Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
grahamsz, I'm not sure if you set up your own actions for doing this, but if not you will both probably enjoy the next action I'm working on now. It does a dual separation just like you are talking about, grahamsz, and inverts a mask on the Low Low Frequency layer to allow unmasking for easier touchup. I've found that for a lot of things this works better and quicker than either the healing tool or clone stamp.

Perhaps you are thinking of this differently, but i think there's something to be said for manually selecting the regions which will have the 'bandstop' applied to them. If you lasso an area and apply a gauss (or my current favorite a surface) blur to it, then it doesn't seem to pick up any of the colors outside of the lassoed area. If you were to do that wholesale to the image on it's own layer then i feel like you'd get a lot of bleed near sharp changes in tone.

Or perhaps i just completely misunderstand you. It's been a long day of editing and i'm halfway through a bottle of wine at this point. Though my current avatar has made it all worthwhile

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
My own personal action (which is what I use to test this stuff out before even considering making an action for everyone) will go through multiple separations giving me the option to stop or pass specific bands of frequencies.

I've done some modification to one of your early separating actions to duplicate the LF layer and add the two curves layers, and i'm not sure how you could improve too much on that

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Then, if I can figure out how, I'm going to try to take it to the next level and write up an interactive script that will do this. I would love to have access to a way to make a plugin for this but for now this is all I got.

Tell me about it. I've been looking for a good CUDA project for months now and this is screaming at me, i've just got too much else on my plate right now.

grahamsz wrote:
Perhaps you are thinking of this differently, but i think there's something to be said for manually selecting the regions which will have the 'bandstop' applied to them. If you lasso an area and apply a gauss (or my current favorite a surface) blur to it, then it doesn't seem to pick up any of the colors outside of the lassoed area. If you were to do that wholesale to the image on it's own layer then i feel like you'd get a lot of bleed near sharp changes in tone.

Or perhaps i just completely misunderstand you. It's been a long day of editing and i'm halfway through a bottle of wine at this point. Though my current avatar has made it all worthwhile

No, I think you understood me. I think we just use that extra Low Frequency layer differently. I don't use it on full areas, but rather spots similar to using the healing brush. I do it on low opacity so I can blend it into the surrounding areas.

I really wish I had the software to write a plugin. Might be time to get my Linux out again.

grahamsz wrote:
I think this might be the only 14 page thread i've seen on here that's not about models flaking, only doing paid nude gigs or escorts.

And your avatar is definitely worth it.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
I really wish I had the software to write a plugin. Might be time to get my Linux out again.

Hey Photons, just wanted to say what a great job you are doing with this.

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.

Dude, glass houses, I'm seriously biting my hand because this isn't a critique forum.
Sigh, why bother?

OP: Great post, thank you so much, It's a very generous and lovely gesture to go to so much trouble to share your knowledge for those of us who are interested in improving our pictures.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
I really wish I had the software to write a plugin. Might be time to get my Linux out again.

I haven't tried to write a plugin since PS3 but it didn't seem to tough. You could probably do it in the free Visual Studio express. I'd probably start building an external proof of concept app and then wrap it into a plugin if it goes well - but i know what a time drain that could be.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
I really wish I had the software to write a plugin. Might be time to get my Linux out again.

PixelBender.  Even I can make it do cool things.

Sean Baker wrote:

PixelBender.  Even I can make it do cool things.

I just found out about PixelBender last week and downloaded it so I haven't had the time to dig into it yet. That day is coming soon.

I've read a bit about it, though, and according to what I've read it is still limited in functionality whereas a full-blown plugin coded with C++ isn't. I won't know until I dig in, though. It'll be fun to play with at any rate.

grahamsz wrote:

I haven't tried to write a plugin since PS3 but it didn't seem to tough. You could probably do it in the free Visual Studio express. I'd probably start building an external proof of concept app and then wrap it into a plugin if it goes well - but i know what a time drain that could be.

I'll definitely check into the express version. It might work.

Thanks for the tip.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
I just found out about PixelBender last week and downloaded it so I haven't had the time to dig into it yet. That day is coming soon.

I've read a bit about it, though, and according to what I've read it is still limited in functionality whereas a full-blown plugin coded with C++ isn't. I won't know until I dig in, though. It'll be fun to play with at any rate.

