Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
HighPass Sucks (+ solution)
Herman van Gestel wrote: 1. Starting with the spatially-separated image. Apr 21 09 03:21 am Link Hello Sean, Thank you for sharing this! I'm using almost the same procedure (clipping mask after a GB/HP) to reduce moire in jeans. I never thought about using it for sharpening. For prints/publication i'm heavily using incredimental HP on skin (male subject) and after some testings it looks your method is even better at this. Tips for moire/softening: try an inverted U-curve on the clipping mask. Apr 21 09 03:59 am Link [comment deleted] I started to make a wise crack to one of Bob Randall's wise cracks, then decided I'm over my head and would rather contribute something more positive to this thread. It's time to zip my lips and pay attention. Sean, you got the cement mixer between my ears revolving again. Especially about the importance of tools, learning curves, and time, relative to results. And about how we might apply this knowledge for other purposes. With luck, something good might start flowing down the chute. Best wishes from San Diego Apr 21 09 04:57 am Link This is awesome, many, many thanks, I've already replaced this as a part of my workflow, and opened my eyes to a lot of other possibilities with the apply filter tool. I'm amazed that somone finds it necessary to comment that they think it's useless because it's too technical. I would just think "ok, I'll come back when I learn more." Just be glad, if everyone was able to use all the tools PS had to offer, there'd be a lot more competition than there already is. Apr 21 09 07:07 am Link JeF Briguet wrote: Oh that's just neat. Like masking the highlights out but more fun. Also makes me realize how painfully aware of how restricted I've been in my usage of curves. Thank you! Apr 21 09 10:42 am Link When I first did this all I got was a grey layer. Granted I may have been missing a step?? Dunno but while playing around with it I deleted the "Blur" layer copy and it came up like the HP but with not all the noise. Not sure if you are supposed to keep that layer but after the mask has been done delete the blur layer and check your results. Apr 21 09 11:27 am Link AidanJamesphotography wrote: It sounds like either you selected the wrong layer in the Apply Image dialog, or (more likely) that the blend mode on the high frequency data was still set to 'Normal'. I think I understand your last line to mean that you did in fact get the sharpening effect you wanted in the end? Apr 21 09 12:15 pm Link I knew I'd been missing out not being familiar with the apply image tool. Thanks so much! Apr 21 09 12:26 pm Link Sean Baker wrote: Yes I did get the effect in the end. I am running CS2 and I went thru the steps two or three times. Even did the 16bit one to see if I was doing it wrong. Actually I think I did miss something but don't remember what it was. But my results, I did not GBlur very much maybe 4.5, was not that noticeable. But when I took that layer away that's when I saw a significant change. Apr 21 09 12:28 pm Link Click Hamilton wrote: I usually crack wise on the ner do wells and nay sayers in a thread like this to keep them quiet or out completely. I figure if I embarrass them enough, the thread might just stand a chance of helping someone. I know I learned two big things from it, and that doesn't happen very much anymore. Its not that there isn't a lot I can learn, its just really hard to find someone that isn't simply re-packaging a Scott Kelbyism. Apr 21 09 12:33 pm Link AidanJamesphotography wrote: The same thing happened to me so I just reduced the opacity of my blur layer really low because I thought the effect was a little strong. Not sure what I missed, but I really like the effect and think I achieved it anyway. Apr 21 09 12:35 pm Link AidanJamesphotography wrote: That's the way this is designed to work. That is, you still have copies of both the high and low frequency data - with your choice to do HP sharpening, add a little bit of Orton-ness to your picture, or something even crazier. All at your fingertips. Apr 21 09 12:35 pm Link Sean Baker wrote: Thanks Sean. It does improve yout recipie, and eliminates need for duplicating sharpening layer if 100% was not enough, plus adds extra precise contol over sharpening. Apr 21 09 04:19 pm Link Sean Baker wrote: I tried adding in the channel mixer layer. Interestingly it upped the saturation alot, kinda made a cool effect. That was fixed by converting the resulting layer to greyscale again. Apr 21 09 08:12 pm Link Just wanted to say thanks to OP for this awesome method. I love it. -Mikael Apr 22 09 12:31 am Link Pretty sweet Sean! I tried this out last night, and I'm liking it. First one in my port is using this. (18+ if you want to check it out.) Apr 22 09 04:44 am Link WOW!!!! Great stuff Sean. Thanks for posting!! Apr 22 09 10:08 am Link Havent had the time to try this till this morning. Wow my files are so sharp that it can cut my monitor. Anyway thanks and if ever in Mexico City come to my studio for free beers. Apr 22 09 10:16 am Link works really well. Apr 22 09 10:53 am Link Just adding to the pile. I had to read your post a few times before the penny dropped. I was lucky to have even come across the high pass sharpening technique to be able to appreciate that there was a more accurate way of building that sharpening mask. I'm not fully understanding a few points. * I work on 8 bit jpegs, should I convert to 16 bit? The workflow for 8 bit seems to work, but I'm not 100% sure. * for the Gaussian Blur step, what would the "ideal range of values" be for say a 12mp photo (4200 x 3000x) (i.e. 4, 10, 20 etc...) * if I understand correctly, to apply the sharpening effect at the end of the workflow, you can a) apply a curves adjustment with anchor points at 128 128 b) use smart sharpen on the spatial frequency layer c) use unsharp mask on the SFL? I can see how the method introduces sharpening with fewer artifacts, so I think I'm applying this method correctly, I just want to make sure I understand how the values are being chosen. Thank