Sean Baker wrote:

Were you editing in 8-bit by chance?  I've not been keeping close tabs on P2P's actions and at first glance through this one that's the first thing which comes to mind as an 'easy' reason.

That's a good possibility. I only included the script with the first download link. If someone grabbed the one after that, there is only the actions set for 16 bit mode.

If that's what happened, Smedley, just go back to page 5 here and get the original download and you can use that script with the newer actions I've posted. You may just have to rename the actions...I can't remember.

Koray wrote:
Guys...where is the round two?

Mr. Randall is rich and famous and making lots of money.

So should you.

Round 2 will come when I start writing plugins and write one up for this.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:

Round 2 will come when I start writing plugins and write one up for this.

Round 2? I think Sean needs a Beowulf cluster and ENVI for that...

Koray wrote:
Guys...where is the round two?

I'll see if I can come up with something here in the next few days which a few might like to see if no one else does.  There are still a few aspects to this and it's larger implications which I don't think we've elucidated.  From experience here, though, I think I'll start with an illustrated example vs. just talking about it.

Robb Mann wrote:
Round 2? I think Sean needs a Beowulf cluster and ENVI for that...

At a time I had access to quite a number of inexpensive and very reliable boxen and gave serious consideration to building a home cluster.  The cost-effectiveness, though, would be completely destroyed by the price of ENVI.  At this point I'd be happy to afford MATLAB.

Sean Baker wrote:
At a time I had access to quite a number of inexpensive and very reliable boxen and gave serious consideration to building a home cluster.  The cost-effectiveness, though, would be completely destroyed by the price of ENVI.  At this point I'd be happy to afford MATLAB.

If you can write your own filters for PS you should be able to accomplish most of what something like ENVI can do. Programs like ENVI are so expensive largely because they are extremely specialized and provide functions that aren't needed by the vast majority of people. Some cool ENVI features not needed by anyone on MM:

++ Ability to work with HUGE file sizes - the average commercial remote sensing image is @6GB for a full 5-band scene (panchromatic+RGBN), Mosaic 10-100 of those together and you are devouring disc space and system resources.

++ Ability to 'dial out' seasonal effects of solar insolation on an image - this is of course assuming that the sun is the only source of illumination and that all surfaces within a scene are behaving in a more-or-less similar fashion. In a scene with mixed lambertian and specular surfaces (such as in an open field surrounded by trees) this is an invalid assumption.

++ camera models for all major sources of data - Yep, they know the insides of GeoEye, Ikonos, Quickbird, Landsat, AVHRR, MODIS, SPOT, etc, and can use that info to calibrate the data to whatever baseline you want - top of atmosphere or ground level radiance/reflectance. They can even encorporate weather data to eliminate the effects of water vapor in the scene.

++ Multivariate geostatistics*

++ ability to precisely geolocate an image on the earth's surface -- again, not all that useful for imagery not acquired at near-nadir.

In short, Though I would like to try it, I don't really see something like ENVI being cost-effective for the average photographer.







*-any discussion of multivariate statistics can only be done over quality beer.

Robb Mann wrote:

If you can write your own filters for PS you should be able to accomplish most of what something like ENVI can do. Programs like ENVI are so expensive largely because they are extremely specialized and provide functions that aren't needed by the vast majority of people. Some cool ENVI features not needed by anyone on MM:

++ Ability to work with HUGE file sizes - the average commercial remote sensing image is @6GB for a full 5-band scene (panchromatic+RGBN), Mosaic 10-100 of those together and you are devouring disc space and system resources.

++ Ability to 'dial out' seasonal effects of solar insolation on an image - this is of course assuming that the sun is the only source of illumination and that all surfaces within a scene are behaving in a more-or-less similar fashion. In a scene with mixed lambertian and specular surfaces (such as in an open field surrounded by trees) this is an invalid assumption.

++ camera models for all major sources of data - Yep, they know the insides of GeoEye, Ikonos, Quickbird, Landsat, AVHRR, MODIS, SPOT, etc, and can use that info to calibrate the data to whatever baseline you want - top of atmosphere or ground level radiance/reflectance. They can even encorporate weather data to eliminate the effects of water vapor in the scene.

++ Multivariate geostatistics*

++ ability to precisely geolocate an image on the earth's surface -- again, not all that useful for imagery not acquired at near-nadir.

In short, Though I would like to try it, I don't really see something like ENVI being cost-effective for the average photographer.







*-any discussion of multivariate statistics can only be done over quality beer.

As long as you are buying....

Robb Mann wrote:
If you can write your own filters for PS you should be able to accomplish most of what something like ENVI can do. Programs like ENVI are so expensive largely because they are extremely specialized and provide functions that aren't needed by the vast majority of people. Some cool ENVI features not needed by anyone on MM:

This is a big assumption as yet.  If my career plans end up making the big change, though, it may be inevitable as I look for new challenges.

Robb Mann wrote:
[redacted list of things I can't do]

In short, Though I would like to try it, I don't really see something like ENVI being cost-effective for the average photographer.

The problem is all the things you left out that it would be fun for.  And would the function for removing seasonal insolation be so different as what I might use to correct for an improperly feathered light striking a model?

Robb Mann wrote:
*-any discussion of multivariate statistics can only be done over quality beer.

Normally I hate statistics, but this has possibilities .

Koray wrote:
Guys you started this..and now there are uber sharp images everywhere.
That shows you are good at delivering.

I just did a comparison of a regular blur and smart blur sharpening and I believe it deserves a round two.

If you dont feel like sharing let me know

I haven't given the Smart Blur option its due diligence as yet.  I'll try to later today, but it may have to wait until tomorrow.

FWIW, I still don't advocate HP as the sharpening solution - I much prefer it in combination with a deconvolution technique (Smart Sharpen being the most readily available; I'll sign any and all petitions to get Richardson-Lucy built into PS).

Jay Davis wrote:
I am extremely new to all these techniques using Photoshop.  I downloaded the two actions as someone referred me to page 5 of this thread.

However, I know I'm doing something wrong.  When I pull up a photo after converting it and bringing it over from Lightroom, I ran the action, but I swear, I didn't notice any change in the skin texture at all.

Please help me.  What am I doing wrong?  I'll go back and read the entire thread again, just can't see what I've done wrong.

If anyone wants to send me a PM, that is fine.

I appreciate everyone's willingness to share on this subject matter.  Some very outstanding photographs and amazing Photoshop users.

Thanks so much, in advance.

Jay, you won't notice any difference in the appearance of the image if you ran the action. What you will notice is some new layers added. One will be named High Frequency and one Low Frequency. If you turn visibility off for High Frequency, you will be left with a blurred image. If you turn on visibility for the HF layer and turn it off for the LF layer, you will see an ultra-sharpened image, though it will look very bad. Sharpened is probably not the correct term, it's more of a boost in contrast in the details.

HF layer will contain your details...high frequency (we are talking spatial frequency, not frequency like on your FM radio dial though in some respects they are similar.)

LF layer will contain your tones...low frequency.

If you want to do some adjustment on the skin tones, you can turn off the HF visibility and make any tonal adjustments on the LF layer. You will then need to turn the HF layer visibility back on and do some cloning/healing there also as there will be some difference since the details do contain some of the skin tones.

What this does for you is allows you to separate the skin tones and skin details onto their own layers so you can work on one without seriously affecting the other. It will take some trial and error and some practice, but once you've got it down it will save you a lot of time. Well, it saves me a lot of time.

There are many many more things you can do with this once you've separated the layers. This is just a start.

Feel free to ask questions. That's how we learn.

HelloPiccadilly wrote:
I have a couple of questions:

1) Do u have ideas or exampls of using HF layer for getting extra details in kinda DaveHill stuff?

2) Can u say me the right way (numbers) to save for web 640x480 images?

p.s. sorry for my english
p.p.s. sorry for maybe stupid questions)

1.) This is the discussion you want about how Dave Hill does his thing - HP is just one small aspect of what he likely uses.

2.) I'd expect you'll want to sharpen at around .3 - .5 pixels for that size image, but that will depends greatly on the content and personal taste.

Sean Baker wrote:
This[/url] is the discussion you want about how Dave Hill does his thing - HP is just one small aspect of what he likely uses.

this small aspect is not so small i suppose ))
Thanks! I'll try!

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Hey Sean, check this out and let me know if this looks like a good frontend for your noise generation script. I finally found some time today to start on it.

http://www.model-citizens.com/Photoshop/NoiseGen.jsx

To get really fancy if you want it, I can have the values saved into an .ini file then read in as defaults for the next time the script is activated. This way the defaults are not hard-coded but customized. Or I can put in a check-box to save current settings as default.

