Gradient question?…or another way?

Do a web search on

contrast mask photoshop

You will get many hits … most of the first page Google came up with were relevant.

Some of the "better" sites are
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast_masking .shtml

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/photoshop_corner/essay_ 06/essay.html

http://www.digicamhelp.com/contrast-masking/

"Pixmaker" wrote in message

As a photographer, I run into situations in which the light balance across an image is very uneven. I need a way to correct this brightness variation.

This problem isn’t complex because the kind of unbalance I’m talking about, for example, is an existing-light pic of a bedroom/living room/whatever, that’s illuminated by daylight eentering through, say, a picture window at one end of the room that’s not in the image.
In my wet darkroom, it’s easy. . .

You might be surprisingly disappointed with what happens when you try to ‘burn’ highlights such as windows in the case you cite. You absolutely must use ‘curves’ to adjust for that. Layers and masking and curves. Look for some concise tutorials. Lots out there.

But do the Right Thing and light those interiors (a tiny bounce will do the trick) and get back to the wet darkroom. 🙂
—
jj – still wet

As a photographer, I run into situations in which the light balance across an image is very uneven. I need a way to correct this brightness variation.

This problem isn’t complex because the kind of unbalance I’m talking about, for example, is an existing-light pic of a bedroom/living room/whatever, that’s illuminated by daylight eentering through, say, a picture window at one end of the room that’s not in the image.

In my wet darkroom, it’s easy. . . just print down the brighter area and dodge back the darker areas. But, in PS 7, I’m going nuts experimenting with gradients and getting essentially nowhere. Also, digging through the several PS books I own doesn’t seem to provide a clue as to where this information is "hidden."

On a few images, the highlights have blown out and I’m aware that there’s a significant dynamic range problem here. But I can live with that if I can find a way to simulate "darkroom dodging" in Photoshop.

Since I do a goodly amount of this kind of work, it would be nice to find a way of compensating for these light imbalances in some way other than the "paste ND material over the windows" trick. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Pixmaker in FLL
==========================
It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity!
==========================
(…Think the humidity’s bad?
You should watch us vote!)

If you find a good article on Image/Adjustments/Levels it will be sure to help you. You can compress and expand the range of brightness values in an image by manipulating the Input Levels. Then you can map those brightness values to new brightness values by adjusting the Output Levels.

Pixmaker wrote:

As a photographer, I run into situations in which the light balance across an image is very uneven. I need a way to correct this brightness variation.

This problem isn’t complex because the kind of unbalance I’m talking about, for example, is an existing-light pic of a bedroom/living room/whatever, that’s illuminated by daylight eentering through, say, a picture window at one end of the room that’s not in the image.
In my wet darkroom, it’s easy. . . just print down the brighter area and dodge back the darker areas. But, in PS 7, I’m going nuts experimenting with gradients and getting essentially nowhere. Also, digging through the several PS books I own doesn’t seem to provide a clue as to where this information is "hidden."
On a few images, the highlights have blown out and I’m aware that there’s a significant dynamic range problem here. But I can live with that if I can find a way to simulate "darkroom dodging" in Photoshop.
Since I do a goodly amount of this kind of work, it would be nice to find a way of compensating for these light imbalances in some way other than the "paste ND material over the windows" trick. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Pixmaker in FLL
==========================
It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity!
==========================
(…Think the humidity’s bad?
You should watch us vote!)

"Pixmaker" wrote in message

[…]
Although I find certain of the "how-to" books quite good, […] I’m looking for dodging and burning help and
find it in contrast masking! Sheesh!

Analog wet printing does not translate to digital in the intuitive manner you have become accustomed to with a lot of wet darkroom experience. And why should it?

I hope I’m making this clear. . . it seems to be a problem.
But, I’ll readily admit that it might be nothing more than my own impatience.

Digital is a different universe, and it’s not neccessarily better. Not one bit.

Pixmaker wrote:

Thanks to you all. I’m in the midst of a great experiment<G>.
Of course it’s fun to fool around with PS. . . it’s a great tool. But it’s really a PITA to struggle in an attempt to locate a "how-to" for what I consider to be an elementary subject.

Two thoughts. Have you looked at tutorials?

And online classes tuned for what you want to do are a good way to get a structured introduction to new methods.

At least you don’t have to stay in the dar, can’t spill the hypo or burn holes in your clothes with the glacial acetic acid. 🙂
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

From: Pixmaker

Of course it’s fun to fool around with PS. . . it’s a great tool. But it’s really a PITA to struggle in an attempt to locate a "how-to" for what I consider to be an elementary subject.

If you really want to learn Photoshop well consider buying a good book and working thru the examples. That’s how many (probably most) of us learned it.

