Processing an Image in Photoshop
The following tutorial on Image Processing was submitted by John Short from www.canonphoto.co.uk and www.johnshort.co.uk
To get the best out of any image requires processing in an image editing package.
To have the greatest latitude and control of the final picture then it is always best to shoot in raw. In a future tip I will illustrate the difference between raw images and JPEG’s and the increased latitude when processing. In this tip I want to show a raw image and explain the processing I applied in Adobe Photoshop.
Whilst I hear cry’s of ” I don’t have Photoshop ” and it’s alright for him he has professional software at his fingertips ” all of the modifications can just as easily be achieved in Photoshop elements or other image processing applications.
The first image (above) is the original raw file prior to any post processing. The photograph was taken with a Cokin P series Neutral graduated filter but to emphasize the depth of the clouds I selected the sky area ( including the hills )using the quick select tool and made this a separate layer. This layer was then adjusted for levels making the dark clouds blacker and the highlights a little lighter (without blowing the detail).
Then the sky layer colours were adjusted using the colour balance tool . The mid tones had the red increased by 15, the highlights had the yellow reduced by -17 and the shadows I increased the blue by 19.
Now select the background layer, once again we need to adjust the levels to maximise the contrast in the image again ensuring you don’t clip the highlights or fill the shadows.
Once you are happy with the levels the background layer also need the colour balance changing. Again increase the red in the mid tones, reduce the yellow in the highlights and increase the blue in the shadows.
Now flatten the layers and adjust the levels to provide the image you had in your imagination.
Finally ( and this is always the final operation ) sharpen the image. Please note you should never sharpen an image until all processing is complete and you have resized to the final image size. It’s always worth keeping an unsharpened copy in case you want to produce a bigger version at a later date.
41 Responses to “Processing an Image in Photoshop”
September 21st, 2007 at 1:36 am
This is a good tip for me as I went off raw and into jpeg’s following advise from a seminar. However, how do you get to know how much red, blue etc. to alter and do I do it in highlights, mid tones or what? Photoshop is realy good and it can make a difference in photographs but how do you learn quickly?
Terry
September 21st, 2007 at 1:45 am
I’m so horrible in photoshop Elements 5.0 but this little tutorial has shed some light. I can’t wait ’til I have another photo with potential like that of the subject this tutorial has shown. I should really play around with ps some more!
Cheers!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:56 am
Cool, but the article’s not too specific about RAW. It’s more about processing an image of a boat :)
September 21st, 2007 at 4:23 am
What’s this got to do with RAW images? It’s all abbout processing a boat picture in Photoshop. Some cool things, but nothing about the advantages of working in RAW.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:26 am
And more than that, it’s a poorly edited article about processing an image of a boat. Paying as much attention to detail in your writing is as important as paying attention to details in processing images.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:54 am
Jeez lay off him a bit. At least he has made an effort. I’m sure you can get something out of the article
September 21st, 2007 at 10:50 am
What’s the difference between doing this to a RAW image that I can’t just do to a JPEG? And isn’t this more about processing an image of three boats on a beach more than anything?
September 21st, 2007 at 11:59 am
In the forum area, this is often discussed and I have often came down on the side of JPEG because I have yet to find a practical advantage of using RAW. And it’s not cause I have anything against RAW either. So I read this entire story with zeal only to wonder what lots of others are left wondering–what does this have to do with RAW over JPG?
And I hesitate to say that cause nay-sayers (is that a word?) tend to annoy me, but geesh. The article swung and missed and I gotta call a strike on that.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Do you want to feel the same feelings as the depth of the clouds? If so, then you DID want to “empathise the depth of the clouds” (although, you may have wanted to spell empathize correctly). However, I believe what you really wanted to do, was make the depth of the clouds stand out. In that case, you would have emphasized that depth.
Your article had some good post-processing ideas. It had no information as to the benefit of Raw over Jpeg, although, I have a feeling you intend that information for a future article, and failed to change the name of this one.
But, you must know that a certain amount of credibility is lost, when you don’t proofread, or spell-check.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Stassi
I’m sure he meant to say “emphasise” instead of “empathise” but even so he hasn’t spelt anything incorrectly. In the UK we mostly use ‘ise’ instead of ‘ize’ even though both are accepted as correct.
Just thought you were being overly harsh.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:42 pm
To those complaining that the article doesn’t describe the differences between RAW and Jpeg, you may have missed this, quoted from the second paragraph:
“In a future tip I will illustrate the difference between raw images and JPEG’s and the increased latitude when processing. In this tip I want to show a raw image and explain the processing I applied in Adobe Photoshop.”
I’m sure all will be explained!
September 21st, 2007 at 11:26 pm
My question is how do you get the RAW image. I have a Kodak Z7590. I think I can only store the images as jpeg
September 21st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I agree that this article really has nothing to do with RAW at all. It is about processing an image in Photoshop, and has some good tips, but from the title of the article one would expect to be getting tips about working in Camera Raw, not Photoshop. Yes it is better to work with a Raw image, but the writer failed to emphasize that to get the best image to work on in Photoshop you need to adjust settings in Camera Raw. By adjusting settings, including your white balance, exposure, saturation, noise, lens correction, etc. in Camera Raw you start out with the best picture you can start with in Photoshop. People who are unaware of this would soon find out that they can’t even open a Raw image in Photoshop, and be lost with this tutorial.
