| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/09/2006 11:28:32 PM · #1026 |
Is no one else going to give the overlay layers a try? Come on, folks, let's have at it :)
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 12:19:47 AM · #1027 |
Well.... I have been attempting to find a way to do an overlay layer in PSPX but with minimal success. Using a transparent raster layer set to overlay gives a similar result but is not the same. Using the paintbrush set to black or white on this layer applies a multiply or screen effect rather than a burn or dodge.
The resulting raster overlay layer does not look anything like the ones that have been posted from CS2. Here is my result anyway. I probably went overboard on the reflections in the water but I was trying to make it more obvious than subtle. 8P
 with overlay  without overlay
I am back to work tomorrow, so I may give it a try there with CS2 (depending on the state of things and my timeâ€Â¦.but I will try it eventually!)
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 12:33:10 AM · #1028 |
Originally posted by Prism:
Well.... I have been attempting to find a way to do an overlay layer in PSPX but with minimal success. Using a transparent raster layer set to overlay gives a similar result but is not the same. Using the paintbrush set to black or white on this layer applies a multiply or screen effect rather than a burn or dodge. |
Looking at the differences in your two posted images, you seem to have got it to work at least somewhat. I can see the most change in the reflections that have been dodged.
I think you are missing one important step, correct me if I'm wrong...and that is filling the layer with a 50% shade of gray. I'm positive you'll be able to get it to work in PSP. Heck, I've been using GIMP with complete success. The trick is that 50% fill. I simply create a new layer and change the mode to overlay. I then go into color picker, chose black, and type '50' into a "value" box and fill my overlay layer with this color. Then I switch back to the default pallette (black/white) and change the brush opacity to around 10% and start painting away.
Message edited by author 2006-07-10 01:22:59.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 11:56:52 AM · #1029 |
This is cool, I'll be giving it a try and posting in the next day or so. But if I can interject a question real quick, without derailing the lesson...
What do you mean by "feathering"? I've heard people mention feathering selections, feathering brushes, etc. Granted, I have a basic idea that it means to gradually fade out, but I'd like a good definition from someone. And also maybe a quick bit of advice on how to feather different PS features, if anyone has a moment.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 01:06:12 PM · #1030 |
Feathering basically specifies how soft the border of a selection is. With no feathering, the selection is "hard", it's on/off. When you specify an amount of feathering, you are telling the program over what number of pixels you want the the selection to bleed in. Pixels in the feathered zone are made made more or less transparent depending how far into the zone they are.
You can set your feathering sometimes directly in the dialogue box or on the settings bar on top of the image window, and always from the "selections/feathering" menu. The feathering has to be set before you apply the effect; you can't vary the effect by going in after and changing the amount of feathering. You have to undo the effect, change the feathering, and try it again.
In the following example I created a blank, black 640-pixel canvas and used the marquee selection tool to draw 4 squares; the first one has no feathering, the second 12 pixels, the third 24 pixels, and the fourth 48 pixels. I then created a levels adjustment layer for each of these selections and slid the left slider all the way to the right, turning black into white. The gray areas in the feathered selections show you exactly what happens with a feathered selection.
Note that this was done on a 640x640 pixel original. A 48-pixel feather on a 640-pixel original is MUCH "more" of a feather than would be 48 pixels on a 4,000-pixel original, obviously. So the amount of feathering you set will depend on the size of the image you are working on.
Try this as an exercise: load up a blank image in PS with perhaps a nice rich blue background. Then open up a pre-existing image with something colorful and smallish you can easily select. Select the object with no feathering, save the selection, copy the object, and paste it into the blank canvas. Use the arrow tool to move it away from center. Now go back to the other image, modify the feathering on the selection, copy and paste and move again. Do this 3 times total. Now look at the difference in how the pasted selections relate to the blue background.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 01:44:57 PM · #1031 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
What do you mean by "feathering"? |
This is an excellant question. Feathering is a complicated concept.
In addition to what Bear_Music just said, if you use Photoshop as your image editor here are some specific things to keep in mind about feathering:
1-Feathering is the distance, defined in pixels, from the edge of a selection boundary over which an effect is applied.
2-The feathering effect is applied on both sides of the selection boundary which makes the effective width of feathering twice the number of pixels specified. For example, a 10 pixel feathering has 10 pixels applied to the outside and 10 pixels applied on the inside of the selection boundary making an effective feathering width of 20 pixels to get from 0% effective to 100% effective.
3-Feathering can be less than 1 pixel or up to 250.
4-After feathering there are some pixels or parts of pixels OUTSIDE the displayed "marching ants" selection boundary that are still selected anyway and there are some pixels INSIDE the selection boundary that are NOT selected.
That is how feathering works in Photoshop, but might work differently in other editors.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 02:22:47 PM · #1032 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
4-After feathering there are some pixels or parts of pixels OUTSIDE the displayed "marching ants" selection boundary that are still selected anyway and there are some pixels INSIDE the selection boundary that are NOT selected. |
I believe the marching ants mark the place where the feathered pixels equal a 50% selection. |
|
|
|
07/10/2006 02:56:25 PM · #1033 |
Thank you both, Robert and stdavidson! That is what I thought it was, but now there's no room for doubt. I'll be sure to try out your suggestions when I get home!
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 03:15:32 PM · #1034 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The feathering has to be set before you apply the effect; you can't vary the effect by going in after and changing the amount of feathering. |
I think you're forgetting the "Select > feather..." option. Using this, you can feather a selection after the fact.
The other way around is a bit more tricky. The only way I know how to reduce the effect of a feathering is to first turn the selection into a layer mask. Then apply some heavy USM to the mask itself. This will sharpen up the edges, from which you can then do a "mask to selection." The only problem with this new selection is the corners will still be rounded. Though this can be fixed with some creative addition/subtraction marques.
The second is more of a work-around, but it could be quite useful if you have a complex selection that you don't want to redo.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 03:15:46 PM · #1035 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I believe the marching ants mark the place where the feathered pixels equal a 50% selection. |
That is exactly correct... in Photoshop
Message edited by author 2006-07-10 15:22:47.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 03:24:05 PM · #1036 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I believe the marching ants mark the place where the feathered pixels equal a 50% selection. |
That is exactly correct. |
The marching ants mark the border of the original selection. So, by definition, the marching ants mark the CENTER of the feathered selection, for sure. I assume that's 50% opacity, but I don't know it for a fact.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 03:27:26 PM · #1037 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The feathering has to be set before you apply the effect; you can't vary the effect by going in after and changing the amount of feathering. |
I think you're forgetting the "Select > feather..." option. Using this, you can feather a selection after the fact. |
I didn't make myself clear: assume you select something, then apply feathering, then apply the effect to the selection, whatever effect you are using. You can't now reload the selection, adjust the feathering, and make any difference to the effect that was already applied; you have to step back in history to before the effect was applied and change your feathering there.
For sure you can change the feathering of a selection at any time with "select/feather selection", but the new parameters only apply to adjustments made AFTER you establish them.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 03:40:21 PM · #1038 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The feathering has to be set before you apply the effect; you can't vary the effect by going in after and changing the amount of feathering. |
I think you're forgetting the "Select > feather..." option. Using this, you can feather a selection after the fact. |
I didn't make myself clear: assume you select something, then apply feathering, then apply the effect to the selection, whatever effect you are using. You can't now reload the selection, adjust the feathering, and make any difference to the effect that was already applied; you have to step back in history to before the effect was applied and change your feathering there. |
Sorry that I misunderstood you. In this case, it would be wise to use a layer mask (either on a duplicate layer or adjustment layer). Then you could always change it later without stepping back in history.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 04:11:39 PM · #1039 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I didn't make myself clear: assume you select something, then apply feathering, then apply the effect to the selection, whatever effect you are using. You can't now reload the selection, adjust the feathering, and make any difference to the effect that was already applied; you have to step back in history to before the effect was applied and change your feathering there.
For sure you can change the feathering of a selection at any time with "select/feather selection", but the new parameters only apply to adjustments made AFTER you establish them. |
Bear_Music is correct.
However, there is an interesting caveat to that when talking about adjustment layers applied on a layer mask generated from a feathered selection.
