A new species for me!

[Nancy A Elwood]

Hello to all. One bonus from my trip to the Everglades was this prairie warbler. But, boy are they difficult to catch!!! This one was caught in the bushes at Flamigo. Taken with a D300, Nikon 70-300Vr, iso 800, f7.1, 1/1250. I did my best with the BG. comments appreciated:)

[Arthur Morris]

Wonderful bird. Nice pose. Nice BKGR. Angle of inclination a bit too steep. I am betting that if you check the histogram for this JPEG that the yellows are toasted. If you go back and reduce the yellow saturation you might be OK. Let me know what you find....

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Great find, details and the BG is nicely blurred. I guess you could desaturate the yellows 10-15 points.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Wonderful bird. Nice pose. Nice BKGR. Angle of inclination a bit too steep. I am betting that if you check the histogram for this JPEG that the yellows are toasted. If you go back and reduce the yellow saturation you might be OK. Let me know what you find....

Artie thanks, but the yellows are right in the middle and within the histogram.:) The only thing I did was increase the brightness of the yellows maybe by 4 pts to bring it out from the BG a bit.

Thanks Axel:)!

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Nice find and angle of view already mentioned. Won't harp on it. Congratulations Nancy. Maybe pull the yellow saturation back then. Nicely framed! :)

[Stu Bowie]

Lovely pose, and I agree the BG is nicely blurred.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie thanks, but the yellows are right in the middle and within the histogram.:) The only thing I did was increase the brightness of the yellows maybe by 4 pts to bring it out from the BG a bit.
Thanks Axel:)!

Hi Nancy, YAW.

#1: I do not understand what you are talking about when you say that the "yellows are right in the middle and within the histogram." You cannot see colors on the lumminosity histogram and the RGB histogram shows only RED, GREEEN, and Blue." Please explain what you are talking about.

#2: As you can see in the image, there is clipping of highlights and they are in fact the yellows. This was confirmed by holdiing down the ALT key while clicking on the highlight slider and making sure that the slider is far right.

#3: The yellows (and reds) as they come out of many digital cameras are over-saturated and thus over-exposed, especially in warm light.

#4: It is not advisable to add saturation to the yellows (or the reds) in the above situation. In most cases you need to de-SAT the yellows or the reds so that the histogram does not show clipping (as the one here of your image does).

#5: The histogram showed less clipping than I thought that it would but IAC, the yellows are too saturated and quite detail-less.

#6: The fix is easy. Go back to the coverted RAW file, check the histogram, and then start de-SATing the yellows five points at a time until the histogram shows no clipping and the yellows show detail.

:) :) :)

[Jim Poor]

Actually, it is the reds that are clipped as shown below. That said, the yellows are still too bright, but not clipped.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Ok guys and thank you Jim for displaying what I was seeing. Here are some results showing what I see in NX2.

Before adjustment



After Adjustment



Image with final adjustments



Great discussion folks!!:)

[Mike Milicia]

Sensors only record Red, Green, and Blue.
When dealing with light (additive colors), Red + Green = Yellow.
Thus, if reds are clipped, then yellow is effectively clipped as well.
Don't know exactly how NX2 is coming up with the yellow in their histogram
but I'm suspecting that they will only show yellow as clipped if BOTH red and
green are clipped. But, even if only one is clipped, there is still a problem
with the yellows.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Repost is above, the first post. Thoughts appreciated.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for to Jim Poor for showing us the color version of the Photoshsop histogram. Chris Dodds and I were able to figure out how to generate it in Photoshop: 1-click on the histogram tab. 2-clcik on the downward facing arrow in the upper right of the histogram box. 3- Click on Expanded View. 4- In the channel box, select Colors from the dropdown menu.

As for the REDS rather than the YELLOWS being clipped, my understanding is that RED is a component of YELLOW and with the RED channel clipped (as Mike Milicia stated, there are only RED, YELLOW, and GREEN channels) the YELLOW channel may be clipped. When I held down the alt key while clicking on the highlight slider it was the yellow breast that came up as hot, so I will stand by my original statement.

While you could probably make semantical arguements either way here, one thing is for sure: everyone has learned something.

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Nancy, Your image with final adjustments is fine with no clipping shown. (That was not the case with your original post.) So way to go on that. The image is still too yellow for my taste so I toned the yellows down a bit and offer the repost above.

