|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| . | |||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rangefinder
Magazine Digital Craftsmanship by Richard Anderson I have always believed that photography is both art and craft. The concept of craft in conventional photography is well established, but digital photography got off on the wrong foot in this regard. The early digital cameras were so rudimentary that nobody thought about using craft and digital in the same sentence. Times have changed. Digital single-lens reflex cameras and inkjet printers have changed the possibilities but not completely the perception.
Achieving quality images and prints from digital cameras, however, requires a level of craft very similar in concept, but very different in practice, as compared to conventional photography. So, what is the secret sauce when it comes to digital photographic quality? RAW vs. JPEG: When I started working with a digital SLR, I was thrilled with the quality of the high-resolution JPEG setting. I had been shooting color slides for over 20 years, so the idea of getting it right in the camera came naturally. I was also overwhelmed with workflow issues when experimenting with the RAW file setting. Several years ago, the RAW file processing software was limited to the offerings of the camera makers and was often difficult and slow to use. Hitting the camera memory buffer when shooting RAW files was also an impediment. Gradually, those issues have been resolved. With the introduction of additional programs like Bibble, Adobe Camera RAW, and Phase One’s Capture One DSLR, and improvements in the camera makers own software, nearly everyone can find a RAW processing software that they like. Better software, new cameras with bigger buffers and buffer upgrades for existing cameras have improved the situation to the point that I shoot RAW files most of the time. The main advantage of RAW files is that all of the camera settings can be overridden. This is not the case with JPEGs, so understanding the camera settings is critical to quality. If you are not ready for the RAW file workflow, but are still after quality, shoot the highest resolution JPEGs, and check out the following camera settings: Color Space: The first setting to look for is the color space setting. Camera makers now give us the choice of using the Adobe 1998 color space as opposed to the sRGB color space that point and shoot cameras use. Adobe 1998 is a wide gamut space and is the preferred color space for quality reproduction. sRGB color space is a narrower gamut space that gives acceptable results in a non-color-managed environment. If you use the Adobe 1998 color space, you must make the rest of your digital darkroom color-managed, or you will actually have worse results than using the default sRGB space.
Tone and Contrast: The next setting to look for is the tone/contrast setting. The best choice for ultimate quality is less or low contrast. Although this may give you a somewhat flat rendition on your computer screen, it preserves the most detail, especially in the highlights. Contrast should be added in Photoshop, where we have the tools to do it best. Camera Sharpening: Next, look for the sharpen setting. Here you should choose none or low sharpening. The reason for this is that sharpening can harm an image and is best done after the other post processing is done. White Balance: Finally, the menu item most important to quality is the white balance. Digital cameras come with a variety of presets such as incandescent, daylight, fluorescent, etc. Some have the ability to dial in color temperatures in Kelvin degrees. They also have provisions for a custom white balance. Custom white balance is essential in mixed light, in most indoor situations and with studio strobes. An accurate white balance is essential if you are shooting JPEG files, because any global color shift in Photoshop on an 8-bit JPEG image has bad consequences on file quality. If you are shooting RAW files, not having to change or adjust the white balance on every file is a great time saver. If you decide to make custom profiles for your camera, the profiles will only be effective if the white balance is correct in the case of JPEGs, or after the correct white balance has been achieved, in the RAW file processing software. After much experimentation, I have settled on using the Expo-disc (http://www.expodisc.com). This device can be held over your lens like a filter and you take the white balance with the camera pointed at your scene. Not only is this more accurate than a gray or white card, but also a lot quicker and easier. If you are shooting with studio strobes, use the same method. The only exception would be a situation where you have a brightly colored seamless or wall. In this case, put something neutral or white in front of the color and then point the camera with the Expo-disc at the neutral color. When trying to get a white balance in a room with brightly colored walls, you can usually get a good balance by stepping back so that the camera sees the whole room. If you want a warmer or cooler white balance, combine the Expo-disc with warming or cooling filters. In this case, they will give you the opposite effect. For instance, adding a cooling filter with the Expo-disc will result in a warmer white balance. Whatever you do, don’t count on being able to judge the white balance with the LCD screen on the back of the camera. Most of my early mistakes with white balance came from judging color on the back of the camera instead of the computer monitor. When in doubt, do a custom white balance, and trust that it is right.
Although it is quite likely that camera makers will make improvements in auto white balance, we are not quite there yet. Auto white balance at this time seems to guarantee that nearly every picture will have a different white balance and none will be quite right. Camera Profiling: It makes sense that a digital camera can be profiled, just like a computer monitor or an inkjet printer. The advantage of making a profile for any device is that the profile doesn’t alter or damage a file, it simply allows the hardware to accurately display the file. To see how this works, set your camera on the Adobe 1998 color space and take a JPEG picture. Now download the JPEG and launch Photoshop. Before opening the picture in Photoshop, go into Photoshop’s color settings and choose web defaults. Now open the JPEG and assign sRGB color space. Duplicate the image and save it. Next, go into color settings and change them to U.S. Prepress Defaults, which makes Adobe 1998 the default RGB color space. Open the picture again, only this time assign Adobe 1998 as the color space. Now compare the two pictures. Both pictures have the same file numbers, but the duplicate image is flat and off-color compared to the image that was assigned the proper color space. The theory behind profiling the camera is that with a custom profile, you can assign an even more accurate profile than the generic Adobe 1998 profile. I have tried several different profiling target/software solutions, and currently there is only one that, in my opinion, gives acceptable results. This is the Color Eyes software that comes with its own custom target. For more information, go to http://www.cameraprofiles.com/ Whether the custom profile gives you better results than just assigning Adobe 1998 is a matter of personal taste. I think that camera profiling has the most value when you are using a JPEG workflow, if your camera is giving you a definite color cast, bad skin tone, or if you are trying to get certain colors to render accurately. Although it can be valuable to have a custom profile for your camera, I would not make this your highest priority. For one thing, shooting the target in order to get the profile is a tedious time-consuming business and the profiling software is expensive.
