login info join!
Forums > Digital Art and Retouching > try again-high pass sucks-reward offer Search   Reply
first1234last
Photographer
J Sharp
Posts: 3,437
Sacramento, California, US


BrunetteGrenade wrote:
I do believe that the information on the subject is very jumbled around. I commend RKs thread, because it's helpful. We need to be more helpful to each other instead of saying 'didn't you look here or there, it's right in front of you' Some people learn better by having things shown to them. I don't think that's a weakness nor does it make anybody less professional then someone else. Having said that, nobody would have been able to benefit from Angelas video if this thread wasn't posted. It benefits the people who are more of a visual learner.

Very well said.  I've learned something from this thread, but it sucks that we have to weed through the egos and naysayers that ruin the thread.

Oct 02 10 02:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1,805
Los Angeles, California, US


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.

After college i had 4 years of medical school and the 4 yes of specialty training. Then served in the USAF for four yes before going into private practice where I worked an 80 hr week split between the ER and my clinic. On top of that I was on call 24/7 for my 7000 patients.

When I retired a few years ago I practiced golf 4 to 6 hrs everyday and became a scratch golfer in a couple of years.

I know what teachers expect. The fact that I benefit from this thread does not make me lazy or a cheat.

Oct 02 10 02:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Richard Vernon
Posts: 89
Birmingham, England, United Kingdom


and again the thread becomes about the thread and not about the technique. I read through the HPS thread and wrote down everything i liked and practised it till i had it down, and it took me a long time, but that process gave me a far greater understanding. If people really want to learn, they will, im not convinced of the value of trying to describe a complicated process in McNugget form. Its not that the actions are that hard, its just that there are many ways of using them, its certainly not just 1 process to 'get'. maybe the next thread should be "uses for HPS", 1 person posts an example deleting flyaway hairs on the high frequency, the next person demonstrates shaping bone structure on a low frequency layer, the next how to use B&W adjustment on luminosity clipped to the high tones on a 3 frequency split to sharpen the light details according to colour, the next on how to pick different radii to fix up a complete head of hair.. 20 such posts with 20 examples and bugger all extra commentary would be an invalueable thread.

2 pennies.
Oct 02 10 03:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Rik Austin
Posts: 10,903
Austin, Texas, US


Moderator Warning!
Discuss the technique, not the thread, not yesterday's thread.

That includes arguing about what someone else said about this thread or yesterday's.

Discuss the technique or go elsewhere.
Oct 02 10 03:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Enhanstoration
Posts: 243
Niagara On The Lake, Ontario, Canada


Richard Vernon wrote:
... maybe the next thread should be "uses for HPS", 1 person posts an example deleting flyaway hairs on the high frequency, the next person demonstrates shaping bone structure on a low frequency layer, the next how to use B&W adjustment on luminosity clipped to the high tones on a 3 frequency split to sharpen the light details according to colour, the next on how to pick different radii to fix up a complete head of hair.. 20 such posts with 20 examples and bugger all extra commentary would be an invalueable thread.

2 pennies.

Excellent idea....maybe you should post these.

Thank you to all the superb photoshop operators who made instructive, amiable, and professional contributions to this thread (and the prior--aborted).
I especially thank Angela for creating a youtube video that will likely go 'viral' in the photoshop user community.

I learned much by posting this thread. Not only did I learn what I wanted to know about the 'infamous' HPS technique, I also learned much about the people who 'frequent' these threads. Needless to say, I also learned plenty re the value of using these forums as a place to ask (what I believe to be) pertinent questions in an ongoing quest to be a better image editor.

I will no longer be posting questions here, but will continue to browse and hopefully learn.

I will PM everybody who was terrific and offer personal thanks. This will
include the donation 'reward' which I used to try to stir-up interest in the question.

The thread isn't dead.....I've simply reached the 'enough is enough' stage and will no longer participate.

Thanks again!

