Learning Thread � Landscape Photography

05/24/2006 03:54:13 AM · #601

A Lesson in Hyper-processing

Bring out the sunglasses folks!

The following lesson will be �slightly� different than the on-going landscape thread that Robert had started. I hope this will be a useful lesson as it tries to explore a different take on post processing tricks. So far, you�ve all learned about composition, lighting, and post processing. Let�s take all you�ve learned and push it up another notch i.e. stdavidson�s �DPC over the top�.

Before we do that though, we all need to understand a little bit about having the correct calibration on your monitors.

Monitor Calibration
Calibrating the monitor is the first, and perhaps the most important step in setting up a digital workstation. The monitor image is the only view you have of a digital file, and the quality of all image retouching depends on how accurately the monitor displays it. There are a wide variety of tools available in the market today. I personally use a Spyder and calibrate my monitor at least once every month.

There is a fundamental difference in the way that monitor calibration is handled in the Mac and Windows platforms. On the Macintosh, a monitor calibrator creates an ICC profile that is used at system level to correct the monitor image at system start up. Whatever application software is used, the monitor will always display a calibrated image, and this is one of the major advantages of the Apple system. In Windows, calibration changes will generally only appear when ICC compatible applications are run, and not necessarily at system start up. Because of the way some PC graphics cards work, monitor gamma settings are not always software adjustable, especially when the computer shares memory between system and graphics functions. This means a system-wide calibration can't always be used on the Windows PC.

�I haven�t seen a sky that color since I last ate mushrooms�
-Tim aka soup

Let me start off by saying that �Hyper-processed� images aren�t for everyone. The first time I tried to process my image �over the top� was for my Tribute entry. Some of you might know that John Paul Caponigro uses saturated images for his photos. I thought it would be interesting to try it out so I did. Little did I know that a majority of DPC voters �liked� the hyper-processed image.

This image broke one of the rules in landscape photography. Did you catch it during voting? How about now? The horizon is clearly in the middle of the composition thus splitting the image into halves. Most of the time, this spells disaster. However, it worked like a charm for this image. Personally, I think the reason being, the overly saturated skies and clouds created much interest in the image that most voters didn�t pay as much attention to the fact that I broke the Rules of Thirds.

Tricks of the trade:
I start off by shooting RAW and processing them via RSE. While in RAW, I make the necessary adjustments with highlights and shadows and correcting the WB. Once everything is set �approximately� to what I had in mind, I convert the CR2 file into a jpeg file. I use Photoshop CS2 just in case you were wondering which version I am discussing in this thread.

Where I started

**Note: The tips below are slightly different than the laborious techniques I used but gives the same results.

How to extract elements:
Here I will discuss probably the most discussed and requested masking technique � removing and isolating a background. We will use the Extract command for this. I know some of you have done this before but for those who haven�t here are the steps.

Step 1:
In Photoshop, I duplicate the background layer (Ctrl + J). Go under the Filter menu and choose Extract (it is the second line from the top). This brings up the Extract dialog box. Select the top left tool called the Edge Highlighter tool or simply just press B. I also usually select Smart Highlighting. With the Edge Highlighter tool selected, trace the edges of the object you want to remove. Make sure your trace is closed.

**Tip: Use a small brush size when tracing fine details. Holding down the bracket key (left to decrease size and right to increase size) helps out a lot too.

Step 2:
After the Highlighter Edge has been set, it is now time to let Photoshop know what part of the photo you would like to keep. Using the Fill tool (or simply pressing G), click on the area that you would like to retain. In this instance, I am keeping the sky. You will notice that, a purple tint has been cast in the sky area. This let�s me know that this will be the layer left after the operation is complete.

Step 3:
Your Layer palette should now contain two layers � the Background Layer and the Sky Layer. Now duplicate the Sky Layer.

Step 4:
With the Sky Layer Copy active, go to Image>Adjustments>Color Balance. Here we need to pay attention to the red and yellows in both midtones and shadows. Adjust your sliders according to your �taste�. These are the values I used for the Midtones (+100,0,-100) and Shadows (+82,0,-91). This should turn the sky into a surreal mix of red and yellows.

Step 5:
Let�s now turn our attention to the Sky Layer. Turn off the Sky Layer Copy. Similar to Step 4, adjust the Color Balance. Here, we�ll need to pay attention to the blue color in the skies. These are the values I used for the Midtones (-49,0,+74) and Shadows (-34,0,+19).