It is limited right now, mainly in terms of data types (matrices, image types, etc) but is supposed to be expanded soon.  I will say, though, that one can create as many functional matrices as one wants using additional copies of the source image, creating separate 'pipes' for the generation of whatever maps / adjustments you want to apply.  A PITA, but as you CS4 types can take the work straight into the PS plugin without having to write a fullon plugin, it's not so bad.  I gave up when I realized that I'd have to buy CS4 to really use it and further that what I was trying to implement will probably be in CS5 when I buy that anyways.  D'oh.

Tarlton Photography wrote:
Ok, I will admit that this is all above me at this point. I'm still learning..hence the reason I came to the forums...I'm wondering it this effect is what this is suppose to do...the crisp bright look to the picture...like this one of Sean's



I have been wondering how to get that effect...but all of this to me at my stage of editing techniques is mind numbing. I want to produce better images...and appreciate the help of everyone in the forums.

Also I was wondering if this technique has to be done on an image shot in RAW format or can it be done to any Jpeg image

Tarlton Photography wrote:

Also I was wondering if this technique has to be done on an image shot in RAW format or can it be done to any Jpeg image

Only Sean can really answer what he did on his image. I'm sure there was a lot more involved than just this technique presented here.

I can answer the other question. This can be done on any image, though you'll find that larger images work better for this than smaller. The image format doesn't matter.

Tarlton Photography wrote:
Ok, I will admit that this is all above me at this point. I'm still learning..hence the reason I came to the forums...I'm wondering it this effect is what this is suppose to do...the crisp bright look to the picture...like this one of Sean's



I have been wondering how to get that effect...but all of this to me at my stage of editing techniques is mind numbing. I want to produce better images...and appreciate the help of everyone in the forums.

Take a look here.  I don't want to distract anyone who's read this much by discussion of an image which, as P2P is correct in saying, is done using very different techniques.

mikedimples wrote:
On second look, I think I may have over-sharpened this one a bit...

I love it!

Aaron Asch Photographer wrote:
The technique I used was to first remove the most obvious and distracting elements via the patch tool. I then applied the Frequency Separation with an initial Gaussian Blur of 4. The key to getting this right is to make sure the finest details are preserved in the High Frequency layer. I found with this file, 4 was the magic number for the blur. My next step was to turn off visibility for the HF layer and then duplicate the LF layer. I then selected the skin of the face with the lasso tool, and feathered with a radius of 15 pixels. Another Gaussian Blur of 4 was applied. The rest of the work was done on this layer by way of the the patch tool to smooth out the tones and a little D&B in a couple of areas. I then turned visibility back on for the HF layer and then duplicated the HF layer, and reduced opacity to around 25%. Total time about 30 minutes. So we have an extremely powerful skin retouching technique combined with a fantastic sharpening technique. Truly revolutionary stuff here.

Fun, isn't it?  Just wait until you start cloning pores out of the high frequency layer and / or one of these guys write a plugin in detect orientation and normalize pore orientation within a selection - that's going to be a revolution in retouching .

Sean Baker wrote:
Fun, isn't it?  Just wait until you start cloning pores out of the high frequency layer and / or one of these guys write a plugin in detect orientation and normalize pore orientation within a selection - that's going to be a revolution in retouching .

Very much fun. I'm very excited about this whole process as it is such a massive time saver and a far more accurate technique than anything I've done before. Thanks again for kicking it all off.

Aaron Asch Photographer wrote:
Very much fun. I'm very excited about this whole process as it is such a massive time saver and a far more accurate technique than anything I've done before. Thanks again for kicking it all off.

You're welcome, though I feel like an asshat realizing how few people knew about it all while I was sitting on it .

Sean Baker wrote:
You're welcome, though I feel like an asshat realizing how few people knew about it all while I was sitting on it .

Yeah until this thread I had no idea what "Apply Image" was. All good things come in due time.
You and the other supporting characters in this thread have helped to open a new way of processing. That's a wonderful thing. Keep up the good work.

