The Divine Emily Fine wrote:
And with that, I am officially going to kill your math teacher. I really could not understand a one word you said there. Though I do appreciate the organisation of your discussion, as much as I couldn't understand what you meant.

Follow the steps and play around. I think especially you will appreciate the technique considering your style of photography.

Yingwah Productions wrote:

Under blending, further down theres "Add" and "Subtract" not what you have selected (linear dodge add).

Thanks.  I kinda feel dumb, but at least it works now.

The Divine Emily Fine wrote:
Though I do appreciate the organization of your discussion, as much as I couldn't understand what you meant. I really wish I could understand how all those words translate in picture form.

+1
over technical imo

Sean Baker wrote:
Just wait till you apply a clipping-masked curves layer to that high-frequency layer .

^ This is no joke... that really takes it to a new level.

The more I experiment with this technique the more I like it.

The Divine Emily Fine wrote:
And with that, I am officially going to kill your math teacher. I really could not understand a one word you said there. Though I do appreciate the organisation of your discussion, as much as I couldn't understand what you meant. I really wish I could understand how all those words translate in picture form.

I'm sorry if my explanation is obtuse (math pun intended), but if you'd point out where I lost you I'd really like to try to explain this better; you're not the only one to be confused by what I've said.  This is my first time trying to write any sort of informative / tutorial post on this forum, and I'm sure there are aspects which could have been better explained.  The photo I posted illustrating the difference which a traditional HP solution introduces not surprisingly comes from my avatar, if that in any way aids in your visual interpretation of my description.  If there are additional references I can provide to the group, I'd be happy to do so.

I do hope that you'll forgive me for using a format which I'm otherwise comfortable with in elucidating it originallly - my only excuse is, it's what I know.

Tim Hammond wrote:

Thanks.  I kinda feel dumb, but at least it works now.

Don't.  If it weren't for Mr. Randall, I probably still wouldn't know that there was such a thing as an Apply Image command.  I saw it back in PS 3.0, but was too young to understand what it could mean for me.

Jarrad Kevin wrote:
^ This is no joke... that really takes it to a new level.

The more I experiment with this technique the more I like it.

Like I say, it's not that this technique is so much different in most practical aspects of 'traditional' HP usage - it's just far more accurate in separating the data, and consequently more aesthetically pleasing when properly applied.

Sean Baker wrote:

The Divine Emily Fine wrote:
And with that, I am officially going to kill your math teacher. I really could not understand a one word you said there. Though I do appreciate the organisation of your discussion, as much as I couldn't understand what you meant. I really wish I could understand how all those words translate in picture form.

I'm sorry if my explanation is obtuse (math pun intended), but if you'd point out where I lost you I'd really like to try to explain this better; you're not the only one to be confused by what I've said.  This is my first time trying to write any sort of informative / tutorial post on this forum, and I'm sure there are aspects which could have been better explained.  The photo I posted illustrating the difference which a traditional HP solution introduces not surprisingly comes from my avatar, if that in any way aids in your visual interpretation of my description.  If there are additional references I can provide to the group, I'd be happy to do so.

I do hope that you'll forgive me for using a format which I'm otherwise comfortable with in elucidating it originallly - my only excuse is, it's what I know.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Thanks.  I kinda feel dumb, but at least it works now.

Don't.  If it weren't for Mr. Randall, I probably still wouldn't know that there was such a thing as an Apply Image command.  I saw it back in PS 3.0, but was too young to understand what it could mean for me.


Like I say, it's not that this technique is so much different in most practical aspects of 'traditional' HP usage - it's just far more accurate in separating the data, and consequently more aesthetically pleasing when properly applied.

right around the first mention of "spatial frequency"

Sean Baker wrote:
Now Clone Stamp (I can't ever remember the name of the command - anyone?) the entire scene by pressing Shift+Ctrl+Alt+E (Cmd+Shift+Alt+E on Mac).

i think its just called stamp visible. and as a disclaimer to aid you in your advice - it will only work if you have a visible layer selected. if you are on a layer with pixels it will just create a new layer above the selected layer with the copy of the whole thing, and if you are on a blank layer it will insert the copy into it.

harro wrote:
Hey Sean. thanks for this. I'm getting my head around it. So I did it, and couldn't see any difference, then realized I must do something to this top layer also for sharpening.... DOH!

so, my question is.. what is the next step? I just tried what I thought to be a high pass sharpen on that layer with no luck.

Thanks, your time is appreciated!

From what I could gather, it sharpens but doesn't get more "artifacts" like regular HP.

Compare a High pass sharpening layer to the one Sean describes and you'll see its sharper but doesn't have more "artifacts" (for me it looks like grain)

Cuervo79 wrote:
Is the "less artifacts" the importance of this technique? I'm starting to like it, I was comparing a layer I used with SS and the technique you're explaining and it looked sharper with less "artifacts"

Exactly what the technique is trying to do.  By better / more accurately / with fewer artifacts separating the fine details from the larger image, you can do more with each before you run into a perceptible degradation in quality.

The Divine Emily Fine wrote:
right around the first mention of "spatial frequency"

Ignore that part then.  Seriously.  The important part is the understanding that if you would otherwise be using the HP filter to do something, this is another way of doing it which will give you a higher-quality result.  OTOH, if you'd like a more practically-based example of what spatial frequency is about, I'll point you to the research which opened my eyes to its relevance in art here (scroll midway down the page).

- Jake - wrote:
i think its just called stamp visible. and as a disclaimer to aid you in your advice - it will only work if you have a visible layer selected. if you are on a layer with pixels it will just create a new layer above the selected layer with the copy of the whole thing, and if you are on a blank layer it will insert the copy into it.

Noted, and thank you.  I'll update the OP shortly.

harro wrote:
so, my question is.. what is the next step? I just tried what I thought to be a high pass sharpen on that layer with no luck.

Thanks, your time is appreciated!

To use this technique for HP-type sharpening, copy the top layer generated by the action back to the top of your original document.  The effect should be immediately apparent.  And as suggested to others, you can apply a clipped curves layer to it to heighten the effect, run SS on it, or anything else which enters your mind.  The uses for the separation are only limited by what we choose to create with it.

Cuervo79 wrote:

From what I could gather, it sharpens but doesn't get more "artifacts" like regular HP.

Compare a High pass sharpening layer to the one Sean describes and you'll see its sharper but doesn't have more "artifacts" (for me it looks like grain)

Sean Baker wrote:

Cuervo79 wrote:
Is the "less artifacts" the importance of this technique? I'm starting to like it, I was comparing a layer I used with SS and the technique you're explaining and it looked sharper with less "artifacts"

Exactly what the technique is trying to do.  By better / more accurately / with fewer artifacts separating the fine details from the larger image, you can do more with each before you run into a perceptible degradation in quality.

The Divine Emily Fine wrote:
right around the first mention of "spatial frequency"

Ignore that part then.  Seriously.  The important part is the understanding that if you would otherwise be using the HP filter to do something, this is another way of doing it which will give you a higher-quality result.  OTOH, if you'd like a more practically-based example of what spatial frequency is about, I'll point you to the research which opened my eyes to its relevance in art here (scroll midway down the page).

- Jake - wrote:
i think its just called stamp visible. and as a disclaimer to aid you in your advice - it will only work if you have a visible layer selected. if you are on a layer with pixels it will just create a new layer above the selected layer with the copy of the whole thing, and if you are on a blank layer it will insert the copy into it.

Noted, and thank you.  I'll update the OP shortly.


To use this technique for HP-type sharpening, copy the top layer generated by the action back to the top of your original document.  The effect should be immediately apparent.  And as suggested to others, you can apply a clipped curves layer to it to heighten the effect, run SS on it, or anything else which enters your mind.  The uses for the separation are only limited by what we choose to create with it.

harro wrote:
ah right, ok, thanks.

I saw the differences quickly once I used 3 or 4 as the number to use, then you'll see the "less artifacts" on the technique Sean wrote compared to HP

Sean Baker wrote:
I'm sorry if my explanation is obtuse (math pun intended), but if you'd point out where I lost you I'd really like to try to explain this better; you're not the only one to be confused by what I've said.

"Bottom Line Up Front: High Pass is an inaccurate spatial-frequency based separation technique"

I guess you lost me at hello.  INACCURATE SPATIAL-FREQUENCY. 

I do appreciate techniques and I have been using PS for a very long time but you kind of just dove right into the really technical stuff. For those who had an idea of what you were talking about it made sense, but for those of us who didn't it was right out of a science fiction movie.

Even though I hate math I do understand and appreciate learning helpful techniques but pictures are always helpful in my learning.

Moving Exposure wrote:
I guess you lost me at hello.  INACCURATE SPATIAL-FREQUENCY. 

I do appreciate techniques and I have been using PS for a very long time but you kind of just dove right into the really technical stuff. For those who had an idea of what you were talking about it made sense, but for those of us who didn't it was right out of a science fiction movie.

50409 posted an explanation about spatial frequency last year ( here ) which can hopefully clarify what spatial frequencies are.  It's the creative application of that understanding, though, which becomes the art (sharpening being one idea).

And if his old post doesn't clarify, or you still have lingering question(s), please ask.  I just don't want to spend a few hours putting together a spatial frequency primer if the existing one covers it adequately.   I gladly will if you guys point out what questions you still have though.

AidanJamesphotography wrote:
WOW.  This is a great addition.  Thanks for the action as well. 

Reminds me of a book I am reading about how the instructor bet one of his students he could sharpen an image WITHOUT the use of a sharpen filter and using the Gaussian Blur. 

Thanks again.

Not to hijack, but you'd be an idiot to bet against there being at least a dozen ways to do almost anything in Photoshop.

Photo Visions wrote:
I am not going to read all that.

I look to create an image i can enjoy.

You take the joy out of photography.

x2
Does it look ok.. was it fun to make.. if yes to both you are on the right path..

Alfiere wrote:

x2
Does it look ok.. was it fun to make.. if yes to both you are on the right path..

..to mediocrity!

Alan John Images wrote:
What do you do if you don't have photoshop? Does this tutorial suggest that if you don't have PS, certain images that could be improved by using these methods cannot attain a certain aesthetic level, and are therefore "lost."

While I've not tested it, the technique should be 100% replicable with only minor change in other free imaging software such as The GIMP.  OTOH, I'm not sure that GIMP ever had a high pass effect, so ... this is just bonus?  Hopefully someone who's used it more recently than I can comment on HP availability in the newer versions.

In any case, there's never a need for any of these techniques.  In fact, if I were more proficient with my camera & lights, I'd have never needed to learn any of them .

Sean Baker wrote:
While I've not tested it, the technique should be 100% replicable with only minor change in other free imaging software such as The GIMP.  OTOH, I'm not sure that GIMP ever had a high pass effect, so ... this is just bonus?  Hopefully someone who's used it more recently than I can comment on HP availability in the newer versions.

In any case, there's never a need for any of these techniques.  In fact, if I were more proficient with my camera & lights, I'd have never needed to learn any of them .

Most DSLR cameras still have the filter in front of the sensor to soften the image so you don't get weird image effects with fine patterns. So I'm thinking even if my level of taking photos rises, there is still some stuff you can't have "in camera"

Alan John Images wrote:
What do you do if you don't have photoshop? Does this tutorial suggest that if you don't have PS, certain images that could be improved by using these methods cannot attain a certain aesthetic level, and are therefore "lost."

Aesthetic level is one thing, wanting to sharpen for more detail display is another.

Cuervo79 wrote:
Most DSLR cameras still have the filter in front of the sensor to soften the image so you don't get weird image effects with fine patterns. So I'm thinking even if my level of taking photos rises, there is still some stuff you can't have "in camera"

I don't know... where there's money there's a way.  I just don't have that kind of money .