[David Thomasson]

Interesting technical discussion about the yellows in this image. My first impression was the same as Arthur's: some of the yellow are clipped in the breast feathers. But that isn't the case. In fact, there are no clipped highlights at all in this image, anywhere. And yet the yellows do seem a bit too something -- so what's going on here?

One problem might be that the blue channel is heavily blocked. And blue is, of course, the complement of yellow. Just for fun, I tried applying a deep blue photo filter at the default 25% density, and voila: The blue channel shifted to the right so that no blue pixels were blocked anywhere.

The upshot is that when yellows seem too bright or glaring, as it seems to me in parts of this image, check the blue histogram. If it is blocked, as here, open a blue filter, invert its mask, and then paint with white in the brightest yellow areas. That tones down the brightness of the yellow and even brings out some details that were hidden by the blocked blues.

Play with this in Photoshop and you'll see the effect on the yellows more clearly. Here's an illustration using screen shots. (The blue filter is applied globally, not confined to the brightest yellow areas.)

[Judy Lynn Malloch]

Congratulations Nancy, I am glad that the Everglades had such a beautiful species to photograph. You did well to capture this image and again it was a pleasure to see you again.

[Jackie Schuknecht]

Great thread, I learned a ton and it is a lovely picture Nancy (great pose and HA), and that bird really is yellow:) even with some reduction in colour.

[Arthur Morris]

Hey David, Thanks for the great post. I do have a comment and a question or two.

re:

Interesting technical discussion about the yellows in this image. My first impression was the same as Arthur's: some of the yellow are clipped in the breast feathers. But that isn't the case.

Note: in Nancy's original post there were clipped highlights in the yellows.

In fact, there are no clipped highlights at all in this image, anywhere.

That was true in Nancy's re-post but as above, not in the original post.

One problem might be that the blue channel is heavily blocked. And blue is, of course, the complement of yellow. Just for fun, I tried applying a deep blue photo filter at the default 25% density, and voila: The blue channel shifted to the right so that no blue pixels were blocked anywhere....

That tones down the brightness of the yellow and even brings out some details that were hidden by the blocked blues.

Play with this in Photoshop and you'll see the effect on the yellows more clearly.

Your technique worked really well; it toned down the yellows and restored detail to them.

If you could write a short how-to piece on using Photoshop filters here, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for your efforts here.

[Jim Poor]

Wow, a lot of great info here for sure.

I didn't realize getting to the color histogram was that complicated or I would have posted quick instructions. All I did was click Window> Histogram and the color one came up. Maybe it is "sticky" and that was the last one I used?

[David Thomasson]

[quote=Arthur Morris;249793]Hey David, Thanks for the great post. I do have a comment and a question or two.

re:

Interesting technical discussion about the yellows in this image. My first impression was the same as Arthur's: some of the yellow are clipped in the breast feathers. But that isn't the case.

Your technique worked really well; it toned down the yellows and restored detail to them. If you could write a short how-to piece on using Photoshop filters here, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for your efforts here.

Happy to. A preliminary suggestion about histograms. I set a function key to display the histogram (in CS3) with an all-channels view. When assessing an image, I generally pop this up first thing to see what's what on the histogram. On this one, for example, you can see right away that the image has a red cast, because the red histogram is further to the right than both the green and blue channels.



Photo filters. These are easy to use. To get going, just click the adjustment layer icon at the bottom of the layers palette and choose Photo Filter.



When you click that, you get a dialog box with a drop-down menu with all the pre-set filter options. In the yellow bird image, I used deep blue:



Once you've chosen a filter, you can adjust it in two ways. If you click the color swatch, the color picker opens and you can alter the filter color any way you like: brighter or darker, more or less saturation, and different hue. The density slider determines how much color will be applied -- and you can see all of these changes on the fly while you're making them. (I generally leave the "Preserve luminosity" box ticked.)



In many cases you'll want to apply a filter effect to just part of an image. Simplest way to do this: After closing the dialog box, invert the mask (Ctrl-I) to turn it black. That masks out the effect entirely. Now paint with white wherever you want to apply the effect. If you use low brush opacity -- say 20% or so -- you can paint the effect in gradually. And of course you can open the filter dialog and make further adjustments after you've applied the effect (the joy of adjustment layers).



-- continued in next post (I've hit my image limit on this one) --

[David Thomasson]

-- continued from previous post --

With the yellow bird, I used a blue filter to unblock the blue channel and restore some detail in the yellows. But there are endless other ways to use filters. Here's one example that's often useful. You have a bird's eye that is dim and needs brightening. Maybe something like this:



I open a warming filter (yellow filter for a yellow eye) and push the density up to 100%. Then close the dialog, change blend mode to screen, and invert the mask. So I have this:



Now paint with white, 100% brush opacity, around the yellow part of the eye. This reveals the brightening screen effect -- and the filter enhances the color as well. Leaving the layer opacity at 100% was a little too bright, so I dropped that down to 78%. Here's the before and after:

[Fabs Forns]

Very interesting discussion and thanks once again, David, for your tutorials and explanations. They do help a lot of people.

Nancy, great catch, glad you had a great time!

[Nancy A Elwood]

Bravo to all!!! Always learning, that is what it is all about!:D:D

[Arthur Morris]

I didn't realize getting to the color histogram was that complicated or I would have posted quick instructions. All I did was click Window> Histogram and the color one came up. Maybe it is "sticky" and that was the last one I used?

Many of us had never seen the "Colors" histogram and it took Chris and me a few good minutes to sort it out. IAC, thanks for opening our eye to it. I am not sure if it is a sticky as mine keeps opening to the luminosity version...

[Arthur Morris]

Photo filters. These are easy to use. To get going, just click the adjustment layer icon at the bottom of the layers palette and choose Photo Filter.

Hey David, Thanks for the great two-part tutorial! The brain is a strange thing. I used to use Photo Filter/Warming Filter (81) quite a bit but I never thought to look there. The best thing about your tutorial is that it is well written and easy to understand and follow so thanks a ton.

If you use Select Color/Refine Edge or Quick Masks in combination with Photo Filter, I think that you would be making your life easier and get great results.

Thanks Nancy for posting this one. It has generated some great stuff. I am copying this thread to Educational Resources so that all may benefit.

[Arthur Morris]

ps: If you do wish to use Photo Filter on a Layer Mask you will need to access it via Image/Adjustment/Phhoto Filter rather than as an Adjusment Layer or else it will affect the entire image.

[David Thomasson]

ps: If you do wish to use Photo Filter on a Layer Mask you will need to access it via Image/Adjustment/Phhoto Filter rather than as an Adjusment Layer or else it will affect the entire image.

I think you inadvertently got that backwards: If you want to use a layer mask on a photo filter, use an adjustment layer (via the icon shown in my tutorial above). Best practice for any edit: If you can use an adjustment layer, do. I generally don't go to the Image > Adjustments menu unless there's no other option.

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Dave, Perhaps I used the wrong term. I make a Quick Mask and then hit Control J (with the BKGR highighted). This place the QMed area on its own layer in the Layers palette. At that point, if you hit Black and White cookie and then Photo Filter, the Photo Filter will affect the whole image. That is why if you are using a QM on its own layer you need to go to Image/Adjustments (as there is no shortcut for Photo Filter on a QM layer). For Levels you can hit Control M, for Hue Saturation, Control U, etc. I have created a few of my own and will likely invent one for Photo Filter.

[David Thomasson]

Hey Dave, Perhaps I used the wrong term. I make a Quick Mask and then hit Control J (with the BKGR highighted). This place the QMed area on its own layer in the Layers palette. At that point, if you hit Black and White cookie and then Photo Filter, the Photo Filter will affect the whole image. That is why if you are using a QM on its own layer you need to go to Image/Adjustments (as there is no shortcut for Photo Filter on a QM layer). For Levels you can hit Control M, for Hue Saturation, Control U, etc. I have created a few of my own and will likely invent one for Photo Filter.

Thanks, Artie. If I understand you correctly, these are your steps:

1. Select a part of the background image using QM
2. Copy that part onto a new layer (Ctrl-J)
3. Then apply Photo Filter to that new layer via Image > Adjustments > Photo Filter.

That'll work, but it does have some limitations. For instance, the Photo Filter can be applied only to the part you selected and copied to a new layer. And on this approach, you don't see the effect of the filter until after you've selected and copied a part of the background image.

