This is not a new bug: In fact, it was already present in Lightroom 2. However, since it’s still unfixed in LR 3.5 I decided to put it on the blog anyway. Surprisingly few users know about the bug, so it might help someone.
If you are using the Local Adjustment Brush or Gradient tool in Lightroom 2 or 3 with any kind of exposure correction (even a negative value!), you might be in for a surprise: No matter where you brush, highlights will clip in the entire image.

Example

Here’s an image, straight out of the camera, Adobe defaults applied, except that I’ve set “Camera Neutral” as DNG profile. Note that parts of his temple are not quite blown.

Here’s the image after I applied a local adjustment of -0.32 exposure (Default “Burn” setting in LR3) to the lower left corner: Entire temple area blows out big time.

The Local Adjustment Brush didn’t even come near the face:

The workaround

… is actually quite simple: Do not adjust “exposure”, but use “brightness” instead in the Local Adjustment Brush.

Like this:

The final image, with added brightness as a local adjustment applied to the face:

Not unknown

Adobe is aware of the issue, but it’s taking them a very long time to fix: It was a known issue already in 2009. Let’s hope LR4 and ACR7 finally get this bug fixed…

Another old bug

The other bug (not a big issue in my opinion in LR3) is that in PV2003 the noise reduction is broken, possibly affecting the dark area’s on some images: If you apply any color noise reduction using PV2003, your black clipping will change. In some (very specific) cases this might leave you with “blotchy” blacks.

Before:

Same image, only difference is the setting of the Color Noise Reduction slider: It went from 0 to 10.

The solution

Easy: Don’t use PV2003. It sucks anyway compared to PV2010. Obviously, if you are using LR2, this might be another reason to upgrade to LR3.

Final image:

Sometimes you won’t get both. I shoot a lot of performing arts under gelled stage lighting: Color temperatures of the lighting is mostly in the 3000K range, but color gels and moving heads add a different light to the mix. Of course the colors are there for a reason: the band or light tech liked them to have that color. However, our camera has a lot harder time in spanning across the region of possible colors then our eyes do.
Some stage colors are hard to photograph. Most people think red stagelighting is hard but usually, in my experience, purple and blue can be equally hard, if not harder to fix. These sometimes lead to very weird transitions or colors “blocking up”.
While Lightroom 3 is markedly better then Lightroom 2 in some aspects, it still has a few issues. An unfixed adjustment brush bug for one, and, at least at default settings, “the Lightroom Blues” for another.

This article is about the blues

Not the color, but the feeling you get once you open certain images in Lightroom.
One of the first problems is the default DNG profile that LR uses: Adobe Standard.
While quite a bit better then the older “ACR” default, it still sucks has it’s drawbacks for this kind of shooting. As can be seen in the first two images in a previous blogpost There are more blogposts floating around on the internet, and the main problems are in the transitions, as can be seen in this excellent writeup by Todd Owen Young comparing Lightroom 3 to Nikon Capture NX-2. However there’s a bit more to it in some cases, at least with Canon Raw files.

Blues

The color this time. Or Purple. Or a mix of the two.
Why I came up with the term “Lightroom Blues” is simple: This is what happens sometimes if you use the ACR4.4 profile on a Canon Raw file with “somewhat” blueish lighting:
And no, this is not the cliping warning. It’s what the file would actually look like if exported out of Lightroom at these settings.

That image was shot using a Whitebalance of 3300K in camera, since the show was mainly lit using tungsten. Not in this case however: A blue gelled moving head (which has a much higher color temperature even without a filter) lit the scene. So technically speaking, the whitebalance is far from correct. And the ACR profile apparently breaks apart at the far edges of extreme conditions.

As said before, the newer AdobeDefault does a much, much better job (no other changes made, only a different profile in the Camera Calibration Tab!)

Lastly, the one I prefer to use as default: “Camera Neutral dcpTool Invariant”. More detail in the guitar and other places, at the expense of a shift from pure blue to a more purple tone. Since I do not care so much about accurate color as I do about pleasing images, I don’t see this as a problem. If you think different, use the normal “Adobe Standard” profile or, better yet, create your own. Finally, if you want to know more about invariant profiles, have a look here, here, here or download them here

Remaining problems

That’s almost a completely different image, isn’t it? If that were all there were to it, it would have been hardly worth a blogpost. Just saying “Do not use the “ACR” profile, but use “Camera Neutral” instead” would have sufficed. However not all is well yet: The hair goes solid blue, the transition in the top left does not look good at all, and neither do the transitions on her arms. Not to mention the clipping warning (which showed no clipping when using the ACR 4.4 profile and minimal clipping when using “Adobe Standard” or “Camera Neutral”) now shows quite a bit clipping indeed.

Disclaimer

This is not meant to be a technical write-up, nor will it present you with a fixed solution for every image. The goal is merely to make you aware of some of the options that Lightroom offers, and the way I use them. So YMMV.
By the way, since I’ve tried not to litter this post with even more screenshots and images, and for those of you who feel adventurous and want to give it a try for themselves, I’ve decided to make the Raw files I used available for download. Please respect my copyright, and only use the image for evaluation purposes.

The first Raw file can be downloaded from here.

Possible solutions

First thing to normally do, would be to correct the Whitebalance. That would also take care of the clipping channel in this image. However, in that case we would miss some interesting (at least to me) bits of info that are good to know. Better be surprised now and prepared later. So let’s leave WhiteBalance “as shot” for now.
The blown channel can be fixed by either lowering “Exposure” or using a bit of “Recovery”. Since the image has more or less the brightness I want, I normally would try “Recovery” first (in fact, I use about 15 Recovery as a default). For this post, I decided to compare both however.

Recovery and Exposure. And weirdness

One thing you will see when you start moving either of those sliders, is that a weird thing can be observed: As you slowly add “Recovery”: With the slider at 8, there is less clipping then with the sider at 9. The biggest visual change (ignoring the clipping warning, which is pretty useless anyway) is that after the “jump”, the hair is now white instead of solid blue… If you add more recovery still, details that weren’t visible before, start appearing out of the “fog” in the left.
Same if you slowly decrease exposure for this image: the clipping warning becomes less until you reach -0.34. Then it jumps back up at -0.36. However, you have to use a pretty big negative exposure correction to get the same “details” to appear. You could compensate by adding (a lot of) Fill, but the hair has gone blue again at this point and the clipping is back. Surprise upon surprise: Adding Fill causes highlights to clip in this image. No idea how exactly the math used inside LR works, but it might be time for some bits to be revisited at the outer edges of it.
Give it a try for yourselves, and if you can come up with a good explanation, I’m all ears in the comments…

Now for a more real world approach

As said, I’d usually get the Whitebalance at least in the ballpark where I want to be, before adjusting anything else. So let’s do that now as well to get rid of at least some of the weirdness in Lightroom. On this image, 6100K, Tint -32 seems about okay.

