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
  #61  
Old 01-02-2015, 06:19 PM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

Well, it has nothing to do with FS if you don't like something. The fact being it's a trend. 90's girls were slim, 50's retouching was far more unrealistic than what we see today... Just trends they come, they go, as I said it's art (I'm just so good at PR ahahaa, I can stand behind anything, but I really just think that this is a trend). Art doesn't need to be "real", it just needs to be good. I don't think it's bad right now.
Reply With Quote top
  #62  
Old 01-02-2015, 10:51 PM
creativeretouch creativeretouch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 502
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

Finaly we agree with each other. Sloppiness is a trend today. Just work as fast as you can, start with FS and then make final touches with few strokes with dark brush and few strokes with light brush and art is done. And it is cheap so you still can get some paying clients. And maybe you will be lucky and you can work for some famous brand just for good feeling and image in your portfolio.

Regards, Filip

-----------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com
Reply With Quote top
  #63  
Old 01-03-2015, 12:53 PM
thistimelastyr thistimelastyr is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

Had to chime in on this one. There is no way print is dead at all. Everything I have retouched in the past 2 years has come out in print. Whether it be magazines, billboards or other O.O.H. ads. So that is a massively incorrect statement in my opinion. Yes the print market is shrinking but it will never be "dead".

Frequency separation has it's place in minor applications like clothing etc. Using it on skin is completely unnecessary and is just a shortcut. There is nothing that can be achieved on skin using FS that can't be done via good cloning and D/B. People just want a quick fix and aren't willing to spend the time to develop their skills so they don't need FS etc.

Most fashion/beauty/celebrity images can be retouched in 3 layers or less. Ad jobs involving lots of compositing obviously can't, but the skin can be!
Reply With Quote top
  #64  
Old 01-05-2015, 03:43 PM
cricket1961's Avatar
cricket1961 cricket1961 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Posts: 488
Blog Entries: 38
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

Great discussion. Pretty much everyone who has had something to say about this technique is right. Whether its good, bad or indifferent. As many have said its a tool and tools are notoriously used either wrongly or correctly but in the wrong situation. Doesn't make the tool bad or unusable.

Benny is right....images being received have been getting worse and worse over the years. Whether its to save a buck on the shoot with a lower end model(it DOES happen with higher end cosmetic companies) or a great model with poorly thought out lighting or hairstyle etc.

While I don't deal with situations where a lot of images come in with a short day-deadline, I can see where FS can be useful. Not saying I'd use it but I know that its there to be used.

And there absolutely is a preponderance of bad demos/actions/tutorials of the technique out there in the wild. Its a shame that its that way, but I also do not seeing it going away anytime soon.

Which is fine.... D/B took a long time to become accepted also and I've seen really bad results from it. Everything matures over time. Hopefully the people who know how to use FS correctly will get their message out correctly and users will comprehend that info the right way.

Cheers
Chris
Reply With Quote top
  #65  
Old 01-05-2015, 04:11 PM
Aladdin's Avatar
Aladdin Aladdin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ/NY
Posts: 444
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

@cricket1961: Very reasonable commentary.

I do not "own" FS, I do not make money every time someone use it. My beef is, no one ever showed a real example as why I should not use it, why is it bad? Not a single post with a single example to illustrate the short comings of FS.
Reply With Quote top
  #66  
Old 01-06-2015, 01:29 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 have two questions for those who say they don't use FS....

1 Do you use Blur and Sharpen Filters?

2 Do you use the Healing Brush and or Patch tool?

If the answer to either of those questions is 'Yes', then you DO use FS.

You can probably guess the next question...
Reply With Quote top
  #67  
Old 01-06-2015, 08:26 AM
cricket1961's Avatar
cricket1961 cricket1961 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Posts: 488
Blog Entries: 38
Re: Frequency Separation is evil

Alastair

Only on masks.

And for sharpening and blurring I prefer the use of the custom filter.
Whichhhh...technically can probably fall into the fringe definition of FS

Chris
Reply With Quote top
  #68  
Old 01-06-2015, 10:42 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'm not a purist, but I try not to settle for anything that doesn't look right. I think if you have the eyes to differentiate good from bad then FS (with it's multiple uses) isn't a dangerous toolset, but one that provides huge scope for the discriminating retoucher.

On the other hand - for those whose eyes are untrained, the semi-automatic FS techniques which are available to them (Plugins and Inverted High Pass) can be seductive to the point of addiction.

It doesn't surprise me that people with aesthetic taste are completely turned off the idea of learning to use FS when they are confronted by the nauseous images and ads that are associated with it. However, I would suggest that if you are repulsed by what you see, then it's probably a good indication that you are the sort of retoucher who is likely to use FS with discrimination and to good effect once you've overcome the initial stages of mastery.

It's not something to be scared of.
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 12:36 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