14.01.10
Guy Gowan Answers Your Photoshop Questions
Guy Gowan is a legend in the world of digital imaging, work flow and manipulation. His seminars and DVDs sell out, he is constantly besieged by questioning followers, and his unique approach and opinions set the agenda for manufacturers worldwide. Each month, he answers the questions you need answered. So let’s click and drag with Guy Gowan.
Q. Aperture, Lightroom, Adobe Camera Raw, manufacturers’ software – what should I use?
A. The answer to the question is whatever makes you happy! Whatever is a logical part of your work flow from camera to conversion to, probably, Photoshop then to the client. The problem is that people buy into applications based on hardware they use, such as Mac or PC, which might dictate Aperture or Lightroom. People, I feel, place too much emphasis on the RAW converter. For me, these are still evolving and it might take another four or five years to perfect them. In my opinion, which RAW conversion you use is the least important thing. I don’t judge the RAW program based on its conversion of the image, because every conversion process can be modified to produce a different image that can then be set as the default. For my work, I use Aperture because I love its simplicity. I use a Mac and Aperture creates a library where if I’m making a spreadsheet, DVD, website, calender or other products over and above the usual photography path, the Aperture provides a library to the rest of my computer. So I use Aperture not for its RAW converter, but for all the other features it gives me in my work flow. In my job, I get given a lot of free technology to try out, but if it was my own money I was spending, I’d use Adobe Camera Raw everyday because its free with Photoshop! They are all good; they are all bad and ultimately, you use the one that works for you. You have to remember that the quality of your final image is totally dictated by Photoshop, not by the RAW converter. It’s not about the conversion, its about what I do in Photoshop with the image afterwards.
Q. Should I use sharpening?
A. Well, that really depends on where the image is going to end up and your part in that process. If you are a photographer and it’s just a 7x5" snap for yourself with a 21MP camera, then if you’ve got the image in focus, you probably won’t need to use sharpening. Sharpening in that context would just be down to a bit of camera shake or not using a tripod, or a soft image and slow camera speed due to lighting conditions. A photographer making a print, and only a print, would then use sharpening at that time. If you are preparing images to go to a graphic designer, then sharpening isn’t used for aesthetic enhancement of the image. In this case, you apply sharpening to compensate for the softening of the print process. A lot of people don’t get this – you must over-sharpen the image to the point where it often looks horrible on screen so it will look good in print (after the conversion process is applied for print). Retouch Sharpening is based on the graphic designer’s use of sharpening – it’s dynamically linked to the size of the image. When a designer blows up or enlarges an image, sharpening is dynamically attached. These factors are in the remit of the designer, as they know where the image is going to be used. As a photographer supplying images to a graphic design firm, you shouldn’t sharpen, as it’s their responsibility to provide the image ready sharpened for print.
Q. What is colour theory?
A. That’s a huge subject, it’s like saying what is oxygen? I don’t need to understand oxygen to use it and it’s essential for life. Understanding colour theory fully could mean trying to describe the electro magnetic spectrum that creates colour – of which we only see a proportion. In practical commercial reality, the colour theory I teach is what photographers using RGB or, for designers and printers, CMYK, need to understand in order to work. An example I use is in Photoshop: if you are changing the colour of a car from red to blue, most people would use hue and saturation, which would give most people a commercially acceptable result. But, in my view, the hue and saturation slider never gives the best result, and it’s totally subjective and based on ‘wanging’ the slider around. I’d switch channels around using the channel mixer, then there would be no compression, no artifacts, no banding – it would be right first time. The symbols of Red Green and Blue, then the opposite of CMYK – Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Key (black) – should be on the wall behind every computer, so that people can understand what colour makes what in each colour mode. We have this graphic as a free download at www.guygowan.com. By understanding colour theory, you take the guesswork out of changing colour.
- Average Article Rating 0 Stars
-
Your Rating
Login Required!
Sorry - You must be a registered user & logged in to rate this.
Login | Register
Back to Categories