Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why I hate frequency separation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • skoobey
    replied
    Re: Why I hate frequency separation

    Looking at a video of a picture on a screen is not an accurate representation. Yes, they are a fantastic team with everything at their disposal, but there is no such thing as "good enough" out of the camera.

    Colors always need to be worked on, and even if it was shot perfectly, 40+mpix file'll take 2 minutes at least to develop into tiff so that x2=4 minutes and you haven't even opened the file.

    Time adds up pretty quick.

    Also, let's make it clear, it's a double spread, not a billboard, so the images are quite small, so if you don't go into detail, you can finish much faster then when you need to path everything out for a campaign or similar purpose.

    Leave a comment:


  • typiac
    replied
    Re: Why I hate frequency separation

    You're right, two pics are merged in...5 seconds and you can see this in live during the movie! ^^

    For me, it's more a curves work than a DB one. Men's skin hasn't been retouched, shadows and reflexion on the coat, the shoes too.. It's a strong team work but a very light retouch with a beautiful light used by Patrick Demarchelier for 20 years. But it's just my opinion!

    Leave a comment:


  • skoobey
    replied
    Re: Why I hate frequency separation

    That image is not only color corrected, but also DNBed quite a lot, and I would also guess a merge of two images (and i checked the movie, and yes it is a merge of two images).

    So, no less than an hour, and that's not getting into finer things like local DNB on the the coat and the hat; that was done, BTW.

    Time is important, but at the same time, in order to give a good performance as an artist, you need to feel the image, and be patient to get the details right.

    Leave a comment:


  • typiac
    replied
    Re: Why I hate frequency separation

    Originally posted by skoobey View Post
    Explain to me how on earth can you select each clothing item, eyes, lips, shoes, accessories in color blocking editorial in 30 minutes? And decide on the raw conversion? No f-ing way. You need and hour at least for a clean fashion image, everything on top of that is how detailed you want to go with the clean-up, but an hour is a must.
    I think you have a perfect example at the end of the movie The September Issue. Patrick Demarchelier is shooting a color block! They don't need to retouch so much because:

    1- the light is soft and progressive
    2- the clothes are perfect
    3- there's just some little parts with skin

    30min...45 or 1hour, it's ok but be careful to don't make Anna Wintour hungry!

    http://fashionthrumylenses.files.wor...er_2007_we.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • typiac
    replied
    Re: Why I hate frequency separation

    Originally posted by klev View Post
    Oh you misinterpreted me. I meant that I laugh whenever anyone claims something like that or in other words I was sort of agreeing with you. I read through several posts pretty quickly.

    I've still never seen that kind of gain in time, although as I've mentioned in another thread there are slightly similar methods used in other areas of graphics (look for edge preserving decomposition). There are a lot of areas where something may look rough yet not require very much to correct that. I guess I never found a real use for it.
    Sorry Klev, it was just to be sure!

    Leave a comment:


  • skoobey
    replied
    Re: Why I hate frequency separation

    Explain to me how on earth can you select each clothing item, eyes, lips, shoes, accessories in color blocking editorial in 30 minutes? And decide on the raw conversion? No f-ing way. You need and hour at least for a clean fashion image, everything on top of that is how detailed you want to go with the clean-up, but an hour is a must.

    Leave a comment:


  • klev
    replied
    Re: Why I hate frequency separation

    Originally posted by typiac View Post
    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...
    Oh you misinterpreted me. I meant that I laugh whenever anyone claims something like that or in other words I was sort of agreeing with you. I read through several posts pretty quickly.

    I've still never seen that kind of gain in time, although as I've mentioned in another thread there are slightly similar methods used in other areas of graphics (look for edge preserving decomposition). There are a lot of areas where something may look rough yet not require very much to correct that. I guess I never found a real use for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • typiac
    replied
    Re: Why I hate frequency separation

    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • klev
    replied
    Re: Why I hate frequency separation

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • skoobey
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • typiac
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • skoobey
    replied
    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, 08:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • typiac
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Benny Profane
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • klev
    replied
    Re: Why I hate frequency separation

    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Topics

Collapse

  • gwlaw99
    Skin retouching better than frequency separation
    by gwlaw99
    but not as hard as dodge and burn?

    I have been using frequency separation to smooth skin with a surface blur on the low frequency layer. While this gives good results and leaves in texture on the high frequency layer, I was wondering if there is a an even better method without having...
    09-04-2012, 10:20 AM
  • SimonG
    Frequency Separation
    by SimonG
    Is it destructive? Like, if You are doing with 10px brush high and low pass both, is it really destructive? Is D&B better or there isn't really big difference? I'm quite new to this technique.
    02-06-2012, 01:34 PM
  • P_fuzz
    this frequency separation you all speak of...
    by P_fuzz
    show me the way to it

    j/k, I was wondering if there is an ultimate tutorial on this tech, so far I only found some really poor elaborated ones on youtube.

    thanks
    06-16-2011, 07:45 AM
  • bilguitei
    frequency separation-questions?
    by bilguitei
    Well i have been trying to watch tutorials...And i watched one in retouchpro and also from anyother websites....I still cannot understand it that much...What's the purpose of it?And why do i have to use it?Please if you know very clear and detailed tutorials on internet,help me to find it????
    10-08-2010, 02:43 AM
  • Doug Nelson
    Frequency Separation is evil
    by Doug Nelson
    I've made no secret of my opinion of frequency separation during the RetouchPRO LIVE shows and here in the forums. I think it's a shortcut, and therefore a compromise. Good for assembly-line retouching of senior portraits maybe, but not so much if you're aiming for the cover of Vogue.

    ...
    12-22-2014, 04:09 PM
Working...
X