Touch-ups

"Don" wrote in message

In general, should touch-ups (like removing specks and blemishes, as well as other finicky stuff) be done before or after "global" corrections (like contrast, color balance, etc)?

When you use adjustments (Color balance etc), use the adjustment layers. That way there’s no before or after, because you can adjust them till when ever.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:50:56 +0200, "V1nc3nt"
wrote:

"Don" wrote in message

In general, should touch-ups (like removing specks and blemishes, as well as other finicky stuff) be done before or after "global" corrections (like contrast, color balance, etc)?

When you use adjustments (Color balance etc), use the adjustment layers. That way there’s no before or after, because you can adjust them till when ever.

I do that, but I was looking for a streamlined workflow, where I would do one-off corrections (like speck removal and cropping) once and then save that as my "digital negative". After that, the idea is to play with global changes until the image looks right, and still have the ability to return to the "negative" at a later date, should I so wish, without having to repeat all the one-off finicky stuff.

The problem is global changes are sometimes needed (over- or underexposed images) in order to do touch-ups. On the other hand, global changes applied afterwards help hide and mask small touch-ups. Catch 22…

Don.

That’s what I do now, but the problem is that this preliminary brightening up of the image is exactly that, preliminary… Once other global adjustments are made – this time for real – the shortcomings of the preliminary adjustments become apparent.

I guess, there is really no one simple answer because of this Catch 22 situation.

Thanks anyway!

Don.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 03:05:02 +0200, "Branko Vukelic" wrote:

Use adjustment layers to, for example, brighten the image in order to be able to do touch-ups. The adjustments on adjustment layers need not be precise as long as they allow you to see what you need to see. After you’re finished, just remove the adjustment layer and save as a digital neg.
"Don" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:50:56 +0200, "V1nc3nt"
wrote:

"Don" wrote in message

In general, should touch-ups (like removing specks and blemishes, as well as other finicky stuff) be done before or after "global" corrections (like contrast, color balance, etc)?

When you use adjustments (Color balance etc), use the adjustment layers. That way there’s no before or after, because you can adjust them till when ever.

I do that, but I was looking for a streamlined workflow, where I would do one-off corrections (like speck removal and cropping) once and then save that as my "digital negative". After that, the idea is to play with global changes until the image looks right, and still have the ability to return to the "negative" at a later date, should I so wish, without having to repeat all the one-off finicky stuff.

The problem is global changes are sometimes needed (over- or underexposed images) in order to do touch-ups. On the other hand, global changes applied afterwards help hide and mask small touch-ups. Catch 22…

Don.

Use adjustment layers to, for example, brighten the image in order to be able to do touch-ups. The adjustments on adjustment layers need not be precise as long as they allow you to see what you need to see. After you’re finished, just remove the adjustment layer and save as a digital neg.

"Don" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:50:56 +0200, "V1nc3nt"
wrote:

"Don" wrote in message

In general, should touch-ups (like removing specks and blemishes, as well as other finicky stuff) be done before or after "global" corrections (like contrast, color balance, etc)?

When you use adjustments (Color balance etc), use the adjustment layers. That way there’s no before or after, because you can adjust them till when ever.

I do that, but I was looking for a streamlined workflow, where I would do one-off corrections (like speck removal and cropping) once and then save that as my "digital negative". After that, the idea is to play with global changes until the image looks right, and still have the ability to return to the "negative" at a later date, should I so wish, without having to repeat all the one-off finicky stuff.

The problem is global changes are sometimes needed (over- or underexposed images) in order to do touch-ups. On the other hand, global changes applied afterwards help hide and mask small touch-ups. Catch 22…

Don.

Yes, that’s the same procedure I use. However, what I’m referring to is that the final adjustments are often more then just brightening up of the image.

So, given this procedure I would, for example, brighten up the image to identify areas needing touching up. However, once that is finished and I start to make adjustments for real, areas which were touched up – as well as new areas needing to be touched up – may start to appear.