Oct 02 10 03:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Lanenga
Posts: 843
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


Richard Vernon wrote:
Maybe the next thread should be "uses for HPS", 1 person posts an example deleting flyaway hairs on the high frequency, the next person demonstrates shaping bone structure on a low frequency layer, the next how to use B&W adjustment on luminosity clipped to the high tones on a 3 frequency split to sharpen the light details according to colour, the next on how to pick different radii to fix up a complete head of hair.. 20 such posts with 20 examples and bugger all extra commentary would be an invalueable thread.

2 pennies.

Exactly the point all the "egos" and "naysayers" are trying to make.

Don't ask the same question and expect to get a different answer.

Angela's video was and is probably the most valuable and helpful thing to come out of yesterdays thread.

Ask a new question and you will get new answers.
Because some of these "egos" and "naysayers" are the ones that contribute the most knowledge to this forum. And for as far as I know, they are not out to be negative and more then willing to help people like RK, BrunetteGrenade and Rey.

Oct 02 10 03:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Alien LiFe
Posts: 841
San Francisco, California, US


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.

+ 1 on this ... smile

That's how you change the world ... one at a time ...

Thank you for this thread since I'm learning some new PS techniques (for me, cuz I'm new to PS) and for being professional about it ...

~alfie

Oct 02 10 04:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 27,516
Dearborn, Michigan, US


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

Oct 02 10 05:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 16,997
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US


Lanenga wrote:

Exactly the point all the "egos" and "naysayers" are trying to make.

Don't ask the same question and expect to get a different answer.

Angela's video was and is probably the most valuable and helpful thing to come out of yesterdays thread. So don't ask the same question in a new thread and expect for someone to show you another great video.

Ask a new question and you will get new answers.
Because some of these "egos" and "naysayers" are the ones that contribute the most knowledge to this forum. And for as far as I know, they are not out to be negative and more then willing to help people like RK, BrunetteGrenade and Rey.

big_smile Exactly!

So far I know of 5 MM regulars (including Angela now) who have made tutorial videos showing how to use FS. Each is slightly different and shows a different way of using FS. And each is linked within the other threads.

Also, for the record, and not to pick on Angela, but some of the information she gave in her video is not correct. And Angela, you have a nice accent and you are easily understood in the video so don't worry about that. smile

Oct 02 10 06:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Lanenga
Posts: 843
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Also, for the record, and not to pick on Angela, but some of the information she gave in her video is not correct. And Angela, you have a nice accent and you are easily understood in the video so don't worry about that. smile

Well, if you bring it up, you might as well address the issue smile

but as Cuervo79 said in the previous thread on this.

You do not want to set the Sample mode of the Healing Brush to "Current and Below".
This will also sample from the Low Pass frequency layer and thus render the separation a little pointless.

You would want to work on the High pass layer. Either with you Healing brush or Stamp tool and with the Sample mode set to Current Layer

Oct 02 10 06:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
D a v i d s o n
Posts: 206
Gig Harbor, Washington, US


jesse paulk wrote:
what dont you understand?

there is no one way to do it.

every photo requires different levels.

+1

Oct 02 10 06:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1,805
Los Angeles, California, US


Lanenga wrote:

Well, if you bring it up, you might as well address the issue smile

but as Cuervo79 said in the previous thread on this.

You do not want to set the Sample mode of the Healing Brush to "Current and Below".
This will also sample from the Low Pass frequency layer and thus render the separation a little pointless.

You would want to work on the High pass layer. Either with you Healing brush or Stamp tool and with the Sample mode set to Current Layer

Angela puts a blank layer on top of the HP layer so current and below would be the blank layer and the HP layer.  If you set it to current on a blank layer, you end up sampling nothing.

Oct 02 10 06:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Lanenga
Posts: 843
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


rey sison photography wrote:
Angela puts a blank layer on top of the HP layer so current and below would be the blank layer and the HP layer.  If you set it to current on a blank layer, you end up sampling nothing.

Yes and I am telling why this would not work...


But you don't have to believe me.
Maybe you'll believe Adobe on this one:
Adobe Help

"Sample Samples data from the layers you specify. To sample from the active layer and visible layers below it, choose Current And Below."

