized photo.

I will say one thing about jpeg files.  To get their smaller size, a lossy compression formula is used, which means that information is thrown away.  Everytime you edit and save a jpeg file information is tossed.  If you do it too many times you wind up with weird jpeg artifacts, which look like splotches of color.  The trick is to always make a copy of the original if you're going to edit a file, jpeg or not.  Then you've always got the original to go back to.  Another trick is that if you've done a lot of editing on a jpeg file, save it as a TIFF file, which does not use lossy compression.

TMI = Too much information. OK, I don't want anybody complaining if you think this is.

Everyone it seems has been focusing (Hehehe) on Depth of Field when it is desirable to have a narrow or short Depth of Field. Portraits, Macros, Objects etc. but what happens if you desire the Opposite. A very Wide or Maximum Depth of Field. Such as in a Broad and Spectacular Landscape where you want everything in view to have the maximum Sharpness.

This is where another Part of DOF comes in: HyperFocal Distance... Ewwww Scary. OK Most of you will never use this but I will explain it anyway. When you take a shot, 1/3 of your DOF is in front of the point of Focus and 2/3 of it is behind your point of focus. When you take a Big Wide Landscape your camera normally will focus at infinity and with that you will loose 2/3rds of your Sharpness (Theoretically) so for every focal length and aperture and even Camera Type there is a Point closer to the camera that you can focus on that will give you the Maximum amount of Sharpness. This is your HyperFocus Distance. So how do I find the HyperFocal Distance oh Moosey one? Well it's a calculation but luckily if you really care you can get a chart or Buy a Tool or you can do as I did find a Calculator on the web and here is one:  http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html  

Yes it is a Depth of Field Calculator which is also very helpful but it also can be used to calculate HyperFocal Distance. What you need to know is: What your actual Focal length is for your lens. For 35 MM this is easy but if you have a Canon Digital Rebel or 20d you need to multiply your Focal Length by a Factor of 1.6 and For Nikon D50, 70, 100 you need to multiply by 1.5. For other Digital Cameras there is a Conversion calculator on this site also.

So, for my Example with My Canon 20d. I am shooting at 17mm which with the factor becomes a 27mm actual Focal length. I am shooting at an Aperture of f10. In the Calculator it told me that my HyperFocal Distance was 12.6 Ft. So I Set my Camera for Manual Focus and set it at 12.6 feet. I took this shot. Hyper 12 Feet Then I set the focus for Infinity and took this shot. Hyper Infinity Looking at the two you probably don't see any difference. But when I zoom in for a 100% Crop of an area you can see clearly that the HyperFocal Distance Focus shot is clearly sharper. Crop 12 Feet focus Crop Infinity Focus  

So you say, yeah but you can't see that on the full shot you've show here. Correct on an 800 X 600 Image on screen, the difference is negligible. But when you blow up to say 13 X 19 Print the difference is clear or should I say a Clearer Picture resulting in Near Large Format quality for Landscape Prints.

OK, everybody Wake UPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!
P.S. when you get a chance play with different combinations of lenses and aperture in the DOF Calculator so you can see how DOF can go from as Little as an Inch to Many Feet depending on your Focal Length and Aperture. Yeah, I know... Boring 
 

When the subject of DOF comes up most people think of F-stop setting. If you shoot at F2.8 your DOF will be shallower than F4 and at F8 it will be less than F32 and so on. The more you open the lens the less DOF you will have. This is why if you are shooting close ups of people you want to shoot at F4 and focus on the eyes to blur the background and if you are shooting landscapes you want to close that baby down to F18 or F32 to get everything you can sharp.

Another big factor in DOF is the focal length of your lens or where you have your zoom set. The wider the lens the more DOF you are going to have at the same focus distance. If you are shooting a flower and want a deep DOF, put your wide angel on and get as close as you can. If you want to blur the background, zoom in on that critter and back away from it.

To help show this I took the following shots. ALL were shot at 1/125 at F8 and focused on the same point. The only difference is the focal length of the zoom so the F stop used had nothing to do with the changes. This shows why when using a long lens to fill the frame with a hummingbird even from only 5 feet away it is so tough to get the whole bird in focus.

18mm, 55mm, 100mm, 200mm, 300mm, and last 450mm.

Hope this helps and also gives you something to play with and think about ;-)

Posted for lilbit...

I was looking into what a fish eye lens will do and thought I wouldn't have much use for one but on a few photos it could be neat, so I looked around for some information on whether it could be done in Photoshop or not and it can, so here's the link in case anyone else is interested in it. I tried it and it looks kind of cool on certain photos.

Fish Eye effect using Photoshop

Anyone who commented on this thread in the forum, feel free to add your feedback again in a comment here, especially those with tips on how to make this effect work better (enlarging the canvas size, for example...)

[editor's note, by coryking] Original thread about fisheye lenses