Let me know.

It works perfectly, and I can't wait to spend some time figuring out how you did it.  Great work sir!

Sean Baker wrote:

It works perfectly, and I can't wait to spend some time figuring out how you did it.  Great work sir!

Sir? Are you insulting me? I don't take myself that seriously.

I'm gonna play around with the ini thing today just for fun and because today's shoot canceled.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Hey Sean, check this out and let me know if this looks like a good frontend for your noise generation script. I finally found some time today to start on it.

http://www.model-citizens.com/Photoshop/NoiseGen.jsx

To get really fancy if you want it, I can have the values saved into an .ini file then read in as defaults for the next time the script is activated. This way the defaults are not hard-coded but customized. Or I can put in a check-box to save current settings as default.

Let me know.

Sean Baker wrote:
It works perfectly, and I can't wait to spend some time figuring out how you did it.  Great work sir!

It worked for me as well, but it leaves me with a question.... what are you going to do with the final file?

Robert Randall wrote:

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Hey Sean, check this out and let me know if this looks like a good frontend for your noise generation script. I finally found some time today to start on it.

http://www.model-citizens.com/Photoshop/NoiseGen.jsx

To get really fancy if you want it, I can have the values saved into an .ini file then read in as defaults for the next time the script is activated. This way the defaults are not hard-coded but customized. Or I can put in a check-box to save current settings as default.

Let me know.

It worked for me as well, but it leaves me with a question.... what are you going to do with the final file?

I believe he uses it as a pattern to replace texture that has been removed from a subject such as skin texture. I personally haven't tried it out yet, but this is my understanding.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … ost9864297

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:

I've been tweaking it. If you like that one, try this one.....

http://www.nunuvyer.biz/Photoshop/Others.atn

Here is what this one does.....

1. Duplicates current layer a few times to set up for applying the high/low frequency layers.
2. At this point in time, it will set up 3 frequency separation layers and a highly blurred skin tone adjustment layer with inverted mask.
3. Copies the 3 high frequency layers, puts them into a group with inverted mask and Hard Light blend mode. I've found this mode seems to retain most of the original color when unmasking to sharpen when combined with the Dodge/Burn layer that is set up later in the actions.
4. Adds a Hue/Saturation layer that may or may not be useful for anything. I use it sometimes when I want to do some color changes. This layer is not needed.
5. Adds a Dodge/Burn layer as the top layer.
6. This is where the major difference comes in. The next step merges the HF1, HF2, HF3, and LF layers. (Note:HF1 and HF2 are set to 25% opacity) You'll see why next....
7. Next, it duplicates this merged layer and runs another apply to separate this layer into high and low frequencies named HF3 and LF. Why is it named HF3? That's the name that sticks during the merge and I was too lazy to do anything about it. Why did I do this? This gives you a single layer on which to do your healing/cloning instead of 3 layers. Plus, this actually gives a little bit of "capture sharpening" to the overall image.

The way it's set up now, the only dialog that comes up is the final Gaussian Blur dialog after the merge and for the final separation. The other separations are default at 2.5 pixels for HF1, 5 pixels for HF2, and 10 pixels for HF3. You can set this up so you get the dialog at each of these, though I doubt you'll need to. The defaults should be fine. The Tones layer has a Gaussian Blur radius of 25 pixels by default. You'll also notice that on the final HF3 layer, the Fill is set to 60%. Adjust this to taste, but I found this to be close for most of my images.

I don't think I missed anything. Play with it and see if you like it. If you think of anything else, please share and I'll include it.

I like this setup a lot, but I do want to change some of the default settings, mostly due to the sizes of the files I'm working on. I can't figure out how to put a stop on the process steps that require blurs and smart sharpens, mostly because I can't find a smart sharpen anywhere. What am I missing?

Robert Randall wrote:
I like this setup a lot, but I do want to change some of the default settings, mostly due to the sizes of the files I'm working on. I can't figure out how to put a stop on the process steps that require blurs and smart sharpens, mostly because I can't find a smart sharpen anywhere. What am I missing?

There is no smart sharpen in the action.

To put a stop on an action, go into the actions palette and if button mode is on, turn it off. Find the step where you want to put a stop. There are 2 columns to the left of where the actions are listed. The first has check boxes to either run that step or skip over it. The check means to run it. The second when you click it will turn on and off a "box" looking thing. That signifies a dialog and will stop the action at that step so you can adjust any settings in that dialog. If there is no place in front of that step for this, that means that step has no dialog associated with it.

The blurs and other filters should all have that feature available.

Robert Randall wrote:
It worked for me as well, but it leaves me with a question.... what are you going to do with the final file?

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
I believe he uses it as a pattern to replace texture that has been removed from a subject such as skin texture. I personally haven't tried it out yet, but this is my understanding.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … ost9864297

That's exactly what I wrote the original algorithm for.

The sad part (sort of) is that I barely use the technique anymore - slowly but surely I'm working with models who don't need new skin, get good MUAs, and / or - shock - learning to control my brush strokes ).

All that said, I greatly admire the way you've been able to package this up into something so easy to use; I can say from my site logs (hosting images in this thread) that the skin techniques do still get a lot of quiet attention, even if no one is talking about converting.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:

There is no smart sharpen in the action.

To put a stop on an action, go into the actions palette and if button mode is on, turn it off. Find the step where you want to put a stop. There are 2 columns to the left of where the actions are listed. The first has check boxes to either run that step or skip over it. The check means to run it. The second when you click it will turn on and off a "box" looking thing. That signifies a dialog and will stop the action at that step so you can adjust any settings in that dialog. If there is no place in front of that step for this, that means that step has no dialog associated with it.

The blurs and other filters should all have that feature available.

Cool, thanks!

I always use my own actions, so I've never had any reason to use the little stop check box thing. No matter how much time I spend with the program, I am always learning new things like that.

Now i get to see how you got sharp without getting sharp!

Robert Randall wrote:

Cool, thanks!

I always use my own actions, so I've never had any reason to use the little stop check box thing. No matter how much time I spend with the program, I am always learning new things like that.

Now i get to see how you got sharp without getting sharp!

I'm not really a very sharp person. I'm actually rather dull. That just gives me more time to work on this stuff.

And like you, I'm constantly learning new stuff and always willing to share.

Robert Randall wrote:
Cool, thanks!

I always use my own actions, so I've never had any reason to use the little stop check box thing. No matter how much time I spend with the program, I am always learning new things like that.

Now i get to see how you got sharp without getting sharp!

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
I'm not really a very sharp person. I'm actually rather dull. That just gives me more time to work on this stuff.

And like you, I'm constantly learning new stuff and always willing to share.

I don't know that I couldn't do this image with Sean's latest default, but I really like the way you set up your action. I stopped it at the curve and cranked on it a bit more than you did, and then I made up some difference masks from among the material your action supplied. I was able to make a BW file that emulates pretty well the results I would get from using chop masks on a pin registered Fotar enlarger.

I can't tell you guys enough how much this thread has altered my workflow for the better.


http://www.robert-randall.com/Photon2pixels/


Edit for the holy rollers... there are some issues around the glasses and left shoulder of this handsome guy's portrait. Give me a break because I was skittering through it in a hurry, and haven't developed a good work around for that particular problem yet.

Robert Randall wrote:

Robert Randall wrote:
Cool, thanks!

I always use my own actions, so I've never had any reason to use the little stop check box thing. No matter how much time I spend with the program, I am always learning new things like that.

Now i get to see how you got sharp without getting sharp!

I don't know that I couldn't do this image with Sean's latest default, but I really like the way you set up your action. I stopped it at the curve and cranked on it a bit more than you did, and then I made up some difference masks from among the material your action supplied. I was able to make a BW file that emulates pretty well the results I would get from using chop masks on a pin registered Fotar enlarger.

I can't tell you guys enough how much this thread has altered my workflow for the better.


http://www.robert-randall.com/Photon2pixels/


Edit for the holy rollers... there are some issues around the glasses and left shoulder of this handsome guy's portrait. Give me a break because I was skittering through it in a hurry, and haven't developed a good work around for that particular problem yet.

The hairs really stand out on that one. As does the frame on the glasses. But I do notice what you're talking about with the glasses. Almost like a halo effect. It's most noticeable under the left eye. I may not have noticed if you hadn't mentioned it, though.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:

The hairs really stand out on that one. As does the frame on the glasses. But I do notice what you're talking about with the glasses. Almost like a halo effect. It's most noticeable under the left eye. I may not have noticed if you hadn't mentioned it, though.

The thing is, with Sean's action, I wouldn't have had that problem, but without your action, I wouldn't have had the materials I used for the difference masks.

Another PS conundrum!

Koray wrote:
Guys you started this..and now there are uber sharp images everywhere.
That shows you are good at delivering.

I just did a comparison of a regular blur and smart blur sharpening and I believe it deserves a round two.

If you dont feel like sharing let me know

I finally started looking at the smart blur version of this, and have come away with mixed feelings.  It's certainly interesting and produces a fantastically crisp result when used judiciously, but not one that suits my tastes as well - I'm still partial to the deconvolved 'look'.  I'm also biased by my aversion to 8bit editing.  I know I'm throwing away disk space, but until I get my workflow under control it's the best I can do to avoid completely destroying my output quality.

That said, I do really want to work more with it for a tonal-contrast effect much akin to what you were trying to do in replicating the NiK plugin; just playing for a few minutes it shows a lot of promise for use at high radii without significant loss of quality.  Right now I'm creating a flattened duplicate, converting to 8bit LAB and running the filter against the luminosity channel.  When I bring the result back over into my original doc I'm having to adjust for the lum difference with a clipping-masked Levels adjustment, but the result is striking IMO.

Does anyone understand the different in the low / medium / high quality outputs?  It seems to be affecting the threshold moreso than the quality of the blur.

I'm also curious as to what settings you were using for your sharpening result?

(yes, I've had too much coffee today)

Sean Baker wrote:
I finally started looking at the smart blur version of this, and have come away with mixed feelings.  It's certainly interesting and produces a fantastically crisp result when used judiciously, but not one that suits my tastes as well - I'm still partial to the deconvolved 'look'.  I'm also biased by my aversion to 8bit editing.  I know I'm throwing away disk space, but until I get my workflow under control it's the best I can do to avoid completely destroying my output quality.

That said, I do really want to work more with it for a tonal-contrast effect much akin to what you were trying to do in replicating the NiK plugin; just playing for a few minutes it shows a lot of promise for use at high radii without significant loss of quality.  Right now I'm creating a flattened duplicate, converting to 8bit LAB and running the filter against the luminosity channel.  When I bring the result back over into my original doc I'm having to adjust for the lum difference with a clipping-masked Levels adjustment, but the result is striking IMO.

Does anyone understand the different in the low / medium / high quality outputs?  It seems to be affecting the threshold moreso than the quality of the blur.

I'm also curious as to what settings you were using for your sharpening result?

(yes, I've had too much coffee today)

I like it when you have too much coffee. I usually learn something.

Sean Baker wrote:
That said, I do really want to work more with it for a tonal-contrast effect much akin to what you were trying to do in replicating the NiK plugin; just playing for a few minutes it shows a lot of promise for use at high radii without significant loss of quality.  Right now I'm creating a flattened duplicate, converting to 8bit LAB and running the filter against the luminosity channel.  When I bring the result back over into my original doc I'm having to adjust for the lum difference with a clipping-masked Levels adjustment, but the result is striking IMO.

I'm sure it sure is.
A few days ago I suddenly decided to try the surface blur and with a few tweaks similar to what you mentioned above its amazing the amount of details brought back.
When tested this method on seamless background shots there is only very little halo in certain areas. else it just locates and contrasts the details. keeping it tasteful seems to have no harm on the image quality.
combined with the other methods that I'm experimenting with images become quite eyecandies in only just a few minutes.
its just a matter of time before I shoot or compose an image thats worthy to use this power.

I'll have some basic samples I did using stock photos for people to see the effect soon...backing up the hard drive right now

Koray wrote:
ok here is a quick comparison...dont complain about quality etc, look for the effect and possibilities.

Remember, Nik Tonal Contrasts default settings adds to saturation and adjusts shadows and highlights slightly.

and sorry for the little type crop



we win IMO

Very niiiiiiiiiiiiiice!!!!!!!

Now I'm going to have to write up a script similar to the noise generation script I just did for Sean that gives the option of what you want to do and which methods you want to use.

There goes my free days next week.

Koray wrote:
One more

Awesome for the rocks! Not so sure about the clouds, but it gives a really good showing of what the SB does.

Cool.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Awesome for the rocks! Not so sure about the clouds, but it gives a really good showing of what the SB does.
Cool.

I like the sea myself

I think this could use a different set of parameters the more I look at it but nothing serious anyway...