Making "Heart of the Canyon"

Heart of the Canyon

I recently shared this photograph of Antelope Canyon that I took last May while my wife and I were traveling around Utah and Arizona.


I wanted to share how I edited this photograph. So here it goes...

Editing Process

1. Compare Adobe Camera Raw vs. Use Raw Photo Processor
2. Process RAW to obtain the overall colors and exposure I'm looking for
3. Edit in Photoshop

1. ACR vs. RPP

I like to use both Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and Raw Photo Processor (RPP). If you are not familiar with RPP, you should spend some time after reading this and check it out. Its an excellent tool that I think sometimes gives you better colors than ACR. 

So I will load the RAW file into both ACR and RPP and compare what each of the two tools comes up with after fiddling with each a bit. What I'm looking for is which tool is going to "work for me" creatively. Sometimes the colors are too "off" in ACR. Sometimes the highlights or shadows are not working for me in RPP. Sometimes the underlying curve and exposure automatically applied to the RAW file doesn't work for me in one or the other tool. I try not to spend too much time fiddling here and I make a decision fairly quickly on which one I'll use. Once I chose which tool to use, then I'll close the other and start processing the RAW file for preparation of my final edits in Photoshop.

ACR - defaults

RPP - defaults

To the right is what the image looks like when opening in ACR with my defaults. As you can see, I start with everything zeroed out pretty much. However, all RAW processors apply some type of exposure and curve/tonal adjustments and there's also the question of color profile and how the colors are interpreted. I wasn't too happy with the way things looked in ACR and I know from experience that when this happens, I'm going to have a tough time usually getting ACR to come up with something I like.


So let's take a look at what the image looks like in RPP. To the right is how RPP presents the image, again with my defaults in place, which like ACR, are pretty much zeroed out. My first reaction was that this is probably going to be from where I want to start. The colors are not as wild and the overall tone is more subtle and possibly closer to what it was like when I was photographing this scene. The decision is made and I'm going to work with RPP for this image.

2. Process RAW in RPP

RPP - final

The first things I correct are both the overall exposure and the colors. I work with both at the same time because as you increase or decrease the exposure, the colors will change and either become more or less saturated. I'll try to fix and clipping during this step. In this case I did use the Highlight Recovery feature in RPP and compressed the highlights where the sunlight was peaking through the canyon walls.

I did bump the exposure up about 1 stop in RPP. You should not that even with a 1-stop exposure increase, the RPP image on my screen is still underexposed compared to the ACR default settings. RAW processors are not all equal and here is one place where you can see a difference immediately.

I adjusted the colors in RPP and brought them to a place that I liked. In RPP, you have access to individual multipliers of the Red, Green, and Blue channels. There are presets under the White Balance drop down with values such as 4000k, 5000k, 6250k, etc. I usually choose one of these and then sometimes make small incremental changes to the individual channel multipliers as I see fit. In this case, I first picked a temperature of 5560k and then bumped up the Red channel multiplier by .01 by entering into the field and hitting the UP arrow twice. Pressing the UP arrow once adds .005. This is how RPP allows you to fiddle with many of the values. I find this way more precise than moving sliders.

The only other edits I made in RPP were to add some Local Contrast (10), a little bit of Saturation (10), and made a very small Black Point adjustment (0.20) which is sort of like raising the shadows or shadow recovery in ACR. 

And that's it. Now I have prepared my image for its final editing that will be done in Photoshop.

3. Edit in Photoshop

Photoshop - Final edits

There are a few key goals that I have when working with an image in Photoshop. They are:

1. Color
2. Contrast
3. Creativity

3.1 Color

I try to arrive at the colors I want when processing the RAW file before I get to the Photoshop step. However, some tweaking is usually needed during this step in Photoshop because as I apply other changes to the image, the colors may be affected. When this is the case, I'll generally add or subtract saturation globally using a Vibrance adjustment layer. If there are colors casts or color corrections I think that are needed, I'll use a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer and adjust individual color channels as needed. I'm usually never happy with the way greens come out of the camera so I will make those adjustments during this step in Photoshop and now when processing the RAW file earlier.

In this case, I ended up desaturating the image because the colors were still just a little too "wild" and saturated for me for this image. I did this with a Vibrance adjustment layer. I made Saturation a -9 and Vibrance a +40. When I desaturated the whole image, the less saturated colors were too washed out and thus I attempted to bring them back up by adding a lot of Vibrance. 

3.2 Contrast

I apply contrast to the image using Luminosity Masks and Curve adjustment layers put together by Tony Kuyper. Tony has a panel extension for Photoshop called TK-ACTIONS Panel. Using Luminosity Masks with Curve adjustment layers lets you target specified tonal ranges of your image and apply contrast to them individually, rather than globally to the whole image. I love using these and Tony's panel extension in Photoshop make these a breeze to use.

For this image, I used two Luminosity Mask - Curve adjustment layers; an Ultra Mid-tones one and an Ultra Darks one. In both adjustment layers I applied a simple S-Curve to add some contrast to just those tonal ranges within the image.

3.3 Creativity

Layers

The last thing is a bucket I call creativity and its anything else I want to do to the image that will complete my creative vision. Those things often include:

• Dodging and Burning
• Shadow/Highlights
• Vignetting
• Levels and Exposure

I made a small Exposure adjustment after adding the contrast layers. I found things getting a little too "dark" so a +.60 to the Exposure got me back to where I wanted things.

I added a 50% gray layer with a Soft Light Blending Mode and then used the Dodge and Burn tools to draw attention and focus to some of the areas of the photograph where the light was "kissing" the walls of the canyon.

The last thing I did was use the Shadow/Highlights tool to tweak with the highlights and actually reduce them a bit which consequently allowed more color in those highlighted areas to shine through. To do this, I made a composite of all visible layers using the shift-command-option-E keyboard shortcut in Photoshop. I then made my edits in the Shadow/Highlights tool. Finally I moved this layer down lower on the stack before the other layers simply because I liked the look and effect of it there, rather than on top.

Now one thing I neglected to do with the Shadow/Highlights adjustment layer is make it a Smart Object so I can go back and fiddle with the adjustments as needed. I'm so used to working with smart or non-destructive tools adjustment layers that I forgot to use the Smart Object feature.

The End

So that's it! That's my process for editing this image and that's my basic process for editing any image now. I hope maybe you learned something new and I hope to remember to use Smart Objects when needed!

 

JPEG Quality in Photoshop

Regarding the information posted in this article from petapixel.com I decided to do a quick comparison to see if there is some truth to the statements mentioned in there.


I wanted to see what the perceived quality and file size is among various JPEG quality levels when exporting images from Photoshop CS5. I know the article states that sometimes quality is affected opposite from what you might expect but I figured that it was worth a shot. There are no absolutes with many things in life and this shouldn't be any exception.


I took two basic photos. I'm using a Nikon D700, 50mm f/1.8 AI-s lens, and SB-600 flash mounted on camera in TTL. The photos were taken indoors at f/5.6 and 1/60th. The RAW came in at 2832x4256 and 15.04MB. I didn't perform any post-processing and right from Bridge I simply exported 5 JPEGs at quality levels 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12.


Here is a screenshot for Levels 6-8 with one area of detail zoomed in at 200%:

Under close inspection from my end I can actually say that the artifacts that you normally see with JPEG compression is noticeably more going from Level 6 to Level 7 and notice that the file size is nearly the same. The difference is very slight but if you look hard enough (too hard really) you can find them. Level 8 is noticeably larger, as expected, and the amount of artifacts is less.


Here's a screenshot for Levels 10 and 12 with the area of detail zoomed in at 200% again:

Artifacts? There are a few in Level 10 and I would say they are less than the previous batch. What about Level 12? I can actually see a few less again. File size? more than doubled between 10 and 12. As you can see, we are getting quite large as well.


So, what's the quick verdict on this? There seems to be some truth to the statement that when you go from Level 6 to Level 7 you may lose some quality while the file size stays about the same. So Level 6 may be the better alternative to Level 7. However if you are counting pixels perhaps bumping to Level 8 will ease you, that is unless you are trying to stay within a specific threshold for file sizes (please be conscience of mobile users!)


As far as the statements about Levels 11 and 12 being "experimental" and not really adding to overall quality. Well I can't say there is obvious evidence of this because I did notice fewer artifacts when using Level 12 vs. Level 10. The file size did more than double.


Now I know this was not very scientific and there are many types of images and variables that should come into play regarding this, however, doing a thorough scientific evaluation wasn't the point of this little experiment. All I wanted to do is find out if these statements were completely bogus or if they actually had some truth to them. A good place to start with some further research is with the Adobe Photoshop development team. They can answer the differences in the algorithms being used among all the various levels...

Stitching

Two frames, stitched vertically

I've begun experimenting with stitching. That is, taking one xor more photographs (yes, xor, not or. one or the other but not both :) and stitching them together to obtain either a larger field of view and larger image. I like stitching photos because it gives a squarish crop, rather than the standard 3:2 for most cameras today. 3:2 works for many compositions but there are other times that I do prefer something closer to 1:1. I also like stitching because the end result is an image that is far larger and contains far more pixels than my camera can capture alone. This is what I want when I want to print large images and retain as much detail as possible. I'm not interested in switching to medium format film to obtain this same aspect ratio. I like working with digital and all that it provides. I'm also not prepared to dump the cost of a new luxury car entirely on a digital medium format camera as well. There are other options though...


One option is to clunk down about $2000 USD for a Nikon 24mm PC-E lens and use the shift functionality to create multiple images that may be easily stitched. Here you can shift up/down or right/left with the camera in either landscape or portrait orientation to satisfy the need for just about any composition. The other option to consider is a rail or pano(ramic) setup to allow me to create multiple images that may be stitched. This is the less expensive option and I can use it with any lens that I have. I decided to try a simple sliding rail setup and purchased the Really Right Stuff 192-PPP (Precision Plus Package). I didn't get a full panoramic setup for multi-axis rotation of the camera and lens because I didn't really want the added complication (and cost) and I could forgo some of that capability for now. I can always add more hardware later.


Stitching is now very easy when using the PS CS5 Photomerge feature. Results are had in just a few clicks and images are seamlessly blended and distortion free. There's not much to worry about when your images do not suffer from any perspective or distortion problems from the beginning. In particular, you have to avoid parallax distortion or errors between you images. To do this you have to rotate your camera and lens around then entrance pupil or no-parallax point. This is essentially what panoramic setups like the 192-PPP allow you to do.

Not all compositions and images will suffer from this optical phenomenon enough to prevent stitching. Much depends on the subject as well as the the perspective from where the image was taken from frame to frame. In fact, I was successful in stitching together several new images recently without the aid of the 192-PPP. The image to the right is composed of three individual images stitched together. The combination of using a long lens (400mm) and using subjects that were some distance away reduced the amount of vertical movement I made to compose each frame. This reduced the amount of distortion from frame to frame even though I was not rotating or moving the camera and lens around the no-parallax point. I have to owe all of the credit to the awesome power of the Photomerge tool though.


In the end, you'll most likely have to contend with these distortions in your some of your compositions and there is no substitute for knowing how and having the correct tools to do so. You can't always rely on the Photomerge tool to bail you out.


I placed my camera and a 25mm lens with the 192-PPP all on the tripod and then setup a scene to determine the no-parallax point for this lens. I've read that people like to call this the nodal point but from what I understand, this term is technically incorrect for what we are trying to accomplish here. I'll just stick with no-parallax and move on. The scene I setup was just a simple lineup of a near and a far object. Through trial and error I determined the approximate no-parallax point for this lens.


There are a couple of pointers or tips that I found which may be very helpful:

1. Make sure the camera is level
2. When rotating the camera to the left or the right, if the far object moves in the same direction in relation to the near object, then you are too far forward, move back
3. When rotating the camera to the left or the right, if the far object moves in the opposite direction in relation to the near object, then you are too far back, move forward

I then proceeded to go through all of my lenses and do the same. With prime lenses, you just have to do it once. With zoom lenses, you have to do it for each focal length you believe you will use. For example, with my 80-200mm, I determined the no-parallax point for the 80, 105, 135, and 200mm focal lengths. Once that was completed I simply printed these out and made a handy little cheat sheet that I carry with me in my bag that I can refer to each time I need to know the no-parallax point for one of my lenses. Now I can make easily stitch-able images using the no-parallax point without having to calibrate it each time.

