jesse paulk wrote:
what dont you understand?

Actually, after the going through the first thread, I 'get' it. However, I've had many people say they appreciated the 'Here's how to do it' re HPS-FS technique made popular by Sean/mm.

I'm reposting so that

a) Anybody who wants to try it can have a method to do so
b) We (consensus) can select 'winner(s)' for the (modest) reward

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
I saw the other thread but didn't reply for a few reasons:

1. It looked like it was about to get locked.
2. The request was rather vague as to what you're looking for.
3. There have been a number of threads since the "HP sucks..." thread that explain what I think you're trying to get here.
4. There really is no complete answer to this as most of what you can do with FS is subjective. Therefore the "best" answer may not be the "correct" answer and vice versa.

You're asking for detailed, step by step instructions for how to use FS when the only detailed, step by step instructions that should be given are how to perform the separation. After that it becomes a series of "if-then" decisions.

+1 Mike. :-)

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
I saw the other thread but didn't reply for a few reasons:

1. It looked like it was about to get locked.
2. The request was rather vague as to what you're looking for.
3. There have been a number of threads since the "HP sucks..." thread that explain what I think you're trying to get here.
4. There really is no complete answer to this as most of what you can do with FS is subjective. Therefore the "best" answer may not be the "correct" answer and vice versa.

You're asking for detailed, step by step instructions for how to use FS when the only detailed, step by step instructions that should be given are how to perform the separation. After that it becomes a series of "if-then" decisions.

Feel free to contribute.

Ni Anluain wrote:

+1 Mike. :-)

Please feel free to contribute also

Richard Dubois wrote:
I was quietly reading yesterday's thread, hoping to learn something new, until it got jacked and locked.  I sincerely hope that will not be the case again today.

I'm with you Richard....the idea is for people who want to learn more about HPS-FS to have one useful thread. Not to 'master' a million variations; just a concise, well-explained synopsis of HPS-FS and some usable 'recipes'.

rey sison photography wrote:
IMHO, award should go to Angela. She didn't argue the validity of OP's issues or questions. Instead of turning this into her personal soapbox, she simply responded as he requested.

Agreed...World class response and professionalism.

Paul Dempsey wrote:
I thought Angelas post was excellent.  Although there are certainly different approaches and many variations to this topic, hers was clear, clean, understandable and well presented.

My thanks to Angela.
Paul

Agreed as above.

rey sison photography wrote:
IMHO, award should go to Angela. She didn't argue the validity of OP's issues or questions. Instead of turning this into her personal soapbox, she simply responded as he requested.

+1  Her video was kick ass and really opened my eyes...just my humble opinion. 

Paul Dempsey wrote:
I thought Angelas post was excellent.  Although there are certainly different approaches and many variations to this topic, hers was clear, clean, understandable and well presented.

My thanks to Angela.
Paul

+1 
I have smoothed skin in MANY different ways, but I like the way that she does hers.  The explanation and video was short, concise and extraordinarily informative.

rey sison photography wrote:
This was done in 10 minutes using Angela's technique so it's not a complete clean up. My extra step involves separating frequency layers twice. With the first separation I clean up texture on the HF layer. Then stamp visible and separate a second time. With the second separation, I focus on the LF to smooth skin tones. As someone pointed out, surface blur in 16 bit mode takes forever so I just use GB.

Very nice!

Thanks for discussing your extra step...makes sense

rey sison photography wrote:
As someone pointed out, surface blur in 16 bit mode takes forever so I just use GB.

Someone...




But, I don't really see the point of opening yet another thread on how to do this. Although yesterdays was hijacked, it had many good, clear and useful advice.

There is nothing more to tell you unless you want a step by step for every situation. Something that would be impossible to do.

Lanenga wrote:
But, I don't really see the point of opening yet another thread on how to do this. Although yesterdays was hijacked, it had many good, clear and useful advice.

There is nothing more to tell you unless you want a step by step for every situation. Something that would be impossible to do.

+1

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

+1

I agree that at some point OP and the rest of us need to go back and start experimenting with these techniques but I don't agree that the discussion has to stop right now. It's like saying because there are an infinite number of ways to use strobe lights, there is no point in having more than a brief discussion once you have learned how to hook them up.

My .02

rey sison photography wrote:

I agree that at some point OP and the rest of us need to go back and start experimenting with these techniques but I don't agree that the discussion has to stop right now. It's like saying because there are an infinite number of ways to use strobe lights, there is no point in having more than a brief discussion once you have learned how to hook them up.