For example, just increasing contrast sometimes exposes areas which looked fine during touchup. I try to limit that effect in particular by using between 80 and 90% opacity in the clone tool to blur the edges a little.

The problem is I don’t know beforehand what global changes I will have to make to the image in the end. And to do the touchup properly I would really need to know that up front.

One alternative is to make global changes and save adjustments as files – I mean save the Levels adjustment, Curves, etc. Then go back to the original image, do the touchups, remove the global adjustments, save this as the "digital negative", then re-apply all adjustment files and save that as the final edit.

Sounds more complicated than it is, but I’m sure you know what I mean.

This is all for personal use so, realistically, it is questionable if I really need to save digital negatives. It was just an instinct… However, I’m now faced with a different dilemma. The raw files are quite big at 4000 dpi and 14-bit color amounting to just over 100 MB per slide. And that quickly adds up. So I may be forced to drop the digital negative idea and only keep the final images at 8-bit depth.

Don.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:23:21 +0200, "Branko Vukelic" wrote:

I’m not sure if I follow you, but you seem to be saying that the preliminary adjustment gets in the way of final adjustments, right?

If that’s true, then I don’t see a problem here. The preliminary adjustments made by the way of adjustment layers can be (and should be) removed before you proceed. The preliminary adjustments thus become TEMPORARY adjustments as well. If I’m wrong or you can’t follow me, I’ll explain the whole procedure.

Here’s what I would do:

1. Load the image
2. Open Layers palette
3. Click "Create new fill or adjustment layer" button (it’s the third one from left, the half-black-half-white circle) choosing
"Brightness/Contrast…"
4. Depending on the image, I set both values to anything between +40 and +60
5. Hit OK; in Layers palette you see that the adjustments are "remembered"
as a new layer
6. Do the basic touch-up
7. Remove the adjustment layer and you’re done

When I proceed to more advanced adjustments, I have a perfectly dust-free but otherwise untouched photo.

"Don" wrote in message

That’s what I do now, but the problem is that this preliminary brightening up of the image is exactly that, preliminary… Once other global adjustments are made – this time for real – the shortcomings of the preliminary adjustments become apparent.

I guess, there is really no one simple answer because of this Catch 22 situation.

Thanks anyway!

Don.

[sic]

I’m not sure if I follow you, but you seem to be saying that the preliminary adjustment gets in the way of final adjustments, right?

If that’s true, then I don’t see a problem here. The preliminary adjustments made by the way of adjustment layers can be (and should be) removed before you proceed. The preliminary adjustments thus become TEMPORARY adjustments as well. If I’m wrong or you can’t follow me, I’ll explain the whole procedure.

Here’s what I would do:

1. Load the image
2. Open Layers palette
3. Click "Create new fill or adjustment layer" button (it’s the third one from left, the half-black-half-white circle) choosing
"Brightness/Contrast…"
4. Depending on the image, I set both values to anything between +40 and +60
5. Hit OK; in Layers palette you see that the adjustments are "remembered"
as a new layer
6. Do the basic touch-up
7. Remove the adjustment layer and you’re done

When I proceed to more advanced adjustments, I have a perfectly dust-free but otherwise untouched photo.

"Don" wrote in message

That’s what I do now, but the problem is that this preliminary brightening up of the image is exactly that, preliminary… Once other global adjustments are made – this time for real – the shortcomings of the preliminary adjustments become apparent.

I guess, there is really no one simple answer because of this Catch 22 situation.

Thanks anyway!

Don.

[sic]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:29:56 GMT, (Don) wrote:

Yes, that’s the same procedure I use. However, what I’m referring to is that the final adjustments are often more then just brightening up of the image.

So, given this procedure I would, for example, brighten up the image to identify areas needing touching up. However, once that is finished and I start to make adjustments for real, areas which were touched up – as well as new areas needing to be touched up – may start to appear.
For example, just increasing contrast sometimes exposes areas which looked fine during touchup. I try to limit that effect in particular by using between 80 and 90% opacity in the clone tool to blur the edges a little.

