I learned this when Photoshop 2 was live (we didn't have layers, then and we often worked on 2-3 computers in parallel because color corrections on a single color channel of a 4C DIN A3 could take many minutes. So trigger a curve correction on machine 1, slide over to machine 2, work another image's cyan channel, move to the next. That's why photoshop had "notify finished actions with a warning tone". So you knew to which machine to turn to next). And I did it during the whole time I worked in the field (~20 Years). Nice, that the knowledge stays alive!
Wow that is going way back thanks for the perspective. Incredible to imagine how slow computers were back then as you say, taking many minutes for a single operation. But those must have been very impressive to do editing on a computer. I was just glad to use a computer with a GUI.
@@takebetterphotos8132 It was still more flexible than doing it manually on film. But it was a very expensive thing to do: I had a client who had (I think) 5 apple Quadra 950 for 50.000 DM (german currency before the EUR - in today's money probably 80.000 EUR... That was a serious investment and he was kind of a pioneer to go fully digital in print color corrections... Using channels is more or less the exact thing one would do it manually with fine brushes and airbrush on Film... It is always amazing to watch how far we've come!
"Using channels is more or less the exact thing one would do it manually with fine brushes and airbrush on Film"--wow I did not know this! I actually thought that channels was a purely digital thing. It was a strange concept for me even back then but I guess if you were in film it made a lot more sense. It is amazing how photography has changed...no everything is low cost...and instant. But did that make photography better or is it like music where the quality has gone down despite being more available? Points to ponder! 😊
@@takebetterphotos8132 Let me clarify here: What I tried to express was how it was done in the printing or better prepress industry. Normaly commercial printing is done with 4 base colors Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black (often also called Key - hence the K in CMYK) In order to bring the color to paper a printing plate has to be created for each color. Before the technology allowed it this was a rather manual process where colors from a scan were seperated into these 4 colors and "printed" on a film substrate that could only display black or nothing. The image - oer bettter each of the 4 colors - was rasterized into a dotted version of the grayscales of said color: On a place in the image where you need much cyan the film would have larger raster dots leaving less room between them. (80% Cyan would mean that the dots would be at 80% of their maximum size) The distance of all dots stays the same over the whole image. This film was then "copied" to the printing plate for the respective color by exposing the light sensitive plate thru the covering film with a specifiv amount of UV light for a very specific amount of time. Where there was a dot blocking the light from reaching the plate it would make it so that this dot could not get "washed" away from the following development process and therefor become able to hold printing color later. Back in the days if you wanted to create a fancy magazine cover image with a woman standing in front of a background different from where she was photographed, prepress operators had to scan the dia positives of all images needed, rasterize them on 4 films and then start to physically montage the films that represent the woman (and her hair) minus the original background to the rasterised film of the backgroung minus the woman. So one would start painting the woman's background with a masking color with brushes, airbrush and the like so that it could be "copied" to a new sheet of film where only the woman would be left over. Then one would create a negative copy of the mask to copy it out of the background. After that background and cut out woman would be copied to a third version where everything montages together. One single Cover montage could take several hours (because of the numerous development processes that had to happen for each new copy) This was all way before digital photography has been invented and the digital conversion of this whole industry took from the late 80ies way into the 2000ers. (I would claim that correct color management from a true full RGB workflow is still not well understood throughout the broadth of the printing industry) Places where photoshop mimics analogue photgraphy processes are the dodge and burn tools for instance. The dodge tool was an existing handtool in form of a little paddle that you would hold in the light when hand developing paper prints of your black and white dias. The distance from the paper varied the sharpnes of the edge and the duration you'd hold it over the photo paper would determine the degree of less exposure and therefor less darkening in your photo print... Sorry for the length but you kinda triggered a bunch of memories!
Thank you for sharing your wide knowledge during the old days of the printing/film industry! I've never seen educators talk about the history of this or where our commonly used tools (i.e. dodge and burn) came from but this would be a great topic in itself. So were you able to foretell working in the printing industry how things would change with the move to digital and which companies would survive and die?
Thanks for the tutorial. 03:17 there's no invert when right-clicking. And even there's no background channels even after clicking layer and image again.
Are you editing a RAW file? The background channels won't appear if you have selected a RAW layer. You can merge all the visible layers and work with the generated file.
:23 😅perfect words for most photo editing 😭---- just too many ways to do any one thing and all the different programs just make it worse 🧐 🤣 Selections have always been a drama for me even though it has improved greatly with most new Apps over the years . There was a time the pen tool was basically the "only" way Thanks for sharing a few different ideas for that way. But I'm sick of learning "new" stuff.
Truly it is never ending😊 Pen tool sounds very painstaking! The only reason I teach this is because I found the refine brush making mistakes and at least this one gave results. If Affinity had a one click AI approach or some "smart" slider I wouldn't even bother with this elaborate process. 😊
@@takebetterphotos8132 Personally ; I don't want AI mate even though many easier tasks do we are sort of AI. I'm finding that I'm using the free hand selection tool (why not Lasso?) more to finish off harder/finer selections. Perhaps I'm too still "precise" like most newbies are when learning .
Cada video...mejor. Muchas gracias!
de nada!
I learned this when Photoshop 2 was live (we didn't have layers, then and we often worked on 2-3 computers in parallel because color corrections on a single color channel of a 4C DIN A3 could take many minutes. So trigger a curve correction on machine 1, slide over to machine 2, work another image's cyan channel, move to the next. That's why photoshop had "notify finished actions with a warning tone". So you knew to which machine to turn to next). And I did it during the whole time I worked in the field (~20 Years). Nice, that the knowledge stays alive!
