Hi Louis. I work with a few photographers to grade sets of their images for either photo books or print exhibition. Sometimes they'll want my input right at the start of the grading process. Sometimes I'll be asked to do a final look, post their grading. For a grade, starting at the beginning, for a 'team' of images my methodology is roughly as follows: 1: Put all (and only) the team players (selected images) in one folder. 2: Add a temporary white boarder on all images. 3: Grade the best dressed image first, 4: Then grade the second-best dressed image, while viewing it alongside it's better dressed team-mate as you adjust it. 5: Work your way down, grading the most problematic images last. Always grade an image while viewing it alongside it's better dressed team-mates. In a bit more detail. 2: White Boarders. Unless images are in RAW format, I'll first add white boarders to all images. For me, white boarders on images are one of the most important things when grading images. This is key for me seeing the fine white-balance of the image. And it improves grading a consistent contrast into the team of images. If the files are in RAW format, I'll do a rough grade while the team is still in RAW. But after that I'll open them as smart-objects in photoshop, put a white boarder on them and save them out to a 'Team' folder for further grading. I have a folder of photoshop actions to automate the adding and removal of white boarders. White Boarder size: If white boarders are too wide, I find they negatively affect my perception of image contrast. If boarders are too narrow, they don't form an effective white reference in my field of view. And thin boarders can also become a strong graphic element in of themselves and distract the eye. I do this boarder sizing by eye, but I just did a quick check of the white boarder widths of various projects I've graded in the past. Film scans and digital, square and standard DSLR and film formats. White boarders for images in the grading folders are falling between 4% and 5.5% the pixel width long side of the image. I checked the white boarder on some Hasselblad-xpan images (1:2.7 AR) I've been working on. The short-side white boarder in the grading folder measures at 5%. 3: Grade the best dressed image first. I then have a conversation with the photographer about the project, what got them interested in it, and how they feel about the subject matter they photographed. To get a sense of the vibe and look they are after. In Bridge, we will then order the images from 'best-dressed' to worst. That is, from images that have the team-look, to ones that are badly in need of help. This is not the order that the images will appear in the book or on the gallery wall. I'll open the best-dressed image (the one closest to the look and vibe they are after) and we will see if we can grade it even better. I.e more consistent with the desired look and vibe they are wanting. This is the only time we'll grade an image in isolation. I.e without other images in our field of view when we are adjusting it. This then becomes the initial guide image. 4: Then grade the second-best dressed image. With the bridge window filling most of the screen, select the guide image and the second-best dressed image. Change the Bridge view to filmstrip so you just see the two images side by side filling most of the screen view. Then open up image number 2 in Photoshop. Turn off photoshops application frame. Zoom out the photoshop window until the photoshop window is the same size and covers the Bridge thumbnail behind it. With the guide image in view beside it, grade image number 2. We'll zoom the view of the number 2 image in-and-out as needed. But we'll keep returning to the side-by-side view with the guide image to keep us on track. 5: Work our way down. in Bridge, move the number 3 image between the two graded images. Select all three images in bridge and change to filmstrip view. We will see three large thumbnails mostly filling the screen. Open the no3 image in photoshop and repeat the grading-in-context step described above. We will repeat this process working our way toward the problematic images last. When the grading process gets near the end, we might rearrange the images (in Bridge) in the order they are going to be on the gallery wall, or in the book. We'll then do a final tweak finesse of the images, if needed, while viewed in this order. Sometimes there will be sub-sets of images that need their own look. But sub-sets will be handled as their own team in much the same way. I use keywords and Bridge filters to keep track of sub-sets within a Team folder. The 'Team' folder usually ends up with two other sub-folders within it. A "retired" folder and a "new recruits" folder. The main thing being is that you want to keep images in your field of view that don't have the team look/vibe down to a minimum. As they can pull you off, if they are in your field of view while grading. Regards Peter Miles ________________________________ From: Louis Dina via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2022 11:01 am To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Subject: Defeating Eye Adaptation I'm curious how others deal with "Eye Adaptation" when editing images. The longer we stare at the monitor, the more "normal" the image appears. Our eyes adjust and often fool us, at least they do me. It may be too bright, dark, contrasty, flat, over or undersaturated, etc. Sometimes I think the image looks great, but when I come back after 5 minutes, obvious needed changes scream out at me. So, what do you do to defeat eye adaptation? Thanks, Lou