Consider this hypothetical situation:
Lets say you do this - Make selection, save selection, apply feathering to selection, and add an adjustment layer. Now that adjustment layer will be applied to the automatically generated feathered layer mask.
Now lets say that later, maybe months later, you decide you want to undo the feathering you previously did before and apply a smaller one. Then, with the layer mask selected do this - Load saved unfeathered selection, apply new lesser feathering, choose "Layer->Layer Mask->Delete", Choose "Layer->Layer Mask->Reveal Selection".
And just like that it is fixed. No fuss, no muss, no messy readjustments.
Now you may be asking yourself, "Self, why did he save the unfeathered selection rather than the feathered selection?" Good question! If you feather an already feathered selection it is cumulative and applied on top of the previous feathering. So if you want to reduce the feathering you don't stand a chance in hel... Uh... I mean, you don't stand a chance without things getting ugly.
Word to the wise:
Save all meaningful selections without feathering. Not only will you have feathering recoverability but you'll be able to use the same selection for different purposes that require different feathering amounts. AND... most important... your bed partners will respect you in the morning.
Message edited by author 2006-07-10 16:29:37.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2006 04:24:55 PM · #1040 |
Also, after applying the effect with an unfeathered selection you could always reselect it (even if it wasn't saved) and then feather it then inverse the selection then use the history brush to remove the effects in the areas outside of your selection.
Message edited by author 2006-07-10 16:25:48. |
|
|
|
07/10/2006 11:32:09 PM · #1041 |
OK... getting back to using a 50% greyscale layers... here is an image from a long time ago that should have used color range selections, but didn't... check and see if you can spot the flaws...
Without Greyscale:  ... With Greyscale: 
Greyscale Layer: 
|
|
|
|
07/11/2006 01:00:42 AM · #1042 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I believe the marching ants mark the place where the feathered pixels equal a 50% selection. |
That is exactly correct. |
The marching ants mark the border of the original selection. So, by definition, the marching ants mark the CENTER of the feathered selection, for sure. I assume that's 50% opacity, but I don't know it for a fact.
R. |
Actually, what I meant was that the marching ants mark the 50% boundar of ANY gradient selection, of which a feathered selection is a special case. |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 10:39:49 AM · #1043 |
I figured out what I was doing wrong with PSPX and the greyscale layers. I didn't have the greyscale layer linked to the correct layer. It doesn't work the same if you have other adjustment layers between the background and the greyscale layer. So using this technique, I re-worked my entry from the Straight from the Camera challenge.
original  first edit 
edit with greyscale  adjustment layer  |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 01:55:57 PM · #1044 |
This is an interesting image to discuss the PP on. First, let me say it's good to see you experimenting with the grayscale overlay mask, and you're accomplishing some good effects there. However, IMO that's not necessarily the correct direction to go in here. Here's how I approach it:
FIRST, I look at the original and ask "What needs to be done here?": and my answer to that is, "Adjust the tonal range and see what we have!" So I cloned off a duplicate BG layer and did autolevels on it. This produced a much cleaner image immediately, with a seriously bad sky (no surprise there).
Next I looked at the tonal range, and did some simple contrast masking, with the bright mask ending up at 76% in multiply mode and the dark mask at 87% in screen mode. At this point, except for the sky, we're looking pretty good.
I followed that up by looking at the colors in a hue/saturation adjustment layer, which ended up as follows: Yellow +49 sat, Red +14 sat, Blue +21 sat and -14 brightness, Cyan +28 sat and -14 brightness, and Green +31 sat.
Now I created a new, empty layer and set it to multiply mode. I set foreground color in the color picker to a nice, dark blue with some spark to it. I drew a gradient down from the top and slightly into the hills, then a much shorter gradient up from the bottom. On this layer I went to image/adjustment/hue-sat and tweaked the hue and the saturation of the master channel (remember this layer only contains the gradients) until the blues looked relatively natural in the sky, and then I used the opacity slider on this layer to fine-tune, winding up at 78% opacity.
My last step was to flatten the image and apply USM before saving for web.
Now, this version has every bit as much attention on the tops of the grasses as does Prism's edited version, but the overall effect is more natural and subtle, and the colors are much crisper and cleaner. Or so I think, anyway.