Thanks to you all. I’m in the midst of a great experiment<G>.

Of course it’s fun to fool around with PS. . . it’s a great tool. But it’s really a PITA to struggle in an attempt to locate a "how-to" for what I consider to be an elementary subject.

Although I find certain of the "how-to" books quite good, once I get off the straight and narrow, I discover a great dearth of clearly-written explanations for some fundamental topics. My request above is a case in point. I’m looking for dodging and burning help and find it in contrast masking! Sheesh!

To me, it’s obvious there are really skilled PS experts in the community (and for their willingness to share, I am extremely grateful). . . but I seem to have difficulty connecting the task I need to do with the exact section of PS that will do the job. I seem to need a "Translator."

It’s as if a great synapse is missing <G>.

I hope I’m making this clear. . . it seems to be a problem.

But, I’ll readily admit that it might be nothing more than my own impatience. It’s sort of like learning a new language; you know what you want to say but need the right words. And you can’t find them in the dictionary because you don’t know what they are to begin with!

Talk about a Catch-22.

Perhaps it’s nothing but a steep learning curve, this transition from wet to dry imaging. It’s expensive! I pay for it with time and frustration.

But it’s worth the effort, to be sure. I continue to be whelmed by the magnificent imaging possibilities.

Thanks for your help!

Pixmaker in FLL
==========================
It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity!
==========================
(…Think the humidity’s bad?
You should watch us vote!)

"Pixmaker" wrote in message

Why can’t someone create a text that eases the "translation problem" for those with a photographic background?

Let me take a shot at that. It might be because so very few people have mastered conventional photography. The market would be very small, and hugely problematic. A good book reviewed by the uninformed/incompetent would be a disaster.

Example – a "photographer" chooses to make a bad negative look good. Why is that bad negative so bad? Because he did not make the picture properly in the first place, and by the way, he has this penchant for making bad negatives now that he believes Photoshop can make up for bad technique.

Take the average conventional photographer and ask him if he has ever made a wet contrast mask, done unsharp masks, or multicontrast/multiexposure prints and at best you will find they "heard about that stuff". You can’t "translate" into digital what the "translatee" doesn’t know in the wet world; instead a good author will start from scratch just like most Photoshop books do today.

FWIW, I have never seen an outstanding digital camera picture that did not use the very same expertise that a ‘conventional’ photographer must employ.

In article ,
says…

Thanks to you all. I’m in the midst of a great experiment<G>.
Of course it’s fun to fool around with PS. . . it’s a great tool. But it’s really a PITA to struggle in an attempt to locate a "how-to" for what I consider to be an elementary subject.

Although I find certain of the "how-to" books quite good, once I get off the straight and narrow, I discover a great dearth of clearly-written explanations for some fundamental topics. My request above is a case in point. I’m looking for dodging and burning help and find it in contrast masking! Sheesh!

To me, it’s obvious there are really skilled PS experts in the community (and for their willingness to share, I am extremely grateful). . . but I seem to have difficulty connecting the task I need to do with the exact section of PS that will do the job. I seem to need a "Translator."

It’s as if a great synapse is missing <G>.

I hope I’m making this clear. . . it seems to be a problem.
But, I’ll readily admit that it might be nothing more than my own impatience. It’s sort of like learning a new language; you know what you want to say but need the right words. And you can’t find them in the dictionary because you don’t know what they are to begin with!
Talk about a Catch-22.

Perhaps it’s nothing but a steep learning curve, this transition from wet to dry imaging. It’s expensive! I pay for it with time and frustration.

But it’s worth the effort, to be sure. I continue to be whelmed by the magnificent imaging possibilities.

Thanks for your help!

Pixmaker in FLL

Having spent years in the darkroom, I feel some of your pain. However, having had a lab in my studio, that did fantastic image compositions in analog, the transition was a bit easier for me. Most of the "masking" techniques in PS translate directly from those analog compositions, except that "soft-edged" masks are the norm, not the Holy Grail.

I second Mike Russell’s comments on tutorials. I would point you first to any that cover "masking" and "Selections." From those, almost any change can be made with the other controls in PS.

The image controls are so much more comprehensive in digital, than in silver imaging, and with the use of masks, the corrections/changes are infinitely greater. Ben Wilmore does a book (updated with each ver of PS), Adobe Photoshop XX Studio Techniques, Adobe Press, that covers a lot of this from a more traditional photographer’s perspective. I recommend it highly.

Now, I doubt that I could get a good print out of a darkroom in a full day!

Good luck on the learning process. After masking and Curves are committed to memory, the rest is a piece-o-cake. Take heart, the downside of that learning curve, is just a few clicks away.