You avoid all that by opening the filter as an adjustment layer (via the black & white cookie). But that doesn't necessarily affect the whole image. Note the workflow I suggested: After you create the filter adjustment layer, invert the mask. That makes the filter apply to none of the image. Now when you paint with white, you're doing essentially the same thing you did with QM: You're selecting part of the image -- and seeing the filter effect at the same time.

To sum up, a filter adjustment layer has four advantages that you don't get when using QM and copying to a new layer:

• The adjustment layer allows you to see the effect of the filter as you paint (select) with white on the mask. Can't see the filter effect while painting in QM mode, because it hasn't yet been applied.
• The adjustment layer can be applied to any part of the image. You're not restricted to whatever part was pre-selected with QM and copied to its own layer.
• The adjustment layer gives you the option to re-paint the layer mask in the future to change where on the image the effect is applied. Can't do that on the QM layer.
• The adjustment layer gives you the the option of re-opening the filter dialog and changing the filter settings. Can't do that on the QM layer.

A general rule of thumb: Opt for non-destructive editing whenever you can.

Isn't Photoshop fun? :o

[Jim Poor]

All great points David, except for this one:

• The adjustment layer gives you the option to re-paint the layer mask in the future to change where on the image the effect is applied. Can't do that on the QM layer.

You can just as easily turn the QM layer into a mask.

One other advantage of using a QM is that the selection is pretty much already feathered for you so it blends in much easier than painting using brushes of various softness.

I use both approaches depending on what I'm trying to accomplish.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks David for your continued shared expertise. Yes, what I love most about QMing is the built-iin feathering (half the diameter of the brush size). In the two examples above, the original post and the bird's eye, using a QM would seem to me to be far more efficient as you are working on a a relarively small or even a tiny portion of the image and that would save a lot of erasing.... As far as destructive vs. non-destructive eidting, I do understand the theory but I generally leave my electron microscope at home.

Lastly, re:

The adjustment layer gives you the the option of re-opening the filter dialog and changing the filter settings. Can't do that on the QM layer.

Is the above true only if you save layered files? (I flatten all of my optimixed TIFFs and convert them to 8 bit.)

[David Thomasson]

You can just as easily turn the QM layer into a mask.

Yes, you can turn any QM selection (or any selection at all, for that matter) into a mask -- but on what kind of layer? The question I was raising regards destructive vs. non-destructive editing. Do you select image pixels and alter those? Or do you use an adjustment layer and do non-destructive editing. Either way, you're going to make a selection. I'm just suggesting that when you have the option of non-destructive editing, it's generally a good idea to go that route.

One other advantage of using a QM is that the selection is pretty much already feathered for you so it blends in much easier than painting using brushes of various softness.

No, QM selections aren't feathered for you. QM is nothing more than painting out a selection with a brush. The selection will be feathered only to the extent that you use a soft brush or reduced brush opacity. In that respect, QM is exactly like painting on a layer mask: In both cases, you're selecting areas by painting with a brush.

[David Thomasson]

Thanks David for your continued shared expertise. Yes, what I love most about QMing is the built-iin feathering (half the diameter of the brush size).

See my reply to Jim Poor. QM has no built-in feathering.

In the two examples above, the original post and the bird's eye, using a QM would seem to me to be far more efficient as you are working on a a relarively small or even a tiny portion of the image and that would save a lot of erasing....

I think you're misunderstand how adjustment layers work. In the workflow I described, there is no erasing at all.

Step 1: You open the filter adjustment layer, choose your filter, and close the dialog.
Step 2: You invert the layer mask (Ctrl-I).

At that point, when you paint with a white brush, you are doing two things at once: You are selecting the parts where you want the filter effect to apply (exactly has you would be doing with QM), and you are applying that filter effect. That's unarguably more efficient than selecting part of the image, copying it to a new layer, opening the filter dialog via Image > Adjustments, choosing your filter, and closing that dialog permanently.

The adjustment layer gives you the the option of re-opening the filter dialog and changing the filter settings. Can't do that on the QM layer.

Is the above true only if you save layered files? (I flatten all of my optimixed TIFFs and convert them to 8 bit.)

Right. Once you flatten an image, there are no layers left to do anything with. During the editing process, however, while you're still working in layers, there is a clear advantage to using adjustment layers rather than the destructive methods you mentioned (Ctrl-U for hue/sat, Ctrl-L for levels, etc.). That approach will get you to the same results, but at the cost losing editing options. The more complex the editing the job, the more valuable those options become.