My .02

I got a point there. I guess some of us don't want to do it all over again. Anyway, the OP posted the link of the old thread if somebody wants to see my posts. If this thread menages to survive for a little longer, I'll join the parts. Until then...

rey sison photography wrote:
I agree that at some point OP and the rest of us need to go back and start experimenting with these techniques but I don't agree that the discussion has to stop right now. It's like saying because there are an infinite number of ways to use strobe lights, there is no point in having more than a brief discussion once you have learned how to hook them up.

My .02

True and there is a reason to why the original HPS thread is so big/long.
It is because it contains a LOT of useful information.

It's like saying: Yes I want more explanations, but I don't want to read, I would like others to show me.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

I got a point there. I guess some of us don't want to do it all over again. Anyway, the OP posted the link of the old thread if somebody wants to see my posts. If this thread menages to survive for a little longer, I'll join the parts. Until then...

Why you always: "I am surprised this lasted so long" and the "This won't last long" and all that negative crap.

RK Enhanstoration wrote:

Feel free to contribute.

Please see #3 in my post. All this has been hashed and rehashed in various threads here. The only difference in this thread is the offering of a modest reward. I have contributed in many ways to this specific discussion and will continue to do so. What I won't do is spoonfeed people the same regurgitated meal over and over.

Look for the other threads on this topic and you'll see what I mean.

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

Why you always: "I am surprised this lasted so long" and the "This won't last long" and all that negative crap.

Because that is what happens. I'm not motivated to post in controversial threads that end up hidden, locked or deleted and all of this in less than 24h since they were started. And you shouldn't act so surprised, because you were in several of them. And before you jump to conclusion, I'm not blaming anyone personally. But it's like Canon Vs. Nikon. It has a tenancy to end up like that because the nature of the discussion. I started one of the threads that ended up like that and I learned my lesson early on. Your thread "Do the Pro's blur skin?" had the potential of going the same way, luckily it didn't. I was a bit surprised to be honest.

Whether it's negative, I'm not sure. But it is a friendly warning. Take yesterdays thread for example. Angela went to the trouble of creating a youtube video, and there were other good, useful post. Than someone mentioned the "P" word, and it was the beginning of the end. BTW. I didn't say anything negative or gave any warning on that thread. When I do say it is because I'm giving my explanation for not contributing, before I can see where the thread is headed. Most of the time it's nothing new, It's just people asking the same stuff. Explaining it all over again can be time consuming and not very fun.

Lanenga wrote:

Someone...




But, I don't really see the point of opening yet another thread on how to do this. Although yesterdays was hijacked, it had many good, clear and useful advice.

There is nothing more to tell you unless you want a step by step for every situation. Something that would be impossible to do.

I opened the thread again BECAUSE the first was destroyed by trolls, locked, then buried. I only intended one simple thread to answer one specific request.

Lanenga wrote:
True and there is a reason to why the original HPS thread is so big/long.
It is because it contains a LOT of useful information.

It's like saying: Yes I want more explanations, but I don't want to read, I would like others to show me.

Actually, I have read all the pertinent threads. What I thought this forum needed was a clear, concise summary from an 'expert' in HPS-FS... especially for people who have 'heard about' the HPS stuff and wanted a crisp synopsis. There were many excellent responses, especially Angela's video and KS's comments/links (and others).

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

Because that is what happens. I'm not motivated to post in controversial threads that end up hidden, locked or deleted and all of this in less than 24h since they were started. And you shouldn't act so surprised, because you were in several of them. And before you jump to conclusion, I'm not blaming anyone personally. But it's like Canon Vs. Nikon. It has a tenancy to end up like that because the nature of the discussion. I started one of the threads that ended up like that and I learned my lesson early on. Your thread "Do the Pro's blur skin?" had the potential of going the same way, luckily it didn't. I was a bit surprised to be honest.

Whether it's negative, I'm not sure. But it is a friendly warning. Take yesterdays thread for example. Angela went to the trouble of creating a youtube video, and there were other good, useful post. Than someone mentioned the "P" word, and it was the beginning of the end. BTW. I didn't say anything negative or gave any warning on that thread. When I do say it is because I'm giving my explanation for not contributing, before I can see where the thread is headed. Most of the time it's nothing new, It's just people asking the same stuff. Explaining it all over again can be time consuming and not very fun.

ok cool. You be the sargent at arms!

Lanenga wrote:

True and there is a reason to why the original HPS thread is so big/long.
It is because it contains a LOT of useful information.

It's like saying: Yes I want more explanations, but I don't want to read, I would like others to show me.