Looking better already:

I then add about 20 Recovery to get some transitions to shape up and add some Blacks, Brightness and Contrast to make up for the ‘flattening’ caused by the Recovery.

Still not happy with some of the blown bits (for instance in the arm), so we have to work on that a bit more.
When we lower Vibrance a bit, here comes another surprise out of Lightroom: The image lightens. Not a bad thing in this case. Adding a bit of saturation mainly affects the (warm) background of the image, but I like it.

A bit of sliding is done in the Camera Calibration Tab, to fine-tune. Last thing that’s done is cropping and adding a vignette. Done.

Red

Since red light seems to be a problem for a lot people, so I’ll include that as well. There is no “one fix” for all red images in my experience, so here’s another YMMV.
For those wanting to try: here is the raw file.
If you shoot under stage lighting, which is likely to have a fairly low color temperature by itself, and a red gel is added to the mix, things tend to get rather monochrome indeed: Rather warm color temperature + red gels + warm skin = a lot of red.
So the problems you’re facing probably include clipping and saturation issues causing loss of detail. And, because we’re talking about Lightroom, some weird transitions in the highlights get thrown in for fun.
In these cases, the camera profile used matters less: They all have more or less the same problems, although they do differ in color and contrast. I sometimes find myself liking a different Camera Profile better after editing the image. For the sake of consistency however, I used the same defaults as before: “Camera Neutral dcpTool Invariant”, all else at (my) default.
That gives us this:

One obvious way to handle the red clipping and over-saturation, is to lower red / yellow saturation, using the TAT tool for Saturation in the HSL tab. Shortcut Shift-Cmd-Opt-S. That would leave you with an almost monochrome image though:

Not the best option.

Something else to try

You can also muck about adjust some settings in the “Camera Calibration” tab.
I tend to lower Red Saturation a bit, yet be subtle about it: the image very likely only consists of red tones, so a slight change goes a long way. In the Green and Blue primaries on the other hand, you can move in big steps. You mainly want to tackle bad transitions and bring back detail here, not completely alter colors. Use small steps in the Red hue to compensate for the image going to magenta or yellow. If you have a nasty transition somewhere, lowering saturation of the Blue or Green primary might help. After going back and forth for a bit (in my experience, red images vary more then for instance blue or purple ones, and everything influences each other), here’s what I ended up with:

That gives us this:

Purple

Can sometimes be even worse then Blues, because of the transitions. Even when using the “Camera Neutral” profile. (In this case, just about any Camera Profile in LR tends to misbehave rather badly, albeit differently for each).
The raw file used here can be downloaded as well
Typically what you could see in an image at default, is something like this:

Simply adjusting Recovery, Vibrance or Saturation isn’t going to cut it. Sure, you get more detail in the left, and the transition in the lights are better, but there still are some (very) nasty transitions. For instance on the girls face.

Even the TAT tool won’t help sufficient here. It will lower saturation, but won’t remove the harsh line.
What we need to do to get those nasty transitions out is adjust the sliders in the Camera Calibration tab. Adjusting Hue for “Blue Primary” to -10 has biggest effect on that hard purple line, but this is what I ended up with:

Green

Main problem with green lighting is not necessarily weird transitions or colors going fully saturated. But it does tend to look ugly on skintones. You don’t want to see The Incredible Hulk performing on stage. A bit better looking Hulk can be downloaded here

In most cases, all that’s needed is to yellow it up a bit. I usually use the Tint slider for that. In this case, a simple change of some Basic settings helped a lot:

Then a small change in the Camera Calibration tab, to get the skintones a bit warmer, the blacks a bit less green and the hair a bit less “solid”:

That gives us this:

Experiment!

As said, there’s no one solution that will fix any situation. So try a few different options and use whatever gives best results and works easiest for you.
And don’ forget the Fifth Rule of Lightroom: Enjoy!

This blogpost has nothing whatsoever to do with colormanagement or editing. It originated purely out of frustration and bewilderment of the online photo community. You might call it a rant, and it should be read that way: Take it with however many grains of salt you like.

“Great Image”

… That’s a phrase I see quite a bit variations of when browsing photo sharing sites and forums and, lately, Twitter.
All to often though, I look and the image and think: “No, it isn’t great”. Heck, in some cases, the image isn’t even what I’d call “good”.
Why these comments then? It might be because people don’t understand the value criticism can have and want to be nice…
Well, guess what: In my opinion, about the worst comment someone can make about my photos is “nice image”: I know it’s “nice”, otherwise I would not have posted it. But I also know it isn’t perfect. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that I see flaws myself in every image I make. I see them, and because of that I can hopefully avoid them next time. But because I’m not perfect, I might overlook other flaws. Since I want to continue learning, I’d like to have them pointed out: I prefer input over praise.

What’s criticizing then?

According to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of CRITICIZE
intransitive verb
: to act as a critic
transitive verb
1
: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : evaluate
2
: to find fault with : point out the faults of
— crit·i·ciz·able\-?s?-z?-b?l\ adjective
— crit·i·ciz·er noun

If you look at the first definition, you’ll see criticism needn’t necessarily be unfavorable. And even if it is, I still think it’s a good thing.

Why is giving criticism good?

Seems like a lot of people think that criticising must be negative, since you are pointing out what you don’t like. What they fail to take into account is that by giving criticism, you are analysing an image. Looking for “merits and demerits” according to the above definition. And by doing that, you learn: You don’t just look at an image, you think about it. And by thinking about images, you also learn to recognise certain things, not only in the image you are looking at, but also in images you are going to shoot yourself in the future. On one hand, you look more analytical at composition, exposure, whitebalance and other technicalities, but on the other hand you probably have a “gut feeling” about an image. You might just be able to figure out what causes that feeling, so you’re later able to use it to your own advantage. Fundamentally, it’s my idea that by analysing other peoples images, you learn about yourself.

Why is receiving criticism good?

Everybody learns from making mistakes, but only if you know you made mistakes. So sometimes these mistakes need to be pointed out to you. Also, you might get an idea whether you are “on the right track”: What do other people think about your style? Because they didn’t shoot the image, they have a different relation to the subject, and might be able to look more objectively.

