Link to Online Photoshop Class

[rpcrowe]

https://blog.main.wattsdigital.com/?p=2928

John Watts used to present these classes in person (I attended several) but, since COVID-19, he has reverted to Online classes - which actually reach many more people.

If you are enrolled in Kindle Unlimited. John Watts' book is available at no cost...

https://smile.amazon.com/Just-Anothe...t%2C203&sr=1-1

[wilgk]

Thank you Richard, I will check this out.

[Rufus]

https://blog.main.wattsdigital.com/?p=2928

John Watts used to present these classes in person (I attended several) but, since COVID-19, he has reverted to Online classes - which actually reach many more people.

If you are enrolled in Kindle Unlimited. John Watts' book is available at no cost...

I have viewed some of John Wattts' online material recently (video and written) and am quite taken with his methodology of creating a master file from a flattened Raw file. I have not yet adopted it myself, and wonder if you did, Richard?

I am not a Kindle user but his book is available in the UK on a "Print on Demand" basis, so I am awaiting delivery.

As a Lightroom user, the workflow will be rather more convoluted for me, but I think I have a potential workflow to include renaming files in Lightroom. I believe he will be addressing this in a video very soon.

On a more general note, I would like to understand better why one would flatten a properly exposed image in the way he describes (slightly low contrast, slightly underexposed, slightly over saturated while retaining best over all colour balance) only to then boost these things back up again in Photoshop either globally or locally. I am hoping his book will add some technical justification for this and clarify what he means by bringing the captured pixels back into the visible spectrum (I dont't recall the exact phraseology). He is clearly a very experienced professional printer so I am sure what he says will have a sound basis, and not just something that he finds "works for him".

[Manfred M]

David - I use a somewhat similar workflow to Watt's, with a few key differences and I suspect I understand why he does things the way he does.

First of all, a master file is one where one has done all the edits other than the final prep for output. This means he can still made adjustments in format (depending on the display or print aspect ratio), print size, native resolution of the output device, sharpening to final output size, etc. The reason that he flattens the file is to save space. He obviously has no intention of doing any additional edits once he is done, so he doesn't keep the working layers. My master files save all the layers, so I can go back and continue to work on the image where I left off.

The reason he leaves things with slightly low contrast, slightly underexposed is that it gives him a bit of headroom to adjust the master image to match the paper / printer he will be using for output. Paper has a lower dynamic range than the computer screen, so he is trying to prevent clipping of highlights. Likewise it is easier (less damaging) to boost contrast than reduce it and reducing saturation is safer than trying to increase it. This is again because he uses flattened master files.

I suspect what he refers to as bringing the captured pixels back into the visible spectrum has two basic underlying reasons. The first is that the dynamic range of a modern camera is around 14 ev whereas most computer screens are running at 10 ev (in a fairly dark room). A second part of what is happening here is that the human visual system can only see some 10 million hues, yet at 16 bits and a wide gamut colour space, we can coax out hues that the camera has captured we can't differentiate from other close colours.

What he does, obviously works for him. Someone with 35 years of doing this for a living is going to be more efficient than us amateurs / hobbyists. Other things are simply personal preference and the one issue I have always had with the "pros" is that they are so entrenched in what works for them, they have trouble understanding that it is not necessarily a solution for everyone.

[Rufus]

David - I use a somewhat similar workflow to Watt's, with a few key differences and I suspect I understand why he does things the way he does.

First of all, a master file is one where one has done all the edits other than the final prep for output. This means he can still made adjustments in format (depending on the display or print aspect ratio), print size, native resolution of the output device, sharpening to final output size, etc. The reason that he flattens the file is to save space. He obviously has no intention of doing any additional edits once he is done, so he doesn't keep the working layers. My master files save all the layers, so I can go back and continue to work on the image where I left off.

The reason he leaves things with slightly low contrast, slightly underexposed is that it gives him a bit of headroom to adjust the master image to match the paper / printer he will be using for output. Paper has a lower dynamic range than the computer screen, so he is trying to prevent clipping of highlights. Likewise it is easier (less damaging) to boost contrast than reduce it and reducing saturation is safer than trying to increase it. This is again because he uses flattened master files.

My understanding is that Watts opens the file in Adobe Camera Raw and creates an Optimised file which has been “flattened” by reducing contrast and exposure and increasing vibrancy. This is the flattening I referred to.