The problem is I don’t know beforehand what global changes I will have to make to the image in the end. And to do the touchup properly I would really need to know that up front.

One alternative is to make global changes and save adjustments as files – I mean save the Levels adjustment, Curves, etc. Then go back to the original image, do the touchups, remove the global adjustments, save this as the "digital negative", then re-apply all adjustment files and save that as the final edit.

Sounds more complicated than it is, but I’m sure you know what I mean.
This is all for personal use so, realistically, it is questionable if I really need to save digital negatives. It was just an instinct… However, I’m now faced with a different dilemma. The raw files are quite big at 4000 dpi and 14-bit color amounting to just over 100 MB per slide. And that quickly adds up. So I may be forced to drop the digital negative idea and only keep the final images at 8-bit depth.

….or buy yourself a Maxtor Firewire drive at say 200Gb and use it to store the images, and a DVD drive for archiving. Works for me 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 03:20:02 +0100, Hecate wrote:

This is all for personal use so, realistically, it is questionable if I really need to save digital negatives. It was just an instinct… However, I’m now faced with a different dilemma. The raw files are quite big at 4000 dpi and 14-bit color amounting to just over 100 MB per slide. And that quickly adds up. So I may be forced to drop the digital negative idea and only keep the final images at 8-bit depth.

…or buy yourself a Maxtor Firewire drive at say 200Gb and use it to store the images, and a DVD drive for archiving. Works for me 😉

Well, I just got a 160 GB IBM/Hitachi but according to my preliminary calculations I’d need a 300 GB drive to fit everything on it. And that’s just the pics! What will I do when I start digitizing my LP collection? ;o)

Of course, a couple of years from now, with 1 TB drives as standard, we’ll read this and wonder what the fuss was about…

Don.

P.S. Oh yeah, LPs are those big (predominantly) black plastic things people used to record music on… No, I’m not pulling anybody’s leg. Really! Yeah, black plastic… No, no… nothing to do with MP3…

Aw… go ask your grandfather… ;o)

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:43:01 GMT, (Don) wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 03:20:02 +0100, Hecate wrote:

This is all for personal use so, realistically, it is questionable if I really need to save digital negatives. It was just an instinct… However, I’m now faced with a different dilemma. The raw files are quite big at 4000 dpi and 14-bit color amounting to just over 100 MB per slide. And that quickly adds up. So I may be forced to drop the digital negative idea and only keep the final images at 8-bit depth.

…or buy yourself a Maxtor Firewire drive at say 200Gb and use it to store the images, and a DVD drive for archiving. Works for me 😉

Well, I just got a 160 GB IBM/Hitachi but according to my preliminary calculations I’d need a 300 GB drive to fit everything on it. And that’s just the pics! What will I do when I start digitizing my LP collection? ;o)

Well, you can link up to 62 of those Maxtor drives using Firewire… 😉

Of course, a couple of years from now, with 1 TB drives as standard, we’ll read this and wonder what the fuss was about…

I was reading recently about holographic storage and a new drive which should be out next year. Corporates only as it’s approx. $20,000 a pop. But, it stores 1Tb and is a 1 inch cube. 😉

P.S. Oh yeah, LPs are those big (predominantly) black plastic things people used to record music on… No, I’m not pulling anybody’s leg. Really! Yeah, black plastic… No, no… nothing to do with MP3…
Aw… go ask your grandfather… ;o)

I’ve still got some of those and one day…. 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Uh, a tough one. Now I know what you’re talking about, but it seems there’s no panacea to that.

As far as file sizes go, save as JPEG (quality 10~12). I do this with no noticeable loss in quality. The thing is, when you have a project that is to use your digital negs, you seldom need the full neg. You need parts of it or you need it in much smaller print size. So the loss that MIGHT have had occured will be less significant.

"Don" wrote in message

Yes, that’s the same procedure I use. However, what I’m referring to is that the final adjustments are often more then just brightening up of the image.

