Duotone Legality in PSP - DPChallenge Forums

01/12/2006 05:33:45 PM · #26

In general, the creation of a duotone requires that at some point in the workflow the user or the program must select brightness values and apply a color shift to them. "Duotone" is not a "classic" photographic technique, it's an offset printing technique. It is designed to to increase the dynamic range of commercially-printed photographic images so they more closely approximate the appearance of a fine photographic print.

The printer makes two separate plates for the image, one densewr than the other, and rins the image-containing page past both plates.

The digital version of duotoning adds considerable flexibility of color-mixing to the mix (plus there are tritones and quadtones as well) but all of them depend on separate "layers" for the brights, the neutrals, the darks, and so forth.

As far as I can see, allowing Photoshop duotoning in basic editing because it's a one-click operation in PS is another example of a functional inconsistency in the rules; the MEANS by which PS accomplishes this would not be legal of you did it by hand, which is exactly what the OP is proposing in PSP, which lacks the one-click capability. Another example of this one-click inconsistency is allowing shadow/highlight in PS CS2 while prohibiting its precursor, cntrl-alt-tilde contrast masking, in earlier versions of PS.

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/12/2006 05:36:36 PM · #27

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Another example of this one-click inconsistency is allowing shadow/highlight in PS CS2 while prohibiting its precursor, cntrl-alt-tilde contrast masking, in earlier versions of PS.

R.

:) And that's the other reason I became interested in processing images in PSCS (besides learning the language).

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/12/2006 05:40:21 PM · #28

Originally posted by ursula:

Can you do this in PS without using the automatic duotone option? How would you do it?

Probably not -- as bear_music says, it's a printing technique designed to produce two separate images, which are recombined on the press by being printed superimposed on each other in different colors.

All those Ansel Adams calendars and greeting cards you see everywhere are (were?) printed by one shop near San Diego, which uses a special combination of four different gray inks to approximate the color and range of his photographic prints.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/12/2006 05:41:36 PM · #29

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

"Duotone" is not a "classic" photographic technique, it's an offset printing technique.

Though toning prints (and hand-tinting) provides a similar result.

01/12/2006 05:41:36 PM · #30

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ursula:
I don't know what the basic concept of a duotone is.

A duotone uses two different ink colors (or channels in the case of RGB images) to give the a toned look. Depending on the hue and saturation of the second color, the result can be warmer, cooler, colorized and/or have more richness and depth than a straight grayscale image.

In Paint Shop Pro, if you take a grayscale image (or an almost desaturated image) and apply (in my case "play around with") both or either b/w points or manual colour correction you do get a similar effect - manual colour correction more so than b/w points IMO, although they work well in conjunction. Your end result is a toned grayscale that has a richer look to it than just colourizing a b/w.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/12/2006 05:43:15 PM · #31

Ursula,

SC are repeatedly telling us (and rightly so) that it's not the "tool" that's legal, it's what you do with it. If this is the case, can anyone explain why it is necessary to prohibit contrast masking in basic editing on earlier versions of PS while automated contrast masking on the latest version is allowed in basic editing? The same question applies to duotones, of course; why is it required that we find a workaround to a perfectly useable technique when the results are indistinguishable, and those fortunate enough to have the "right" editor in the first place can do it automatically?

I don't mean to be contentious, but this topic nags at me all the time.

You tell me this is why you started using CS, but I don't have that option; I'd have to upgrade my operating system and photoshop both, at a cost of many hundreds of dollars, and I'm perfectly capable of gaining the same results manually with what I have now.

R.

gloda

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/12/2006 05:43:35 PM · #32

Ursula, I did what you suggested. The image does result in a kind of duotone, however quite an ugly one, nowhere near to what you can get out of the two methods I posted earlier, or out of the photoshop actions. Furthermore, it lacks the ability to define how far the effect of the colours goes - they always meet in the middle.

Also, could I have an answer on whether or not adjustment layers could legally be used with defined blend ranges if they offered the possibility to do so?

Also, Robert is quite right - if we do not succeed in finding a way to do this, there is a discriminating inconsistency in the rule set, based on who can afford certain techniques and who can not.

Okay, I'm off to bed, it's midnight and I have to go to school tomorrow. Keep the discussion going, I appreciate any new insights.

01/12/2006 05:45:46 PM · #33

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by ursula:
Can you do this in PS without using the automatic duotone option? How would you do it?

Probably not -- as bear_music says, it's a printing technique designed to produce two separate images, which are recombined on the press by being printed superimposed on each other in different colors.

Sure you can; you produce tone masks and stack them in layers and colorize each one then fade them together; that's what "duotoning" in photoshop DOES, basically.

Robt.

01/12/2006 05:46:07 PM · #34

Originally posted by gloda:

Well, it was an idea. I don't think the results are necessarily "ugly", IMO you can get some very beautiful results this way, but they may not be what you are envisioning.

Message edited by author 2006-01-12 17:46:57.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/12/2006 05:48:58 PM · #35

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by ursula:
Can you do this in PS without using the automatic duotone option? How would you do it?

Probably not -- as bear_music says, it's a printing technique designed to produce two separate images, which are recombined on the press by being printed superimposed on each other in different colors.

Sure you can; you produce tone masks and stack them in layers and colorize each one then fade them together; that's what "duotoning" in photoshop DOES, basically.

Robt.

OK, but we're back at not being able to do it in basic.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/12/2006 05:52:09 PM · #36

Originally posted by gloda:

there is a discriminating inconsistency in the rule set, based on who can afford certain techniques and who can not.

You could say there is an unfair advantage favoring those who have particular lenses, attractive models/spouses, scenic surroundings, or the ability to create double exposures in-camera. At least in this case, you can use free or low cost alternative applications like GIMP and Photoshop Elements to level the field.

01/12/2006 05:56:21 PM · #37

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Bear, I can't explain what you're asking me to explain. IMO you're right, there are issues with the basic editing rules, not only the favouring of the use of one software over another, but (again, just in my personal opinion) having to apply everything to the whole image, never to a portion (dust-bunny removal being the big example).

I find it very frustrating at times. But, my nature is to "work from within". I do not like quick changes, or "revolutions", or even much "activism". It's not in my nature. I prefer to accept rules as they are and slowly work from within to try and change them if they are not right. I also believe that I can make many beautiful images under a variety of rule sets. In a way, for me, it is fun to see what can be done within one rule set.

So, yes, I agree, I wish it were different, but at this time it isn't, and rather than stay frustrated I will try and make the best of it.

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

01/12/2006 05:58:01 PM · #38

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by gloda:
there is a discriminating inconsistency in the rule set, based on who can afford certain techniques and who can not.

You could say there is an unfair advantage favoring those who have particular lenses, attractive models/spouses, scenic surroundings, or the ability to create double exposures in-camera. At least in this case, you can use free or low cost alternative applications like GIMP and Photoshop Elements to level the field.

Or, LIFE JUST ISN'T FAIR! Bummer.

o2bskating

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/12/2006 06:04:16 PM · #39

you can do double exposures???

ooohhh oohhh ooohhhh

how....got a link for that....this friggin book that came with my camera is the most user unfriendly thing i've ever seen.

o2bskating

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

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

01/12/2006 06:05:34 PM · #40

ok you can kick me hard for saying this but..... if life was fair my kid wouldn't have anything to bitch about.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/12/2006 06:09:05 PM · #41

I skulked about a bit, and there are some plugins to add duotone functionality to PSP. They range in price from $15 to $54 from what I saw, so there are low-cost options other than a complete swap of editing software.
BTW, AFAIK, GIMP does not have built-in duotone, but I could be wrong.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/12/2006 06:10:16 PM · #42

Originally posted by kirbic:

save me some work - what plugins?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

01/12/2006 07:10:27 PM · #43

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by kirbic:
I skulked about a bit, and there are some plugins to add duotone functionality to PSP. They range in price from $15 to $54 from what I saw, so there are low-cost options other than a complete swap of editing software.
BTW, AFAIK, GIMP does not have built-in duotone, but I could be wrong.

save me some work - what plugins?

Two I found were "Autochromatic," $15, listed on various sites and the more expensive one was from PowerRetouche, $54. There's other stuff out there, these two seemed like they would be workable. PowerRetouche has a good reputation, but that's quite a bit to pay for a plug-in.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/12/2006 08:04:48 PM · #44

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

SC are repeatedly telling us (and rightly so) that it's not the "tool" that's legal, it's what you do with it. If this is the case, can anyone explain why it is necessary to prohibit contrast masking in basic editing on earlier versions of PS while automated contrast masking on the latest version is allowed in basic editing? The same question applies to duotones, of course; why is it required that we find a workaround to a perfectly useable technique when the results are indistinguishable, and those fortunate enough to have the "right" editor in the first place can do it automatically?

I don't mean to be contentious, but this topic nags at me all the time.

You tell me this is why you started using CS, but I don't have that option; I'd have to upgrade my operating system and photoshop both, at a cost of many hundreds of dollars, and I'm perfectly capable of gaining the same results manually with what I have now.

Robt,

I think your statements above refer to our explanations of the Advanced Rules.

The key difference between the Basic and Advanced rulesets is that the Basic rules deal with the means, and the Advanced rules deal with the ends. In other words, the Basic rules are technique-centric and the Advanced rules are Results-centric.

This is not to say that there aren't exceptions, but these are the major philosophies of the rulesets.

~Terry

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/12/2006 08:16:34 PM · #45

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
SC are repeatedly telling us (and rightly so) that it's not the "tool" that's legal, it's what you do with it. If this is the case, can anyone explain why it is necessary to prohibit contrast masking in basic editing on earlier versions of PS while automated contrast masking on the latest version is allowed in basic editing? The same question applies to duotones, of course; why is it required that we find a workaround to a perfectly useable technique when the results are indistinguishable, and those fortunate enough to have the "right" editor in the first place can do it automatically?

I don't mean to be contentious, but this topic nags at me all the time.

You tell me this is why you started using CS, but I don't have that option; I'd have to upgrade my operating system and photoshop both, at a cost of many hundreds of dollars, and I'm perfectly capable of gaining the same results manually with what I have now.

Robt,

I think your statements above refer to our explanations of the Advanced Rules.

The key difference between the Basic and Advanced rulesets is that the Basic rules deal with the means, and the Advanced rules deal with the ends. In other words, the Basic rules are technique-centric and the Advanced rules are Results-centric.

This is not to say that there aren't exceptions, but these are the major philosophies of the rulesets.

~Terry

I understand that, but as photoshop gets more and more automated the inconsistencies become greater and greater in basic editing; a RESULT that was formerly impossible to attain legally is now easy to accomplish IF you have the latest version of the software, and still impossible to attain legally in the earlier version, even though the only functional difference is that photoshop has automated what formerly had to be done manually.

I don't mean to keep beating the same drum; I mean, I can live with things as they are but the gap is surely widening, and it calls some fundamental issues into question. I'm sure y'all are actively debating these same issues.

R.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

01/12/2006 08:26:54 PM · #46

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...I'm sure y'all are actively debating these same issues.

R.

You would be correct, sir.

We would have to be DEbating, since just plain bating is frowned upon ;-)

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/12/2006 08:38:44 PM · #47

Originally posted by scalvert:

and I quote: "A two-color grayscale file that uses two custom inks. Photoshop Elements does not support duotone files."

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/12/2006 08:51:58 PM · #48

Here's a good question.

Was the rule made before or after the release of CS2?

If before, the thought of the rules did not take into account the inconsistencies of the abilities of different programs.

Either the the rules should be updated to spcifically dis-allow the effective workaround in CS2 (which in reality, applied layers in background processing and spits out the effect), or the rules should be adjusted to allow layers that equate tp duotone, contrast mask and the host of others (I'm sure bear has them listed in his head) that are currently unavailable to others.

My opinion, just registering it.

Since none of the rules specifically denote what models/cameras/lenses/blah/blah that you are allowed to use, Scalverts argument utilizing those subjects is spurious and misleading, be it only to himself. We're talking about post-processing, not physical equipment.

Given the same camera, lens, model, setting, lights, and what have you, the person who uses CS2 is at a distinct advantage with the extra legalized workarounds/shortcuts.

If the point of the basic rules is to keep advanced editing out, why are we allowing advanced editing techniques in basic? If we're allowing these techniques, then allow them. Don't give the advantage to those who use a program that hides the fact that non-adjustment layers were used in the processing.

Message edited by author 2006-01-12 20:52:39.

Prism

Pentax K-30

Pentax SMC DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR

01/12/2006 09:30:05 PM · #49

Not sure if this is the effect you are looking for but I did it with PSP9 using adjustment layers. The first shot shows what the pic looked like before and the second shot is after. I think as all adjustment layers are applied in normal mode, this would be legal in basic or advanced. Details of steps I used are in the photo description.

Original

Edit 1

Edit 2 (50% opacity)

Message edited by author 2006-01-13 00:58:57.