Wow that is going way back thanks for the perspective. Incredible to imagine how slow computers were back then as you say, taking many minutes for a single operation. But those must have been very impressive to do editing on a computer. I was just glad to use a computer with a GUI.
@@takebetterphotos8132 It was still more flexible than doing it manually on film. But it was a very expensive thing to do: I had a client who had (I think) 5 apple Quadra 950 for 50.000 DM (german currency before the EUR - in today's money probably 80.000 EUR...
That was a serious investment and he was kind of a pioneer to go fully digital in print color corrections...
Using channels is more or less the exact thing one would do it manually with fine brushes and airbrush on Film...
It is always amazing to watch how far we've come!
"Using channels is more or less the exact thing one would do it manually with fine brushes and airbrush on Film"--wow I did not know this! I actually thought that channels was a purely digital thing. It was a strange concept for me even back then but I guess if you were in film it made a lot more sense. It is amazing how photography has changed...no everything is low cost...and instant. But did that make photography better or is it like music where the quality has gone down despite being more available? Points to ponder! 😊
@@takebetterphotos8132 Let me clarify here: What I tried to express was how it was done in the printing or better prepress industry.
Normaly commercial printing is done with 4 base colors Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black (often also called Key - hence the K in CMYK)
In order to bring the color to paper a printing plate has to be created for each color.
Before the technology allowed it this was a rather manual process where colors from a scan were seperated into these 4 colors and "printed" on a film substrate that could only display black or nothing. The image - oer bettter each of the 4 colors - was rasterized into a dotted version of the grayscales of said color: On a place in the image where you need much cyan the film would have larger raster dots leaving less room between them. (80% Cyan would mean that the dots would be at 80% of their maximum size) The distance of all dots stays the same over the whole image.
This film was then "copied" to the printing plate for the respective color by exposing the light sensitive plate thru the covering film with a specifiv amount of UV light for a very specific amount of time. Where there was a dot blocking the light from reaching the plate it would make it so that this dot could not get "washed" away from the following development process and therefor become able to hold printing color later.
Back in the days if you wanted to create a fancy magazine cover image with a woman standing in front of a background different from where she was photographed, prepress operators had to scan the dia positives of all images needed, rasterize them on 4 films and then start to physically montage the films that represent the woman (and her hair) minus the original background to the rasterised film of the backgroung minus the woman.
So one would start painting the woman's background with a masking color with brushes, airbrush and the like so that it could be "copied" to a new sheet of film where only the woman would be left over.
Then one would create a negative copy of the mask to copy it out of the background. After that background and cut out woman would be copied to a third version where everything montages together.
One single Cover montage could take several hours (because of the numerous development processes that had to happen for each new copy)
This was all way before digital photography has been invented and the digital conversion of this whole industry took from the late 80ies way into the 2000ers.
(I would claim that correct color management from a true full RGB workflow is still not well understood throughout the broadth of the printing industry)
Places where photoshop mimics analogue photgraphy processes are the dodge and burn tools for instance. The dodge tool was an existing handtool in form of a little paddle that you would hold in the light when hand developing paper prints of your black and white dias. The distance from the paper varied the sharpnes of the edge and the duration you'd hold it over the photo paper would determine the degree of less exposure and therefor less darkening in your photo print...
Sorry for the length but you kinda triggered a bunch of memories!
Thank you for sharing your wide knowledge during the old days of the printing/film industry! I've never seen educators talk about the history of this or where our commonly used tools (i.e. dodge and burn) came from but this would be a great topic in itself. So were you able to foretell working in the printing industry how things would change with the move to digital and which companies would survive and die?
Wauw! Thanks.
Glad to help!
Very nice tutorial
Many many thanks
Nice tutorial.
Is there any way to load channel as selected (like photoshop Ctrl clicking on channel)?
You can right click the channel and from the menu click "Load to pixel selection". Hope that helps! 😊
Thanks for the tutorial. 03:17 there's no invert when right-clicking. And even there's no background channels even after clicking layer and image again.
Are you editing a RAW file? The background channels won't appear if you have selected a RAW layer. You can merge all the visible layers and work with the generated file.
Você pode rasterizar a imagem. Funcionou para mim.
As mentioned by
@Lucas-by1zz you. need to rasterize
Caso o background não estiver funcionando, mesmo após selecionar a imagem, deve ser porque a imagem não está rasterizada. O meu ocorreu isso.
@Lucas-by1zz Yes that is correct won't work with a RAW image directly need to rasterize first
:23 😅perfect words for most photo editing 😭---- just too many ways to do any one thing and all the different programs just make it worse 🧐
🤣
Selections have always been a drama for me even though it has improved greatly with most new Apps over the years . There was a time the pen tool was basically the "only" way
Thanks for sharing a few different ideas for that way. But I'm sick of learning "new" stuff.
Truly it is never ending😊 Pen tool sounds very painstaking! The only reason I teach this is because I found the refine brush making mistakes and at least this one gave results. If Affinity had a one click AI approach or some "smart" slider I wouldn't even bother with this elaborate process. 😊
@@takebetterphotos8132 Personally ; I don't want AI mate even though many easier tasks do we are sort of AI.
I'm finding that I'm using the free hand selection tool (why not Lasso?) more to finish off harder/finer selections. Perhaps I'm too still "precise" like most newbies are when learning .
When using lasso do you use a wacom tablet to make things easier or do you find using a mouse just fine? 😊
@@takebetterphotos8132 Use the Pen/wacom in the right hand and mouse in left hand ---- never got to use/learn the wacom buttons
Should get one of those myself. I constantly complain abut brushing!