How to be a good critic

Of course, you don’t need to only point out negatives. A bit of sugar-coating praise might help overly sensitive people deal with accepting their images aren’t perfect. If I cannot find anything positive to say about an image, I either don’t comment at all or, if I’m feeling frank, I say I don’t like it and try to explain why. Just saying “this image sucks” is about the only comment that’s worse then “nice image”.

Time to be honest

So, all go visit your favorite forum or photo sharing website, and be critical. Everybody should benefit from that.
Obviously, if you are critical about this blogpost, feel free to post a comment as well.

While most people in this digital age seem overly concerned with noise, and mainly want noise reduction, I tend to like grain: It can really improve a digital image, and even make it appear sharper. Until now I had to simulate it using Photoshop for instance.

No longer: Recently, Adobe released ACR 6.1 and LightRoom 3. In these there was a new option added: “Grain”, with three controls: “Amount”, “Size” and “Roughness”. It produced some pretty nice “film like” grain. Way better then a simple “add noise” in Photoshop for instance.
That could be a time saver and simplify the workflow quite a bit.
Of course, I’d need to upgrade to LR3 for this feature. But, along with the mayor improvements in IQ due to the new demosaicing and processing algorithms (Process Version 2010) that would be totally worth it to me. Some of the other new features would be the icing on the cake.

One problem

I’d need a new Mac to run it: LightRoom 3 and PSCS5 only run on an Intel Mac, not on my Dual G5 PPC.
Since buying a new Mac just for this is a bit over the top, I decided to see what my options were.

A while back, Adobe updated the previous versions of ACR and LR to ACR 5.7 and LR 2.7: These versions also support the demosaic algorithm from Lightroom 3.
From what I’d read on the web, these should render the file as seen in Lightroom3, but not allow you to make changes to the new Develop settings, like “Grain”.

A bit more researching led (as often) to the excellent site of Victoria Bampton, AKA. Lightroom Queen. She had a bit more detailed info: ACR 5.7 should use the same Demosaic, and match the new additions closely. She also mentioned “5.7 can read LR’s settings but there’s no UI to change the new settings.” Sadly, LR2.7 will ignore the new LR3 settings. (Why Adobe, why?)

Then I got an idea when answering a question on POTN. Would it be possible to “hack” an .XMP file to only adjust the Grain settings?

The answer? It is!

All you need is an .XMP file with settings applied in LightRoom3 (thanks Anouk!) and a text editor.
It really is that simple.

An .XMP file is simply a plain text file, with instructions for the Adobe Raw converter: “Set this slider to this value”.
The part we are interested in, is this:
<crs:grainamount>58</crs:grainamount>
<crs:grainsize>30</crs:grainsize>
<crs:grainfrequency>59</crs:grainfrequency>

All you need to do is copy-paste this into a “blank” .XMP file.
To do that, open a Raw file (not a DNG) in ACR 5.7. Then go to the “flyout” menu and choose “Save settings…”.

To make life easy on yourself, only save one set of parameters, for instance “sharpening”.
The advantage of doing it like this, is that all other settings will remain the same. So if you’d already made adjustments to the Raw, they will remain.

Close ACR.

Open the .XMP in a text editor. I like Smultron.
That gives you an .XMP that looks like this:

<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.2-c020 1.124078, Tue Sep 11 2007 23:21:40 ">
<rdf:rdf xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:description rdf:about="">
xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/">
<crs:version>5.7</crs:version>
<crs:processversion>5.0</crs:processversion>
<crs:sharpness>62</crs:sharpness>
<crs:sharpenradius>+1.0</crs:sharpenradius>
<crs:sharpendetail>8</crs:sharpendetail>
<crs:sharpenedgemasking>81</crs:sharpenedgemasking>
<crs:hassettings>True</crs:hassettings>
</rdf:description>
</rdf:rdf>
</x:xmpmeta>

Delete the “Sharpening” settings, and replace them with the “Grain” settings you want.

You get this:

<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.2-c020 1.124078, Tue Sep 11 2007 23:21:40 ">
<rdf:rdf xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:description rdf:about="">
xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/">
<crs:version>6.1</crs:version>
<crs:processversion>5.7</crs:processversion>
<crs:grainamount>50</crs:grainamount>
<crs:grainsize>30</crs:grainsize>
<crs:grainfrequency>60</crs:grainfrequency>
<crs:colornoisereductiondetail>50</crs:colornoisereductiondetail>
<crs:hassettings>True</crs:hassettings>
</rdf:description>
</rdf:rdf>
</x:xmpmeta>

Save this under a new name. “Grain50_30_60″ seems a logical choice in this case. You can of course save a number of different settings under different names.
Open a Raw file, apply the preset, and BOOM. You just added Grain

But wait, there’s more

So, what if you want to alter just one of the settings? Do you need to open a text editor every time?
No. It’s easier to create a few more presets, each only adjusting 1 parameter.

I created separate presets for GrainAmount, GrainSize and GrainFrequency, in different values.
So, if I open an image in ACR, it looks like this:

Then I apply three presets to set the Grain I want.

In this case GrainAmount80, GrainSize20 and GrainFrequency80. Not as flexible as sliders, but pretty close.

The other way around

In LR3, there’s another new addition that is lacking in LR2.7: There’s a point curve added.
In LR2, you could only adjust the (wrongly named) “point curve” as the ACR “Parametric Curve”. So it was not possible to create a curve to invert the image or set the black and white point to something other then 0 and 255. (Something quite a few people like to do, which makes absolutely no sense to me).

There’s a way around that as well: Open a CR2 file in ACR, adjust the curve as you like, and click “Done”. You just created an .XMP file with all the info you need.
Open that .xmp file in an editor, and look for the second entry for tone curve:

<crs:tonecurve>
<rdf:seq>
<rdf:li>0, 255</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>255, 0</rdf:li>
</rdf:seq>
</crs:tonecurve>

the first entry for “Tone Curve” is the Parametric Curve. Don’t mess with it, since LR allows you to adjust that.

<crs:tonecurve>
<rdf:seq>
<rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>32, 22</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>64, 56</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>128, 128</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>192, 196</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li>
</rdf:seq>
</crs:tonecurve>

Now, in LightRoom2, create a new Preset. Use only the “Tone Curve” setting,

Open this preset in a text editor as well.
It will look different then an xmp, but will be plain text as well.

s = {
id = "847A699E-AEA0-4E00-BF19-F6E681D5EBD7",
internalName = "Negative",
title = "Negative",
type = "Develop",
value = {
settings = {
ParametricDarks = 0,
ParametricHighlightSplit = 75,
ParametricHighlights = 0,
ParametricLights = 5,
ParametricMidtoneSplit = 50,
ParametricShadowSplit = 25,
ParametricShadows = -5,
ToneCurve = {
0,
0,
32,
22,
64,
56,
128,
128,
192,
196,
255,
255,
},
ToneCurveName = "Medium Contrast",
},
uuid = "F2FF3CF0-C863-43EA-B051-B624A8113D3A",
},
version = 0,
}

Remove the stuff you don’t want, and change it to this:

s = {
id = "847A699E-AEA0-4E00-BF19-F6E681D5EBD7",
internalName = "Negative",
title = "Negative",
type = "Develop",
value = {
settings = {
ToneCurve = {
0,
255,
255,
0,
},
ToneCurveName = "Negative",
},
uuid = "F2FF3CF0-C863-43EA-B051-B624A8113D3A",
},
version = 0,
}

Restart LR2, apply the preset. You just inverted the image

Of course, there might be a number of other things you’d want to “hack” into either LR2 or ACR 5.7. Just give it a try! And be sure to post any nice results you get in the comments!

Simply put? Nothing.
Well, if that were all I had to say on the subject, this would have to be my shortest blogpost ever… Okay, a bit more info then:
A lot of first time DSLR users are concerned that their shiny new camera delivers files that are “only” 72dpi, while their old point and shoot delivered 300dpi files. Why is this concern unwarranted? Surely 300 is more then 72, and more is better, right?

Wrong

The old wisdom saying is that “300dpi is for printing and 72dpi is for screen”.
There are a few things wrong with that.
First and foremost, the term “dpi” stands for dots per inch. In a digital file there are no dots, only pixels. So the correct term is pixels per inch (ppi).
Also, 72ppi originated as it was the resolution of an ancient Mac monitor. Current monitors have a much higher pixel density: My old 12″ PowerbookG4 for instance has a screen resolution of about 100ppi. Most current screens are somewhere between 80 and 120ppi.

Do the math…

for your screen: Simply measure width and height and divide the number of pixels by the measured values… Tip: Once you found the figure for your screen, be sure to enter it in the PSCS4 preferences under “Units and Rulers, Screen resolution”: That way, the “Zoom, Print size” will show an accurate sized preview.
So, is a 300ppi file better then a 72ppi file?

No difference

If you hadn’t gathered as much from the above, for display on screen, only the display you’re using will determine the “resolution”.
So, a file that contains for instance 500×750 pixels will be displayed at a different size (in inches, centimeters, or whatever you prefer), depending on the screen you’re using to view it. The arbitrary ppi figure set in the file has no relevance whatsoever.

To illustrate that, here is an example: Each file is 500×750 pixels. One is 72ppi, the other 300ppi.

Notice the difference? No? That’s because there isn’t any.

Why use it then?

Because you have to put something in the box: There is no way that Photoshop will allow you to not fill in a value. However, what you put in there is pretty arbitrary. Use whatever you like basically for display on screen.
I prefer to use 300ppi for general use, since then the “image size” dialog box will quickly tell me about how large I can print an image at decent quality. For web, I mostly use 72ppi (unless I forget) since, well, that’s what some people expect…

Some more reading: here

Never thought I’d blog about something as individual as PS Color Settings… Then again, there is so much conflicting, incomplete or downright inaccurate info on the web, I thought it might be time to set the record straight.

Individual

First of: Like more things in photography life there is no “Magic Bullet”. If that’s what you are looking for, better get used to this idea: You need a basic understanding of Color Management.
On the bright side: The settings in the Color Settings dialog box affect a number of things. However, unless done totally wrong, how your images are displayed is not one of those things.

Settings nobody should use

There is no “Magic Bullet”, but there is a “one size fits no-one”: The setting called “Monitor Color”.

What does it do? Let’s go through the main problems step by step:

It sets your monitor profile as default working space. So every time you calibrate your monitor (you do that regularly, right?) your default working space changes. And your default working space is limited to your monitors gamut. Not good if you are on a laptop for instance.
One additional problem is that equal values for R, G and B might not give a neutral gray. And there are other problems.

One of those problems is, that it sets all color management policies to “off”. Note that, contrary to popular belief, setting “monitor profile” does not turn off color management altogether: The one good thing in all this mess is that you are presented with this dialogue box when opening an image with an embedded profile:

Damage

The damage you can do here is very real:
If you tick the top option (“Use the embedded profile”), no damage is done. The image will be shown correct, and all data is retained. Not bad at all.
If you pick option #2 (“Convert to working space”), irreversible damage is done: The pixels in the image will be converted (changed!) to your monitor profile. Color numbers are converted (so colors will display correctly), but all colors out of your monitors gamut will be clipped. Poof! Gone. Forever.
If you pick option #3 (“Discard the embedded profile”), at least you won’t be damaging the file on import as in option #2 (it’s reversible by assigning the correct profile). But you will not be seeing the image correctly. So any “color correction” you do will be incorrect. The fact that the color numbers aren’t changed is a moot point because of this: What you see definitely will not be what others see.

Other problems

Yet another problem is that, even if you use embedded profiles, you will get no warning when you copy-paste an image into a new document (which by default will not have an embedded profile), or into an image with a different working space: The colors will change. See option #3 above.

So, I see no reason for anyone to use it. Not even web designers. Yes, I know that lots of browsers are not color managed. However, there are not lots of people using your screen, are there?
The only reason to temporarily set it, is when you need to check whether Photoshop is using the correct monitor profile.

Better

Just about any of the other “presets” is better. These presets are grouped in a few categories. When you scroll trough them, you might notice a few things:

There are settings for Europe and North America. And in every region there are 3 settings: for “General Purpose”, “Prepress” and “Web/Internet”. When you tick “more options” Japan appears, which has the same trio but adds “Color For Newspaper” and “Japan Magazine Advertisement Color”. There also appear a few other “international” presets.

Rather then going into each one in depth, I’ll generally explain some differences and possible pitfalls: They are “presets”, but IMO none is perfect. You can use them as a starting point however.
I start of with “more options” unchecked. And the screenshots are for the European presets. However, the comments I give are the same for the other localisations.

General Purpose

It Isn’t. It’s really that simple. Like I said: There’s no magic bullet.
Main drawback is that you get no warning whatsoever for profile mismatches: When you open two images in a different working space, and paste one into the other, colors will be converted. Which, as said, is irreversible and might give irreversible damage. If I’m going to damage my image, I damn well want to be notified.

Prepress

Is quite a decent choice if you are doing prepress work. Profiles are preserved, you are warned when you get a mismatch, and reasonable profiles are chosen for CMYK, gray and spot. (depending on the area you chose, CMYK and dot gain are different.) Then again, if you are doing prepress work, I’d hope that you know enough about color management that you don’t need to read my thoughts on it…

Web/Internet

This is the only preset where converting to working space might make sense in my opinion: If you are just doing work for internet, anything should be sRGB. If you have to ask why: Read my blogpost on the subject. Then again, I’d like a warning if an image has no embedded profile: In some cases it might be because someone screwed up. This is largely a personal preference however.

Other presets

Are “more of the same” (two other Japanese presets only differ in CMYK, gray and spot from Japan Prepress2). The “Phase One” workflow is the odd one out: It sets a gray profile of Gray Gamma 2.2 which is quite sensible. Then again, the CMYK profile is “Euro-Catalog”, which I never need.
The other options (Colorsync (mac only), PS5) are obsolete legacy.

Create your own

Since everybody’s needs are different, it makes sense to make your own preset then, doesn’t it? Sure! But you need to know what each setting does. Some things are pretty straight forward, others not so much.

Default working spaces: RGB

Pretty much up to personal preference. The question “what RGB color space is best” I’ll leave be for now. Use whatever working space you use in your raw converter of choice. Two points I do want to make: If you don’t understand color management, do yourself a favor and use sRGB as a working space everywhere. On the other hand, if you are using a wide gamut color space (anything larger then AdobeRGB) do so in 16 bit per channel only!
Settings never to use are AppleRGB, ColorMatchRGB or GenericRGB. These are based on monitors that went the way of the dodo…

CMYK and others

For CMYK working space: Most people won’t ever print something on an offset press, so won’t ever be needing CMYK. When you do need it, make sure the printer tells you what profile to use, and set that as the default: It has some impact further down the road in PSCS4.
Don’t ever use GenericCMYK or one of the “old” Photoshop CMYK settings here: No good reason to. When in doubt, you probably won’t ever need it, so pick the “default” for your region.
Same goes for Gray and Spot working space. If you do a lot of grayscale images for web, gamma 2.2 is the best setting. If you print them to a specific Offsetpress and you know what dot gain to use, by all means do. But in that case you probably wouldn’t be reading this article… For same reasons as above never, ever use Gamma 1.8. It’s obsolete.

Policies and Notifications

Choose “Preserve Embedded Profiles”, unless as explained above, you are a web designer and have thought about the subject a bit.
I don’t see the need to tick the “Profile mismatch: Ask when opening” box, since I edit images from a known source, and the embedded profiles are what they are for a reason. So YMMV. I do tick the “Ask when pasting” and “missing profiles” boxes. The first because I want to be notified if an image profile is converted, the second because if there is no profile embedded, someone screwed up.

Note that if you choose “Discard the embedded profile (do not color manage)” here, the image will be shown as if it had the default working space embedded. This has the same effect as assigning your default working space: The image won’t display accurate, but it is reversible (by assigning the proper profile).

Another note (a big one) is that PS somehow doesn’t display this warning when pasting an image without profile into a document with an embedded color space! Colors will change.

Advanced: Conversion options

Engine: Leave at “Adobe (ACE)”. It’s the best choice, and if you have a specific reason why you would want to use another, you would not need my advice.
Rendering intent: Either perceptual or relative colorimetric for photographic images. Which is best will depend on the image. Not that this setting matters much: This is the rendering intent used by default when you go Image > Convert to profile (where you can change it in the dialog box) and it is used when going Image > Mode > CMYK for instance (which I would strongly advise against, since it offers no preview and no direct control)
The description says it all:

Always tick “Use Black point compensation” and also “Use Dither”: It makes banding or posterization much less likely.
The last option “Compensate for Screen -referred profiles” is only important if you make documents for Adobe After Effects. In that case: Tick it. Otherwise: Tick it as well, since it won’t matter then.

Advanced, but not to be used

“Desaturate Monitor Colors By” and “Blend RGB Colors Using Gamma”: Easy: Don’t tick those. They are not meant for photographers. Again: Read the description:

Possible pitfalls

As already mentioned, the settings set in the “Conversion options” will be used when changing from one color space to the next by going Image > Mode. So do not go there. Use Edit > Convert to profile instead. Yes you can also use it to convert from RGB to CMYK…

Another, less well known fact, is that the default profile is what determines the values in the info palette (Color picker) for anything but the color space the image is in. So if you use a CMYK or grayscale color picker on an RGB image, the readout will be for your current default CMYK or gray working space!

Another of the stupid less-then-brilliant decisions on Adobes part was to have the Select > Color Range > Out of Gamut selection be based on the default CMYK working space. Makes no sense whatsoever and makes the tool all but unusable for anyone who prints at home, but there it is…
Here is an sRGB image, softproofed for my Epson R2880, using glossy paper. The Gamut warning is on and shows no out of gamut colors. Notice the selection?

Conclusion

After reading this, you should know enough about the subject to create your own settings. After you did, save them as your own preset. It might also be a good idea to add a description.
Here’s mine:

I shoot a lot of Performing Arts. That often involves “difficult” lighting: Different light sources, with different color temperatures. And to make matters worse, they are fitted with colored gels most of the time.
While I mostly try to go for “pleasing color”, rather then “neutral skintone” (the lighting was done a specific color for a reason I think), this still poses some challenges every now and then.

Simply setting ‘tungsten’ white balance is an okay starting point, but with certain types or colors of lighting, I need to do quite a bit of tweaking to get the image where I want it.

For that reason, I choose to shoot Raw: Gives me the most flexibility, and allows me to change whitebalance without causing too much harm.

Raw converters

Most of the time, I use Lightroom 2 for editing these images: I prefer the workflow over using the combination of DPP and Photoshop: I can do local edits on the Raw file in LR, and I can save the DNG with all edits included. With DPP/PS, I have to save a layered psd file of each image (which might be about 100Mb or so. With hundreds of images, that eats up HDD space rather fast).
This might not make sense to everybody, but makes sense to me.

DPP offers better noise reduction and sharpening in my opinion, but most of the time LightRoom is good enough for the intended purpose (images for the web).

Sometimes not

Occasionally however, I come across an image that simply will not give decent results in LightRoom. Blue gelled lights often give problems: For one: No way to reduce noise without obliterating all detail on the process. A while back I processed one of those images.

Here’s what it looked like in LightRoom at my default settings (Camera Neutral):
Not the best rendering. Obviously, the purple causes some problems by “blocking up”, and the blue does horrid things as well: Details and sharpness are gone. (notice the faces? A bit further down are the images up close.)