Hunt

Different PS books and tutorials take different approaches in their teaching methods. Some authors offer cookbook recipes that work in certain situations without explaining why. They are like those who give a hungry man a fish. Some authors focus on how tools really work inside PS, but provide minimal point-and-click recipes. They are like those who teach a hungry man how to fish. Some try to do both, but end up with limited coverage in either. I collected a bookshelf worth of books, and a hd full of online tutorials. When I face starvation, I look up a recipe that solves my problem at hand. But I find understanding how different tools work allow me to solve different problems well under different situations, and minimize data destruction during my edits.

Kelby’s books are definitely recipes (and not in the same class as the following), and Marguilis’ and Blatner’s books are more about the inner workings. Kitner and Haynes tend to cover both pretty well.

Pixmaker wrote:

Yes, Mike. . .I’ve collected and read several binders-full of printed-out tutorials. . . some from you, in fact. . . Thank you!
In many cases, they have been extremely helpful.

I guess I’m not communicating my thoughts very well and I also suspect that I’m suffering from an overdose of impatience. (Lord, give me patience. . .But I want it right now!)

One way I can explain my frustration is to cite Scott Kelby’s book, "The Photoshop Book for Digital Photographers." That book has saved me more time and has shown me how to do more things, faster, than any of the stuff I’ve read, with the notable exception of some specific tutorials. With that kind of help, I can cut to the chase and get immediate results. An expansion of my knowledge and learning comes a li’l later as I use this new technique. But I don’t waste a lot of time trying to find the immediate answer.

It’s my belief that a person can learn more from a direct, hands-on demonstration than from reading tons of books. Kelby’s book works that way for me. And I hate to sound accusatorial, but I’ve spent more than ice cream money on at least three reputedly great instructional books only to find their organization poor and rambling and their "how-to" instructions the source of more questions than answers. As for Adobe, the manual supplied with PS suffers from a multitude of ills common with many manufacturer-supplied instructional material.
The website is helpful, however, so it’s not all bad!

Why can’t someone create a text that eases the "translation problem" for those with a photographic background?

Perhaps it’s because PS may be heavily biased toward the graphic-design community and not the photographer. Now, hold your arrow, Geronimo, I’m not attacking that group of users, but there’s a heap of capability in PS for artists that I’ll never use and maybe that’s why I’m frustrated with the learning.

OK, end of rant. This already has consumed more time than I can justify. I really was looking for info on a specific topic and, as usual, the group supplied it. Thank you all.

Pixmaker in FLL
==========================
It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity!
==========================
(…Think the humidity’s bad?
You should watch us vote!)

You know, Bill, you just might be right!

I bought the "Classroom in a Book" volume and did work through about 30% of the examples before abandoning it as too slow. I need to reconsider that!
Thanks

Pixmaker in FLL
==========================
It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity!
==========================
(…Think the humidity’s bad?
You should watch us vote!)

Yes, Mike. . .I’ve collected and read several binders-full of printed-out tutorials. . . some from you, in fact. . . Thank you!

In many cases, they have been extremely helpful.

I guess I’m not communicating my thoughts very well and I also suspect that I’m suffering from an overdose of impatience. (Lord, give me patience. . .But I want it right now!)

One way I can explain my frustration is to cite Scott Kelby’s book, "The Photoshop Book for Digital Photographers." That book has saved me more time and has shown me how to do more things, faster, than any of the stuff I’ve read, with the notable exception of some specific tutorials. With that kind of help, I can cut to the chase and get immediate results. An expansion of my knowledge and learning comes a li’l later as I use this new technique. But I don’t waste a lot of time trying to find the immediate answer.

It’s my belief that a person can learn more from a direct, hands-on demonstration than from reading tons of books. Kelby’s book works that way for me. And I hate to sound accusatorial, but I’ve spent more than ice cream money on at least three reputedly great instructional books only to find their organization poor and rambling and their "how-to" instructions the source of more questions than answers. As for Adobe, the manual supplied with PS suffers from a multitude of ills common with many manufacturer-supplied instructional material.

The website is helpful, however, so it’s not all bad!

Why can’t someone create a text that eases the "translation problem" for those with a photographic background?

Perhaps it’s because PS may be heavily biased toward the graphic-design community and not the photographer. Now, hold your arrow, Geronimo, I’m not attacking that group of users, but there’s a heap of capability in PS for artists that I’ll never use and maybe that’s why I’m frustrated with the learning.

OK, end of rant. This already has consumed more time than I can justify. I really was looking for info on a specific topic and, as usual, the group supplied it. Thank you all.

Pixmaker in FLL
==========================
It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity!
==========================
(…Think the humidity’s bad?
You should watch us vote!)