Single-Serving Photo

I know I talk a pretty serious game most of the time, but I also like to have fun now and then. I recently stumbled upon a pretty hilarious series of videos by a guy named Donnie Hoyle called “You Suck at Photoshop.” They’re basically Photoshop tutorials, but presented in a rather cynical, somewhat spiteful, and utterly entertaining way.

Trust me, if you have a few minutes, just watch one or two of these and you’ll see what I mean. I should mention that there is some coarse language, so try not to get in trouble watching these at high volume in the office, OK?

• You Suck at Photoshop #1
• You Suck at Photoshop #2
• You Suck at Photoshop #3

I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

I’ve been a devout Photoshop user for over a decade. The first version of Photoshop that I ever laid hands on was 2.0… That’s pre-layers, and also the first version available for Windows! I started using it seriously around version 4.0 and I have kept up with nearly every version since then. I remember distinctly the addition of effects layers, shape layers, and the creation of the verb “to Photoshop” (which Adobe officially frowns upon).

Originally, I used Photoshop to create everything from promotional stickers and web graphics to letterhead and stationery. Eventually I moved to Illustrator for layout/drawing stuff, but Photoshop remains a huge part of my daily life. As the owner and sole employee of Fisheye Multimedia, I am called upon to repair and modify photographs for my clients and to manipulate newspaper layouts for framing. As a photographer myself, I spend hours upon hours in Lightroom and Photoshop, tweaking masks, adjusting curves, cloning and healing, and so on.

I am a very particular Photoshop user with specific needs and expectations established by years of use. Photoshop CS3 is a piece of crap. Read the rest of this entry »

I don’t think there is a single digital photographer who hasn’t, at one time or another, looked at a histogram (much like the one below) and thought What the fuzz is this thing trying to tell me? If that describes you, or if you just want to know more about this ubiquitous and curious graph, you’ve come to the right place.

Today I will unclothe the common histogram and show you not only how to read it, but also how you can use it to strengthen your work. Read the rest of this entry »

There is an in-depth Photoshop tutorial in this article, so make sure to read the whole thing!

There has been a good deal of activity and interest lately in the area of “high dynamic range” or HDR imagery. Many of these “HDR” images are characterized in part by a surreal or otherworldly feeling accompanied by an ethereal glow surrounding the subject. I think the term “HDR” was ill-conceived in this context. There is such a thing as a high dynamic range image, but you wouldn’t be able to view it because it contains more tonal data than you can perceive or that a computer monitor could display. A true HDR image would be processed into viewable images by compressing its range; essentially by running it through Photoshop’s “levels” or “curves” (but not in Photoshop, because Photoshop probably couldn’t open it).

The HDR images you see on Flickr and PhotoSIG are actually compressed dynamic range because they portray scenes that had too much tonal range to be captured in a single frame; the range of tones from highlight to shadow are compressed into the range of a normal image. This is usually achieved by making two or more frames at different exposure settings and combining them using Photoshop or one of a number of standalone and plug-in softwares for that purpose (such as Photomatix, PanoTools, etc.)

It’s easier to understand (for me, at least) using pictures, so here is an example. The two photographs below were taken of the same scene, a scene with too much range for my camera to see full highlight and shadow detail at the same time. One of the photos is exposed to capture the highlight data completely and the other is exposed to capture the shadow data completely.

Below the photos you can see their histograms (I just snagged these from Photoshop’s histogram palette). Notice how photo #1’s histogram is biased toward shadow data and photo #2’s is biased toward highlight data. You can see from the pictures themselves that #1 has a much cooler looking sky, while #2 has the detail you would probably want in the subject (in this case, a humble charcoal grill). Read the rest of this entry »