One thing that might help some colors (but not blues in my experience) is switching the camera profile. In this case, “Adobe Standard” didn’t exactly help, and the ACR4.4 profile was so bad I won’t even bother posting the screenshot…

Adjusting white balance and using specific HSL adjustments helped the image quite a bit, but still, the details in the shadow stayed absent.

Time to try a different Raw converter…

DPP

Canon’s own DPP is a very different piece of software then LightRoom: It has no DAM capabilities, and only offers global adjustments. So any local editing must be done in Photoshop. For instance by doing multiple conversions and use masks in PS.
Also, the user interface is very different and seems to be a case of “you love it or you hate it”.
Most importantly however, it rendered this image quite different from LightRoom

DPP “As shot” looks quite “neon”, but it clearly contains more detail:

The lack of detail in LR is not caused by noise reduction: If NR in LR is set to 0, the difference is still apparent. Setting Color NR higher then about 7 does obliterate any detail that was left however. Clearly, LR Color NR is not just targeting color noise… Luminance NR doesn’t help the image, but doesn’t destroy it either.

In comparison, DPP does much different: you can set a fairly high amount of Chroma NR before you start losing detail, and it actually removes color noise. However, setting a Luminance NR of something as low as 2 visibly removes detail: Avoid this like the plague.

Finishing up

Setting a higher color temperature, different color tone, and using “tune” to shift the image toward green/yellowish helps colors in DPP, although some transitions in the beams of light still look quite harsh. LightRoom does better in that respect.

The most striking difference (apart from the loss of detail in LR) is that the smoke appears to be almost gone in DPP!

Sometimes neither works alone

So, this appears to be a case were neither Raw converter gives satisfactory results… DPP gives detail, but no smoke. LightRoom gives smoke, better transitions, yet no detail. RIT handles the image like DPP does, apart from the fact that is seems to do some noise reduction by default, with no (working) option to turn it off. So no sense in going that route: RIT is a bit more constricting then DPP (you can only adjust what you could adjust on the camera) and the user interface is horrid.

I finally decided to open both the LR and DPP conversion in Photoshop, and blend them together, thus getting an image that contained both detail and smoke:

If anyone wants to give this image a try, the Raw file can be downloaded from here.

Please respect my copyright, and only use the image for evaluation purposes.

In a thread on Photography-on-the.net a while ago, someone mentioned reading some advise to set black and white point to 5% and 95% respectively. That’s approximately RGB values (12,12,12) and (242,242,242). Otherwise, shadow and highlight detail would be lost in print.
My first thought was “no way”. After all, white is 255, right? I’d say that’s what printing colormanaged and .icc profiles are for.
I’d accept a bit of a loss, but not thàt much…

So I started to search the web.

Whàt?

One source of the advise was at www.lynda.com: Prepress Essentials by Taz Tally.
He was talking about offset printing. There was also an example about Newsprint. According to that, for a (hypothetical) example where the newspaper press could print a minimum white highlight dot of 20% and a maximum shadow below 80%. The tutorial proceeded to adjust output levels similar to this:

According to the tutorial, you’d be preserving highlight and shadow detail as much as possible for those particular presses.
Yeah, right. What highlights and shadows? They all became midtones…

Gray

I’ve taken a black and white image of mine, since that tutorial was also using a b&w image, and adjusted the shadow and highlight values according to that tutorial. The red dots in the middle image represent the picked black and white point.
Negative scan of Popa Chubby in Atak, 1995. Left to right: Original, for “commercial press” and for “newspaper press”:

If I softproof the rightmost image for “Japan Color 2000 Newspaper” (the only “newspaper” profile I could find in PSCS4), it goes to hell in a handbasket…
Frankly, my first thought was the author went nuts.
Then again, this is Lynda.com, right? Maybe I just misunderstood. Or the file was sent straight to the newspaper press? (without color management)

Another tutorial

“Desktop Printing Techniques” by Chris Orwig, also on Lynda.com, made one point clearer: The 5 and 95% figures are a starting point, and you should test with your own printer / paper / profile. That makes perfect sense.
He also mentioned “accurate detail” and “relevant white / black detail”, where Taz Tally mentions it, but then sets black and white points that I would let clip: Mr. Orwig is more rational in picking the points he chooses for the color sampler tool. (Not the first highlight appearing, but actually something that you want detail in.)
Okay. Obvious: If you have blown whites, then guess what: They are not meant to show detail. No point in setting a white highlight at (242,242,242) nor a deep black shadow at (12,12,12). But that makes it quite personal: What is “meaningful detail”?

A few “Gotcha’s”

The tutorial then goes on to set the color sampler values to read out as grayscale.
No idea why, and not the best option IMO, since the “gray” readout in the info palette is dependant on the settings in the PS color settings for “Gray”.
And guess what: “Europe general purpose” uses Dot gain 15% where “North America general purpose” uses Dot gain 20% for gray working space. Not a huge difference in this case, but one to know.
Also, why not just use the RGB (or HSB) values? They remain constant whatever color settings. Better yet, use LAB values: They change as the luminance changes: quite a difference between (12,12,12) in sRGB and the same value in AdobeRGB (Give it a try)! So keep in mind your document color space!

The “Gotcha’s” visualised

To demonstrate those issues, here are a few screenshots of 4 color samplers I placed in 4 neutral gray patches of a document (the test print I’ll use later on).

All this also speaks in favour of doing your own tests: Your workflow is probably different from mine, or that of the Lynda.com instructors for that matter. As is your definition of “meaningful detail”.

Let’s stop theorising already!

As easy said as done.
So off to search the web for a test image.
I found this nice test image (and description how to evaluate the print) here

Test print: some thoughts.

I usually use AdobeRGB.
The image is in ProPhotoRGB, which gives the “number” patches a little different meaning: A ProPhotoRGB value of (6,6,6) I can distinguish quite well from pure black. In an AdobeRGB document, I have to look hard. In an sRGB document, it’s quite obvious. Similar, ProPhotoRGB (253,253,253) is less easy to distinguish from pure white to me then the same value in AdobeRGB, while sRGB is easiest. The differences are quite subtle though.
The LAB color pickers came in handy here: I wasn’t going nuts, there is a slight difference.

Now that is cleared up…

Lets get printing

I used the Epson R2880 with Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper.
Color settings in PSCS2 printing dialog:

Colormanagement off in the printer driver of course.
I used the .icc profile downloaded from the Epson website.
There is one profile provided for that paper. The printer driver however, has a few settings that might influence how much ink is laid down on paper:
Photo – 1440dpi vs. SuperPhoto – 5760dpi and “high speed” on or off.
I decided to use an extra sheer of paper to see what the differences were.
I first printed 5760dpi with High Speed on (since I never turn that off anyway) using Relative colorimetric and Perceptual. Black Point Compensation was turned on.

Relative Colorimetric vs. Perceptual

In this test image, the biggest difference is that Relative Colorimetric was a bit more saturated in red and green, but showed blue a bit more purple. Maybe because of that, purples also look a bit more saturated. Unexpected (to me) was that oranges seemed actually more saturated using Perceptual.
Relative colorimetric (with BPC) has a touch less separation between absolute black and (6,6,6)
The softproof showed all of these differences as well.
So I decided to use Perceptual for the second set of prints: 1440dpi with High Speed on and off.

What were the differences?

Not a heck of a lot. In all “Perceptual” prints (6,6,6) is barely visible. And I do mean barely. Relative colorimetric is a touch darker even: It’s more of a “I think I might see a difference” there. I cannot see (4,4,4) in any of them.
I don’t think I see a visible difference between 1440dpi and 5760 dpi, nor between high speed on or off. Yes, I did use a loupe.
Maybe the absolute black is a tiny bit denser if 5760 or “High Speed off” is used, but frankly, I’m not sure (comparing the two absolute black patches in the top right, holding them right next to each other in good light).
A measuring device would be needed to make sure. This is also the “I think I might want to see a difference” category.
The grayscale image is neutral to my eye. There might be tiny color shifts in the dark patches, but that could be my eyes playing tricks. If you need absolute neutrality you might want to test, but for my uses, the B&W is excellent.
No use in posting (scans of) prints, since you really need to see this for yourself. Take my word on this.

So. What did I learn?

The softproof is surprisingly accurate.
I cannot distinguish anything darker then L=1 (LAB color picker) in print.
I cannot distinguish anything lighter then L=99 (LAB color picker) in print.
That is ProPhotoRGB (6,6,6) and ProPhotoRGB (252,252,252) respectively.

That’s fairly close to what I see on screen on my CRT in the highlights, with a bit loss of detail in the shadows. I might want to compensate for that.
A good way to do that is described in this video by John Paul Caponigro.

If I have an image with very deep and important shadows, I might try a test print. But for my normal (even critical) printing, I can trust the softproof: If I see detail on screen, I’ll see it in print. And I’m not all that concerned about the absolute deepest maximum black. Since I don’t consistently see the difference anyway.

Conclusion

I certainly do not want to limit myself to a brightest highlight of 95% for my inkjet printing. So I’ll take the 95% in the tutorials with a grain of salt. I did find, when examining a random bunch of images I processed using my normal workflow, that most images have meaningful detail at about that value. So the tutorials at Lynda.com are right in a way, but could be more accurate.

I’m still very much in doubt on the “Newspaper Press” image that more or less caused this blogpost however…
If anyone has good info on that, I’m all ears.

Further reading

Some excellent resources on printing and related stuff:
http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/downloads/technique/technique.php#printing
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/black_and_white_test.html
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/test_images.html
http://www.outbackprint.com/printinginsights/pi049/essay.html
http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html

If you are shooting portraits or architecture, it can be very useful to be able to view the images on a larger screen then that on the back of your camera: You can better judge focus, expression, exposure and composition for instance. Not only because the screen is bigger and of better quality (not to mention calibrated!), but also because the software you use might have some visual aids (clipping warning, grid, 100% view, stuff like that)

What do you need

Obviously a camera and the proper cable: USB for most consumer models and the Eos 1D(s)3, Firewire for the Canon 1D(2) and 1D(s)Mk2(n).
Apart from that, you’ll need some software to connect the camera to the computer and some kind of viewer or raw converter.

The software

There are a few options: Capture One Pro is highly regarded, and does all in one package, but the price is fairly steep.
Then there’s Bibble Pro. Quite a bit cheaper and supports more (older) cameras then C1Pro. Both of these support Nikon and Canon. Bibble also supports other brands. Both are available for Windows and OSX, Bibble also for Linux. Neither allow remote control of the camera, but Capture one allows you to fire the shutter remotely.

Free

Lucky for us that Canon also offers a free solution: Eos Utility. It came on the disk with your camera. If it didn’t, or you lost the disk, you can download it, following the instructions here.
Once installed, you’ll also need a viewer. I prefer to use DPP on my laptop, since that’s a dinosaur an old Powerbook G4 with a 12″ screen. Others prefer to use Lightroom. I’ll explain how to use both:

Step by step

First, start Eos Utility and go to the preferences: (Do this before connecting the camera. On my Mac (OSX 10.4.11) at least, it won’t complete start up, and needs to be force-quit otherwise)
Since I use DPP mostly for tethered shooting, I set up my Folder and filenames to be meaningful here. If you use Lightroom, you can skip this name customization.

The name is pretty self-explanatory I think. I use 3 lines for Year/Month/Date, since the preset “Shooting day” will add a few underscores I don’t want.

Again, pretty obvious naming scheme: My initials, the date and a short description.

Then set DPP as Linked Software.

Now for the shooting

Exit the prefs. That get’s you back to the main window. Choose “Camera Settings / Remote Shooting”

You get this: Note that, unlike other tethering software, Eos Utility gives you complete control over the camera. Very, very nice if the camera is at a position where you can hardly reach it (high on a tripod for instance).

Take a shot. If the “quick preview” window opens, click it away, since you won’t be needing that. It will stay gone as long as you don’t restart Eos Utility.
The image will now automatically open in DPP, in thumbnail view.

That’s not my preferred way of working. So I hit Cmd+A (select all) and Cmd+right arrow (open in edit image window; no shortcut for it on PC). That gives me this:

Cmd+T gets rid of the tools. All consecutive images will open in the edit image window now. At whatever zoom factor you choose.
You’re all set. So shoot away.

Lightroom

In Lightroom it’s a bit more complicated different.
Set everything the same in Eos Utility, except of course the linked software. As said, you also don’t need to worry about folder naming, because that is taken care of in Lightroom:

Then open Lightroom. It will open with the images you last edited / imported. Enable Auto Import, and set up a watched folder like this, in the very logically named “Auto Import Settings”:

Note that your images will get moved (not copied) by LightRoom into the folder you specify here. No way around it, so the whole naming scheme for folders in Eos Utility is kinda redundant in this case. I’d strongly recommend using a meaningful foldername. You can use either LR or Eos Utility to manage the filenames, depending on what you prefer.