Aaron Asch Photographer wrote:
I just want to say thanks again to all those that have contributed to this wonderful thread. This frequency separation technique, to  me, is quite revolutionary. The beauty of it is just how absolutely flexible it is. I was initially amazed at the way it sharpened and left it at that. But upon rereading the thread some great new developments arose. So I decided to experiment some more. Below is a before and after cropped sample of a photo that Andrew Thomas posted a while back for us to download. It was shot with a 35mp Hasselblad.


To me the most amazing thing about this is the ability to separate the detail of the skin from the tones of the skin. Thus having the freedom to work on one or the other. Notice in the example above the ability to keep every bit of detail from the flecks of makeup to the fine hairs and pores and still smooth out the blotchy skin tones. What used to take hours I was able to do in about 30 minutes. Here is a link so that you can see the before  and after images better. Simply roll over the photos to see the changes:
www.aaschphoto.com/Temp/FST/FST.htm

The technique I used was to first remove the most obvious and distracting elements via the patch tool. I then applied the Frequency Separation with an initial Gaussian Blur of 4. The key to getting this right is to make sure the finest details are preserved in the High Frequency layer. I found with this file, 4 was the magic number for the blur. My next step was to turn off visibility for the HF layer and then duplicate the LF layer. I then selected the skin of the face with the lasso tool, and feathered with a radius of 15 pixels. Another Gaussian Blur of 4 was applied. The rest of the work was done on this layer by way of the the patch tool to smooth out the tones and a little D&B in a couple of areas. I then turned visibility back on for the HF layer and then duplicated the HF layer, and reduced opacity to around 25%. Total time about 30 minutes. So we have an extremely powerful skin retouching technique combined with a fantastic sharpening technique. Truly revolutionary stuff here.

I believe this way does work better than my current method as I discussed with grahamsz earlier in the thread. I may end up re-doing the action to include this step but it would have to be done using a script. I'm trying to stay away from scripts, though, as they seem to intimidate people. I could also set it up in 2 separate actions. Do the initial then go to your LF layer, make your selection and start the 2nd action.

Try linking a curves adjustment layer to the HF layer and adjust for higher contrast. Fun stuff there.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
I believe this way does work better than my current method as I discussed with grahamsz earlier in the thread. I may end up re-doing the action to include this step but it would have to be done using a script. I'm trying to stay away from scripts, though, as they seem to intimidate people. I could also set it up in 2 separate actions. Do the initial then go to your LF layer, make your selection and start the 2nd action.

Try linking a curves adjustment layer to the HF layer and adjust for higher contrast. Fun stuff there.

Yes, for facial areas a large blur radius on the bandstop filter doesn't work so well, it works wonders for the rest of the body though. But with the ability of the patch tool to smooth and blend tones it's perfect for the tones on facial areas.

I actually did link a curves adjustment to the HF layer. I just forgot to mention it above. And yes you can definitely refine the sharpening with that adjustment. In fact, the action that I created to set up the initial layers puts this in there for me. It's things like that adjustment layer that just make this technique such a powerful and flexible way to work. Once one understands how the setup works and what the layers are used for it really is an unparalleled way to work.

Aaron Asch Photographer wrote:

Yes, for facial areas a large blur radius on the bandstop filter doesn't work so well, it works wonders for the rest of the body though. But with the ability of the patch tool to smooth and blend tones it's perfect for the tones on facial areas.

I actually did link a curves adjustment to the HF layer. I just forgot to mention it above. And yes you can definitely refine the sharpening with that adjustment. In fact, the action that I created to set up the initial layers puts this in there for me. It's things like that adjustment layer that just make this technique such a powerful and flexible way to work. Once one understands how the setup works and what the layers are used for it really is an unparalleled way to work.

I was copying the LF layer and blurring the whole thing, then set an inverted mask on it and unmask the areas I wanted to bandstop. As grahamsz explained, though, around the edges of the face you will get a mixture of hair or shadows blurred in so you spend time working out those odd tones. Lassoing seems to work better for that purpose. I'm starting the lassoing now, but keeping the inverted mask idea with it.

I usually use the healing brush to even out tones. I really should try out the patch tool, though. It's time to spread my wings a bit I think. And yes, this little golden nugget has truly helped me with my retouching work. It hasn't cut down on my time (it's actually increased it) but it has greatly improved the quality of what I put out in the same amount of time.