So, given this procedure I would, for example, brighten up the image to identify areas needing touching up. However, once that is finished and I start to make adjustments for real, areas which were touched up – as well as new areas needing to be touched up – may start to appear.
For example, just increasing contrast sometimes exposes areas which looked fine during touchup. I try to limit that effect in particular by using between 80 and 90% opacity in the clone tool to blur the edges a little.

The problem is I don’t know beforehand what global changes I will have to make to the image in the end. And to do the touchup properly I would really need to know that up front.

One alternative is to make global changes and save adjustments as files – I mean save the Levels adjustment, Curves, etc. Then go back to the original image, do the touchups, remove the global adjustments, save this as the "digital negative", then re-apply all adjustment files and save that as the final edit.

Sounds more complicated than it is, but I’m sure you know what I mean.
This is all for personal use so, realistically, it is questionable if I really need to save digital negatives. It was just an instinct… However, I’m now faced with a different dilemma. The raw files are quite big at 4000 dpi and 14-bit color amounting to just over 100 MB per slide. And that quickly adds up. So I may be forced to drop the digital negative idea and only keep the final images at 8-bit depth.
Don.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:23:21 +0200, "Branko Vukelic" wrote:

I’m not sure if I follow you, but you seem to be saying that the preliminary
adjustment gets in the way of final adjustments, right?

If that’s true, then I don’t see a problem here. The preliminary adjustments
made by the way of adjustment layers can be (and should be) removed before you proceed. The preliminary adjustments thus become TEMPORARY adjustments as well. If I’m wrong or you can’t follow me, I’ll explain the whole procedure.

Here’s what I would do:

1. Load the image
2. Open Layers palette
3. Click "Create new fill or adjustment layer" button (it’s the third one from left, the half-black-half-white circle) choosing
"Brightness/Contrast…"
4. Depending on the image, I set both values to anything between +40 and +60
5. Hit OK; in Layers palette you see that the adjustments are "remembered" as a new layer
6. Do the basic touch-up
7. Remove the adjustment layer and you’re done

When I proceed to more advanced adjustments, I have a perfectly dust-free but otherwise untouched photo.

"Don" wrote in message

That’s what I do now, but the problem is that this preliminary brightening up of the image is exactly that, preliminary… Once other global adjustments are made – this time for real – the shortcomings of the preliminary adjustments become apparent.

I guess, there is really no one simple answer because of this Catch 22 situation.

Thanks anyway!

Don.

[sic]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 01:45:58 +0100, Hecate wrote:

Of course, a couple of years from now, with 1 TB drives as standard, we’ll read this and wonder what the fuss was about…

I was reading recently about holographic storage and a new drive which should be out next year. Corporates only as it’s approx. $20,000 a pop. But, it stores 1Tb and is a 1 inch cube. 😉

Yeah, I saw that too. It’ll be a while longer until we mere mortals can afford them. One thing I like is that holographic storage is accessed in "pages" rather than sequentially. Of course, the interface may put the brakes on that.

P.S. Oh yeah, LPs are those big (predominantly) black plastic things people used to record music on… No, I’m not pulling anybody’s leg. Really! Yeah, black plastic… No, no… nothing to do with MP3…
Aw… go ask your grandfather… ;o)

I’ve still got some of those and one day…. 😉

You know, speaking of storage, them LPs are not so bad after all!They may "snap, crackle, pop" but at least they’re still going.

I mean, with some older CDs now starting to "rust" (the aluminum layer oxidizes due to microscopic cracks in the protective layer) and the CDRs being eaten by a South American bug (this is for real, the bacteria eats the organic die!) so much for industry assurances along the lines of "Oh, don’t worry! CDs will last a 100 years. They will certainly outlive you!"

I knew time passes by quickly but these 100 "CD years" went by pretty fast! ;o)

Don.

My original idea was to have two files per image: one a digital negative in lossless format, and the other processed in JPG for viewing. That way if – at a later date – I want to do more tweaking I would be able to go back to the original.

However, because of storage requirements I think I will keep only an 8-bit processed image in lossless format, and a JPG for viewing. After all, since all this is for personal use, I don’t think it’s very likely I’ll go back and redo the editing at a later date.

Don.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 03:04:57 +0200, "Branko Vukelic" wrote:

Uh, a tough one. Now I know what you’re talking about, but it seems there’s no panacea to that.

As far as file sizes go, save as JPEG (quality 10~12). I do this with no noticeable loss in quality. The thing is, when you have a project that is to use your digital negs, you seldom need the full neg. You need parts of it or you need it in much smaller print size. So the loss that MIGHT have had occured will be less significant.

"Don" wrote in message

Yes, that’s the same procedure I use. However, what I’m referring to is that the final adjustments are often more then just brightening up of the image.

So, given this procedure I would, for example, brighten up the image to identify areas needing touching up. However, once that is finished and I start to make adjustments for real, areas which were touched up – as well as new areas needing to be touched up – may start to appear.
For example, just increasing contrast sometimes exposes areas which looked fine during touchup. I try to limit that effect in particular by using between 80 and 90% opacity in the clone tool to blur the edges a little.

The problem is I don’t know beforehand what global changes I will have to make to the image in the end. And to do the touchup properly I would really need to know that up front.

One alternative is to make global changes and save adjustments as files – I mean save the Levels adjustment, Curves, etc. Then go back to the original image, do the touchups, remove the global adjustments, save this as the "digital negative", then re-apply all adjustment files and save that as the final edit.

Sounds more complicated than it is, but I’m sure you know what I mean.
This is all for personal use so, realistically, it is questionable if I really need to save digital negatives. It was just an instinct… However, I’m now faced with a different dilemma. The raw files are quite big at 4000 dpi and 14-bit color amounting to just over 100 MB per slide. And that quickly adds up. So I may be forced to drop the digital negative idea and only keep the final images at 8-bit depth.
Don.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:23:21 +0200, "Branko Vukelic" wrote:

I’m not sure if I follow you, but you seem to be saying that the preliminary
adjustment gets in the way of final adjustments, right?

If that’s true, then I don’t see a problem here. The preliminary adjustments
made by the way of adjustment layers can be (and should be) removed before you proceed. The preliminary adjustments thus become TEMPORARY adjustments as well. If I’m wrong or you can’t follow me, I’ll explain the whole procedure.

Here’s what I would do:

1. Load the image
2. Open Layers palette
3. Click "Create new fill or adjustment layer" button (it’s the third one from left, the half-black-half-white circle) choosing
"Brightness/Contrast…"
4. Depending on the image, I set both values to anything between +40 and +60
5. Hit OK; in Layers palette you see that the adjustments are "remembered" as a new layer
6. Do the basic touch-up
7. Remove the adjustment layer and you’re done

When I proceed to more advanced adjustments, I have a perfectly dust-free but otherwise untouched photo.

"Don" wrote in message

That’s what I do now, but the problem is that this preliminary brightening up of the image is exactly that, preliminary… Once other global adjustments are made – this time for real – the shortcomings of the preliminary adjustments become apparent.

I guess, there is really no one simple answer because of this Catch 22 situation.

Thanks anyway!

Don.

[sic]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:16:29 GMT, (Don) wrote:

You know, speaking of storage, them LPs are not so bad after all!They may "snap, crackle, pop" but at least they’re still going.
I mean, with some older CDs now starting to "rust" (the aluminum layer oxidizes due to microscopic cracks in the protective layer) and the CDRs being eaten by a South American bug (this is for real, the bacteria eats the organic die!) so much for industry assurances along the lines of "Oh, don’t worry! CDs will last a 100 years. They will certainly outlive you!"

I knew time passes by quickly but these 100 "CD years" went by pretty fast! ;o)

LOL! Yes. DVDs, as long as the edges are clean and undamaged are much more likely to last.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui