Author | Thread |
|
12/05/2006 07:29:45 AM · #1 |
In a lot of my recent challenge entries I have received a number of comments about halos around objects, especially those that blend into the sky, such as trees, fences and other stuff. An example is shown below.
Looking through the threads I can see ways of removing it (colour replacement et al) but I am assuming that I am over processing in some way, with my use of sharpening being the obvious culprit.
Is there anything else it could be as it does not look like chromatic abberation?
 |
|
|
12/05/2006 07:34:48 AM · #2 |
Erm. Well I'd guess the normal culprit of halos would be excessive use of USM. Try toning it down a bit.
However, in that particular image, is the stuff over to the right not rigging on boats, that has white as part of sails, rather than actual halos ? |
|
|
12/05/2006 07:42:50 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by mist: Erm. Well I'd guess the normal culprit of halos would be excessive use of USM. Try toning it down a bit.
However, in that particular image, is the stuff over to the right not rigging on boats, that has white as part of sails, rather than actual halos ? |
Hmmm - you may be right but it is a halo effect as the original image shows none of the effect. At least it looks as though I am able to diagnose my own faults :-) |
|
|
12/05/2006 08:33:09 AM · #4 |
Did you burn the sky around those trees? I'm probably wrong here, but it seems that you burned the sky (maybe for shadows) but the thin area around the fuzzy edges of the trees did not get burned due to not being the same level you were burning for and would be further emphasized. And then adding usm emphasizes it even more. The dark parts of the masts appear very dark too, while the white edges of some of those could have been brighter due to reflections or whatever and then when burned becomes more emphasized and then again with usm added. Hope that makes sense, I'm not good at describing things especially at 5am. Everything else looks good, it's just that one little area. Try a before and after crop of that area and post so we could see it better. |
|
|
12/05/2006 02:34:01 PM · #5 |
bump for any other insights or words of wisdom... |
|
|
12/05/2006 02:43:31 PM · #6 |
If might be helpful if you could post what editing steps you're taking - hard to say what you should change otherwise.
|
|
|
12/05/2006 02:46:55 PM · #7 |
Are you selecting areas using masks or the lasso tool? - Sometimes if you select an area and then set feathering or contract the selection the join appears in the wrong place.
Slightly off-topic here... But I missed you getting the D80, congrats! - Are you keeping the FZ20? |
|
|
12/05/2006 02:52:00 PM · #8 |
If you post the unprocessed original we can better see what you are bringing to the party as far as processing artifacts go.
R. |
|
|
12/05/2006 02:53:25 PM · #9 |
could it be that you pushed the curve tool too far? it doesn't look like unsharp haloing on the bottom right...it looks like some sort of contrast problem to me
|
|
|
12/06/2006 04:55:30 PM · #10 |
Here is the original file - sorry to have taken so long to respond to all of your kind offers of help but work is having one of its moments!
I normally keep very extensive records of what I do in post processing but my notes against this image just says "Lots!". My guess, aside from cropping, is that I ran a contrast mask against the sky by selecting the sky via a polygon lasso selection. I would also have prepared the image a little with levels and curves and the conversion to black and white was done through the channel mixer, with some light noise ninja and probably some usm for sharpness once I had resized it. No wonder it seems such a mess... The original was shot RAW but at the time I only had the primitive Nikon D80 NEF raw tools to hand, so not much done in RAW format.
Anyhow, any help very gratefully received but I think the term "over processed" may be an understatement.
 |
|
|
12/06/2006 05:12:03 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by obsidian: by selecting the sky via a polygon lasso selection. |
Yea, you have it right there. You can see the effect on the masts on the right. There's some original sky which wasn't included in your selection 'leaking through' and causing the halo effect.
When you're selecting the sky, include these masts as well. They are too thin/contrasty to easily draw around. |
|
|
12/06/2006 05:16:19 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by jhonan: Originally posted by obsidian: by selecting the sky via a polygon lasso selection. |
Yea, you have it right there. You can see the effect on the masts on the right. There's some original sky which wasn't included in your selection 'leaking through' and causing the halo effect.
When you're selecting the sky, include these masts as well. They are too thin/contrasty to easily draw around. |
I think I may be about to have one of those Homer Simpson "Doh!" moments... Thanks John.
I have to say, though, that when I apply a contrast mask to the whole of the picture I seem to get a similar effect when I start to play with sharpness, typically using the high pass filter. It looks as though I am starting to over-egg the sharpness at points of high edge contrast with maybe too high a radius set when using sharpening, hence the halo. Strange, too, how it looks worse when you make the image size smaller.
Message edited by author 2006-12-06 17:21:38. |
|
|
12/06/2006 05:32:59 PM · #13 |
If you are satisfied with the amount of sharpening everywhere but the area that develops the halos then simply mask away the problem area so that no sharpening is applied there.
Another option is to use the clone tool with a soft brush set at less than 100% opacity. That isn't a good option here but for many cases using a lower opacity clone brush you can make those halos blend into the background completely.
Message edited by author 2006-12-06 17:36:54.
|
|
|
12/06/2006 05:38:48 PM · #14 |
I founded online a cool trick for the usm:
Correct the sharpness in the Lab Color mode, under the luminance channel, aparently that way, reduces halos... I have tried it and it have worked in the pictures I pp`d... Maybe it can help you :D |
|
|
12/07/2006 03:35:19 AM · #15 |
Thanks for all of the feedback, guys - much appreciated.
Just reminds me how much freely given advice is available here :-) |
|
|
12/07/2006 03:40:55 AM · #16 |
my "halo" from post-processing got me a DQ, lol
 |
|
|
12/07/2006 06:07:12 AM · #17 |
Hope its okay to ask this here - i think its a related issue.
I'm working on some pictures i took yesterday - I don't want to show them because I might enter one in a challenge. In some areas of the sky i am getting a sort of multiple halo effect - banding perhaps, after processing. I've seen something similar quite often in studio taken pictures and it casn look quited attractive.
This is after monochrome conversion using the channel mixer, levels and curves, (all of which I am sort of beginning to learn how to use).
I wonder if I am working in the wrong order. Sometimes i get a levels histogram where there is a toothcomb effect - it occurred to me that this might be relatred to the banding.
Anyone knoiw what causes this ? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 05:57:12 AM EDT.