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 am
Bill, you need to have a camera that can produce a RAW image, the Z7590 is not one of these.
Um, the title of the article was “Processing a RAW Image in Photoshop” and John appears to have done just that… Not sure what you guys are feeling misguided about?..
This article was contributed to DPS buy somebody that had a point to share, I think he’s done OK… If you think you can do better, feel free to submit a pice of work HERE? as was requested HERE
John, thanks for the article.
Sime
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:09 am
Jamie,
Thank you, for the clarification on the use of “ise” in the UK. I was unaware of that difference. Before I posted my response, I’d actually looked it up, to ensure my interpretation was correct (tried a couple of dictionary websites), and the alternate spelling did not come up. Now that I’m aware of this difference between the usage in the US and the UK, I apologize for my confusion.
However, a large part of my point was that in a published article, it seems to me to indicate a lack of care, when proofreading is skipped. I know the writer intended to write “emphasize” (or emphasise). I understand that kind of mistake in any of these responses, or anywhere else on any board. However, when one is creating for *publication*, I believe that it is their responsibility to ensure that they’ve proofread their text. In my opinion, the abdication of that responsibility indicates a lack of respect for the reader. This issue is becoming more and more prevalent in written material, and I believe it is a valid issue, which requires some attention.
This same inattention to detail was the reason for so many questions regarding this article’s lack of relativity to the difference between RAW and JPEG. Had the writer simply changed the title to suit the contents of this article, there would have been fewer questions, despite the quote from the second paragraph. The actual content of the article would have been able to come through, and credit would have been more easily given for it’s validity.
I did not intend to be overly harsh. In fact, I thought it was a good article, as far as the content was concerned. The use of adjustments for various areas provides a great learning opportunity, and will help to unleash additional creativity among the readers of this article.
I’d never posted here before, but I found these issues important.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 am
chill out Stassi - it’s just a blog and while it has great information for all it is run by volunteers who are passionate about photography but may night be professional writers.
If you want something that is highly edited go buy a magazine or a book.
I think that this is a very helpful post that taught me a lot. Thanks to John who wrote it.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:52 am
More on RAW may be on the way but this article, at the very least, is titled incorrectly. Nothing was done to the RAW image that couldn’t be done to a JPEG image.
IMHO- the article on the difference between RAW and JPEG images should have come first…then the processing article.
Your efforts are still appreciated!
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:16 am
I thought it was a great article, albeit it could have had a better title. Personally I don’t mind slips in proper grammar or spelling (except when I’m reading a book)as long as I can understand what the writer is trying to convey. I think the purpose of the article was to share some tips on how to improve an image with post processing. That’s what the title probably should have been.
For those who require a more technical discussion, a photography blog is probably not the best place to find it. Blogs by their very nature are an unstructured, free forum for sharing ideas.
Great job John. Please continue sharing your good ideas.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Having read all of the comments and critisism, I’m under the impression that everybody’s Monitor does not display the picture in all it’s glory as John would like us all to see it.
In the very near future (unless I missed it), I would like to see an article on calibrating a monitor and then browsing to a websie that would have a color pattern including footnotes describing the colors as we are suppose to see them. Plus I’m not sure how Adobe Gamma Calibration works in all of this? I would like to tell the difference between when it’s On or Off when viewing a picture.
I personally calibrated a few monitors and I have had a difficult time getting two monitors to matched exactly especially between CRTs and LCDs.
Lastly, I’ve learned a lot from the author’s article and I thank John for the publication.
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I am one of those people mentioned by Jill who does not even know how to open a RAW image in Photoshop. I recently bought a Pentax K10D SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE it allows me to shoot in RAW (I need RAW because I print some of my images in a very large format) and imagine my amazement when I discovered that I can’t even open them in Photoshop!
I crave and yearn for some help on this question, and unfortunately the article, which was perfectly fine on the subject which it addressed, was totally uninformative on the subject of how to process a RAW image in Photoshop!
Anyone who can (if you’ll forgive me) shed some light on this subject would make this confused photographer a very happy man.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Michael:
According to Adobe’s website, regarding Camera Raw support (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html), the K10D’s DNG file format is supported as far back as their version 2.4 of Camera Raw (which will work with Photoshop CS and CS2. Version 4.1 (recently updated to v4.2 of Camera Raw will support the PEF format, and works in CS2 and CS3.
Version 2.4 can be downloaded at (http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=2705)
Version 4.2 can be downloaded at (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html)
Versions of Photoshop prior to CS will probably not be able to handle your RAW files.
Hope this helps
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Well, it’s renamed now. Nice to see the author reading the comments and reacting to them ;)
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Thanks for the tips John. This will be helpful in some of my photos.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Darren editor of DPS here - the title mistake was my fault.
I misread John’s title when he sent it to me and wrote it up wrong when I posted it. I’ve changed the title - sorry to cause confusion.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Wow, I couldn’t understand what all the RAW vs JPEG fuss was about until I read the last three comments.