Take a shot:

Note the image in the background is still the old image. If after the shot you get “No Photo Selected”, click a thumbnail in LR.
That’s it. Lightroom will now keep an eye on that folder, and import every image that lands in there. A bit slower on my laptop then DPP, but it works okay.

The drawbacks

Tethered shooting causes the battery of your camera to drain faster. With some cameras (the 1D comes to mind) that’s not something you desire…
Obviously, you also need to lug a laptop with you, but IMO that’s well worth it.
Lastly: Eos Utility does not like it when the camera goes to sleep, or is disconnected: It’ll crash. No idea why it’s buggy that way, probably because it’s free.

The human eye is most sensitive for yellow-green light. Take a look at the next gradient for instance:

To me, indeed the green-to-yellow part looks brightest. Not so to Photoshop however.

About a hundred ways to loose the color

Well, maybe not thàt much, but quite a few anyhow. The easiest way (but offering zero control) would be to go through Image > Mode > Grayscale. That’ll give you this:

Your image just became 1/3 of the original size, and that weight loss is caused because there’s now only a ‘gray’ channel instead of a red, green and blue one.
Big drawback of this method, is that it’s destructive: You indeed loose the color: It’s gone for good. Since you also have zero control, I’d never use this method.

Layers

So, we want something that’s reversible. Lots of ways to do that, using (adjustment) layers, but not all of them good… Let’s start off by naming just about the worst way imaginable: Desaturate. What this does, is that it removes all color information from an image, without the option for any user intervention. While that may or may not be important to you, this should be: All colors are treated as if they were equal.
While equality is a great thing, in this case, it isn’t, since to us different colors aren’t equal.

What does Photoshop see?

Simply put: Numbers. If you’d open the above color gradient in Photoshop, the eye dropper will show you what it’s made of: A simple gradient in each channel. The image below shows the channels:

To understand what Photoshop sees a bit better, have a look at the info palette, and in particular the HSB values there. The only thing changing there is the hue angle! Saturation and Brightness remain at 100 percent in the entire gradient.

Not vastly surprising then, that this is what you get when you do a ‘straightforward’ desaturate:

Hue and Saturation are at 0, Brightness is at 50 percent. This might be correct “by the numbers”, but it’s not what I’d want for making a nice black and white image…

A better way

As with most things in Photoshop, there’s plenty of ways to convert a color image to a grayscale. I’m going to show a few here that do a better job then desaturate, and offer more control then ‘Image > Mode > Grayscale’.

One simple way would be to use blend modes: Duplicate the background layer, desaturate the duplicate layer and set the blend mode of the top layer to color.
This can all be done using keyboard shortcuts: Cmd+J, Shift+Cmd+U, Shift+Opt+C, so is very quick.
Disadvantage of that method is that it doubles the file size.

Photoshop is acting more then a bit goofy here by the way: If you desaturate the top layer, you essentially fill it with medium gray. However, if you create a new layer and fill that with medium gray (or black or white or whatever shade of gray in between) by using the fill command, the file size does not double. Very weird indeed.

So the fastest way to go black and white without doubling the file size would be this: Shift+Cmd+Opt+N, Cmd+Backspace, Shift+Opt+C.

Control

All nice and fast, but this doesn’t give you much control. So let’s try a different method. Make a Hue / Saturation adjustment layer. Set saturation to 0. Now you have the uniform gray image of the example above. Now, set the blending mode to ‘Color’ (Or Hue, or Saturation. Doesn’t matter in this case.) Same as when you use that blend mode on a layer filled with pixels! Yet still no control.
To get control, add another hue saturation adjustment layer between this one and the background image. Set the blend mode to ‘Luminosity’. Do not touch the Saturation slider here however. Instead, use the ‘Hue’ slider to alter the grayscale image.
The example below shows the effect of a shift in hue of +40:

Alternatives

As said, in Photoshop there are more ways to do this.
You could for instance just copy the contents of one channel into the image. What works better then that, is to use either the ‘Calculations’ command or, more flexible and a bit easier to understand, a Channel Mixer adjustment layer.
Tick the grayscale box there, and PS will default to these values:

You can then drag any slider to wherever you want, creating the type of black and white image you want. For instance for a portrait, using more red will result in lighter skin tones, using more green will give more contrast… As can be seen in the screenshot, Channel Mixer will warn you when the total of channels goes over 100 percent. However that does not mean that you must never go higher. Depends on the image really… The Histogram is your friend here.

The two gradients made with channel mixer: First default setting, then the altered setting:

Channel mixer has the strangeness that if you untick the ‘Monochrome’ box, the values for all channels stay at what you set (83, 24 and 5 percent in the above example). If however you then tick the ‘Monochrome’ box again, you’re back at the default values! Not the brightest decision Adobe ever made I think.

New to CS3

In PSCS3, Adobe introduced the ‘Black and White’ adjustment layer. It’s quite a bit like a Channel mixer, but is adjustable for 6 colors, instead of 3 channels. So it offers more control (and more options for the user to screw up).

Apparently, someone at Adobe must have been watching Spinal Tap, since the sliders of this adjustment layer range from -200 to +300. ‘Goes to eleven‘ indeed. For the adventurous: There’s also an ‘Auto’ button.

New to CS4

In PSCS4, Adobe included the new ‘Vibrance’ adjustment that was first introduced in Lightroom and ACR. That adjustment also features a ‘Saturation’ slider.
If you use that slider to desaturate an image, it quickly becomes clear that this is working different then the ‘Hue Saturation’ adjustment. You could say it’s actually working nice.

This is whet you get if you drag the Saturation to -100: A contrasty version of what you get using ‘Channel mixer’.

Some tips

If you set any of these adjustment layers to blend mode ‘Color’, you get the exact same result as in the above example with a gray pixel layer set to blend mode ‘Color’: A standard B&W conversion.
This can be useful as a quick way to compare your conversion to a ‘standard’ grayscale conversion to see if your version is actually better…
Blend mode ‘Color’ will also work for a ‘Solid Color’, ‘Gradient’, ‘Gradient Map’ or ‘Pattern’ adjustment layer. While I cannot think of a use for ‘Pattern’, the first two work similar to a gray pixel layer set to ‘Color’, while the third offers interesting possibilities. Maybe not what you’d want for your average, day to day grayscale conversion, but nice to experiment a bit.

I leave you with an example of that: A ‘Gradient Map’ adjustment layer, using the preset ‘Copper’, then set blend mode to ‘Color’, on an actual photo: