Davepit wrote:
I downloaded a separation script, as distinct from an action, written by either Sean or Koray. I downloaded it from the scripts repository thread. I ran it on a 16 bit file, with very subtle tonal variations in the sky. I ran it with the default settings.

It screwed up those variations, effectively causing banding.

Why is this?

Can you post an example?

SRB Photo wrote:
We'll need to know which script it was before we can answer accurately, but if you've not remerged the layers, sometimes PS's 'preview' version of the merged layers isn't 100% accurate and will cause the appearance of banding where none exists.  Still, let us know which one you're using so that we can determine the root of the problem.  Thanks.

Sean, I just looked through that thread. There are 2 scripts there that use separation. One is the script I wrote for your output sharpening method and the other is the one you wrote for multiple decompositions.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st11262654

Neither of those scripts should cause this problem, though.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Sean, I just looked through that thread. There are 2 scripts there that use separation. One is the script I wrote for your output sharpening method and the other is the one you wrote for multiple decompositions.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st11262654

Neither of those scripts should cause this problem, though.

Like I told him, I think the issue is more to do with the preview mode coming up from a large # of layers not accurately reflecting what a merged result would be.  That said, I can't tell you how badly my FFT plugin is mangling transforms right now, so the possibility that I butchered that code as well is real.

Davepit wrote:
I apologise for wasting your time. The issue was solely photoshop's preview problems.

Not at all - it's as important to note the appearance of a problem as it is to solve an actual one.  Can you imagine the bellyaching in here if we'd 'ruined photography' and were introducing artifacts?

d00dle wrote:
nice quality, but slow down (lil too fast to follow since i'm a noob and all)...and add some sound/music.

Maybe the theme from Peter Gunn :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcflCzZlLcQ

Interesting technique. I use something similar. I'll have to try this out!

Davepit wrote:
I downloaded a separation script, as distinct from an action, written by either Sean or Koray. I downloaded it from the scripts repository thread. I ran it on a 16 bit file, with very subtle tonal variations in the sky. I ran it with the default settings.

It screwed up those variations, effectively causing banding.

Why is this?

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Can you post an example?

It doesn't matter the sample, hon. The split done with apply image causes banding.

Doesn't like gradients with no texture to blend

x

Geyer Studio wrote:
To those who think careful thought and analytical techniques stifle the creative process:  try checking out what Ansel Adams was doing.  Maybe you have heard of him?

To the original poster:  thanks. I love carefully considered ideas.

Lee

that's an interesting discussion. the dangers of going too far up you technical rear end, and whether this affects, and distracts your visual judgment. cant hurt to have a tool box with a lot of tools in it though. I think some may have good reasons for disagreeing with even this idea. Interesting debate though

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Davepit wrote:
I downloaded a separation script, as distinct from an action, written by either Sean or Koray. I downloaded it from the scripts repository thread. I ran it on a 16 bit file, with very subtle tonal variations in the sky. I ran it with the default settings.

It screwed up those variations, effectively causing banding.

Why is this?

It doesn't matter the sample, hon. The split done with apply image causes banding.

Doesn't like gradients with no texture to blend

x

No split should cause true banding, at least not with a decent image and working in 16bit. That said, multiply split images will often appear to have considerable banding due to the vagaries of PS's preview system. If anyone is getting true banding please let me know as I'm curious to see / study it.

B Thomp wrote:
First off i want to thank everyone who put in any time and energy into this, i have only played around with it for a little bit but i am impressed by the possibilities.


I'm sorry if i missed this, i honestly didn't read everything because a lot of the beginnng was redone and redone...so i skipped to the end and read the last 4-5 pages...

There is a lot of talk about what this script can do....but i am at a loss to actually DO most of them. I am 100% self taught (no classes, but a lot of books and forum help) with PS and i know my way around pretty well but i am trying to figure out how to take this powerful tool and use it.

Can someone give a couple examples, a "how-to" on the top 3 things this can be used for.

I am no pro, and i wish nothing more then to learn from those who are MUCH MUCH smarter then i am...but this thread is hard to read. its a lot of grey area...not much black and white. I understand that i can play with all the variables to get different results....but can't we agree on a vanilla set of #'s and settings so i can start with vanilla and then work up to more complex things?

Right now it feels like i am trying to learn something much more complex then i can handle because i can't find the vanilla start i need to build from.


Many thanks to all of you guys/gals again. I am only giving my POV.

If I get some time today (which I just might) I'll record a video of using separation to make skin cleanup a bit easier. Maybe I'll throw in another use or two.

B Thomp wrote:
Can someone give a couple examples, a "how-to" on the top 3 things this can be used for.

It separates high and low frequency layers of the image.

So one is "blurred" and the second is "detailed"

You can edit the blurred one to take out shadows for instance, and the detailed one for imperfections. Others will go into more detail.

For example I had 20 wedding shots to do. Every fecking dress had lace and antique french lace on it (big kudos to Mike for suggesting this *hugs*). They DIDNT steam the dresses before hand. ugh! So using the basic HP method I got this



Thats just one example of how it can be used. Skin in the major one.

Sean has a vid tut here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnLzsZN7VMo

Ni Anluain wrote:

It separates high and low frequency layers of the image.

So one is "blurred" and the second is "detailed"

You can edit the blurred one to take out shadows for instance, and the detailed one for imperfections. Others will go into more detail.

For example I had 20 wedding shots to do. Every fecking dress had lace and antique french lace on it (big kudos to Mike for suggesting this *hugs*). They DIDNT steam the dresses before hand. ugh! So using the basic HP method I got this



Thats just one example of how it can be used. Skin in the major one.

Sean has a vid tut here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnLzsZN7VMo

Just watched the video. i see the steps being used....but its like watching a baseball game and then afterward going outside and trying to throw a knuckleball. Learning doesn't work that way. I need to read/hear what each step is doing...what changes can be made at that step and how will those changes effect the overall result.

I need a tutorial....not a demonstration.

i understand that will take a lot of time and patience... but i think if there was an instruction page we could use it would increase the scripts ease of use. When you guys want to tweak it to add functionality or reduce editing time you can just do a quick edit of the instructions.


it just seems like if someone took the 19 pages of this thread they would have everything they need. but i can't reread this whole thread every time i want to use this technique till i have it mastered.

B Thomp wrote:
i understand that will take a lot of time and patience... but i think if there was an instruction page we could use it would increase the scripts ease of use. When you guys want to tweak it to add functionality or reduce editing time you can just do a quick edit of the instructions.

Let's be clear and avoid wasting Mike's time: are you asking for assistance with using the script, or with using the technique outlined at the post's outset?

B Thomp wrote:
I surely don't want to waste time for anyone.

I can use the script and have it generate added separated layers that i can edit. I just don't know what edits i can make to each layer to change my results.


I have read several posts that contain people talking about different uses for this script and how painting, B&D, or what have you on different layers lend different results.


I understand how the script is installed and run. but i couldn't tell you what the options are and what they do. Like i said, i feel like i have a very powerful sports car idling along because i have no idea how to drive it well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're looking to see someone using separation for various purposes such as cleaning up skin, adding contrast, sharpening, etc. Is this correct?

If I'm understanding what you want, you can do the separation itself but you aren't clear on both what radius to use and why, then what to do with the layers after separation is complete.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're looking to see someone using separation for various purposes such as cleaning up skin, adding contrast, sharpening, etc. Is this correct?

If I'm understanding what you want, you can do the separation itself but you aren't clear on both what radius to use and why, then what to do with the layers after separation is complete.

Exactly...
you recapped what i wanted easier then i said it. Thanks.

B Thomp wrote:

Exactly...
you recapped what i wanted easier then i said it. Thanks.

One more question for you: Which action/script are you using, if any, to do your separation? Just so I know which layers you end up with so I can give a rundown on them.

B Thomp wrote:
the one named multidecomp

If that doesn't help i'll look for the #'d post i used to get it.

It's OK. I know of what you refer.

Are you doing just simple separations, multiple separations, adding any other layers into the mix anywhere? Inquiring minds want to know....

Basically, what does your layer stack look like from top to bottom?

B Thomp wrote:
I was only doing a single separation for working. but i was messing around with several and that's where i realized i have no idea what is going on when i separate more then once.

I don't have a set stack in PS. I only have a couple small things i do every time but i let the picture determine what i need...

I gotcha. I was just asking for a typical idea of what you are left with in your layers to work from. So I gather it's just HF, LF, and Background.

Gimme some time. I got rather busy yesterday unexpectedly and have a few things to do today. I can give a basic rundown, though.

You would normally choose a radius on the initial blur that just takes away the details you want to work on.

On the HF layer, you can use healing/cloning to repair the textures/details. When doing this, keep both HF and LF visible, but for your sample source, use this layer only. Otherwise, you'll just end up frustrating yourself.

On the LF layer, you would smooth out tones to even out/blend in transitions better or to make them a sharper cutoff. For this I recommend making the HF layer invisible. You can use healing brush, clone, or your favorite D&B method for this.

I normally put a blank layer between LF and HF. On this layer you can paint in whatever color you want to restore tones while maintaining detail on the HF layer so you won't destroy your details. If the skin is too white and you want a bit of a tan, you can use this to add some tan.

I'll also clip a curves layer to the HF layer. For this, you can then boost contrast on just the HF layer (it acts as a sharpening of sorts), invert the mask, and selectively paint back in areas you want to appear a bit sharper/more contrasty.

I'll try to work up a video if I get the time. Probably no audio to go along with it, though.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
In Flightplan (2005) we had to push into a model miniature of an airplane on a runway with a live action inset of Jodie Foster looking worriedly through a window - and the airplane model surface detail wasn't holding up in the closer camera positions, so we lifted the high frequencies from a live action shot and used them in conjunction with the low frequencies of the model photography.

Not sure that approach of combining high and low frequencies from two different sources is that useful when photographing and retouching people but I thought I'd mention it.

(except in the case of that Einstien / M Monroe frequency composite)

It is useful. I do this quite often, actually. There are times when the tones are fine, but I've lost detail in certain areas so I'll grab details from another source and put them into the area that is lacking the detail.

Thanks! This was quite an interesting post.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
What do you think?

We know how they do it. We just cant control that many variables at once and cant have a preview