My point here is that a LOT of the time you can accomplish your luminance variations with hue/sat instead of with dodging, burning, and color painting on the grayscale overlay... NO selection here, NO spot editing, except for the automatically-generated selections of contrast masking...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2006 02:48:47 PM · #1045 |
Originally posted by Prism:
I figured out what I was doing wrong with PSPX and the greyscale layers. I didn't have the greyscale layer linked to the correct layer. It doesn't work the same if you have other adjustment layers between the background and the greyscale layer. |
I played with this just a bit the other night..but only a background and 50% grey layer..no adjustment layers or anything.
I have not messed with the linking of layers, any idea why you had to do this? I would have thought the overlay would just work on the accumulated effect of the adjustment layers and background, but it sounds like you're saying it was working on the adjustment layer directly underneath it.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2006 02:53:24 PM · #1046 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
OK... getting back to using a 50% greyscale layers... here is an image from a long time ago that should have used color range selections, but didn't... check and see if you can spot the flaws...
|
ummmm.....I can't :-) |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 05:33:11 PM · #1047 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is an interesting image to discuss the PP on....
My point here is that a LOT of the time you can accomplish your luminance variations with hue/sat instead of with dodging, burning, and color painting on the grayscale overlay... NO selection here, NO spot editing, except for the automatically-generated selections of contrast masking...
|
As always, Bear_Music makes a valid point and does it in such an educational way.
The 50% overlay greyscale layer is just a highlighting technique employed near the END of your workflow AFTER you have made all the normal adjustments such as levels, curves, Hue/Sat and other contrast and color adjustments. You should always perform all your other 'normal' adjustments first before deciding to employ it.
Obviously, after making your other adjustments first, if no further highlighting(dodge, burn or color) is necessary then a 50% greyscale overlay layer would not be needed.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2006 06:17:15 PM · #1048 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...
This is an interesting image to discuss the PP on....
My point here is that a LOT of the time you can accomplish your luminance variations with hue/sat instead of with dodging, burning, and color painting on the grayscale overlay... NO selection here, NO spot editing, except for the automatically-generated selections of contrast masking...
|
Great job on my shot from the master of the marshes! Thanks, bear. I agree with what you are saying and would probably not have used the grey layer adjustment on this shot but as I wanted to edit this one and try using the technique anyway, I figured I would see what happened with it....
Originally posted by stdavidson:
As always, Bear_Music makes a valid point and does it in such an educational way.
The 50% overlay greyscale layer is just a highlighting technique employed near the END of your workflow AFTER you have made all the normal adjustments such as levels, curves, Hue/Sat and other contrast and color adjustments. You should always perform all your other 'normal' adjustments first before deciding to employ it.
Obviously, after making your other adjustments first, if no further highlighting(dodge, burn or color) is necessary then a 50% greyscale overlay layer would not be needed. |
I did go back in after making some other edits and add the overlay layer to it. I did not take my other edits as far as I normally would have because I wanted to see the effects of the overlay layer. It will be a handy tool to have in my post-processing arsenal, along with the masking and other post-processing tips in this thread.
The use of any of the techniques discussed in this thread must be decided upon on a shot by shot basis by the photographer doing the post-processing to achieve the effects they desire. It is obvious to me that there isn't one "right" way to do post-processing, although some techniques can sure make your life easier! 8)
|
|
|
|
07/11/2006 06:25:21 PM · #1049 |
Originally posted by Prism:
The use of any of the techniques discussed in this thread must be decided upon on a shot by shot basis by the photographer doing the post-processing to achieve the effects they desire. It is obvious to me that there isn't one "right" way to do post-processing, although some techniques can sure make your life easier! 8) |
Absolutely. In general, you want to go from the "big picture" down to the details in a logical progression. Set your exposure, use contrast masking if needed, then merge that down to a new "base layer". On top of that apply hue/sat, selective color, levels, stuff like that. On top of THAT you apply the burn/dodge, the color painting, whatever, which are very local corrections.
If you make "local" corrections before you make "global" corrections, you can end up twisted into a knot of great complexity, where global corrections require the reworking of local corrections, and it can spiral out of control.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2006 07:33:00 PM · #1050 |
|