LAB Saturation

I stumbled upon a new (new to me) way for adjusting colors for my photographs in Photoshop using the LAB color mode. I'm not going to go into the technical aspects of the LAB color space because I honestly don't really understand much of it. There's lots of good information out there on the LAB color space on the Web and Dan Margulis has a book Photoshop LAB Color that I've read some if you really want to know more, especially the why part. There is good evidence that the LAB color space is good for certain types of images and certain types of edits. I figured it would be good to simply check this out and see for myself.


What I explored was adjusting color saturation using the LAB color mode. This is an alternative to other Photoshop techniques such as using Hue/Saturation or Vibrance adjustment layers. You may also use this in place of the same sliders found in Camera Raw. Putting aside theory and the why, I decided to let my eyes be the judge.

I decided to use one of my favorite images from our last trip to Scotland, Slioch upon Loch Maree. I created a new copy of my original RAW file and in Camera Raw I setup my image in my typical workflow which sets up the image with a good histogram and a rather flat or dull appearance that will later be fine-tuned and brought to life from within Photoshop. The idea I use is to start with a very workable image with the proper exposure and both highlight and shadow detail. Camera Raw helps to set things up, Photoshop is where my creativity is exercised.


Once in Photoshop I start with a Levels adjustment layer to set new black and white points. Next I'll use a Curves adjustment layer to add some initial contrast with a very basic S-Curve.








Now I'll select these new layers including the background and create a new, merged layer, using CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+E (yes, I use Windows). This will create a new layer called Layer 1 that will be a combination of the two adjustment layers and the Background.


Next I'll duplicate this layer and select a New document as the destination. Right-click on the layer in the Layers panel and then select Duplicate Layer... to get the dialog to also select the destination.












Now I have a new document with the new merged layer I just created.



I set the color mode to LAB. From the menu, Image -> Mode -> LAB Color.


Next I created a Curves adjustment layer. Notice now that there are different values in the channel drop-down of the Adjustments panel. They are Lightness, a, and b.













I adjusted the three channels, adding a standard S-Curve to the Lightness channel for contrast, then I performed adjustments to the a and b channels by pulling in the curves equally on both sides. Photoshop by default places a 4x4 grid in the Curves panel. To get the 10x10 grid just hold down the ALT key and click anywhere in the grid and you'll get a 10x10 grid. Do it again to revert back to a 4x4 grid if you want.


Variances in the amount of contrast and the adjustments in the a and b channels will alter the amount of the effect. Small adjustments actually have a profound effect on the image. The steeper the curve, the more dramatic the effect. If you don't balance the sides out you'll end up with various color casts. You can certainly get very creative and wild here, however, that's note my point in this exercise. I want to simply increase the saturation and vibrancy of the colors here. My adjustments looked as follows:

From here, I selected both my Curves adjustment layer and the Background layer and then created another new merged layer using CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+E. Then I duplicated this layer back to the original document I started with.


I finished up with a few more adjustments and then brought up the previous version of my image and compared them side-by-side in Photoshop.

So, there are not broad or obvious differences between these two images. The color variations are subtle. Is one better than the other? Perhaps at this time I do find the new image using the LAB saturation method more pleasing than the previous edit. Perhaps I'm just being biased to the new technique. Art's a very subjective thing and your likes and dislikes do change over time. LAB color saturation adjustments will be a new tool in my toolbox. It's certainly not the only method available and it shouldn't be. Art is subjective, remember.

Sharpening for the Web

Here is something that I've known about for some time, put it on my list of things to learn and do, but haven't taken the time to just do it until now...sharpen my images for the Web.

Some of us, me included, don't post SOTC (straight out of the camera), full-size images on the Web. That means you have to resize them using Photoshop, Lightroom, or whatever your image editing software of choice is. Resizing an image also means resampling the image from one dimension to another, say 2832x4256 (12MP) to 683x1024. When you resample an image this way, that is downsampling, you are reinterpreting the pixels and you are losing data! There's all sorts of names for the phenomenon that goes on when you do this, ringing, aliasing, blurring, artifacts, etc. There are also all sorts of algorithms that can be used to resample your images and each has a pretty significant impact on the quality of your image.

