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.

Frequency Separation is evil

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #41  
Old 12-29-2014, 03:40 AM
AKMac's Avatar
AKMac AKMac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London and Argyll, Scotland.
Posts: 309
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

I would definitely consider FS for the wood scenario.
Reply With Quote top
  #42  
Old 12-29-2014, 10:28 AM
Flashtones Flashtones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 956
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Nelson View Post
Now you'll see why I have guest artists on RP LIVE, but selecting highlights as a layer mask and filling with a pattern made from a clean wood section didn't turn out too bad. I fiddled a bit with opacity and blur on the layer mask.

Once I remembered where the keys were it took about 5 minutes.
Thanks for playing along, Doug. And nice job.

I should have made it more challenging though and asked you to knock the blotches back by a higher degree. At 50% your single sample point of texture could get you by. But what if I said 70%, your sample point is likely either too light or too dark for many areas. IOW, the approach is not flexible enough.

Try Frequency Separation now. For convenience us an action. Chain's are good:

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/pho...tml#post292998

Run the basic 8 bit version (as this is an 8 bit image) on the background layer. I'm not that experienced of a FS guy, so others may advise better, but for this image I'd use a relatively fine blur radius of about 4-8 pixels or so.

Now, between your high and low layers make a blank layer. If you want to be as fast or faster than your method select a mid tone/color from the image, fill that layer with it, set the layer to Darken mode (so as not to lighten the cracks) and adjust opacity to suit.

But if you're willing to take a bit more time for more flexible results, use your brush tool and sample local tones, set your brush to reduced opacity (strength depending on how fast vs carefully you care to work) and paint in locally. Again, on a blank layer set to Darken mode.

Let me know what you think.
Reply With Quote top
  #43  
Old 12-29-2014, 11:58 AM
Doug Nelson's Avatar
Doug Nelson Doug Nelson is offline
Janitor
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,068
Blog Entries: 21
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

I guess I should be pleased, and of course I am, that this has developed into a reasonable and moderate and useful discussion. I couldn't ask for a better example of why RP is the best (IMO) retouching forum.

So why is it that when FS is mentioned elsewhere (no names, please) it is in reference to shiny blurry skin that Helmut Newton would find too artificial and plastic?

My inspiration for starting this thread was the Youtube sidebar algorithm recommending several FS vids while I was watching BBC panel shows (I assume because of my RP LIVE show postings). I watched some random ones, and was basically appalled at the bad habits and recommendations they were putting out there, while tempting newbs with words like "quick" and "easy".

And I occasionally do come up out from my burrow, blink in the bright daylight, and check out other sites. Their FS threads are awash in sloppy, blurry junk. And of course I mean skin, not wood.

I suspect (hope) that it's a fad, like lens flare and the Dragan effect. Appropriate in their (tiny, highly specialized) places, but abused with the glee of a schoolgirl who just discovered glitter.

Last edited by Doug Nelson; 12-29-2014 at 12:16 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #44  
Old 12-29-2014, 01:02 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: Frequency Separation is evil

Won't be a fad at all. Retouching is expensive, and, if there's any opportunity to reduce or eliminate those costs, they will be used, in this day and age when Time Inc. is just a pathetic remnant of it's former self, to name just one magazine publisher on the way down. Open up a lot of magazines, or, look at some covers, even. The retouching is awful at times. But, I'll bet it came cheap. And, i guess, the powers that be who decide what gets printed don't seem to mind.
Reply With Quote top
  #45  
Old 12-29-2014, 01:52 PM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

@ Benny

Why does it need to be expensive? It just needs to look like intended. If the intention was to make it look like a hot mess, then goal achieved.

There is a lot of good advice out there, and there are a lot of good clients out there, it's just about acquiring taste. Just look at what I had done a couple of years back. It's a process.

And retouching is never going to get cheap enough to be available to "everyone", simply because it requires time to practice, not to mention good taste, and client managing skills...

So, yes it's getting more widespread, but limit is there. How many consistently good commercial pohotographers does the US have? 2000 maybe. There are at least 10 times as many publications coming out each month(probably more like 100 times, every company has one, every town has one). Of course not all of them are going to be top notch, especially the daily papers.
Reply With Quote top
  #46  
Old 12-29-2014, 02:34 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: Frequency Separation is evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by skoobey View Post
@ Benny

Why does it need to be expensive? It just needs to look like intended. If the intention was to make it look like a hot mess, then goal achieved.

There is a lot of good advice out there, and there are a lot of good clients out there, it's just about acquiring taste. Just look at what I had done a couple of years back. It's a process.

And retouching is never going to get cheap enough to be available to "everyone", simply because it requires time to practice, not to mention good taste, and client managing skills...