I thought it was a nice little article on the processing work flow of this particular image. Looking forward to the next article.
My two cents: Both RAW and JPEG have their advantages and disadvantages. Trying to argue the virtues of (insert preferred format here) to someone who clearly prefers (insert opposing format here) is like trying to argue the superiority of Strawberry icecream to someone who clearly prefers Pistachio. You can use the same argument for Nikon vs Canon, m&m’s vs smarties …see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smarties_(Nestl%C3%A9) if you don’t understand that last one ;-)
September 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 am
And, don’t forget the never-ending Mac vs PC debate….. =)
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:23 am
Glad you changed the title, it’s a nice article but has nothing to with RAW :)
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 am
John, thanks for the tutorial. Personally I couldn’t care less about a few spelling errors. Thanks for taking the time to create some content for this site. Keep it up and don’t let the negative comments scare you away (anyone complaining should go ahead and write their own post for this blog). Looking forward to the next piece about raw vs. jpegs (although I already know how much more powerful it is to work with raw’s :-)
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 am
ooh - the mac pc debate…. lets have one of those NikonnooB!
I’ll set up a poll in the next day or two here on the blog!
September 24th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Oooohhhhh…. that’s asking for trouble! ;D
September 25th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Well I didn’t expect such a small article written to try and help those that may appreciate it cause so much discussion.
I have to say that yes it has put me off bothering to write anything about raw processing. It’s ironic that someone ( presumably from the US that is so well educated to criticize my grammar and spelling ) doesn’t know the Brits use an ‘S’ not a ‘Z’. i think I’ll duck the any articles referring to colour…………..I’d be in deep trouble as soon as I spelt it incorrectly.
I have to say that Digital SLR User didn’t correct or complain about the 4 page article I had published in last months issue, they also seemed pleased when the awarded me 2nd prize throughout the UK for the standard of my photography, the WWT also awarded me first prize last month ( locally ) for a picture a bird. I also won Digital SLR User magazine photographer of the month last month , then Country File used one of my images for their calendar for 2007. I’m really sorry my work is not to the standard for this blog.
Maybe Stassi would like to share some of his ( or her ) successes.
Thanks to those that made positive comments. I was only trying to be helpful !
September 25th, 2007 at 7:33 am
John - apologies for the negativity and for my part in it having put up the wrong title initially. However I’d encourage you to not get too down about the negative remarks and remember that there are as many people saying that they enjoyed the post too :-)
One of the differences between publishing in blogging and magazines is the immediate feedback that one gets - often it’s a full range of responses too. It used to get to me - but one gets used to it eventually.
I do appreciate your post and thank you for helping improve DPS.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Don’t worry Darren, I’m not permanently scarred and yes I do appreciate the majority of comments were positive. I thought it best to reply to try and make those that make all the negative noises appreciate the work and effort that goes into putting together what is hoped to be a helpful couple of tips and examples.
hey so I’m no great writer…………..photography is my love not writing.
Now who would be interested in an article about Adobe Lightroom and processing Raw ??
If you have enough interest I’ll document my workflow and why I always use raw……………now where did I put that dictionary ??????
September 25th, 2007 at 8:33 am
John - hehe - glad to see you’re not scarred and have a sense of humor about it. Your writing is fine - my editing needs some brushing up :-)
I’d love to see a workflow article on how you use RAW and I’m certain others would too!
September 25th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Hi John
Yes, please lets have an article about Adobe Lightroom and processing RAW - in fact let’s have an article about ANYTHING because it’s people like you sharing your knowledge and skills who inspire people like me to improve on my own photography. And I don’t even care how it’s spelt (or even if you start a sentence with a preposition)!
September 25th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I would also very much like to read your next tutorial John - I don’t mind an occasional spelling mistake - if the content is good and I learn something - which I did in this post.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Hi John,
I discovered that I have a picture of yours on my kitchen wall, although it won’t be displayed until January ‘08! ;)
Jamie
September 26th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
hi,..
I just want to share my photoshop experience with you :)
on of my best video tutorial is how do you crop a curly hair woman, if you intested to find out more, here is the video :
http://denmuel.blogspot.com/2007/09/photoshop-hair-masking-part-2.html
thx
March 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Hi, what is the different between raw image processing and jpg image processing? In this tutorial i did not see what is the advantage of processing image in raw format?
Thanks u
John Chan
March 28th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Hi, there has been a lot of talk about the advantages of RAW vs JPG. Why not prove the point by processing the same picture in both formats. As they say, a picture is worth 1000 words.
Thanks
June 14th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
John, thank you for the tutorial, it was very helpful.
I’m just curious, alot of people either didn’t read the article right or I didn’t, but I thought the title was ‘Processing an image in PhotoShop’? How is that misleading?
Alot of you are going on about RAW and jpg files. The tutorial only states that it’s better to process a RAW photo and that this is what he was focusing on in this article.
If I remember right, the difference between RAW and jpg is compression. Files that are in jpg form are compressed and pixels in the photo are damaged everytime you edit. Hence why RAW photos are better when it comes to processing. Either way, you should always keep an unedited copy of the original photo.
Leave a Reply