On the other hand, while you can achieve almost all the same color corrections in Photoshop or in the RAW processing software, assigning a custom profile is a lot quicker and easier. It can even be done as a batch process or Photoshop action, and it doesn’t impact the file. Profiling Monitors and Printers: Profiling your monitor and printer, however, are not optional. Only if your monitor is calibrated and profiled with a hardware device can you do quality work. Many people have avoided doing this because the solutions were so expensive. I am currently using the Gretag Macbeth Eye-One display colorimeter, and find it to be excellent, especially considering its $250 price tag. Of course having a good monitor is essential. I have attempted to profile worn out or low-end monitors, and even the best profiling tools are unable to get these devices to an accurate state. LCD vs. CRT monitor discussions are almost as hot as camera profiling discussions these days. I have had both, and I currently work on Apple and LaCie Photon LCD monitors. When they have been calibrated and profiled, I have a close match from screen to print. Getting that close match is the Holy Grail of color management and the key to producing excellent prints. A custom profile for each inkjet paper you like to use is essential to getting that match and also getting the best color from your inkjet printer. Custom profiles ensure you get the full range of colors your printer can produce. Trying to tweak your printer by moving the color sliders not only wastes time, ink and paper, but also reduces the color range. Generic profiles also restrict the color range in an attempt to hit a safe middle ground for all printers of the same model. While it is possible to get software and hardware that allow you to make your own printer profiles, I prefer to get them made for me by people who do professional color management. These folks have the very best tools and the experience to use them. I have had excellent results from Dry Creek Photo: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/custom/customprofiles.htm. The owner of the site is Ethan Hansen, who is a photographer himself. Ethan is also a well known presence on color-management forums. A great advantage to working together with Ethan is that he is always very responsive to questions you might have.
White Point Black Point: You may notice that if you are using Adobe 1998 as your color space setting—either assigned in the camera, in the case of JPEGs, or as the color space assigned in your RAW processing software—your pictures may look a bit flat on screen. As a starting point this is normal, even desirable, to preserve the widest possible tonal range. If you are using a RAW file workflow, you can address this issue in the RAW processing software, tweaking the white-point and black-point settings to give you the exact contrast you prefer. If you are using a JPEG workflow, I highly recommend a Photoshop plug-in called i-correct: www.picto.com/. For a review of this product, go to: http://luminous-landscape.com/1photos/i/icorrect.shtml/. Although I do a lot in Photoshop with levels and curves, many images can be easily transformed in terms of contrast and color balance using this plug-in. Pictographics, the makers of i-correct, also make a plug-in called i-correct edit lab, with even more sophisticated controls. Often, even when I am using a RAW file workflow, I will only use the RAW file software to tweak color and exposure. I then import the 16-Bit file into Photoshop, and finish it by using one of the i-correct plug-ins. Sharpening, the Final Step: Most of you know the general principles of the Unsharp Mask tool. Good tutorials on its use are in most Photoshop references. One characteristic of Unsharp Mask is that it sharpens all three channels of an RGB image equally, which often generates some color shift. There are at least two Photoshop work-arounds, and at least one plug-in solution. The Photoshop solutions are (1) to sharpen only the weaker channels, or (2) to sharpen only the Luminosity channel. The best way to sharpen the Luminosity channel is to apply the Unsharp Mask formula, then go to Edit > Fade. Leaving the intensity to 100 percent, change the mode to Luminosity. As you check and uncheck the preview box, you may see areas where the color would have shifted if you had sharpened all three channels. The plug-in solution is one that I have come to rely on quite a bit—NikSharp:http://www.nikmultimedia.com/. This plug-in installs as a filter, so you can use it as part of an action, or in layers/masks, so you can apply it selectively. Nik-Sharp comes in several vesions, so you should look over the web-site information carefully. There is a very useful review of Nik-Sharp techniques at http://www.luminouslandscape.com/reviews/software/nic_sharpner.shtml/.
If you have spent a lot of time on an image, and you feel that you may want to print it in several different sizes, it is a useful strategy to keep the image as a Photoshop file and put the sharpening on a separate layer. This way, you can always go back to the unsharpened layer, resize it, and then sharpen it. What I find most exciting about the digital revolution in photography, is that with careful attention to camera controls, color management and careful file processing, fantastically good prints can be routinely produced. I am not suggesting that all of this is easy, because it is not. But then getting great results out of a conventional darkroom was never particularly easy either. I’m looking forward to the next generation of cameras, computers, and printers, which will make digital photography and printing easier and the results even better. Richard Anderson has been a professional freelance photographer since 1975. Before that he worked as a graphic designer and an on-staff photographer for a graphic design firm. He has travelled extensively for advertising, corporate, and institutional clients, but his favorite assignments are for local theater, which led him to digital cameras as he searched for a solution to providing good quality under the demanding conditions of available theater lighting. After testing a Nikon D1, he decided to invest in the Nikon D1x cameras, and found them to be a great solution to almost all of his work. He may be reached via email at: Richard@rnaphoto.com/. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