So, yes it's getting more widespread, but limit is there. How many consistently good commercial pohotographers does the US have? 2000 maybe. There are at least 10 times as many publications coming out each month(probably more like 100 times, every company has one, every town has one). Of course not all of them are going to be top notch, especially the daily papers.
Well, first of all, print is dead. You should get used to that. It's gone. Maybe a little will be left, but, even I, at a late age, haven't touched a paper newspaper or magazine outside of the doctor's office in a year. It's all about the IPad and phone these days, and, certainly, the future.

And, as far as Photography is concerned, stock won. So much cheaper. I work for a beauty firm that uses a ton of it. Stuff is junk, but, lord, it's cheap. Looks like Eastern Euro photogs and south asian retouching. In other words, bad and overdone. But, hey, a lot of designers like it. No way you can compete on price hiring U.S. photographers. And, even those domestic photographers cut corners by doing the retouching themselves (ech), or contracting out to Joobob in Mumbai on the internet. Look around the next time you're shopping in the mall. Bad skin retouching everywhere. Way overdone. But, it sells.
Reply With Quote top
  #47  
Old 12-29-2014, 03:21 PM
Aladdin's Avatar
Aladdin Aladdin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ/NY
Posts: 444
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

I don't know why FS and sloppy editing relate or FS is associated with bad edits. I can take a perfect image and turn it disaster using some D&B method, it dose not mean that D&B is bad. Any tool, method or filter could be abused.

This article goes right to the point, Titled "Common Frequency Separation Mistakes Which Will Ruin Your Retouching Results" Read it here https://fstoppers.com/fashion/common...-results-30913 Take your time reading it.

I can use a hammer to drive a nail into the wall to hang a Picasso, I can use same hammer to drive a hole into a Picasso, nothing wrong with the hammer!

Last edited by Aladdin; 12-29-2014 at 03:26 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #48  
Old 12-29-2014, 04:27 PM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

@ Benny

Publishing is publishing, no matter if it's digital, a blog, facebook page, a twit or whatever. It's still put out there to lure customers and promote products.

Where on earth do you live? Maybe your local nail or beauty salon use stock images. Cosmetic companies DO NOT. Why would they? To save 200$ per image for 2 million worth of sales? Distributor might, but not the manufacturer.

Investing in part of promotion that costs less than a single item that you're promoting, and that you're making in tens of thousands of copies is just so obviously something that you do. Why are we even having this discussion. Retouching? Yes.

My mall... well GAS doesn't have cheap retouching on display. H&M? Zara? D&G? Massimo Dutti? Diesel? Calvin Klein? Tommy Hilfinger? Nope, none of them.

Maybe if you shop at Wallmart, well you don't expect it to be stylish, you expect it to be cheap.

@Aladdin

Exactly.
Reply With Quote top
  #49  
Old 12-31-2014, 01:35 PM
insmac insmac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 190
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
Well, first of all, print is dead. You should get used to that. It's gone. Maybe a little will be left, but, even I, at a late age, haven't touched a paper newspaper or magazine outside of the doctor's office in a year. It's all about the IPad and phone these days, and, certainly, the future.

And, as far as Photography is concerned, stock won. So much cheaper. I work for a beauty firm that uses a ton of it. Stuff is junk, but, lord, it's cheap. Looks like Eastern Euro photogs and south asian retouching. In other words, bad and overdone. But, hey, a lot of designers like it. No way you can compete on price hiring U.S. photographers. And, even those domestic photographers cut corners by doing the retouching themselves (ech), or contracting out to Joobob in Mumbai on the internet. Look around the next time you're shopping in the mall. Bad skin retouching everywhere. Way overdone. But, it sells.
Regarding stock, major chunk of the clients back in the day were interactive bureaus doing websites - that part of the market is almost dead right now since vector illustrations took over. The market is also saturated from photographer's perspective - I have a few friends doing higher-end stocks since like 95' and they all say they sell mainly older shoots which stay in stock libraries for years. I think video has future since it's still expensive to do hi end footage in slow-mo which is a trend as I see.

I think print is here to stay but as a niche in the market, I mean people rarely print shots right now, they want it digital and since the hi-end smartphones gained the capability to shoot decent snaps almost everyone jumped right in. Speed over quality and so on.

But that's not bad. Effectively, making a better product for a small target group is better than a mediocre one for an average consumer. Vinyl sales go up steadily year after year. Audiophile market is booming. Understood there might be not as much work in years to come but I don't think it's going extinct.
Reply With Quote top
  #50  
Old 12-31-2014, 06:10 PM
creativeretouch creativeretouch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 502
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

Btw. I found images taken by Richard Avedon and Irwing Penn, for example, more interesting than foday's photographs.

Everything is about personal aproatch.

If you have a deadline, you can use FS. Just take the money and do your job best as you can. But if you have time, choose the right tools.

Happy New Year to everyone!

Regards, Filip

-----------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com
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
"asymmetric" frequency separation? drode Photo Retouching 12 12-25-2011 02:55 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 05:56 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