![]() |
| |||||||
| Photo Retouching "Improving" photos, post-production, correction, etc. |
| | Thread Tools |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| Frequency Separation In Workflow Hey, all… I'm new to the forums and I've recently learned the Frequency Separation technique and I absolutely love it, but I'm curious about the steps you guys take when using it. For instance, I've got an image of a model and I want to do some liquify filtering to get rid of bulging in weird places. Before that was something I did towards the end of my workflow, but with Frequency Separation you really can't. In general do you folks do all of that sort of correction before the Frequency Sep or do you prefer to do a Merge Visible when you're all done and then do your liquifying? Or is there some special technique I don't know about yet? Thanks! |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow I prefer liquify first. |
|
#3
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow In my workflow liquify comes as the last step, because that way my files are more flexible. Imagine, you have to redo your liquification and did it as a first step. You might either redistort the pixels (further loss of quality) or liquify all the layers you created on top accordingly. The downside of this is that you might have to correct liquify signs afterwards. Of course if you're 100% sure about your changes, it's also possible to liquify first (and remove all the telltales on the run). Edit: FS didn't change anything related to liquify in my workflow fwiw ;-). It's just a completely different part for me and therefore they don't intersect with/disturb each other. |
|
#4
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow I also think liquifying first is good - then there won't be any surprises with stretching/compressing grain/noise/texture. Also, its nice to build your masks, paths based on the already-shaped (liquified) image You have to trust in yourself that you are doing the right things though. I also don't limit myself by an editable/non-destructive-at-any-cost workflow. So, I trust my decisions and work, and merge my high and low frequency layers whenever the urge comes and re-separate as needed. hope this helps. --Shift Studio. Last edited by shift studio; 10-27-2010 at 01:30 PM. Reason: clarity |
|
#5
| |||
| |||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow puppet wrap is a very good alternative to liquify |
|
#6
| |||
| |||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow Warp is more flexible than liquefy most of the time. Still, need to warp my head around puppet, there is that love/hate thing with it. |
|
#7
| |||
| |||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow @ShadowLight & aladdin… Whether you use Liquify, Puppet Warp (which since I don't have CS5 is a moot point anyways… sigh!) or Warp is irrelevant, really. You still need to perform that part of the workflow BEFORE you do the Frequency Sep, or you need to do do a Merge after and do it destructively then, correct? Where do you normally perform those sorts of actions? |
|
#8
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow Liquify first, as soon as it comes out of RAW. Always keep a copy of the nonliquified layer. Always save the liquify mesh. I always felt that retouching should be 'bottom heavy' like a skyscraper. The heavy work is at the bottom and you work your way up to the finer points at the end. Panth |
|
#9
| |||
| |||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow I would go first for freq. cleanup, as manipulation will add distortions to the visual frequency distribution (ie heterogeneous filed may get distorted and correction later will be more difficult) after split-freq cleanup, manipulations, and then "retouch" but you can do the same thing in many ways, whichever works for you when it comes to manipulations... check this out: http://vimeo.com/14693863 |
|
#10
| |||
| |||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow Depends on how you like to have your files set up, and what you plan to do with your FS in the first place. If you're just healing / cloning, etc. and aren't addicted to Smart Objects, you can do it anywhere in the workflow without any real penalty. If you're a big SO fan, or if you're planning to use IHP, etc. then it's probably better to do later in the workflow. And obviously if you use it for sharpening, it should come very near the end. So as with too many things, it depends |
|
#11
| |||
| |||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow Sorry, ie? IHP? Thank you. |
|
#12
| |||
| |||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow IHP = Inverted High Pass, aka a Bandstop filter. |
|
#13
| |||
| |||
| Re: Frequency Separation In Workflow Thank you for your answer. What is IHP uses for? |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
| | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Generating Skin with Frequency Separation | gene_spark | Photo Retouching | 16 | 10-12-2011 09:14 PM |
| L*a*b* question: why can't it be simulated in RGB? | kkamin | Photo Retouching | 63 | 09-21-2010 10:40 AM |
| Great retouch video using Frequency Separation | julianmarsalis | Photo Retouching | 15 | 08-24-2010 05:10 PM |
| Ok to call people out to explain workflow? | cyberphonics | Photo Retouching | 12 | 12-13-2009 02:41 PM |
| RGB separation on 2 separate areas | tatrader | Hidden Power Support | 1 | 03-09-2005 11:32 AM |