Technical details

That being said, it is perfectly legitimate for one photographer to be interested in the tools and techniques used by another. In the off chance that anyone is interested, here is a rundown of the equipment and software I use and a brief overview of my workflow.

Note: I find myself using the Panasonic G2 and G3 more and more over the D700. They are well-designed, a pleasure to use, and offer equal (G2) or better (G3) megapixel ratings. Lens quality is excellent (they are Leica optics, after all), with an effective focal length equal to twice the full-frame equivalent (due to the half-full-frame size "four-thirds" sensor. At low ISOs I am hard-pressed to find even a subtle superiority of D700 images over the G2/G3 (the D700 has a definite advantage for high ISO work). With my 4 Lumix lenses I cover a 14-600mm equivalent range in a kit that fits into a medium-sized backpack and does not require a donkey to carry. See for yourself; all the images in my Alaska portfolio were taken with the G2.

My Workflow

This is a general outline of my workflow. Specifics will, of course, change from image to image.

The first steps are done in Lightroom. I find the LR Raw converter to be fine for 98% of my photos. Once in a while I will try the Nikon, Panasonic, or Canon converters that came with my cameras, and occasionally this will provide a subtly better conversion than LR.

I then make the various image adjustments that LR does so well: crop/rotate, white balance, exposure, vibrance, blacks, and clarity are the ones I use most often. I do not fiddle with the contrast because I can do that better in Photoshop. I also set the sharpening to 0 because I also do that in PS.

Next, I open the image in Photoshop. Opening as a SmartObject is a nice idea because all of your edits are non-destructive, but some of the tools and techniques I use will not work with a SmartObject, so this is not an option for me.

Many photographers don't use PS for most of their images, using only LR for image manipulations and printing. I find this hard to understand, except perhaps in a production environment where photos do not get individual attention. There is so much I can do in PS that cannot be done in LR! And, even if I don't end up using any PS adjustments on a particular image, I almost always will try some of these adjustments out to see if they improve the image.

The first step in Photoshop is to apply capture sharpening. I do this using PK Sharpener, after which I flatten the image and save it. Because capture sharpening is a basic enhancement that I use on every image, it's OK to do this in a non-reversible way (that is, not keeping the sharpening step as a separate layer).

I mentioned changing contrast in Photoshop rather than in LR. I do this with curves (not with the contrast adjustment). Curves let me adjust contrast for specific parts of the tonal range. For example, I can increase the contrast in the midtones while leaving the highlights and shadows unchanged, or decrease shadow contrast and increase highlight contrast.

There are so many adjustments available in PS that I will not even try to go into detail. You really need to spend time¾and it takes a lot of time¾to learn the software thoroughly and understand what it can and cannot do for your photos. Also, it is impossible to overemphasize the importance of profiling your monitor so that what you see on the screen will reasonably match your prints.

Once I have the image looking on-screen as I want it, there are 2 or 3 steps remaining before I can print: soft-proofing and output sharpening for sure, up-rezzing maybe.

Soft proofing is necessary because the output characteristics of your screen and your printer are different. Soft proofing lets you see on-screen what the image will look like when printed on a specific paper using a specific printer. You won't get an exact match simply because monitors, which emit light, and prints, which reflect light, are fundamentally different. Even so, soft proofing is an invaluable tool for getting your prints to look "just so," not to mention saving a lot of time, paper, and ink.

First, set up soft proofing in Photoshop to use the appropriate printer/paper profile. Be sure to use Perceptual for the rendering intent and turn the Black Point Compensation option on. Now you can toggle soft proofing for the image by hitting Ctrl+Y and note the changes in appearance.

At this point there is a bit of a quandry. I have worked hard in Photoshop to get the image just as I want the print to look, and soft proofing tells me that the print will not in fact look like that! Here's how I deal with this situation:

1. I make a duplicate of the image in Photoshop and arrange the original and the duplicate side-by-side.

2. Then I turn on soft proofing for the original and leave it off for the copy. At this point the copy will look the way I want the print to look and the original will not.

3. Finally, I manipulate the original image to make it look as close as possible to the copy.

I save the image at this point, using a file name that identifies the printer and paper. This is my master for this printer/paper combination.

Next, I decide the print size I want. This is size of the actual image when printed, not the paper size. I use Photoshop's Image, Size command to change the size of the image to the desired print size making sure that the resample image option is off. I then check the image resolution. If it is 180 dpi or higher, no up-rezzing is needed. If it is lower, I increase the resolution to 180 dpi using using Genuine Fractals. The result is an image with size equal to the desired print size and resolution of 180 dpi or greater.

Why don't I up-rez to more than 180dpi? The fact is, there's no advantage to doing so (based on my reading and my own experience). Yes, modern printers have much higher resolution than 180dpi, but the manufacturer's printer driver will take care of whatever upsampling is needed, and will do so in a way that is ideal for the printer. I don't think there is any harm in having resolution greater than 180dpi (except larger files), but there's no advantage either.

Finally, I apply output sharpening. I use PK Sharpener for this, and because the sharpening applied is dependent on the type of printer and the print resolution, I do this at the end after I have set the print size and resolution. I then save the file, using a name that identifies not only the printer and paper but also the print size. This is my master for making this size print with this printer and paper

When printing, I always let Photoshop manage the colors (as opposed to the printer driver). In theory, the printer driver can do an equally good job, but this is what I have settled on. Whichever you use, be sure not to double color manage (have color management turned on in both PS and the printer software). This is a common cause of bad colors in prints.