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
  #21  
Old 07-12-2014, 11:53 PM
klev klev is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,109
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Quote:
Originally Posted by byRo View Post
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.

I don't understand the reasoning here. I wouldn't want to map that to a 3d model. The brows would come out weird. I mean I get what you did. You took it into whatever 3d program and projected on a dummy head of some sort, then brought the resulting bitmap into photoshop. I just have no idea why you set it up that way or why anyone would use that for a 2d image. It's just used to convey extra depth in CG images without the rendering expense of extremely fine displacement mapping that would require excessive tessellation levels at render time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Isedo View Post
It makes me feel like the new HDR when everyone just use it and use it and use it.
There are interesting uses of the principles of HDR. Have you ever looked at any of the open source raw processors? If you had a completely linearized workflow, you would have a lot of interesting control when it comes to separating out elements in a scene. You see many photos with a more surreal quality linked on here where people have taken distinctly different densities by region without going for a cartoonish effect. It's much much easier to do if working with linearized data, and ICC v4 profiles can actually support negative tristimulus values, so you have less to worry about when making intermediate adjustments.

It's also used in film to generate reflections on computer generated components. The problem I see here is that you're examining its use by people who just want to toy with their images.
Reply With Quote top
  #22  
Old 07-13-2014, 07:55 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 klev View Post
I mean I get what you did.
Unfortunately, klev, it would seem ... not quite...

I didn't project anything. The 3D Bump Map I attached is just a "ready-made" image which is used with a common commercial 3D character (Daz3D V4).

Quote:
Originally Posted by klev View Post
It's just used to convey extra depth in CG images without the rendering expense of extremely fine displacement mapping that would require excessive tessellation levels at render time.
Yes, that's all I was trying to say. In 3D, as in FS, the fine detail is treated separately from the overall shape - so, it's no wonder the two different (3D Bump / FS High Freq.) images look similar.

Back to the subject of FS....
I've watched some of the online videos that "sell" FS and, as isedo said in the OP, they are just cashing in on this "new" technique. In these videos they separate out the High Freq. part and the just blur away all the rest - throwing out much of the face's structure along with the "grunge".
To me, a better way would be to separate into three frequency layers:
  1. "High", with pore texture etc
  2. "Mid",mostly grunge
  3. "Low", facial structure
Yep - deGrunge again, now in "innovative" FS form!!!

Reply With Quote top
  #23  
Old 07-14-2014, 01:48 AM
klev klev is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,109
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Quote:
Originally Posted by byRo View Post

Back to the subject of FS....
I've watched some of the online videos that "sell" FS and, as isedo said in the OP, they are just cashing in on this "new" technique. In these videos they separate out the High Freq. part and the just blur away all the rest - throwing out much of the face's structure along with the "grunge".
To me, a better way would be to separate into three frequency layers:
  1. "High", with pore texture etc
  2. "Mid",mostly grunge
  3. "Low", facial structure
Yep - deGrunge again, now in "innovative" FS form!!!


Actually you're not that far off. A fair amount of academic research has been done in the area of both decompositions and convolutions. The uses would be contrast enhancement when normalizing an image, such as an HDR backplate, and edge finding, both without introducing visible ringing/haloing to the image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by byRo View Post
Unfortunately, klev, it would seem ... not quite...

I didn't project anything. The 3D Bump Map I attached is just a "ready-made" image which is used with a common commercial 3D character (Daz3D V4).

Whoever made it may started it that way after laying out their UV map.
Reply With Quote top
  #24  
Old 07-15-2014, 12:51 PM
Benny Profane's Avatar
Benny Profane Benny Profane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: third stone from the sun
Posts: 582
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

What's wrong with a time saving measure? Hey, it's not push button. Results can be obvious, or not.

Your employers would not be happy that you aren't embracing a quicker way to do things, and you freelancers are going to lose clients if you insist on charging for five to ten more hours to essentially get to the same place.
Reply With Quote top
  #25  
Old 07-15-2014, 07:30 PM
typiac typiac is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 9
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Absolutely agree with Benny. For an editorial, we have sometimes less than 2 days to retouch 8/10 pictures. It could be different for advertising but 10 hours for one picture in editorial... it's impossible. If your employer is agree....you have a lot of chance!
Reply With Quote top
  #26  
Old 07-15-2014, 08:24 PM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

8/10 images is borderline impossible. Maybe if it's a really clean shoot, or if it's some minor work. Just setting up the conversions and masking out 10 images in detail will take that long.

For beauty 1-2 images per day is max.

That is if you're the only one doing the actual work.

Edit: By masking out I mean setting up color/contrast etc.

Last edited by skoobey; 07-15-2014 at 08:48 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #27  
Old 07-15-2014, 10:02 PM
typiac typiac is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 9
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Yes, we have to be very very fast but one more time, it's for editorial, not beauty campaign.

For me, FS is a very good way to do in 5 minutes with exactly the same results (with some dodge and burn after) as taking 30/60min of dodge and burn only.
Reply With Quote top
  #28  
Old 07-16-2014, 08:51 AM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

But fashion is all about making selections. I mean yes, I could make it look more finished in half an hour per image, but without precision, it won't look as good.

Half an hour to an hour is for lookbooks only I'd say.
Reply With Quote top
  #29  
Old 07-18-2014, 05:23 PM
klev klev is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,109
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Quote:
Originally Posted by typiac View Post
Yes, we have to be very very fast but one more time, it's for editorial, not beauty campaign.

For me, FS is a very good way to do in 5 minutes with exactly the same results (with some dodge and burn after) as taking 30/60min of dodge and burn only.
I always laugh whenever anyone quotes a full day of work for an editorial image. They don't even mention how revisions or anything, but they would never keep up with their work at that pace. I don't understand how you would cut 30/60 minutes down to 5 with FS. No one has been able to show me that thus far, yet I've read similar claims from others. The past ones simply indicated people who overdid the work, thus making it take longer than necessary.
Reply With Quote top
  #30  
Old 07-18-2014, 05:48 PM
typiac typiac is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 9
Re: Why I hate frequency separation

Quote:
Originally Posted by klev View Post
I always laugh whenever anyone quotes a full day of work for an editorial image. They don't even mention how revisions or anything, but they would never keep up with their work at that pace. I don't understand how you would cut 30/60 minutes down to 5 with FS. No one has been able to show me that thus far, yet I've read similar claims from others. The past ones simply indicated people who overdid the work, thus making it take longer than necessary.
First at all, I didn't say that I take one day for an editorial image. I said that I have one day to retouch THE ENTIRE editorial!

Winning more than 30 minutes could be very easy with FS but once again, I said we always need DB after. FS could be necessary...or not, exactly like DB. It depends of the photographer, the model, the lights, the kind of magazine, the country...
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 06:21 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