[Jim Poor]

I agree about non-destructive editing. However, I consider making a new layer and applying my edits to it rather than the background layer to be non-destructive.

You are also correct that the "feathering" of a QM comes from the type of brush used. However, paining on a layer mask with a feathered brush doesn't yield the same results for me. It is probably more a matter of technique than method.

One thing for sure is that there are many paths to the same end.

[David Thomasson]

I agree about non-destructive editing. However, I consider making a new layer and applying my edits to it rather than the background layer to be non-destructive.

Well, yes, that might be "non-destructive," but in an unconventional sense. Destructive editing is simply editing that alters image pixels. As a consequence, it limits your options for undoing those alterations.

Example:
You copy the background layer and make a levels adjustment. That's "non-destructive" in the sense that you can always delete that layer, re-copy the background layer, and make a different levels adjustment.

With a levels adjustment layer, you simply re-open the levels dialog box and change your initial settings.

Consider another advantage of adjustment layers: Suppose your image size is 32 MB as shown in the Info palette. You duplicate the background to make a levels adjustment. File size is now 64 MB. But if you open a levels adjustment layer, file size remains at 32 MB. When you do editing that requires several dozen layers, that's an important consideration. Why load up your RAM with duplicate layers that aren't needed and that also limit your editing options?

[Jim Poor]

Good points for sure.

I don't normally require a lot of layers, but when I do I run into issues of which adjustments affect what, so I try to flatten down to one layer above the background. I'm sure some more playing around would get me past that.

[Roger Clark]

David,
How do you make a 2-image blinking jpeg?

[David Thomasson]

David,
How do you make a 2-image blinking jpeg?

It's an animated gif (I don't think it can be done with jpeg). Photoshop help files have a pretty good step-by-step guide for making them. It's done with the animation palette (Window > Animation). There are also many tutorials to be found online.

[Arthur Morris]

David, in your doggie post above, the one with the QM with soft brush label, you have also greatly reduced the QM opacity (as you can see through the layer). I set the QM opacity at about 90% so that it covers everything and gives me the feathering (albeit from the soft brush). As for brushes, I have always recommended that folks keep their brushes at zero hardness unless thay can state a reason for doing otherwise.

As always, thanks for your expert help here and correcting the terminology of this technical dummy.

[David Thomasson]

David, in your doggie post above, the one with the QM with soft brush label, you have also greatly reduced the QM opacity (as you can see through the layer).

Just to clarify: The above example used 100% brush opacity in QM mode.

• The first screen shot (with the red patches) illustrates selections made with QM two ways: hard brush and soft brush.
• The second screen shows the result when you use those two QM selections to create a mask.

My aim was to show that feathering is done with brush softness; QM doesn't automatically feather selections. The transparency results because I applied the mask to the bottom layer; there was nothing beneath it but the checkerboard to show through.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi David, I understand what you are saying (except for the checkerboard part...) What I was trying to say is that since I always use a soft brush for making a QM I always almost get seamless overlays. Not being a technical person it does not matter to me where the feathering comes from, as long as it works. But thnaks for the clarification and the correction. If I find out that you are wrong, I will come back at you.

[David Thomasson]

Hi David, I understand what you are saying (except for the checkerboard part...)

When you have an image on a single layer and you turn that layer off, the checkerboard represents the blank easel beneath the image. When you put a mask on the image and paint with black, that's what shows through.

What I was trying to say is that since I always use a soft brush for making a QM I always almost get seamless overlays. Not being a technical person it does not matter to me where the feathering comes from, as long as it works. But thnaks for the clarification and the correction. If I find out that you are wrong, I will come back at you.

I look forward to it. You invariably provide the sort of friction that generates light but not heat.

[Roger Clark]

David,
OK. I make animated gifs all the time. I right clicked on your image and thought it said jpg, but now I see it is a gif. I must have clicked on the wrong image. Darn, I thought it was something new.

[David Thomasson]

David,
OK. I make animated gifs all the time. I right clicked on your image and thought it said jpg, but now I see it is a gif. I must have clicked on the wrong image. Darn, I thought it was something new.

I wish it could be done with jpegs! Gifs only have 256 colors, so of course you lose image quality. But they're still useful for showing before-and-after.