you for your very valuable contribution to this community. Lito Apr 22 09 01:39 pm Link I ran both your method Sean and a HP filter and see a massive difference between the two. Now the hard part. Trying to figure out how to use it properly in my workflow. Apr 22 09 06:43 pm Link Robert Randall wrote: I suspect that I'd have been recommending the latest and greatest (sponsored) plugin were that the case . Yingwah Productions wrote: Were you checking the 'Monochrome' box when doing this? I realize I neglected to include suggestion for doing so in my previous post (sorry) and wonder if that's the difference? Hector Fernandez wrote: Absolutely . Shutterslam wrote: Use whichever workflow works for you; each version of the technique is tailored to give the best result for that workflow which I could come up with. If you note a degradation in quality, let me know and I'll reexamine, but they should be about as accurate as PS will allow. Shutterslam wrote: That is a matter of taste, and depends on subject content, capture sharpening (if applied), detail in the image, and your output method & size. I can't give you a single number which will be best for anything you do. I'll tell you that when I work with an 800x530 image, I tend to use ~.6 or .8. When I work at full resolution, it's usually scaled from that (so for a 4200px image I would first try 3.6), but I always tune it to the image. There are other folks here, though, who can speak to output sharpening far better than I - printing is still something which is very new for me. Shutterslam wrote: Any of these are valid ways of applying additional sharpening, and can even be combined so long as you do so carefully (particularly while using SS or USM). Shutterslam wrote: You're absolutely welcome, and feel free to continue asking questions as well as sharing your own findings. Apr 23 09 08:22 am Link Robert Randall wrote: Sean Baker wrote: Hey... you took that our of context... put it back! Apr 23 09 08:32 am Link Robert Randall wrote: I'm sorry. I guess you meant that as if were just posting the "secrets" to the Dave Hill technique? Apr 23 09 08:40 am Link Sean Baker wrote: Where's the monochrome box? Apr 23 09 11:20 am Link Nevermind, problems.quote] Apr 23 09 02:35 pm Link Yingwah Productions wrote: Psh, paid work! Showoff! Biggs Photography wrote: Not seeing a difference in the downloaded file, but I'd love to know how you did it . Apr 23 09 07:26 pm Link Has anyone bothered to use a healing brush on the high frequency detail of a model's skin yet? Apr 23 09 07:36 pm Link Biggs Photography wrote: Not seeing a difference in the downloaded file, but I'd love to know how you did it . Sorry, I had a moment. The link should take you to the appropriate and working action now. Apr 24 09 05:31 am Link Great stuff Sean; I just used this for the first time last night and was amazed at how sharp and clear I was able to get things. The shot I used this for is the headshot that is currently my avatar in case anyone is interested in seeing how this looks on a headshot. Apr 24 09 09:09 am Link Sean Baker wrote: very interesting, thank you for sharing Apr 24 09 09:12 am Link Crazy control! It's playtime...Thank you! Apr 24 09 09:45 am Link Sean, You've moved past photoshop. Check out this package instead: http://www.ittvis.com/ It's designed to do the kinds of things you're looking for. Raw, total control of every pixel. Sadly, it's not designed for photography, but rather remote sensing. Apr 24 09 09:53 am Link Robb Mann wrote: The lack of a price anywhere on that website tells me all I need to know about whether I'll ever get that purchase past the House-6. Still, something to consider if school doesn't work out . Apr 24 09 10:03 am Link Sean, I just wanted to add to the appreciation and many thanks you have already received. I was very intrigued when you first posted this technique, but didn't have the time for experimentation until today. What a fantastic technique!! The control is amazing. I'll definitely be adding this technique into the arsenal. It's posts like these that make this place worth while. Thanks again. Aaron Apr 24 09 10:54 am Link The instructions posted are not going to be concrete for all images though. You forgot to calculate things in such as contrast across the photo and other details. It's a decent starting point but people are going to have to experiment with the values. It is a good starting point though and I will check it out and experiment with it to see if it's comparable to current methods I use. The values posted will vary on the image. It's like saying "I have this high powered Mustang with wide 335s in the back" but when you try to put those big ass tires on a Camry, good luck. It may work for one scenario but not another. Apr 24 09 12:40 pm Link Nicky TwoThumbs wrote: I'm sorry - where did you see me posting pixel values applicable to everyone's images? Let me know - I need to revise a post if so. Apr 24 09 12:52 pm Link Sean Baker wrote: Hold it sport, don't take it the wrong way. I do recall you said that the mathematical way the program handles things is fucked up to a degree, but then you throw numbers out there like it's going to just WORK for everything with no disclaimer. This is the reason we have people out there creating horrible HDR images as an example because they just move sliders to values that other people list in their own examples or tutorials. Applying an action with predefined values and settings is a starting point but can be a crutch for some people. Apr 24 09 01:30 pm Link
* Ah, ok that's where I went wrong...I overshot the GB values Apr 24 09 02:05 pm Link Nicholas Cooper wrote: For clarification, as this seems to be causing some confusion, there are only two numbers in the technique instructions for each editing mode. Both are universal and explained below. The actions use these numbers automatically, while allowing you to select the radius at which you seek to separate the image through the normal Gaussian Blur dialog. Shutterslam wrote: You are most assuredly welcome. Thank you for sharing that. Apr 24 09 07:09 pm Link |