No announcement yet.

Try It: Crackled Color

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Try It: Crackled Color

    1. Duplicate background.
    2. On duplicate run Buzz Simplifier around 90 (If you don't have buzz, noise--median around 3 will do)
    3. Duplicate this layer. Run Artistic--Cutout. (I usually go high, low, medium on the values).
    4. Set the blending mode to soft light.
    5. Merge down.
    6. Run Texturize--grain--Speckle (if the medium values don't give enough crackle, increase intensity and decrease contrast)
    7. Reduce opacity slightly (85%) to let a little of the background show through.
    8. Adjust hue/saturation if desired.
    9. Add texture if desired.

    Below is the image I started with. In the next post is the end product.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by Cheryl H; 07-08-2003, 07:20 PM.

  • #2
    Here is the finished result.

    Now you try it on one of yours.
    Attached Files


    • #3
      A little slow getting to this one...

      Facinating technique. The real key for me is step 6 (the application of the Grain filter).

      Well done, Cheryl.

      Note: I used the Stipple, not the Speckle option with Grain.

      Attached Files
      Last edited by DannyRaphael; 07-08-2003, 08:39 PM.


      • #4

        RE: Not getting layers (yet)
        FWIW: Don't feel bad. I STILL don't get them most of the time. It's a lot of trial and sometimes success, but often times error. Most of the time I can't predict a result before I try it.

        It was through action dissection that I started seeing the possibilities of layer and blend mode combinations.

        RE: Photo-art processes
        Speaking from experience processes like the ones we're trying to document are typically written to yield favorable results on the pic the author is "working on at the moment." As soon as you try it on YOUR image, the results sometimes come out so different that you wonder what happened.

        Nobody's fault... it's just the way it is.

        Here's a paraphrase of how someone described the challenge of this sort of thing that turned on the lightbulb for me:

        "Think of the steps, filters, settings, etc. as kitchen utensils. Think of each image as a unique set of ingredients, characterized by things like tone, color, simple, busy, scenery, people, etc. Even if you use the same kitchen utensils in the same sequence and apply them in the same way, the results will be different for each set of unique ingredients."

        So I guess this is a fancy way of saying "Sometimes a process will work as written; sometimes (usually) ya gotta tweak it."

        ...bringing us back to layer tweaking. (It was a long trip, wasn't it? )

        RE: "Back to layers for $200, Alex (Trebek of Jeopardy fame)"

        I tried Cheryl's method on a different pic and ran into the same symptoms you described.

        What I did to get around it was:
        * Turned off the Background
        * Lowered the opacity of the "simplified" layer to about 50%. That brought out more of the "cutout effect."

        Does this help? Sorta?

        - - - - - - -

        But besides all this, the baseball pic:
        a) Is very cool (as an original). Did you shoot it? If so, who's playin'?
        b) Despite the stumbles your interpretation is very impressive. I'd say in the top 5 of any I've seen you do.

        - - - - - - -
        RE: Anyone ever tell you you're pretty good?
        Fortunately I get a "Daddy, you're the BEST!" 1-2 times a week ... usually right after I give in to ice cream cone request.



        Related Topics