RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Retouching
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Photo Retouching "Improving" photos, post-production, correction, etc.

First Attempt at Greenberg Effect?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #41  
Old 02-15-2010, 11:16 AM
flexmanta's Avatar
flexmanta flexmanta is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 339
Re: First Attempt at Greenberg Effect?

Techniques for skin? Cloning, healing, dodge and burn, inverted high pass at high radius (obtained through the apply image command) and whatever you want for color correction. That's all there is to know. There is nothing else. Splitting is not actually a technique, because a split image looks the same as the non split one. Splitting is preparing the image for the different techniques. For example, why clone all skin when you just want to clone texture?

Unless the client NEEDS you to blur or degrunge or do whatever single pass modification and puts money in your hand, i wouldn't do it... I wouldn't use it for my portfolio either, and I'd also keep it a secret.

The best techniques are to know your photoshop, to be prepared to spend a long time and to be a detail freak.
Reply With Quote top
  #42  
Old 02-15-2010, 12:34 PM
Quantum3 Quantum3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 911
Question Re: First Attempt at Greenberg Effect?

Quote:
Originally Posted by flexmanta View Post
Splitting is not actually a technique, because a split image looks the same as the non split one. Splitting is preparing the image for the different techniques.
I'm wondering what else can be done through splitting, because I just use it to fix the texture problems and sometimes, luminance problems (in the LF). Would you mind listing, or at least, wirtting a bit what else can be done through splitting?

Thanks,

Mart
Reply With Quote top
  #43  
Old 02-15-2010, 12:52 PM
flexmanta's Avatar
flexmanta flexmanta is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 339
Re: First Attempt at Greenberg Effect?

Ok. 90% of the times i split an image, i delete the low freq layer. I like to keep a layer containing all the pore texture of the image in case another part of the image is lacking texture. In that case, i will cut a chunk of high and place/warp it whenever i need it. When i don't need it, i normally turn that layer off. This is normally a pain in the ass, because you have to make sure you have liquified everything that needed liquifying. If you liquify the merge and have a high texture layer saved there to use as source, then make sure you save the liq mesh so that you can use it on the high res layer. I don't know about other people, but my initial cleaning, no matter what process i used, i like to keep on one single layer. That is, i have an original layer, then a liquified layer, and then a liquified cleaned layer. Even after splitting the latter, i will again, merge all the junk together in order to have one single liquified clean layer.

The only time that i split an image and keep both low and high layers, is normally when i work with very sharp images of high megapixel cameras. I do this particularly with beauty photography, as the skin and hair are very very important. And again, once im done cleaning, I'll merge.

On a fashion photo or any other framing that is not a close up to the face, I almost never find any reasons for splitting the image.

In essence, splitting is for me useful when im going to retouch high resolution skin, so that the cloning and healing tools are more effective, and to have the possibility to retouch the low separately (say by using very subtle median on it).

Another very useful thing about splitting is to extract texture from 3rd party sources. Say you need to add glitter to lips or eye makeup. On a new document you create noise, or maybe get a photo of sanding paper, split it and use the high layer to linearly light the lips/eyes. But again, if the term splitting applies only when you keep both layers, that would not be just high pass instead of splitting.

I'm sure there are many more things that can be done with splitting. I still have to learn them though, or come up with my own.
Reply With Quote top
  #44  
Old 02-15-2010, 01:04 PM
Quantum3 Quantum3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 911
Re: First Attempt at Greenberg Effect?

Quote:
Originally Posted by flexmanta View Post
Ok. 90% of the times i split an image, i delete the low freq layer. I like to keep a layer containing all the pore texture of the image in case another part of the image is lacking texture. In that case, i will cut a chunk of high and place/warp it whenever i need it. When i don't need it, i normally turn that layer off. This is normally a pain in the ass, because you have to make sure you have liquified everything that needed liquifying. If you liquify the merge and have a high texture layer saved there to use as source, then make sure you save the liq mesh so that you can use it on the high res layer. I don't know about other people, but my initial cleaning, no matter what process i used, i like to keep on one single layer. That is, i have an original layer, then a liquified layer, and then a liquified cleaned layer. Even after splitting the latter, i will again, merge all the junk together in order to have one single liquified clean layer.

The only time that i split an image and keep both low and high layers, is normally when i work with very sharp images of high megapixel cameras. I do this particularly with beauty photography, as the skin and hair are very very important. And again, once im done cleaning, I'll merge.