It's reminiscent of my paying job repairing industrial equipment. This is like changing the failed part instead of using duct tape and WD-40 to keep it running.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
I usually use the healing brush to even out tones. I really should try out the patch tool, though. It's time to spread my wings a bit I think. And yes, this little golden nugget has truly helped me with my retouching work. It hasn't cut down on my time (it's actually increased it) but it has greatly improved the quality of what I put out in the same amount of time.

I use the patch tool more than almost any other tool in the arsenal for skin retouching. It's ability to blend and keep texture is the key. You can also move texture from one area to another by switching from "source" to "destination" on the tool bar. 99% of the time I use it in "source" mode though. I recommend creating your selections with a pen tablet if you have one. This way you can cover a lot more ground very quickly. If you aren't too familiar with the patch tool it takes a little getting used to. But once you understand how it works you can fly with it. The thing to remember with the patch tool is that after you draw your initial selection you then drag that selection to a similar area. It will fill with that area's texture keeping the tones intact. If that makes any sense. What's really cool is using the patch tool on the LF layer with the visibility of HF layer turned on. It's pretty neat to see the changes happen underneath the texture of the HF layer.

Aaron Asch Photographer wrote:
I use the patch tool more than almost any other tool in the arsenal for skin retouching. It's ability to blend and keep texture is the key. You can also move texture from one area to another by switching from "source" to "destination" on the tool bar. 99% of the time I use it in "source" mode though. I recommend creating your selections with a pen tablet if you have one. This way you can cover a lot more ground very quickly. If you aren't too familiar with the patch tool it takes a little getting used to. But once you understand how it works you can fly with it. The thing to remember with the patch tool is that after you draw your initial selection you then drag that selection to a similar area. It will fill with that area's texture keeping the tones intact. If that makes any sense. What's really cool is using the patch tool on the LF layer with the visibility of HF layer turned on. It's pretty neat to see the changes happen underneath the texture of the HF layer.

Yeah, I almost exclusively use the patch tool for blemish removal, then clone stamp tool for high contrast boarder areas.  I find this to be far superior to using any of the other healing type as you dont run into over sampling areas.

I also am old school keyboard and mouse. Been using PS way longer than tablets existed so this is just how I'm use to working. However I can select areas very rapidly with the mouse, as fast as I think I could with a stylus, and for precision, I just alt+click.

Been thinking about trying out a tablet, but I retouch so much I don't think I could hold a pen for that long without crippling myself. I'll have to start a thread one day asking retouchers what they use, what they think and how many hours a day they retouch for.

Virtuoso Skins wrote:
Yeah, I almost exclusively use the patch tool for blemish removal, then clone stamp tool for high contrast boarder areas.  I find this to be far superior to using any of the other healing type as you dont run into over sampling areas.

I also am old school keyboard and mouse. Been using PS way longer than tablets existed so this is just how I'm use to working. However I can select areas very rapidly with the mouse, as fast as I think I could with a stylus, and for precision, I just alt+click.

Been thinking about trying out a tablet, but I retouch so much I don't think I could hold a pen for that long without crippling myself. I'll have to start a thread one day asking retouchers what they use, what they think and how many hours a day they retouch for.

I have a drawing background so a pen tablet was just a natural transition for me. I've had one for ten years and couldn't imagine doing what I do without one. For precision and speed nothing is better. Especially when painting a mask. For that task a mouse is cumbersome and sloppy. But whatever works for you. You very well may have mastered using the mouse for that. But if you do decide to get a tablet, get a good one. They are far more accurate allowing for precise control. Give one an honest try and I'm certain you will not go back to your old ways.

Sean Baker wrote:

Take a look here.  I don't want to distract anyone who's read this much by discussion of an image which, as P2P is correct in saying, is done using very different techniques.

Thanks Sean

Virtuoso Skins wrote:
Yeah, I almost exclusively use the patch tool for blemish removal, then clone stamp tool for high contrast boarder areas.  I find this to be far superior to using any of the other healing type as you dont run into over sampling areas.

I also am old school keyboard and mouse. Been using PS way longer than tablets existed so this is just how I'm use to working. However I can select areas very rapidly with the mouse, as fast as I think I could with a stylus, and for precision, I just alt+click.

Been thinking about trying out a tablet, but I retouch so much I don't think I could hold a pen for that long without crippling myself. I'll have to start a thread one day asking retouchers what they use, what they think and how many hours a day they retouch for.

I am late to this good thread and might ask a question that has been already asked. I also use the patch tool for most of my work and normally use it on a duplicate layer. I tried using it on the high frequency and low frequency layers but was not satisfied with the amount of control I have in reducing the opacity. I also like to work on more than one duplicate layer reducing each by 50 percent to get a natural look. Am I doing something wrong here?

Is there a way to work with duplicate layers or should I do all my major retouching before using the frequency action?

Glamour  Retouch wrote:

I am late to this good thread and might ask a question that has been already asked. I also use the patch tool for most of my work and normally use it on a duplicate layer. I tried using it on the high frequency and low frequency layers but was not satisfied with the amount of control I have in reducing the opacity. I also like to work on more than one duplicate layer reducing each by 50 percent to get a natural look. Am I doing something wrong here?

Is there a way to work with duplicate layers or should I do all my major retouching before using the frequency action?

If you're referring to reducing the opacity of your duplicate layers as a whole as part of your blending, you could put the high and low frequency layers into a layer group and lower the group's opacity to taste, making as many groups as you like for working through.

(if I understood the question correctly)

Sean Baker wrote:
If you're referring to reducing the opacity of your duplicate layers as a whole as part of your blending, you could put the high and low frequency layers into a layer group and lower the group's opacity to taste, making as many groups as you like for working through.

(if I understood the question correctly)

Yes I think you understand me. Now sometimes I might use a duplicate layer many times before I am done with my retouching. Would this work with many layers.

Glamour  Retouch wrote:

Yes I think you understand me. Now sometimes I might use a duplicate layer many times before I am done with my retouching. Would this work with many layers.

Again assuming I understand what you're doing, yes it should.  You'd treat each group the way you would one of your original layers.  The downside will of course be that you're doubling the amount of image data per 'layer', and for that reason you may want to consider re-merging the layers after you're doing editing the high and low frequency layers and then treating them as you always have.  The advantage to this way of doing the separations is that you can do this almost infinitely before you'd get any meaningful degradation of the image quality, so while there is a small logistic hurdle in re-separating them later on, for most folks it's more valuable to have smaller file sizes.

Sean Baker wrote:

Again assuming I understand what you're doing, yes it should.  You'd treat each group the way you would one of your original layers.  The downside will of course be that you're doubling the amount of image data per 'layer', and for that reason you may want to consider re-merging the layers after you're doing editing the high and low frequency layers and then treating them as you always have.  The advantage to this way of doing the separations is that you can do this almost infinitely before you'd get any meaningful degradation of the image quality, so while there is a small logistic hurdle in re-separating them later on, for most folks it's more valuable to have smaller file sizes.

Ok I understand you. Thank you very much.

Glamour  Retouch wrote:
Ok I understand you. Thank you very much.

There are a number of things that are hard to deal with post-frequency-separation.

* Stray hairs that are wider than the separation radius (can happen if they are out of focus)
* Scars and birthmarks
* Clothing labels, traffic signs
* Anything needing liquify

Usually i deal with those using conventional tools, then separate and try not to miss anything.

grahams wrote:

There are a number of things that are hard to deal with post-frequency-separation.

* Stray hairs that are wider than the separation radius (can happen if they are out of focus)
* Scars and birthmarks
* Clothing labels, traffic signs
* Anything needing liquify









Usually i deal with those using conventional tools, then separate and try not to miss anything.

Thanks for the comment. I agree that I will do all my major retouching before I separate the image. I also want to again thank Sean Baker and Mike at Photons 2 Pixels Images for replying to me with their help.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Reading everything here...

I think the important thing about ANY technique is not to use it for everything.

This is a very powerful and useful technique for a lot of things, but u can't rely on any single technique to retouch an entire image.

Different "problems" ask for different solutions.

Just my 2 cents.

x

Well it is more than just 2 cent my friend. I also agree with you.