Oct 02 10 06:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1,805
Los Angeles, California, US


Lanenga wrote:

Yes and I am telling you why this would not work...


But you don't have to believe me.
Maybe you'll believe Adobe on this one:
Adobe Help

"Sample Samples data from the layers you specify. To sample from the active layer and visible layers below it, choose Current And Below."

It's not that I don't believe you so don't get your boxers in a bunch. How are you distinguishing "current and below" from "all layers?"

Oct 02 10 07:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Lanenga
Posts: 843
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


rey sison photography wrote:
It's not that I don't believe you so don't get your boxers in a bunch. How are you distinguishing "current and below" from "all layers?"

You come here and expect people to help you out and not be negative.
Then when we help you out and point out why certain things would or would not work, you start doubting it.

And yes, I could be wrong too, but if I was not sure I would let you know that I am not sure and that I could be wrong.

Current and Below does what it says:
It samples from the current layer AND ALL the visible layers BELOW the current layer.

All Layers does also what is says:
It samples from ALL visible layers.
Meaning: The Current layer, All the visible layers below AND all the visible layer above

Oct 02 10 07:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1,805
Los Angeles, California, US


Lanenga wrote:
You come here and expect people to help you out and not be negative.
Then when we help you out and point out why certain things would or would not work, you start doubting it.

And yes, I could be wrong too, but if I was not sure I would let you know that I am not sure and that I could be wrong.

Current and Below does what it says:
It samples from the current layer AND ALL the visible layers BELOW the current layer.

How was I negative? I just asked you for clarification.

All Layers does also what is says:
It samples from ALL visible layers.
Meaning: The Current layer, All the visible layers below AND all the visible layer above

I wasn't being negative. In fact, because I respect your opinion, I just asked you for clarification.

Oct 02 10 07:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Lanenga
Posts: 843
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


rey sison photography wrote:
I wasn't being negative. In fact, because I respect your opinion, I just asked you for clarification.

I know you were not being negative.
I meant it as: "You expect us to help you out and expect us to not be negative"

It seems as if since yesterday the ones helping out are the bad guys for not wanting to repeat themselves too many times.

RK Enhanstoration wrote:
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.
BrunetteGrenade wrote:
RK just don't repond to the people that have a problem, lets keep this thread informative like it's meant to be.
rey sison photography wrote:
Yeah. I guess the mature and professional thing to do is ask others to do your work for you.
J Sharp  wrote:
Very well said.  I've learned something from this thread, but it sucks that we have to weed through the egos and naysayers that ruin the thread.

And then when we come with helpful and accurate information it is doubted without putting it to the test.

Oct 02 10 07:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1,805
Los Angeles, California, US


Lanenga wrote:

rey sison photography wrote:
I wasn't being negative. In fact, because I respect your opinion, I just asked you for clarification.

I know you were not being negative.
I meant it as: "You expect us not to help you out and expect us to not be negative"

It seems as if since yesterday the ones helping out are the bad guys for not wanting to repeat themselves too many times.

RK Enhanstoration wrote:
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.
BrunetteGrenade wrote:
RK just don't repond to the people that have a problem, lets keep this thread informative like it's meant to be.
rey sison photography wrote:
Yeah. I guess the mature and professional thing to do is ask others to do your work for you.

What's in the third box is not a quote from me. That was me quoting someone else. I appreciate everyone who contributed, including you, and I definitely have no intention of vilifying anyone. Thank you for clarifying the current, all layer, and current and below issue. I didn't know sampling from above layers was possible.

Oct 02 10 07:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1,805
Los Angeles, California, US


rey sison photography wrote:
What's in the third box is not a quote from me. That was me quoting someone else. I appreciate everyone who contributed, including you, and I definitely have no intention of vilifying anyone. Thank you for clarifying the current, all layer, and current and below issue. I didn't know sampling from above layers was possible.

BTW I did try using "current" with Angela's approach and it didn't work. Also, using her method, current and below, also led to problems. I found another way that works for me.