He then edits the Optimised file in Photoshop to end up with the Master file which, as you say, he then tailors to the output medium. Whether that Master file is flattened to merge all the layers is a matter of choice. (I probably would not; file size/ disk storage has never been a problem for me and I may in the future want to do further tweaks and thus create a replacement or version 2 of the Maser file.)

So, my query remains as to why create and retain the Optimised file with a low contrast, low exposure and high vibrancy only to reverse these in Photoshop. Obviously, I am over-simplifying it by saying they are just simply reversed.

Perhaps ACR is significantly better in his workflow than the ACR filter in Photoshop. As a Lightroom user I would use LR in place of ACR. Unfortunately, I have no idea how that compares to ACR or the ACR filter in PS.

I suspect what he refers to as bringing the captured pixels back into the visible spectrum has two basic underlying reasons. The first is that the dynamic range of a modern camera is around 14 ev whereas most computer screens are running at 10 ev (in a fairly dark room). A second part of what is happening here is that the human visual system can only see some 10 million hues, yet at 16 bits and a wide gamut colour space, we can coax out hues that the camera has captured we can't differentiate from other close colours.

My eye and my display cannot differentiate all the colours and hues captured in the original RAW file data which is interpreted by the human visual system or the software to best suit their respective limitations. But black and white values recorded at the extremes are still pure black and pure white.

So might it be the range of Luminosity that is the issue here? If luminosity is a measure of brightness and independent of colour, it seems dynamic range is a predictor for or is correlated to the range of luminosity values in an image. So Watts may be compressing the luminosity and dynamic range in the RAW data into what is well within the limits of what can be seen or displayed. But this still seems to be throwing away data once the RAW file is converted to PSD.

From an alternative perspective this is no more than a description of what he and we all do if we compress the extremes of the levels histogram to remove clipped highlights and clipped shadows.

As you can tell I am little confused and well outside my sphere of knowledge, but I love to learn. I just hope I do not confuse others along the way!

[Helly123]

I'm so happy that more and more courses are moving online format. And John Watts' methodology is great. I've used my photoshop skills to create a big world's immigration map for my college project. Thanks to https://eduzaurus.com/free-essay-samples/immigration/ and John Watts' photoshop course, I managed to finish my work. As it was not easy.

[Manfred M]

My understanding is that Watts opens the file in Adobe Camera Raw and creates an Optimised file which has been “flattened” by reducing contrast and exposure and increasing vibrancy. This is the flattening I referred to.

The "trick" of using ACR/ LR before exporting to Photoshop is to ensure that the significant colour data is well prepared before converting the raw data to image data. Getting it close, but not quite to the absolute limits when you convert to an image file gives you a lot of good data but still enough "headroom" in Photoshop to finesse the best out of the image.

As I said, his workflow at this stage is very similar to mine, the only thing that he does that I don't appears to be to boost the vibrance.

He then edits the Optimised file in Photoshop to end up with the Master file which, as you say, he then tailors to the output medium. Whether that Master file is flattened to merge all the layers is a matter of choice. (I probably would not; file size/ disk storage has never been a problem for me and I may in the future want to do further tweaks and thus create a replacement or version 2 of the Maser file.)

My master files contain most if not all layers, so I agree with your assessment here. In fact, most of my master files are based on using SmartObjects, which buys me a bit more flexibility to return to the source raw data, if I feel that I need it.

So, my query remains as to why create and retain the Optimised file with a low contrast, low exposure and high vibrancy only to reverse these in Photoshop. Obviously, I am over-simplifying it by saying they are just simply reversed.

I wouldn't call his master file underexposed or low contrast, but rather that he prepares the data in ACR / LR conservatively so that he does not get into trouble when he works on the file in Photoshop. I make sure that my parametric edits are done is such a way so that I can do an effective edit in Photoshop, which means I don't push the data too hard. I do use the the black, white, shadows and highlight sliders a lot. I rarely touch the exposure slider and never touch the contrast or vibrance / saturation sliders. I tweak all of these parameters in Photoshop where I can target specific parts of the image, not necessarily globally.

Perhaps ACR is significantly better in his workflow than the ACR filter in Photoshop. As a Lightroom user I would use LR in place of ACR. Unfortunately, I have no idea how that compares to ACR or the ACR filter in PS.

The ACR filter impacts the converted file in PS, so one does not have the same depth of data available as when one is working with the raw data. The exception is when one works with a SmartObject, where all this data is available to the ACR filter in Photoshop.

My eye and my display cannot differentiate all the colours and hues captured in the original RAW file data which is interpreted by the human visual system or the software to best suit their respective limitations. But black and white values recorded at the extremes are still pure black and pure white.

In fact I would go a step farther by suggesting that deep shadows (dark hues) and highlights (light hues) are hard to distinguish by the human visual system. A dark value that seems to be dark gray could actually be dark blue or a light value that seems to be almost white could actually be a yellow. By bringing these into the visual range, the true colours can come out and will impact the look and feel of an image.

So might it be the range of Luminosity that is the issue here? If luminosity is a measure of brightness and independent of colour, it seems dynamic range is a predictor for or is correlated to the range of luminosity values in an image. So Watts may be compressing the luminosity and dynamic range in the RAW data into what is well within the limits of what can be seen or displayed. But this still seems to be throwing away data once the RAW file is converted to PSD.

In theory yes, but in practice I have not found this to be the case. Even though we have assigned values to the colours during raw conversion, a wide colour space, processed at a high bit depth still has a lot of data.

From an alternative perspective this is no more than a description of what he and we all do if we compress the extremes of the levels histogram to remove clipped highlights and clipped shadows.

As you can tell I am little confused and well outside my sphere of knowledge, but I love to learn. I just hope I do not confuse others along the way!

This is a good analogy. If we do the compression in ACR / LR, the data is still there, but if we do so in a destructive way in Photoshop, using Adjustments, rather than an adjustment layer, then we are throwing away data that cannot be recovered.

The more you use the tools, the more you will understand how they impact the data. What seems muddy right now will start to make sense as you develop a workflow that works for you.

[rpcrowe]

I am fortunate in having been able to attend many of John Watts' in-person classes. Prior to COVID-19, John presented his classes virtually free at the Photographic Arts Building in San Diego's Balboa Park. John charged five U.S. Dollars per class and those funds were used for upkeep and insurance for the Photographic Arts Building.

I basically follow his recommendations and since, I often need to make final products in different sizes and different formats, the system of Master File Organization has helped me.

Before I began working with Master Files, I would shoot my dog portraits in the portrait format. However, Many years ago, I was tasked with creating calendars from the dog portraits which was very difficult since I had been shooting the dog portraits in the portrait orientation.

After, taking the first of John's classes, many years ago, I began shooting my dog portraits in landscape configuration and after color correction and density correction as well as any retouching needed, saving the images as PSD Master Files. I am then able to produce whatever size, cropping and format that I need from that Master File. This has saved me a lot of work and a lot of heartache...

[Rufus]

...I basically follow his recommendations and since, I often need to make final products in different sizes and different formats, the system of Master File Organization has helped me.

Before I began working with Master Files, I would shoot my dog portraits in the portrait format. However, Many years ago, I was tasked with creating calendars from the dog portraits which was very difficult since I had been shooting the dog portraits in the portrait orientation.

After, taking the first of John's classes, many years ago, I began shooting my dog portraits in landscape configuration and after color correction and density correction as well as any retouching needed, saving the images as PSD Master Files. I am then able to produce whatever size, cropping and format that I need from that Master File. This has saved me a lot of work and a lot of heartache...

That is an excellent paractical example of the benefits. You have highlighted something I had forgotten: nowhere in thee notes I made of Watt's workflow doe he mention cropping until he talks about printing/uploading from the Master file in a size and resolution suiteabke for the intended medium.

PS I am sorry I appear to have taken over your thread. As yu can tell It has certainly made me think about my own workflow (yet again! ).

[Rufus]

The more you use the tools, the more you will understand how they impact the data. What seems muddy right now will start to make sense as you develop a workflow that works for you.

It is reassuring that you did not disagree with much of my last post, as I was not at all confident in my analysis. Your comments were, as usual, very helpful in taking the thought process forward.

Somewhat off topic:
Reading all the posts on CiC has really expanded my understanding and has already helped me develop my workflow to a certain extent as well as many other areas of my photography. Sadly, my images don't yet reflect this, but they will improve eventually...

I may not have been posting a lot recently but I have certainly been learning a great deal from CiC, a "30 days of Photoshop" course available (free online) from Phlearn, researching colour management (as I now have a good printer), and creating a black-out for my study where I do my post processing. I just need new display screen (maybe in a few months' time) to complete the colour management side and I shall be all set up. I have some paper samples ready for that too, but don't want to waste them while I have an uncalibrated standard 13-year-old HP screen!

As I am not shooting much at present, I am practicing and expanding the Photoshop skills on the images I do have, which leads to a better understanding of the implications of the various steps in a workflow and "lightbulb moments" occur.

Looking back, I have one wish tied to one regret. I wish I had been aware of the ACR plug in years ago and the ACR filter had been available in Photoshop 5 years ago. As a result, I now regret moving to Lightroom in 2017 and abandoning Bridge which I did not understand. One day I may reverse that decision to simplify the workflow, even though I like the Print module in LR.

[Manfred M]

Looking back, I have one wish tied to one regret. I wish I had been aware of the ACR plug in years ago and the ACR filter had been available in Photoshop 5 years ago. As a result, I now regret moving to Lightroom in 2017 and abandoning Bridge which I did not understand. One day I may reverse that decision to simplify the workflow, even though I like the Print module in LR.

There is nothing wrong with using LR and then the PS/ACR filter. The functionality of both the Lightroom Develop Module and Adobe Camera Raw are identical, as is the engine powering them. The user interface is different; like John Watts, I find the ACR user interface much cleaner than the LR one, but that is just personal preference.

You can even transfer the image you are working from to Photoshop from Lightroom as a SmartObject. Finishing your post-processing in Photoshop and then reverting to the Lightroom Print module is also fairly straight forward.

[rpcrowe]

I do a lot of my editing in ACR with a some help from Photoshop and NIK Collection - (mostly in Viveza)...

From what I have been able to garner from various sources, the major advantage of LR over using ACR and PS is in cataloging your images.

If I am correct, everything (with the exception of cataloging - and I am not really sure of that) can be done using ACR because ACR is actually akin to the Develop Module of LR...

The YouTube Video "Scott Kelby's Photoshop For Travel Photographers" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIt1cDw5lLI
is a good intro to working with ACR with the Caveat that Kelby is working with an older version of ACR in this video...

[Manfred M]

I do a lot of my editing in ACR with a some help from Photoshop and NIK Collection - (mostly in Viveza)...

From what I have been able to garner from various sources, the major advantage of LR over using ACR and PS is in cataloging your images.

If I am correct, everything (with the exception of cataloging - and I am not really sure of that) can be done using ACR because ACR is actually akin to the Develop Module of LR...

The YouTube Video "Scott Kelby's Photoshop For Travel Photographers" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIt1cDw5lLI
is a good intro to working with ACR with the Caveat that Kelby is working with an older version of ACR in this video...

Not quite accurate Richard. Lightroom has other functions as well. I use the geotagging maps when I add GPS data to my captures. A lot of people like the print module. There is a book creation module (I personally use Adobe InDesign instead), slideshow and web upload capabilities; although I have never met anyone that actually uses many of these functions.

If you look at the history of Lightroom (I used the first Beta version), the target audience was really portrait, wedding and event photographers who needed to organize and do minor corrections to the images. The relative ease of use, versus the learning curve associated with Photoshop, the audience got a lot wider, quite quickly. It is a mass production tool.

High end photographers (for publications or catalogues), fine art photographers and the other groups mentioned in the previous paragraph will use Photoshop when Lightroom does not give them the functionality required for more precise or complex edits.

[rpcrowe]

In the days before the subscription Photoshop plan, Lightroom was a less expensive option and touted as a less complicated method to achieve basic edits...

My first introduction to the NIK Software was for Lightroom which was considerably less expensive than the PS version.

Frankly (and I am sure this is due to user error), I never liked using LR because I would "lose" files that I had worked on. I attempted to use LR without the catalog option and then (also probably due to user error) my computer crashed.

I was able to purchase what was probably the last version of PS sold outright. I got PS-6 at an extremely good price and used it for years until I finally switched to the Adobe subscription service,

Although I do have LR as part of the subscription service, I never use it. I can do everything "I want to do" with a combination of Bridge, ACR and Photoshop...

It ends up not "how" you achieve a product but, "what" the product looks like that is important...