I won't go into a a long technical discussion about resampling algorithms and sharpening algorithms. You can read up all about them on the Web if you are interested. Instead i'll just show you a workflow that I'm using now that creates great looking images from your full-sized images for the Web. Perfect for Facebook, Flickr, Tumblr, and the like.

1. After you prepare you image and have completed all your post processing, export or create a full-sized JPEG of your photograph. Then open the JPEG in Photoshop. Here is the original, full-sized JPEG of the image I'll be working with here (Click on the image to see it full-size).

2. Resize your image to your new dimensions. Here I am sizing this to 683x1024 for the Web. Select Bicubic Sharper (Best for reduction) for the resampling algorithm.

3. Now that your image has been resized and resampled, it's time to apply some more sharpening to try to reel in some of the detail that has been lost. For this I use the Unsharpen Mask... Filter. I typically try amounts from 200% to 400% and a radius of 0.3 pixels and leave threshold at 0.













4. Now your image is ready for the Web!


Here's a comparison between the unsharpened image and the sharpened version after resizing the images. Roll-over the image with your mouse to see the sharpened version.

These images are zoomed at 300%. Notice the difference in texture of the football and the sharpening and detail in the face. While there are some visible artifacts in the sharpened version, remember we are viewing this image enlarged at 300%. At 100% you won't be able to see these (see the next image below).

roll-over with your mouse to see the sharpened version

Here are the two final images, again for comparison, now at just 100%. Roll-over with your mouse to see the sharpened version.

Can you spot the artifacts now? I don't think so.

Which one looks better? The sharpened version if you ask me.

This is my nephew btw. I can see much better detail in the football, his face, his hair, his tattoes, his shirt, and his pants. The overall effect isn't obviously noticeable but it results in a better looking image. Isn't that the point? So now you can create great images for the Web and have everyone envious asking "how do you take such great photos?"

roll-over with your mouse to see the sharpened version

Borders, Revisited

I decided to again revisit borders with my images. When I just last spoke about borders and their impact on the success of a photograph, I was just beginning to experiment with them. I have quickly realized their benefits, even with images posted on the web, however, I wasn't completely satisfied with my initial tries at it.

I wanted this time to use borders and mimic their appearance of when a print is matted and framed. We all view so many photographs on the Internet now. When was the last time we walked into a gallery or spent the time, money, and effort to carefully print,matte, and frame an image? The end result is so much more inspiring and vivid compared to what I now think of as an unfinished product, that is what comes out of our camera and maybe goes through a few edits.

So here is the finished product, so to speak:

The double borders and white matte really isolate this image from its surroundings. Even when viewed on the web, don't you agree? I added a caption as well. For me, I like to have a bit of more information about any image that I see. Perhaps a name or a location. Something that helps me to associate the photograph or helps to tell the story of the image. I was undecided on whether to add my name or my blog URL as well. Both seemed too much. So I settled on just my name. Feels odd to see my name like this but at the same time I feel proud to share images.

Again I used Photoshop and the same techniques as from before by simply adjusting the canvas size. This time to get the multiple borders I did it in stages. First the inner black border by increasing the width and height of the canvas size by 20 pixels and setting the canvas extension color to black. Then I added one inch to the width and one inch to the height of the canvas and this time setting the canvas extension color to white. Finally I added one more inch to the canvas height and used black for the canvas extension color but this time I set the anchor to top center so that only the bottom end of the canvas received the one inch extension.

Setting the Anchor point

When I took the original photograph, I was enamored with the location and subject. The circular pool of water set the stage for the small and whispy-like waterfall that cascaded over brightly-toned weathered rocks that were cut into various slabs and layers. A beautiful pine angled overhead and would stand out against the clear blue skies of the afternoon. I had high hopes for the photographs that I took here. I used several 3-stop ND filters to be able to drag the shutter long enough to blur the water. I also used a 1-stop hard ND grad to tone down the bright sky. Even with this setup, the rock wall was still mostly in shadow so some fill light adjustment was necessary in ACR to bring them out.

I'm not fully satisfied with the final composition and overall tones in the photo though. I used my new Sigma DG 105mm polarizer on my Lee filter kit. The obvious dark band in the sky is seen because of the polarizer and shooting in a direction that would combine polarized and non-polarized sky. The sun was to the left of me at roughly 10 o'clock. I'm not sure if I needed the polarizer at this point. We were in bright afternoon light and I was hoping it would tone down on the reflections off the rocks and the water. Because of all this, I decided to convert the image to black and white.

There is also a lot of dead-space in the upper left part of the frame. If I had moved right, the pine tree would be covered by the rock ledge. If I had moved left there would be more tree and bracken to contend with above the falls that would have just blended the two together. So I compromised and settled on a composition.

Here is the unfinished photograph before the final editing:

25mm f/16 4sec

In the end, by being creative with the framing and converting the image to b&w, I ended up with an image that I now enjoy.

Borders

I've never spent any time, up until now, thinking about borders. Even when I've had a few of my photographs printed and framed, again, I haven't thought much about borders. I've considered the frame or the matte, which is a kind of border. However, I never considered actually applying a border to the image itself.

On the web, and even when printing your final image, a border can be very important. It can help with conveying the message of your photograph. With a border, you may be saying, here is where the image begins and ends. Other borders may help accentuate a specific feeling or mood.

So I've worked on a new image of mine and this time I created a border that I felt helped to reinforce the dream-like mood.

I created this border in Photoshop by selecting the perimeter of the image and then while in quick mask mode I used a splatter brush to draw the edges of the border. Next I added some Gaussian Blur to soften the brush strokes and edges. Then, I simply filled this area with white. I refined the overall thickness of the border by re-adjusting the canvas size of the image. This framed the image in a broken and hazy-like border that to me matched the dream-like feeling of the photograph.

Here's the same image without any border.

Which do you prefer?

Tone Curves

I've always been either afraid and reluctant to understand tone curves in Photoshop for years. I knew that great power came from it but I assumed that great knowledge was needed in order to make use of it properly. Over the past year after going on a couple of photography workshops, I began to learn some real uses of curves. I began using curves and layers in Photoshop during my post-processing workflow to apply things like gradient filters, vignettes, and other localized exposure adjustments (i.e. dodging and burning). I also experimented with applying basic s-curves for contrast and sometimes used the default options for medium and light contrast. I would also use these in conjunction with the other plethora of sliders in Adobe Camera Raw. I never really understood the relationship between the other adjustment sliders and the tone curve. That is until now.

I came across the website and blog of Michael Frye (www.michaelfrye.com), an outstanding landscape photographer. I purchased his Land and Light eBook. In it he unraveled the mystery of tone curves and making adjustments in Lightroom (or Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop)! I now have a greater understanding of (1) how to use the tone curve and (2) how it can do just about everything that all those other little sliders in ACR or Lightroom do instead.

Michael Frye's basic workflow for landscape digital photography is explained in his eBook so I gave it a go last night. I found it actually very easy and very powerful to use. It also felt more "correct" to make adjustments using the tone curve rather than making small adjustments with a dozen other sliders. In one simple tool, I can make my overall tonal adjustments for an image.

Now I start ACR with the sliders all set to 0, set my white balance, camera profile (ACR 4.6), crop and do any spot removal. Things look rather dull and gray, but this is really like seeing things straight out of camera. I'll get a chance to make the tonal adjustments afterwards...

Next comes working with a point curve for my tonal adjustments. By setting the black and white points and then adjusting the curve to add contrast and brighten the image, I feel that I get a finer level of control with far fewer "moving of various sliders" than I would have in the past. Now this image has some pop and contrast and the colors are already deeply saturated. Look at the histogram now...

I'll add a few tweaks in Photoshop next. First some more vignette because I love vignette. I'll do some simple dodging for the mountain and the tree to highlight them more. Then I'll add a simple border to frame things. This is the final result...

Compare it to how I first edited this image a couple of weeks ago. This first edit is rather flat and the tones are pushed more so the colors are little uneasy. Not what it actually looked like when I took the photograph...

 

While I do like my first edit of this image, after trying out this new technique, I think I'll have more creative control over my images and that will lead to some better final works. For me, I feel that I've done more with less, so to speak. The two images aren't drastically different but when your workflow becomes more intuitive, the final results are more satisfying. Whenever I end up doing less to an image, I'm more pleased with it. What do you think?