I don't just blindly follow what people suggest I do. I like to ask questions and proceed when things are clear in my mind. That's how I got through medical training. If you are too sensitive and don't like to be challenged or you don't like people questioning your methods or opinions, maybe you shouldn't teach.

Oct 02 10 07:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Lanenga
Posts: 843
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


rey sison photography wrote:

BTW I did try using "current" with Angela's approach and it didn't work. Also, using her method, current and below, also led to problems. I found another way that works for me.

Sounds interesting
Mind sharing it with us?

Oct 02 10 07:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1,805
Los Angeles, California, US


Lanenga wrote:

Sounds interesting
Mind sharing it with us?

Only if you promise not to rip me another asshole if I am doing something wrong.

Oct 02 10 07:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Lanenga
Posts: 843
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


rey sison photography wrote:
I don't just blindly follow what people suggest I do. I like to ask questions and proceed when things are clear in my mind. That's how I got through medical training. If you are too sensitive and don't like to be challenged or you don't like people questioning your methods or opinions, maybe you shouldn't teach.

I feel exctly the same way. Don't just follow without knowing/understanding why.
That's why I added the "...without putting it to the test" statement.

BTW. I was in med school too. Didn't enjoy it much though.

rey sison photography wrote:

Only if you promise not to rip me another asshole if I am doing something wrong.

big_smile

Oct 02 10 07:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1,805
Los Angeles, California, US


Lanenga wrote:

rey sison photography wrote:
I don't just blindly follow what people suggest I do. I like to ask questions and proceed when things are clear in my mind. That's how I got through medical training. If you are too sensitive and don't like to be challenged or you don't like people questioning your methods or opinions, maybe you shouldn't teach.

I feel exctly the same way. Don't just follow without knowing/understanding why.
That's why I added the "...without putting it to the test" statement.

BTW. I was in med school too. Didn't enjoy it much though.


big_smile

Actually I explained what I did at the top of the thread. I suspect I may be doing something redundant but this is what happened.

When I followed Angela's technique to the letter, I did find that the brush was grabbing from the LF layer as you said it would. So, yes, you were right on that count.

Then, I tried, setting the healing brush to "current" and nothing happened and so I assumed it was because I was sampling from a blank layer. Hence, why I doubted your suggestion to set to "current." If I hadn't tried it already and failed, I wouldn't have had a reason to doubt you.

Somehow, it occurred to me to do frequency separation twice. With the first separation, I just worked on the HF layer. When I was done with that, I stamped visible and then repeated the freq separation process. With the second separation, I then focused on the LF layer and applied a GB to even the tones. I have only tried this once but it seemed better. The result is the before and after I posted at the top of the thread. The tones still seem a bit uneven so I am thinking I still need to figure out what are the best GB settings.  That's it. I welcome your thoughts and suggestion. Just be gentle, LOL.

Lanenga, I don't care what others say about you, you're alright by me.

Oct 02 10 07:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Lanenga
Posts: 843
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


rey sison photography wrote:
Actually I explained what I did at the top of the thread. I suspect I may be doing something redundant but this is what happened.

Oh yes, I remember reading that smile

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

Haha

rey sison photography wrote:
When I followed Angela's technique to the letter, I did find that the brush was grabbing from the LF layer as you said it would. So, yes, you were right on that count.

Then, I tried, setting the healing brush to "current" and nothing happened and so I assumed it was because I was sampling from a blank layer. Hence, why I doubted your suggestion to set to "current." If I hadn't tried it already and failed, I wouldn't have had a reason to doubt you.

And you were correct. If you create a new blank layer on top and set Sample mode to Current Layer, you would be sampling from a blank layer and nothing would happen.

Therefore, you should not create the new blank layer but work on the High Pass layer instead.

rey sison photography wrote:
Somehow, it occurred to me to do frequency separation twice. With the first separation, I just worked on the HF layer. When I was done with that, I stamped visible and then repeated the freq separation process. With the second separation, I then focused on the LF layer and applied a GB to even the tones.

Yes this would work, but you'll add an unnecessary extra step.

You can do the separation once.
Work on the HF layer with your Healing Brush
And surface blur the LF layer.

This will get you the same result.
That's the beauty of separating into a Low and a High frequency layer.

rey sison photography wrote:
I have only tried this once but it seemed better. The result is the before and after I posted at the top of the thread. The tones still seem a bit uneven so I am thinking I still need to figure out what are the best GB settings.  That's it. I welcome your thoughts and suggestion. Just be gentle, LOL.

Do some D&B big_smile

Oct 02 10 07:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1,805
Los Angeles, California, US


Lanenga wrote:

rey sison photography wrote:
Therefore, you should not create the new blank layer but work on the High Pass layer instead.




  big_smile

That's what I was thinking. I thought I tried that but I could be wrong. Will give it another go. Thank you sir.

Oct 02 10 07:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 16,997
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US


rey sison photography wrote:
Actually I explained what I did at the top of the thread. I suspect I may be doing something redundant but this is what happened.

When I followed Angela's technique to the letter, I did find that the brush was grabbing from the LF layer as you said it would. So, yes, you were right on that count.

Then, I tried, setting the healing brush to "current" and nothing happened and so I assumed it was because I was sampling from a blank layer. Hence, why I doubted your suggestion to set to "current." If I hadn't tried it already and failed, I wouldn't have had a reason to doubt you.

Somehow, it occurred to me to do frequency separation twice. With the first separation, I just worked on the HF layer. When I was done with that, I stamped visible and then repeated the freq separation process. With the second separation, I then focused on the LF layer and applied a GB to even the tones. I have only tried this once but it seemed better. The result is the before and after I posted at the top of the thread. The tones still seem a bit uneven so I am thinking I still need to figure out what are the best GB settings.  That's it. I welcome your thoughts and suggestion. Just be gentle, LOL.

Lanenga, I don't care what others say about you, you're alright by me.

There is actually a way to do what Angela was trying to do with the blank layer, though it isn't quite so easy to explain. The reason she's placing the blank layer on top and healing onto that is to create a non-destructive approach to her workflow. So if she makes a mistake or needs to go back and undo what she's done, she can simply redo that one single layer or just a few parts of it and not the whole image.

So how can this be done with a separation? By making the High Frequency layer the only visible layer below the blank layer. But, you may be asking yourself and may very well wish to ask me how you can see what you're doing since it's almost all gray and you can't make out exactly what you're working on. There are 2 ways to do this.

First way:

1. Create a new layer on top of your High Frequency layer. Select "Create Clipping Mask" from the layer palette dropdown menu. (Alt+Ctrl+G) You will see this new layer shift slightly to the right with an arrow pointing down the the High Frequency layer. This will be the layer you heal/clone onto.
2. Select your clone stamp/healing tool and set to Current layer for sample.
3. When you want to grab a sample, make the High Frequency layer active, then switch back to the blank layer to do your healing/cloning. Remember that you will have to switch back and forth each time you want to grab a new sample.

Or, Second way:

1. Create a new layer on top of your High Frequency layer. Select "Create Clipping Mask" from the layer palette dropdown menu. (Alt+Ctrl+G) You will see this new layer shift slightly to the right with an arrow pointing down the the High Frequency layer. This will be the layer you heal/clone onto.
2. Make all layers below the High Frequency layer invisible.
3. Make a copy of the Low Frequency layer and place it on top of the blank layer you made in step #1. Make visible.
4. Change the blend mode of this LF copy to Overlay.
5. Select your clone or healing brush tool and set to Current and below for sample. Make sure your blank layer from step #1 is the active layer when you clone/heal.
6. Select your sample point and do your thing.

This will not give you an exact duplication of the original image, but it's good enough to be able to see what you are doing and where you are working on the image. This does have the added benefit of not worrying about switching back and forth between High Frequency and blank layers to grab your sample and then heal/clone.

Oct 02 10 08:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 16,997
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US


rey sison photography wrote:

For your blur radius, start at 0.1 and go up slowly until the details you wish to retain on the HF layer just blur out. I made a video explaining this and a few other extras awhile back. I no longer do things the way the video explains, but it's still useful for learning.

http://www.model-citizens.com/Tutorials … tion-1.wmv

Oct 02 10 08:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 16,997
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US


Lanenga wrote:

Well, if you bring it up, you might as well address the issue smile

I didn't want to be accused of being immature, unprofessional, and handing out unsolicited critiques. wink

Oct 02 10 08:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1,805
Los Angeles, California, US


Hey Photon:

Thanks for your substantial and generous input. I can't wait to get home and try them out. The second seems more appealing but I will try them both out.

You're much smarter than everyone else says you are!! ;D  (just kidding)
Oct 02 10 08:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 16,997
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US


rey sison photography wrote:
Hey Photon:

Thanks for your substantial and generous input. I can't wait to get home and try them out. The second seems more appealing but I will try them both out.

You're much smarter than everyone else says you are!! ;D  (just kidding)

Nah. They're right. I'm pretty stupid. I just fake the intelligent thing well enough to fool some people. wink

Oct 02 10 08:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Lanenga
Posts: 843
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
There is actually a way to do what Angela was trying to do with the blank layer, though it isn't quite so easy to explain. The reason she's placing the blank layer on top and healing onto that is to create a non-destructive approach to her workflow. So if she makes a mistake or needs to go back and undo what she's done, she can simply redo that one single layer or just a few parts of it and not the whole image.

So how can this be done with a separation? By making the High Frequency layer the only visible layer below the blank layer. But, you may be asking yourself and may very well wish to ask me how you can see what you're doing since it's almost all gray and you can't make out exactly what you're working on. There are 2 ways to do this.

Yes, I thought of ways to do it like Angela wanted to, but to me they seemed unnecessary and just a waste of time.
Since you are already not really working on the original.

So if you made a mistake, you either undo by CTRL/CMD+Z (or CTRL+ALT+Z on Win or CMD+OPTION+Z on Mac to undo multiple steps)

Or you just create a new separation from the original and mask the mistakes out

Or start over

Or...

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
First way:

1. Create a new layer on top of your High Frequency layer. Select "Create Clipping Mask" from the layer palette dropdown menu. (Alt+Ctrl+G) You will see this new layer shift slightly to the right with an arrow pointing down the the High Frequency layer. This will be the layer you heal/clone onto.
2. Select your clone stamp/healing tool and set to Current layer for sample.
3. When you want to grab a sample, make the High Frequency layer active, then switch back to the blank layer to do your healing/cloning. Remember that you will have to switch back and forth each time you want to grab a new sample.

Creating a clipping mask can also be done by
ALT/Option+Click between 2 layers in the layer palette.
Easier and faster then the ALT+CTRL+G.

EDIT:
I've been testing this methode over and over now and trying to see what the differences are and it looks like I might have been wrong.

Keep you guys updated! big_smile


Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Or, Second way:

1. Create a new layer on top of your High Frequency layer. Select "Create Clipping Mask" from the layer palette dropdown menu. (Alt+Ctrl+G) You will see this new layer shift slightly to the right with an arrow pointing down the the High Frequency layer. This will be the layer you heal/clone onto.
2. Make all layers below the High Frequency layer invisible.
3. Make a copy of the Low Frequency layer and place it on top of the blank layer you made in step #1.
4. Change the blend mode of this LF copy to Overlay.
5. Select your clone or healing brush tool and set to Current and below for sample. Make sure your blank layer from step #1 is the active layer when you clone/heal.
6. Select your sample point and do your thing.

Same story as first approach

Oct 02 10 08:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
erasm roterdam
Posts: 581
Millbury, Massachusetts, US


Thanks Angela,Very useful video.
Oct 02 10 09:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Lanenga
Posts: 843
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


Ok I think I am done testing and I believe Photons2Pixels might have a very nice solution here! big_smile

I would like to suggest the following changes

1. Do the frequency separation.
2. Duplicate the High Pass layer(CTRL/CMD+J on the HP layer)
3. Create a clipping mask of the HP layer copy(ALT/OPTION+Click between the two HP layers)
4. Set blending mode on HP layer copy to Normal
5. Use your Healing Brush/Clone stamp with Sample mode set to Current Layer
6. Add a layer mask if you want to mask out mistakes.