Step 6:
Turn all layers on. With your layer selection set to Sky Layer Copy, we will now try to blend these two colored skies together. Using a soft edged brush @ 200pixels, click the Eraser tool and erase some of the sky to reveal the blue underneath. Once you�ve done this, merge the two Sky Layers (Ctrl + E). This should leave you with 2 layers � the original and the Sky Layer.

Step 7:
Under Filter>Blur>Gaussian Blur and set the slider so that the sky is slightly blurry. This removes the noise left from saturating the colors.

Step 8:
Burn highlights and shadows. Flatten entire image.

Step 9:
Repeat steps 2-4 but this time choosing the water. Adjust blues using only midtones and shadows.

Step 10:
Using the Velvia Provia Action from ATNCentral.com, run your image to bring out the highlights of the ground and other warm colors.

Step 11.
Selective sharpening. I applied selective sharpening in the rocks, water, and skies.

Step 12:
Run through Neat Image.

Step 13:
Crop and Save for web.

Here are other examples of hyper-processing. Some of these images were simple to attain while others required steps similar to the ones I described above.

Next Assignment:

Everyone has seen these over the top processing. Some of you might have tried it before and to some, all of these might be new. Study the steps that I had just mentioned and see if you can experiment with your own images. Throughout the week, please post your images and let�s discuss effectiveness of the colors chosen, post processing style, etc.

This should be fun and should present a new twist in your processing style. If you don�t have a landscape shot, there�s no better time than now to shoot one. The important thing here is to have fun with this exercise. There is no right or wrong way. In the end, you should be happy with the results of your hard work.

And for the record, I do have tendencies of leaning towards the orange skies. Dunno why but I just do. Maybe because they�re nice warm colors.

Cheers,

Rikki

Message edited by author 2006-05-24 04:00:50.

David.C

05/24/2006 04:50:54 AM · #602

Originally posted by Rikki:

...

This image broke one of the rules in landscape photography. Did you catch it during voting? How about now? The horizon is clearly in the middle of the composition thus splitting the image into halves. Most of the time, this spells disaster. However, it worked like a charm for this image. Personally, I think the reason being, the overly saturated skies and clouds created much interest in the image that most voters didn�t pay as much attention to the fact that I broke the Rules of Thirds. ...

Cheers,

Rikki

Interesting that you say it breaks the rule of thirds, when it was that rule I thought of first when I looked at it. The top and bottom thirds are much darker than the bright middle third. The top darker mass of clouds, seeming to swirl from the upper left and the darker shoreline with the waves moving from the lower right create a sort of yin-yang twirl feel to it. If anything breaks in the this image it is the bright shoreline breaking the symetry of that swirl -- creating a great deal of interest in the image as it does. Just goes to show different people will have different views of the same scene.

Regardless, it is a very striking image, with a lower half that invites me in and an upper half that makes me want to run!

David

05/24/2006 09:37:18 AM · #603

Originally posted by Rikki:

A Lesson in Hyper-processing

The following lesson will be �slightly� different than the on-going landscape thread that Robert had started. I hope this will be a useful lesson as it tries to explore a different take on post processing tricks. So far, you�ve all learned about composition, lighting, and post processing. Let�s take all you�ve learned and push it up another notch...

Your lesson is extensive, uses a familiar and successful image as an example, it is well thought out, well written and well presented. It is easy to follow your methodologies and it is not CS2 dependant in any way. In fact, I'm pretty sure you could do all that in PS6 or above. That is a good thing.

But I have to say this... I would do the same things you did differently using non-destructive methods that can quickly and easily be modified later on.

I want to begin my query with a somewhat innocuous and sorta related question:

Why do you have NeatImage as your last step before saving for the web?

05/24/2006 11:18:04 AM · #604

Great question Steve.

The steps I described below, closely relates to the steps I took when I processed the image for the challenge. However, these days, I've gone more accustomed to saving the entire PS file. This way I can always revert back to earlier steps rather than "recreating" the image all over again.

It's true that methodologies differ hence my prelude that this might be one possibility of post processing. In the business, we call it "methods of construction" where the same result is obtained via different techniques and methods ;)

As far as NI is concerned, I forgot to mention that the reason why I ran NI at the end was to rid of some stray noise left over. I typically run NI as my second to last step prior to saving for uploading.

Rikki

05/24/2006 11:46:51 AM · #605

Originally posted by Rikki:

I've noticed, like you, that a lot of DPCers apply NI at the end. I don't understand why. I always apply it early in the workflow. The reason is I don't want to duplicate noise in additional data layers.