Not the spirit of the thread. I asked for an expert to provide an intelligent summary/recap that would be useful to the mm community. Angela's video has had an impressive hit count...I suspect most if not all who watched it appreciated her efforts.

RK Enhanstoration wrote:

Not the spirit of the thread. I asked for an expert to provide an intelligent summary/recap that would be useful to the mm community. Angela's video has had an impressive hit count...I suspect most if not all who watched it appreciated her efforts.

And if you look through the original thread and most of the "Cliff's Notes" threads there are a number of links to video tutorials that explain this in very simple terms. There are a number of step by step tutorials that are written for someone who doesn't "get it" as well.

Bottom line I get from this thread is laziness. Someone is offering you a free meal if you're willing to go get it. You're in here asking for people to bring it to you.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:

Please see #3 in my post. All this has been hashed and rehashed in various threads here. The only difference in this thread is the offering of a modest reward. I have contributed in many ways to this specific discussion and will continue to do so. What I won't do is spoonfeed people the same regurgitated meal over and over.

Look for the other threads on this topic and you'll see what I mean.

Once again the spirit of the thread is misunderstood. What you just said epitomizes the EXACT reason I asked for an intelligent and professional recap.

Being able to provide a concise and intelligent summary of a complex subject is one of the traits of true professionalism.

Most of the people who have contributed useful information are being professional and mature; people being rude/insulting/dismissive contribute nothing by being so (unless they simply enjoy being rude/insulting/dismissive). I don't understand why those people bother posting anything at all.

In my line of work if I am asked to explain Wolff-Parkinson-White to a young person, I can either (a) provide the explanation in a professional and mature fashion, or I can (b) tell him/her that Google is full of information re WPW, and I shouldn't need to 'spoonfeed' them the info.

I always choose (a)....for many reasons, not the least of which is that professionalism is mandated in my line of work.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:

And if you look through the original thread and most of the "Cliff's Notes" threads there are a number of links to video tutorials that explain this in very simple terms. There are a number of step by step tutorials that are written for someone who doesn't "get it" as well.

Bottom line I get from this thread is laziness. Someone is offering you a free meal if you're willing to go get it. You're in here asking for people to bring it to you.

I'm only interested in hearing from mature professionals. Your rudeness is unwelcome. As OP, I retract my invitation to you to contribute; you are more than welcome to ignore this thread.

RK Enhanstoration wrote:
Once again the spirit of the thread is misunderstood. What you just said epitomizes the EXACT reason I asked for an intelligent and professional recap.

Being able to provide a concise and intelligent summary of a complex subject is one of the traits of true professionalism.

Most of the people who have contributed useful information are being professional and mature; people being rude/insulting/dismissive contribute nothing by being so (unless they simply enjoy being rude/insulting/dismissive). I don't understand why those people bother posting anything at all.

In my line of work if I am asked to explain Wolff-Parkinson-White to a young person, I can either (a) provide the explanation in a professional and mature fashion, or I can (b) tell him/her that Google is full of information re WPW, and I shouldn't need to 'spoonfeed' them the info.

I always choose (a)....for many reasons, not the least of which is that professionalism is mandated in my line of work.

I understand exactly what the spirit of this thread is. And I'll say it again since it seems professionals aren't capable of understanding simple concepts: There is nothing in this thread that is not in other similar threads on this topic except the reward. There are very simple, concise tutorials as well as videos that explain exactly what you're asking here.

So the question is: do you want to learn how to fish or do you want people to keep bringing you the fish? We all know what a true professional would do.

If I appear to be rude and mocking that's just the way you are taking it. I'm trying to get you to understand that what you're asking for is already available and not very far away.

Ni Anluain wrote:
oh whatever, peeps have no sense of humor any more!

There be no point in my contributing as you asked earlier RK, as well I'm just re-hashing what everyone else has already told ya and is already in several threads and explained several times in said threads.....thats my contribution, go re-read and learn more *shrug*

Yeah. I guess the mature and professional thing to do is ask others to do your work for you.

It's not that I don't want to help. It's that I don't want to go over the same things the OP claims to have read. If there was a more specific question to answer then I'd gladly answer it. If he quoted a post he doesn't quite get, no problem.

This is why teachers (who last time I checked are professionals) want students to do their own homework and not cheat on tests.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Yeah. I guess the mature and professional thing to do is ask others to do your work for you.

It's not that I don't want to help. It's that I don't want to go over the same things the OP claims to have read. If there was a more specific question to answer then I'd gladly answer it. If he quoted a post he doesn't quite get, no problem.

This is why teachers (who last time I checked are professionals) want students to do their own homework and not cheat on tests.