No switching and you can still see what you are doing
Oct 02 10 09:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1,805
Los Angeles, California, US


Lanenga wrote:
Ok I think I am done testing and I believe Photons2Pixels might have a very nice solution here! big_smile

I would like to suggest the following changes

1. Do the frequency separation.
2. Duplicate the High Pass layer(CTRL/CMD+J on the HP layer)
3. Create a clipping mask of the HP layer copy(ALT/OPTION+Click between the to HP layers)
4. Set blending mode on HP layer copy to Normal
5. Use your Healing Brush/Clone stamp with Sample mode set to Current Layer
6. Add a layer mask if you want to mask out mistakes.

No switching and you can still see what you are doing

Wish I was on my home computer. This is like waiting to try out a new golf club.

Oct 02 10 09:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Lanenga
Posts: 843
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


Here is the action:

Download

How-to use:
1. Load action into Photoshop
2. Select the layer you want to do the frequency separation on
3. Run action

8bit settings:
http://trefbal.com/work/apply_image_8bit_settings.png

16bit settings:
http://trefbal.com/work/apply_image_16bit_settings.png
Oct 02 10 09:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
A-M-P
Posts: 18,188
Orlando, Florida, US


Oops sorry guys yeah sorry about the misunderstanding with the blank layer I just like to do my cloning on a blank layer because sometimes I have to go back and mask so I rather not work on the high frequency layer itself even though it will yield the best results. I should have clarified that plus I'm not a master retoucher smile But Photons  technique it's exactly what I was trying to find how to achieve as far as working just texture in a non destructive way that you can go back and just mask if you have to instead of starting all over.


Thanks to everyone who liked the video I might make one with a better explanation and  doing the cloning step differently . I was just trying to show the frequency separation part more than anything, I probably won't upload to youtube though since I've received nasty comments from so called high end retouchers saying the technique sucks and that I should get a mac people are hilarious. Well Ciao and good night.

Angie
Oct 02 10 10:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 8,218
Olney, Maryland, US


Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
...Thanks to everyone who liked the video...

Sending you a PM.

Oct 02 10 10:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
ManoDeGato by MaryTere
Posts: 283
Guadalupe, San José, Costa Rica


Lanenga wrote:
Here is the action:

Download

How-to use:
1. Load action into Photoshop
2. Select the layer you want to do the frequency separation on
3. Run action

8bit settings:
http://trefbal.com/work/apply_image_8bit_settings.png

16bit settings:
http://trefbal.com/work/apply_image_16bit_settings.png

YAY!! thanks for the action, every day  when I open PS I swear to myself I'm going to record it, but I always forget. Glad to save a few clicks big_smile

Oct 02 10 11:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
George Thomson
Posts: 698
Concord, California, US


.. let's say there is plug-in for this, but additionally you have:

1) interactively selecting the band-splits
2) with perfect precision
3) not heavy on the memory
4) no math required (you only need a couple of sliders)

and.. let say..
5) ... No-halos!


would you pay for a plug-in like that?
how much?
Oct 03 10 12:30 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
DerW
Posts: 252
Willich, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


I just did some tests on the heal-on-high-frequency-with-a-blank-layer-on-top-without-having-so-different-display-technique ;-).

It seems like you could get a pretty accurate (about as accurate as standard high pass) result, if you create a stack of three layers after you did the separation.

From bottom to top:

1. a neutral gray layer set to "Normal", 100% opacity.
2. a blank layer set to "Normal", 50% fill opacity clipped to the high pass layer
3. the high pass layer set to "Linear Light", 100% opacity.
4. the low pass layer set to "Linear Light", 50% fill opacity.

Like in the high pass separation you'll lose details in the highlights and shadows, but I guess for a little non-destructive cloning/healing it'll work :-).

Best regards,
Jonas

Edit: I'll have to do more testing. Seemed to work, but doesn't.
Oct 03 10 12:38 am  Link  Quote 
first1234last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers