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.

Why I hate frequency separation

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 07-08-2014, 09:04 AM
Isedo Isedo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 185
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Ah ok, bump map yes, i learned that it's by the way just a black and white version of the texture it self. How the FS is used in this process?

I agree with Typiac, thats the same workflow if mine. FS is a real time saver for sure.
Reply With Quote top
  #12  
Old 07-08-2014, 05:59 PM
byRo's Avatar
byRo byRo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Goianésia, Brazil
Posts: 1,609
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isedo View Post
.... i learned that it's by the way just a black and white version of the texture it self. ...
Not really..
The 3D bump map serves exactly the same purpose as the FS High Part, It keeps the fine texture separate from the overall shapes and colours.

If I still remember how to attach images, you should find two examples here. One is a FS High Part and the other a 3D Bump Map. I think you'll see that they are pretty much the same thing.

In fact I sometimes think that I could apply adapted and resized 3D Bump Map images to faces that have lost all skin texture - thus "inventing" a missing FS high part.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg 3D Bump.jpg (81.5 KB, 58 views)
File Type: jpg FS-HiPart.jpg (88.3 KB, 54 views)
Reply With Quote top
  #13  
Old 07-08-2014, 09:33 PM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Quote:
Originally Posted by shumicpi View Post
There is a problem high pass filter in the FS technique. When it is used to separate the image into high and low spatial frequencies, the results are inaccurate. In other words, after the separation image data is slightly skewed, so it is required to compromise the quality of the outcome before you even begin retouching.
You just don't know how to blend it.

After you've done you adjustments, to affect only the necessities, you copy high low and band pass layers, merge them, set the resulting layer to difference use threshold to make a selection, use it as a mask or simply delete the unused bit of the layer. But... keep those separated passes in a new file just in case.
Reply With Quote top
  #14  
Old 07-08-2014, 09:58 PM
mistermonday's Avatar
mistermonday mistermonday is offline
Moderator
Patron
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,028
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Quote:
Originally Posted by shumicpi View Post
There is a problem high pass filter in the FS technique. When it is used to separate the image into high and low spatial frequencies, the results are inaccurate. In other words, after the separation image data is slightly skewed, so it is required to compromise the quality of the outcome before you even begin retouching.
If you use the HP command in PS it is inaccurate. You see the largest degradation in the highlights. However, if you use the Apply Image command to create the HF layer, it is 99.999% accurate and visually it is impossible to tell the difference if you toggle on/off the separated layer group above the original unseparated layer.
Cheers, Murray
Reply With Quote top
  #15  
Old 07-09-2014, 06:50 AM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

It is asaccurate, it is just doing a different calculation.
Reply With Quote top
  #16  
Old 07-09-2014, 07:37 AM
Isedo Isedo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 185
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

I was just wondering, is there anything else like this technique in the field of skin retouching? I mean, this HP technique, in europe come up like for 3-4 years even if most of the professionals knows it for more years.

What else is coming up to the ground? I understand it's always the same stuff and the traditional approach is the best, I work with Photoshop like 15 years and I can tell that with the basics you can do everything but you see what I mean....HP is like a trending technique...so just wondering, what else will show up?

A little OT, what do you think about the new Path Blur in CC 2014? I like it but I was hoping to see something more close to Virtual Rig with more control over the path.
Reply With Quote top
  #17  
Old 07-09-2014, 12:35 PM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

HP is not a technique. What you do with it can be.

Just like layers.
Reply With Quote top
  #18  
Old 07-09-2014, 12:53 PM
Isedo Isedo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 185
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

HP is a technique because its a set things that combined can make something right? So for me it's a technique. Layers are a function/tool of Photoshop. My personal point of view...
Reply With Quote top
  #19  
Old 07-09-2014, 04:21 PM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Just like a wrench is not a technique, but using it may be, so is the layer not a technique but a tool.
Reply With Quote top
  #20  
Old 07-12-2014, 09:15 AM
eraanexact eraanexact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 195
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isedo View Post
Hi guys, have you noticed that frequency separation become some kind of "overused"technique in skin retouching?
Since it's out, and more in these days, everyone is teaching and using FS. It makes me feel like the new HDR when everyone just use it and use it and use it.

Do you know what i mean? It's an awesome technique but it's "to much" out there. It'a technique used for many years right now and still people use it as a "innovative" way to retouch skin....

It's quite boring...what do u think about?
I think it's largely the province of the online retouching community. I don't know any working retouchers who use it, at least not to the degree that numerous online tutorials would leave people to believe. Better results can be achieved with simpler methods, and in my experience, the less complex solution tends to be the most realistic-looking one.
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
Frequency separation: Really non-destructive? baryon Photo Retouching 27 10-09-2013 05:19 PM
question about frequency separation method Caravaggio Photo Retouching 12 07-17-2013 12:21 AM
Skin retouching better than frequency separation gwlaw99 Photo Retouching 6 12-16-2012 03:34 AM
Action for Frequency Separation jonathan_k Photo Retouching 13 04-15-2011 01:17 PM
Extended frequency separation fraiseap Photo Retouching 16 12-31-2010 01:33 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:40 PM.


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