Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Looking forward for feedback and critics

  
 
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Looking forward for feedback and critics


By the way, I tried this on a typical landscape using my normal workflow (curves and Topaz Pop). Of course the numbers changed but I assume so long as the neutrals remain balanced I am on track with respect to color cast.

Naturally adding saturation will change the values, its what we want. We just want balance, correct? Or perhaps we want it to be warmer or cooler, so we accept a bit of imbalance because that change is the goal. So its know where we are and what we have done that matters here (I think),



Sep 03, 2013 at 11:45 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Looking forward for feedback and critics


Where we are ... and where we want to take it ... wherever that may be @ neutral,warm,cool.

Its basically an algebra equation @ here's what I've got to start with, here's where I'd like to be (your call), so what is the missing piece(s) to get me there. If you want your neutrals to be neutral, then (approximate) balance is the order of the day. If you want that "golden hour" lighting to show off its rich warm tones, then you might want to leave it "as is" or "split the diff".

As most of the regulars already know, I don't like "blue snow". While that is somewhat literal, it is also metaphor for recognizing that our perception of neutrals plays an important role in establishing how we view color. Sometimes we need a the blue to convey the mood ... sometimes it is an (exaggerated saturation) incorrect WB that steals from the rest of the image.

That's part of the reason why I look at my neutrals first ... adding curves/pop/levels/etc. can wreak havoc on color casts. Tending to casts first then allow us to "play" with the other things without incurring such havoc (and then trying to fix it afterward).



Sep 03, 2013 at 12:34 PM
eeneryma
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Looking forward for feedback and critics


Rusty: "Follow this with a "blend if" to restrict a given tonal range when you have mixed lighting and you can usually dial things in pretty good."

I'd never used the color checker tool before, so I've been following your eye opening instructions closely with great results. Can you please explain what you mean by "blend if".




Sep 05, 2013 at 06:50 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Looking forward for feedback and critics


Under Layers> Fx> Blending Options>Blend If

The sliders range from 0-255 so you can allow the entire range to be applied, or you can restrict different portions. Also, you can select different channels @ R,G,B (composite gray showing in example) to restrict the effects of the layer to each channel independently (all, some, none, gradient, hard stop, etc.).

In the image below, look at the levels layer. It has an aggressive change moving the right hand slider from 255 to 95 which is adding a lot to the image. But, in doing so, it lifted the shadows and created some artifacts in the lower tonal values.

So, using the "Blend If", I move my sliders so that the instructions from the levels layer would NOT apply to anything below 31 ... and then gradiently be applied between 31-90 ... and fully applied from 90-254, and gradiently applied between 254-255. NOTE: a gradient between 254-is meaningless, I just didn't get the split slider put all the way back to 255 and didn't notice till I'd already posted this.

The meat of this is that I made a levels change to the mids and highs (90-255), and none to the blacks (0-31) ... gradiently transitioning between the two (31-90). In that manner, I can restrict where I want the changes to occur.

This can be done for each layer independently ... i.e. you can dial it in pretty good to put things where you want them. Combine that with the opacity % for the level as a whole and you can get pretty fine control over things. Not exactly a "Click Here, PS does it all for you" convenience, but once you get the hang of it (still working on that part myself regarding this layer vs. underlying layer utilization), it does give you more control than a global adjustment.

This is kind of where "technical meets fiddling" for me. I can know numerically what I want I think I want ... but getting there can be a bit too harsh a transition. I use the "blend if" in concert with masking to try and get where I want to be without it being OBVIOUS that I was ratcheting things around. Sometimes I do better than other times at this, sometimes, not so much.

HTH







Sep 05, 2013 at 08:10 AM
eeneryma
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Looking forward for feedback and critics


So if I interpret correctly, the color balance method is a more "scientific" method, not necessarily always taking you to where you want to be, where the "blend if" is a more subjective and subtle adjustment to finalize your initial "color balance" methodology?


Sep 05, 2013 at 10:16 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Looking forward for feedback and critics


Everything in PS can be "scientific" if we learn the calculations behind the operation ... but that's asking a bit much for so many different operations. I do have a few (neutrals being one) things that I approach mechanically when I want to get "too serious".

Like Ben mentioned, there is a degree of (not) "trusting" my own eyes. Once I've got numbers checked for neutral, then I feel like I can trust what I'm seeing (calibrating my eyes ). It can be surprising to me to compare (toggle) before/after @ color (or other) adjustments, to realize how much I did NOT see a cast on my own. Once I've shown myself where a cast exists ... then I feel more comfortable with my subjective eye, and I can continue putting things where I want them a little less "scientifically".

Blend if, masks, density and opacity are different methods I use for "tweaking the tweaks"



Sep 05, 2013 at 09:21 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.