The reason I asked the question is because in your work you duplicated your noise a couple times and worked on it. That later made step 7 necessary. I think that if you had applied NI first that step 7 would not have been necessary. I do sometimes have to apply light NI again at the end under extreme modifications.

I re-enacted your work using non-destructive steps to be sure I could achieve what you did using them. Would you like for me to outline and explain that work?

Non-destructive methodology should be prefered and used whenever possible. It is very flexible and easy to change at a later date.

BTW: I'm absolutely fascinated with the way you used color balance to generate the surrealistic sky. I'll remember that, particularly the ease with which blue sky color can be "corrected" :)

Message edited by author 2006-05-24 12:03:46.

05/24/2006 01:32:51 PM · #606

A good point Steve.

I've noticed that for most of my work, NI comes in at the very end of my workflow prior to using USM or Sharpen.The amount of noise is most probably "technically" not duplicated as the layers end up being flattened once saved as a jpeg file. Hence the noise levels in ALL data layers remain constant unless of course oversharpening or saturation boosts are overly used.

Step 7 was important, blurring the skies, as the Hue and Saturation step creates additional noise mostly from artifacts of the pixel data. I think even if I applied NI at the start of the workflow, I would have ended up using it again for the skies. Bumping the Hue and Saturation is similar to adjusting Contrast levels. Push it a degree higher and noise artifacts surface.

Please do post your steps so I too can learn new techniques. Hey if it makes my life easier then why not right? Hehehehe. It'll definitely benefit everyone who follows this thread.

I agree with the non-destructive methods. This is the main reason why I know save the PSD file instead of flattening the entire image.

Rikki

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

05/24/2006 01:55:29 PM · #607

�I haven�t seen a sky that color since I last ate mushrooms�
-Tim aka soup

Nice tutorial Rikki but you forgot to mention at what stage do you eat the mushrooms? :P

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

05/24/2006 02:01:58 PM · #608

Originally posted by yanko:

�I haven�t seen a sky that color since I last ate mushrooms�
-Tim aka soup

Nice tutorial Rikki but you forgot to mention at what stage do you eat the mushrooms? :P

Ooops. Consume "shrooms" prior to doing Step 4.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

05/24/2006 02:15:34 PM · #609

It's good to see Steve brought that up so *I* don't have to come down like a ton of bricks on our guest lecturer. The orthodoxy of this thread is that we always work non-destructively as much as possible. It's good that Rikki has seen the light since he did the Caponigro tribute.

On some of my more complex images I may have as many as 30 layers in the PS image, although eventually I consolidate them into at most 5-6 layers. But these 30-odd layers are mostly separate adjustment layers for tiny portions of a scene. For example, if ONE cloud is a little brighter than I want it to be, I'll select it and do an adjustment layer for that cloud alone, and then another selection and another adjustment layer for its neighboring cloud, which needs less adjustment, and so forth and so on. These similar layers can be LINKED so they all stay together, move as a group, and that helps a lot. The reason I keep them all intact as long as I do is that later, global adjustments to the composite image my dictate going back to some of the local adjustments and tweaking them slightly for best effect; you never know.

Regarding the Neat Image issue, it's true that it's usually best to apply NI early on, so as to avoid, for example, sharpening noise; stuff like that. Just makes it harder to get rid of in the end. But the extreme amount of "push" Rikki is using on this image, as he points out, brings artifacting into play, and he has to deal with that as best he can.

Here's Prism's silo image I was working on earlier, very quickly and dirtily rikki-ized. I have made NO attempt to fine-tune the edges of the selection, and I have made NO attempt to get rid of the artifacts; working from 640-pixel images there's no way to get rid of the artifacts anyway. In fat, this whole technique HAS to be done on full-sized originals if it's going to have a prayer of looking convincing. So, here's the image, showing exactly what sort of artifacting comes into play when you push that hard on the colors:

It's also worth noting that Rikki's approach of using the Color Balance adjustment is just one way of accomplishing strange transformations. In fact, I have never used Color Balance for this sort of thing. I'm more partial to a combination of Hue/Sat and Selective Color. Another thing that's interesting is to try taking the masked area layer and INVERTING the colors in it, THEN using hue/sat's hue and brightness layers to morph back on the inverted colors.

But that's neither here nor there; Rikki's describing HIS workflow, and it's gotten him a heck of a lot more ribbons than mine has gotten me :-)

Robt.

05/24/2006 07:06:35 PM · #610

Non-Destructive Hyper-processing

Original:

... Blue winner:

... Non-destructive version:

This work is not intended to exactly duplicate Rikki's work. My intention is "proof of concept" that non-destructive editing can be used to achieve the same result. The BIG advantage of non-destructive editing is that it can easily be undone and/or modified later when your artistic values change, like when Rikki decides he needs even MORE yellow and orange! LOL!

Here are the steps used to re-enact Rikki's great ribbon winning landscape. It is a terrific image!

Step 1:
In Photoshop, duplicate the background layer (Ctrl + J). Apply NI to duplicated background. (assumes you own NI plugin)

Explanation:
Interesting that this is similar to Rikki's first step but is done here for a different purpose. Duplicating and leaving the orginal BG untouched preserves a copy of your original in your post processing master file. This serves two important functions: 1-Recoverabilty from mistakes. 2-Makes it easy to check on the progress of editing by easily turning off your edit layers to see how they compare with the original image and validate you are achieving the desired effects.

Ironically, applying NI in the workflow now is not as critical as it might be. That is because in this methodology none of the image data will be duplicated so noise will not be duplicated. However, reducing noise with NI at this point does have an effect on making selections which will be done here.

Step 2:
Select the entire sky (use accumulated(+) magic wand selections) and choose "Select->Save Selection..." and give it a name like "Sky". ;)

Explanation:
Always save important and/or complicated selections with a meaningful name. You will find in non-destructive editing that you will want to use the exact same selection more than once. This way it is easy to bring it back again.

Later, after your mind really gets warped by PS, you will discover that a selection saved with a name becomes an alpha channel AND it is a mask! Rememeber, you heard it here first... Selections, masks and alpha channels are all the same thing!

Making selections, particularly those with "fuzzy" edges, is an artform. You can spend a lifetime learning wild, exotic and wonderful new ways to make selections. Fortunately, in this case none of that is necessary because the border between sky and earth is sharply defined.

Rikki used "Filter->Extract..." but could just as easily have use the magic wand IN THIS UNIQUE CASE because of the sharp boundary between sky and earth. If there were trees with branches and leaves against the sky it would be a different story.

At this point your sky selection is active. If not then just choose "Select->Load selection..." and pick "sky" from the popup menu to get it back.

Step 3:
Choose "Layers->Adjustment Layers->Color Balance". In the first dialog, give it the name "AddYellow" and input the same parameters Rikki did and click OK. (You will be able to re-adjust these any way and at any time you want later)

Explanation:
This is somwhat different from what Rikki did but still gives EXACTLY the same result. It has two important advantages: 1-It does not change or duplicate the original data at all. 2-It is saved with the master file and you can bring it back to review and/or change the orginal settings any time you want independant of any other editing you do to the picture. Even years from now.

Important News:
Adjustment layers are always created with a layer mask attached. It is a white box you probably don't pay any attention to on the right side display in the layers pallet.

You will notice that in this case, however, that the white box is not all white. It has black in it. The places that are black are the areas OUTSIDE the sky selection. In masks white means transparent and black means opaque. Black prevents (or masks) the effect from that layer on the rest of the image. That is why only the sky turned yellow, the land and ocean were 'masked' out with black! How 'bout them apples!

The cool thing about layer masks is they can be easily changed with a paint brush. To reveal more of the layer you simply paint 'white' on the 'black' areas to 'unmask' the effect so it can be seen. If you want to hide more then you paint 'black' on the 'white' areas and it disappears, like magic! Reminds me of developing prints. LOL! Plus it has all the advantages of using brushes.

The only trick is to remember to select the mask part of the adjustment layer BEFORE proceeding. Just click on the mask icon to select it. The mask is selected when there is a wide border around it. You paint on the picture to make mask changes. That is the confusing part. If the layer mask is not selected then you will actually paint for real on the picture itself. Believe me, you don't want that.

Not to worry, everyone screws up with this until they do it a few times. You will be no different.

Step 4:
Like in Rikki's case temporarily turn off the color balance adjustment layer called "AddYellow". Now, Choose "Select->Load selection..." and pick "sky" again from the popup menu. The sky will now be selected again. Then, similar to step three add another Color Balance adjustment layer and give it a name like "AdjustBlues" and enter the same parameters as Rikki did with his. This matches his second data layer to adjust the blue in the sky.

Explanation:
We have not made a single data change to the image yet we have created two adjustment layers we can keep for all time that can be used to achieve the same sky results that Rikki does. We can also use these to get radical later on and change the sky again any way we want. We could even easily go back to the original sky. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it to?

Step 5:
Turn all layers on. Instead of using the eraser tool like Rikki did we will use the paint brush to paint either black or white on the MASKS of each adjustment layer to blend them just right to get the colored sky effect we want and bring back some of that nice blue.

Paint black on mask to hide:

... Paint white on mask to show:

Paint with lower opacity brushes on each layer alternately to blend the effects of one into the other. Look closely at the example screens above and you can see how they were modified by painting black or white on the layer masks to blend the two layers. Their masks have a lot more black in the sky now to facilitate the blend of the two layers.

Explanation:
Most people have a good healthy interest in who is on top or who is on the bottom! Many like to switch back and forth. Same is true with adjustment layers, just not as much fun.

Remember that painting with black on an adjustment layer mask hides the layer's effect and that paintng with white shows the effect. It is important you remember that concept, particularly with respect to who is on top! In our case that is the "AddYellow" layer. The "AdjustBlues" layer is on the bottom. If this is not true in your case you can simply drag the "AdjustBlues" layer under the "AddYellow" layer. Anyone else besides me getting a little warm?

The key to blending is that you need to have black (or grey) painted on the areas of the adjustment layers you do not want to show and white (or grey) painted on the ones you do. For example, you will want black to be painted in the sky just above the place you want the blue from underneath to show through.

This sounds a lot harder than it really is. If you are proficient in the use of brushes and remember how to switch between background and foregound colors by simply typing 'X' then you can do this stuff lightning fast.

The kicker is that if you screw up you just switch colors and paint it back in (or take it back out) with the other color. It all depends, of course, on who is on top! ;)

Play around with this a little and you may never use the eraser tool ever again.

Another thing. If you wanted to you could later choose to include part of the land or ocean in the color balances if you wanted. All you would have to do is later paint white on one or both of the adjustment layers. Cool, huh?

Remember always, the key to mask adjustments is to have the correct mask selected BEFORE you paint. Don't worry, after the 20th or 30th time you forget to do that it will become second nature.

Note:
At this point in Rikki's workflow he added a step to apply gaussian blur to the sky because of noise. In this workflow the noise was already corrected and since adjustment layers have no data in them this step should be unnecessary. Strictly speaking that will only be true if the noise was removed properly in the first place. If not, extream changes like this will bring out unnoticed noise again. This does not usually happen, though.

However, you may want to gaussian blur the sky for artistic rather than functional purposes. If so you will have to create a new data layer and blur there since blurring must be applied to a data layer just like sharpening must be.

This example assumes it is not needed.

Step 6:
Dodge and burn highlights and shadows in the sky and on the ground. Choose "Layer->New->Layer...", enter 'Overlay' in the "Name:" box, select 'overlay' in the "Mode:" popup list and check where it says "Fill with overlay-neutral color (50% grey)". Be sure this layer is at the very top. It works best after everything else is done. It loves to be on top.

Be sure you have black and white foreground and background colors and highlight away on this new layer just like you would do with the old 'destructive' way.

Explanation:
Creating a 50% greyscale layer sets up for non-destructive dodge and burn because you don't make changes to your original image or any duplicated data. Nothing gets permanently damaged.

It is important to note that the dodge and burn tools themselves are NOT used. All you do is paint on the 50% greyscale layer with black to burn and with white to dodge. Don't confuse this with painting on masks, they are totally different concepts even though you use the same tools in the same way.

An advantage to doing dodge and burn this way is that it looks more natural. That is because what you see is a blend of all the editing layers below it with what you paint. Also, if you change the adjustment layers below it you automatically change the blend.

Step 7:
Use color painting on the 50% greyscale layer to paint in the ocean colors.

Choose "Select->Color Range...". In the color range dialog box there are two radio buttons, one labeled "Selection" and the other "Image". Be sure the "Selection" radio button is chosen and the display box becomes black and white. With the 'shift'key held down drag with the eyedropper tool on the actual picture over all the blue ocean colors you want to change, you will have to click and drag several different places while the 'shift' key is down to get all areas. Then click OK. This creates a selection from the colors you dragged with the eyedropper. It takes a little practice, but if you don't get it right the first time then simply cancel the color range dialog and try again.

Now, choose "Selection->Save selection..." just like in step 2 and give it a name like "OceanColor". Set a feather value of 2 pixels. Be sure you have the 50% grey layer highlighted. Bring up the color picker and choose a color you like. Select a brush (does not matter how big it is because the selection will limit where you paint) and set a low opacity value around 20% or lower and paint over the selection. The marching ants display can be toggle on and off with Command-H (Ctrl-H on PC).

Just like what happens in dodge an burn what you see is a blend of the the color you paint with and the colors below it. They will not be the same so you will have to try out a few times and possibly paint with several different colors to get what you want.

Explanation:
This method is used when other 'normal' adjustment layers for color manipulation don't give the desired results. This is another tool you can add to your color processing arsenal that creates very natural looking results. Of course, you could have created a color balance adjustment layer like above and used that in this situation. The reason this method is used here is because you are changing the tonality of an existing color rather than radically changing to a different color. Color balance adjustment layers are for really radical changes.

Step 8:
Like Rikki, use the Velvia Provia Action from ATNCentral.com, run your image to bring out the highlights of the ground and other warm colors. (I did not)

Note:
I did NOT apply this step in my little example.

Step 9
Save the post processing master file as a .tiff or .psd format to retain the layers. Never write over your original out-of-camera file. Never! Otherwise, Rikki will have to hunt you down like a dirty dog and whip you severely. That may be tempting to some of you, but don't do it anyway.

Step 10
Selective sharpening. Applied selective sharpening in the rocks, water, and skies.

Flatten the image, duplicate the flattened layer so you now have two layers and then apply your favorite sharpening method (USM, Smart Sharpen, others...) to the duplicated layer. Make it just a little sharper than you actually want it to be.

Now, reduce the opacity setting of the sharpened layer down from 100% to back off on sharpening until the sharpest areas are just right.

Here is where the 'selective' part of selective sharpening comes in... With the duplicated layer still selected chose "Layer->Layer Mask->Reveal All". This adds a completely transparent (white) layer mask to the sharpened layer.

Guess what? Yup, you paint with black on the mask layer to reduce the sharpness on the rest of the image to meet your exacting needs.

Explanation:
This is another example of adjustable, non-destructive editing. Though this is not usually saved, it is highly flexible when you are in the hot seat while trying to prepare an image to submit to a challenge that closes in the next five minutes and you make a mistake. :)

It is something you would probably chose to save with a print master file since they are so hard to get sharpened right in the first place and you want quick options to make changes after prints come back and are not sharpened correctly.

Step 11:
Crop and Save for web.

And would you look at this! You get a completely safe non-destructive master file that you can bring back time and time again and change to your heart's content and with two fewer steps than Rikki. That makes you smarter and better than him. Now you can get those ribbons Rikki would otherwise hog for himself.

deapee

Kodak V803

05/24/2006 07:10:58 PM · #611

wow you guys got a lot of time on your hands.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

05/24/2006 07:22:25 PM · #612

Maybe, but I for one am quite grateful that they take the time to share some of this stuff with the rest of us. :-)

05/24/2006 07:38:34 PM · #613

Originally posted by Melethia:

Maybe, but I for one am quite grateful that they take the time to share some of this stuff with the rest of us. :-)

Thanks Deb. Like others on this site, I truly appreciate it when folks take time to explain workflows. One of the founding principles (IMHO) of this site is to continue learning from others. As I have learned from most of you, I am also returning the favor. I for one enjoy teaching those who are eager to learn. We're not saying that our techniques are the "end all, be all" but merely as a different take on various techniques.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

05/24/2006 07:57:05 PM · #614

Originally posted by Rikki:

Originally posted by Melethia:
Maybe, but I for one am quite grateful that they take the time to share some of this stuff with the rest of us. :-)

... Like others on this site, I truly appreciate it when folks take time to explain workflows. One of the founding principles (IMHO) of this site is to continue learning from others. As I have learned from most of you, I am also returning the favor. I for one enjoy teaching those who are eager to learn...

I learn new things all the time and appreciate people, like Rikki, taking the time to share their knowledge, experience and thinking.

That benefits everyone. Thank you.

Bosborne

Canon EOS-30D

05/24/2006 07:57:44 PM · #615

this thread has been so helpful. I return to it a lot.
Thanks!

tmhalling

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

05/24/2006 09:06:26 PM · #616

Thanks, now I don't need mushrooms to see colors anymore ;).

05/24/2006 09:26:22 PM · #617

Originally posted by Rikki:

I've noticed that for most of my work, NI comes in at the very end of my workflow prior to using USM or Sharpen.The amount of noise is most probably "technically" not duplicated as the layers end up being flattened once saved as a jpeg file. Hence the noise levels in ALL data layers remain constant unless of course oversharpening or saturation boosts are overly used.

Step 7 was important, blurring the skies, as the Hue and Saturation step creates additional noise mostly from artifacts of the pixel data. I think even if I applied NI at the start of the workflow, I would have ended up using it again for the skies. Bumping the Hue and Saturation is similar to adjusting Contrast levels. Push it a degree higher and noise artifacts surface.

Please do post your steps so I too can learn new techniques. Hey if it makes my life easier then why not right? Hehehehe. It'll definitely benefit everyone who follows this thread.

I agree with the non-destructive methods. This is the main reason why I know save the PSD file instead of flattening the entire image.

Interesting stuff about when, where and why to use noise reduction. We adapt our workflows based on our experiences. All of us are attacking the same problem issue but for different reasons so solve it in different ways.

For example, I apply noise reduction as the first step in my workflow and if needed I apply it as the last step AFTER sharpening at the end. That is very different from you.

However, we have different goals in our post processing that have driven our differing methodologies. I find it fascinating and think I'll make adjustments to my workflow when trying to do things similar to what you do.

There are two significant differences between you and I that drive our respective workflows. 1-You tend to make far more radical image changes than I do. 2-All my noise reduction concerns at the end are related to making large prints. I've spent hours and hours on "final" print master files smoothing and removing remaining artifacts even after noise reduction was applied at the very end. That is because of the problem of the delicate balance between noise reduction and oversmoothing. The software just isn't good enough sometimes to do the job right and retain needed detail. Sometimes it needs manual attention.

I apply noise reduction right off the bat because I generally do not make super radical changes and noise reduction there works best for me. My changes generally are not radical enough to require later noise reduction. When creating web graphics you can get away with a lot of things because the images are small and don't have much density. But in prints you can't get away with that. That is why I may do noise reduction again at the very end after sharpening. In extreme cases with gallery worthy prints I have to do "manual" noise reduction.

But you make radical changes with color manipulation during post so it makes better sense for you to apply noise reduction later.

However, I think I have something to offer you...

I would recommend trying out using the color painting technique on a 50% greyscale layer I described. The reason I started using it in the first place is because of noise problems while using adjustment layers with extreme color manipulation. You can get very radical with color changes using color painting. :)

It does not matter if you do things with hue/sat, selective color, channel mixer, brightness/contrast or whatever. They all produce a lot of artifacting at the extremes.

Color painting on a 50% grey layer, on the other hand, has less artifacting. I don't know a total physical explanation why that is but suspect it is for two reasons: 1-The painting part adds absolutely nothing itself to artifacting. You are just painting color(s) on a separate layer that has no artifacts to start with. Adjustment layers, on the other hand, work intimately with the actual image pixels where artifacts reside. 2-Blending. It is almost as though the greyscale layer has a built in governor on it that mutes the extremes when it blends with the rest of the image. Often it prevents you from going to far overboard. That is part of what appeals to me because it seems to produce more natural, realistic results. (That might not be your goal)

I'd be curious to know, by judicious selections with appropriate feathering and appropriate color picker choices and other things, if you could achieve a sky like your example image using color painting alone. I suspect if you could that you'd eliminate most of the noise issues your currently experience in post processing.

Message edited by author 2006-05-24 21:33:07.

fracman

Nikon D50

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/24/2006 11:44:51 PM · #618

I didn't intend to do a hypersaturated image, but apparently that's the way this shot wanted to be.

Original (Nikon RAW format):

Modified (JPG):

Fullsized JPG of original image (1.2 MB)
Fullsized PSD of modified image (31 MB)
Fullsized JPG of modified image (1 MB)

I futzed about with this shot for quite a while, but I'm not really satisfied yet. I like the sky, but I can't get the buildings on the right side of the image to show up the way I'd like. It took Shadows and Highlights, Levels, and a bunch of monkeying with Channel Mixer to get the sky the way I wanted it, I ran Gothic Glow on it, and then finished up with NI and Smart Sharpen.

I'm open to any comments and suggestions :-)

Message edited by author 2006-05-30 21:48:46.

justin_hewlett

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

05/24/2006 11:50:18 PM · #619

All right, here's my go at a hyper-saturated landscape. I went back and pulled out a landscape that I've actually never processed before. I'm quite pleased with what I came up with since before now I never even bothered trying to get something good out of it.

Have at it:

Original:

Edit:

All editing was done in GIMP. If you want to know my individual steps, just ask.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/25/2006 12:06:16 AM · #620

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

OK... consider yourself asked. :) :)

I like seeing before and after images but like to know how you get from point a to point b.

Thanks

justin_hewlett

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

05/25/2006 12:20:55 AM · #621

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
All right, here's my go at a hyper-saturated landscape. I went back and pulled out a landscape that I've actually never processed before. I'm quite pleased with what I came up with since before now I never even bothered trying to get something good out of it.

Have at it:

Original: Edit:

All editing was done in GIMP. If you want to know my individual steps, just ask.

OK... consider yourself asked. :) :)

I like seeing before and after images but like to know how you get from point a to point b.

Thanks

Ok, here you go:

Sky selected using magic wand. Adjusted levels and then used a dark-blue to transparent gradient on the top and left side. Blues boosted using hue/sat of about +40 on both blue and cyan.

Selection inverted to select land. Adjusted levels to bring out highlights quite a bit and shadows down just a tiny bit. I then sharpened land only (USM) and applied a plug-in called "Vivid Saturation" to bring out the colors.

Resized image to 620. Sharpened land only (USM). Boosted contrast a bit by using USM radius of 50. Then applied another weak pass of "Vivid Saturation." On the left, right, and bottom of the image I used a black-to-transparent gradient set to multiply and layer opacity reduced to about 28%. This was done in an attempt to more fully "contain" the image. I would have done the top as well at this point but it already had a nice dark-blue gradient applied to it. Ten-pixel white border added. Flattened. Saved as web-quality jpg.

No noise reduction whatsoever throughout the entire worldflow.

Hope that helps.

wavelength

Nikon D300

05/25/2006 12:22:24 AM · #622

Wow, I've been intentionally not reading this thread because I get too involved in it. Man those were some sweet tutorials Rikki and Steve.

What a great thread Robert, bravo sirs!

P.S. - Rikki/St, you should submit those two in the Learn sections. I'm sure most of the rest of this should too in some fashion.

pps - have we gotten into dual/double exposures yet? I'm atrociously behind.

05/25/2006 12:48:57 AM · #623

Originally posted by wavelength:

Can't speak for Rikki, but I'm holding out for a nice DPC gal to be "grateful" for one-on-one attention teaching her photoshop. ;) LOL!!!

05/25/2006 01:22:35 AM · #624

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Original: Edit:

Ok, here you go:

Sky selected using magic wand. Adjusted levels and then used a dark-blue to transparent gradient on the top and left side. Blues boosted using hue/sat of about +40 on both blue and cyan.

Selection inverted to select land. Adjusted levels to bring out highlights quite a bit and shadows down just a tiny bit. I then sharpened land only (USM) and applied a plug-in called "Vivid Saturation" to bring out the colors.

Resized image to 620. Sharpened land only (USM). Boosted contrast a bit by using USM radius of 50. Then applied another weak pass of "Vivid Saturation." On the left, right, and bottom of the image I used a black-to-transparent gradient set to multiply and layer opacity reduced to about 28%. This was done in an attempt to more fully "contain" the image. I would have done the top as well at this point but it already had a nice dark-blue gradient applied to it. Ten-pixel white border added. Flattened. Saved as web-quality jpg.

No noise reduction whatsoever throughout the entire worldflow.

I like the result you got. Great job. Nicely done.

You folks are teaching me a lot. I never realized so many people use gradients and special plugins and actions on their landscapes and that they go through so many gyrations with adjustment layers.

For color correction I pretty much stick with the mundane standards like:
1-Regular levels adjustment
2-Curves for mid-tone contrast (or sometimes for special luminosity ranges)
3-Curves for color and color cast correction
4-Hue/Sat for Saturation changes only
5-Selective color for individual color changes, contrast changes and and color cast correction.

Then I mostly use color painting for the more dramatic things like dodge and burn, color highlighting and to create texture and interest in an image.

Out of 2,500 images I've post processed in PS I think I've probably used gradients only a handful of times and that was only because the sky was absolutely terrible. The concept seems artificial to me and I've noticed banding when I've used it before. I use color painting when others use gradients.

But you have done a great job with your image. I need to revisit that methodology.

I usually don't use specialized plugins and/or actions either. It makes me feel like I lose artistic control. I must be too anal. LOL!

Guess I'm falling behind the times.