On a fashion photo or any other framing that is not a close up to the face, I almost never find any reasons for splitting the image.

In essence, splitting is for me useful when im going to retouch high resolution skin, so that the cloning and healing tools are more effective, and to have the possibility to retouch the low separately (say by using very subtle median on it).

Another very useful thing about splitting is to extract texture from 3rd party sources. Say you need to add glitter to lips or eye makeup. On a new document you create noise, or maybe get a photo of sanding paper, split it and use the high layer to linearly light the lips/eyes. But again, if the term splitting applies only when you keep both layers, that would not be just high pass instead of splitting.

I'm sure there are many more things that can be done with splitting. I still have to learn them though, or come up with my own.
Oh... I do the same. I have heard that works very good for sharpening by using a gradient map and heard that people does almost everything on these layers... I tryed sharpening there, but found nothing better than doing it by highpassing/darken&lighten.
Reply With Quote top
  #45  
Old 02-15-2010, 01:39 PM
Der_W's Avatar
Der_W Der_W is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 558
Re: First Attempt at Greenberg Effect?

Sharpening is usually done via a curves adjustment layer clipped to the high-layer. You simply increase the blacks and whites to give it a sharper effect. The only advantage over the original high pass is that it's a little more accurate in the shadows/highlights (as flexmanta showed before).
Personally I wouldn't do this because it also increases the noise in many cases, so what I'd do (for sharpening that is) is delete the low layer and use surface blur on the high layer to get rid of the noise. Afterwards you can decrease the opacity to lower the effect or even use the curves layer as above to increase the sharpening effect.

Another nice thing that can be done via splitting is removing crumbles from clothing (http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?th...8#post11387548).
Reply With Quote top
  #46  
Old 02-15-2010, 02:08 PM
Quantum3 Quantum3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 911
Re: First Attempt at Greenberg Effect?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Der_W View Post
Sharpening is usually done via a curves adjustment layer clipped to the high-layer. You simply increase the blacks and whites to give it a sharper effect. The only advantage over the original high pass is that it's a little more accurate in the shadows/highlights (as flexmanta showed before).
Personally I wouldn't do this because it also increases the noise in many cases, so what I'd do (for sharpening that is) is delete the low layer and use surface blur on the high layer to get rid of the noise. Afterwards you can decrease the opacity to lower the effect or even use the curves layer as above to increase the sharpening effect.

Another nice thing that can be done via splitting is removing crumbles from clothing (http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?th...8#post11387548).
By using a gradient map you can set the values more accurately, the result is the same I think. Regarding the highpass technique, you can use the command blend if to get ride of the blwon highlights or the darken shadows
Reply With Quote top
  #47  
Old 02-22-2010, 12:52 PM
dvbear dvbear is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 63
Re: First Attempt at Greenberg Effect?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmeadows View Post
I've always agreed with the photographers, although reading this has made me think on it a little. What you do have with Photoshop is the ability to change any pixel in an image to any luminosity value you can think of. Does this mean that the lighting of an image can be completely backwards engineered? Well yeah, it pretty much does. If you had the patience, you could paint a Greenberg image by reference pixel by pixel.
This is not the most efficient way or something retouchers look forward too but it is very inevitable. Just like how we made the jump from using darkdrooms to being able to do it all in photoshop, one day we will also have programs that will help us emulate light. In fact I'd say we're very close. But this really detoriates the creativity and hands on experience of what photography really is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeActor View Post
go on and dream further!
There where a plugin that can create a hard work style like Dave Hill, Jill Greenberg and so on...hahaha good joke ;-)

Come Back to earth. i mean this not bad!
You can create much in photoshop but nothing at all!

The Look like DH, JG isn´t possible without the right light setting!
To some extent this is very true. Creating a plugin to do what Dave Hill and Jill Greenberg spend the big $$ and time to master is ludicrous. Like saying people can one day fly no?

Now imagine if the Wright Brothers thought like that...

If everyone thought like this we would still be living in caves.

Just my two cents.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Retouching


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adding A More Realistic Film Grain Effect gmitchel Software 14 08-15-2013 07:57 AM
How to get the Jill Greenberg effect askreage Photo Retouching 86 04-26-2013 02:21 AM
Faux LOMO Effect Preset gmitchel Photo Retouching 0 05-05-2009 10:17 AM
Pop Art effect mana Photo-Based Art 14 03-13-2009 06:30 PM
Vibrance Effect for CS4 and pre-CS4 gmitchel Photo Retouching 3 01-29-2009 06:12 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved