| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/27/2008 02:37:10 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by geoffb:
Originally posted by puzzled:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Elmakias:
mac keybaord translation anyone?
i cant get it to work |
Mac "alt" is "opt" and mac "cntrl" is ""Cmd" so yup, cmd-opt-tilde...
R. |
:-( Unfortunately, this doesn't work on a Swedish keyboard. I've been searching for how to do this with my powerbook for ages. Cmd-Opt-1, Cmd-Opt-2, and Cmd-Opt-3 work, but I can't get the tilde. I guess the Cmd-Opt-# select the red, green, and blue channels.
If anyone knows the secret to Cmd-opt-tilde using a Swedish Mac laptop keyboard, please let me know! |
Traditionally, the tilde on a US keyboard is above the tab key. I believe that's the subsection symbol (§) on a Swedish keyboard. You could try that.
On a US keyboard, tilde is actually the Shifted key of the backtick (`). You could try that key too. |
Still doesn't work, but when trying the combinations you suggested, I accidentally found a shortcut combo (cmd-opt-´) that zoomed my monitor in. It took a while to figure out how to zoom back to normal size :-P Thanks for the suggestions anyway! |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 03:09:09 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by puzzled:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Elmakias:
mac keybaord translation anyone?
i cant get it to work |
Mac "alt" is "opt" and mac "cntrl" is ""Cmd" so yup, cmd-opt-tilde...
R. |
:-( Unfortunately, this doesn't work on a Swedish keyboard. I've been searching for how to do this with my powerbook for ages. Cmd-Opt-1, Cmd-Opt-2, and Cmd-Opt-3 work, but I can't get the tilde. I guess the Cmd-Opt-# select the red, green, and blue channels.
If anyone knows the secret to Cmd-opt-tilde using a Swedish Mac laptop keyboard, please let me know! |
Traditionally, the tilde on a US keyboard is above the tab key. I believe that's the subsection symbol (§) on a Swedish keyboard. You could try that.
On a US keyboard, tilde is actually the Shifted key of the backtick (`). You could try that key too.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2008 08:32:05 PM · #3 |
Hi there... A technique I found y mistake and quite similar to these ones is:
1) Duplicate the background layer.
2) Set it to Softlight (only works with this blending mode).
3) Desaturate it.
4) Invert it.
5) Apply a Gaussian Blur.
6) I usually set the blur to 40 px for a 5D pic, but play around and you will see amazing results.
It basically darken the highlights at the same time that the shadows are enlightened :)
Hope you like it :)
And here is another one, more accurated to your needs :)
1) Duplicate the background layer.
2) Set it to Overlay.
3) Desaturate it.
4) Invert it.
5) Apply Image with Alt + I + Y and choose a desired channel.
&) Enjoy...
This technique gives the same resulkts than doing the Screen and Multiply Technique metioned by other member :)
Message edited by author 2008-06-23 21:46:43. |
|
|
|
09/18/2007 03:33:24 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Shmee:
Sorry it's worth nothing to you, anyways.... |
Just so I don't get misunderstood - I said it's worth noting, not that it's worth nothing...
|
|
|
|
09/18/2007 03:28:13 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Shmee:
And yes, I read your thing on the U curve thing Gordon, just seems like there's a simpler way. |
Yup, you can certainly select the mid-tones and blur the mask - but it doesn't then fall off across the tonal scale. You switch from a tonal mask to a one that has a spatial gradient, which ends up as quite a different thing. It works well enough on a small scale image but seemed to be quite visible when working on larger images.
Ideally, you want the selection alpha channel to be 100% at mid grey and fall off towards black and white equally. If you use the mid-tone selection, you end up with a step fall-off around 33% grey and 66% grey. Blurring that mask doesn't smooth the transitions across the luminosity axis, just the spatial dimensions. That can work well on a lower contrast image but not so well on areas with high contrast (i.e., rapid luminosity changes in small spatial distances)
|
|
|
|
09/18/2007 02:44:55 PM · #6 |
| And yes, I read your thing on the U curve thing Gordon, just seems like there's a simpler way. |
|
|
|
09/18/2007 02:43:36 PM · #7 |
ouch, excuse me, before I posted I checked to see if anyone had already suggested that, but apperently I missed it. Sorry it's worth nothing to you, anyways....
Why not just use the select color range, do your adjustment, and add gaussian blur on the mask. I tried it, it looks pretty smooth to me. Yeah, it bleeds into the highlights and shadows, but it works pretty darn good for adding contrast to the mid tones. Just select the midtones and use curves.
edit for spelling
Message edited by author 2007-09-18 14:56:22. |
|
|
|
09/18/2007 02:20:07 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Shmee:
I have the simple answer to selecting midtones:
Select->Color Range-> and from the "select" drop down box at the top click the gray square that says midtones, then OK. Now your midtones will be selected! |
It's worth noting that this gives a very hard edge fall-off at the transition regions to the shadows and highlights and the ways to address that are discussed earlier in the thread (when I suggested the same approach and the problems were pointed out)
Message edited by author 2007-09-18 14:21:18.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2007 01:59:57 PM · #9 |
I have the simple answer to selecting midtones:
Select->Color Range-> and from the "select" drop down box at the top click the gray square that says midtones, then OK. Now your midtones will be selected! |
|
|
|
09/11/2007 08:33:21 AM · #10 |
| Cool thread, thx for posting, picked up a couple of new tricks :) |
|
|
|
09/11/2007 05:25:16 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Interesting realization. Seems to make sense. Makes one wonder about the viability of producing a contrasty version of the image, doing cntrl-alt-tilde on that, then exporting the mask to the original version...
R. |
I've been doing this for a while.
Both adjusting the image before creating a selection as well as altering contrast/brightness on the mask afterwards... Very good tools.
Also, when working on multiple layers, note that because of the above, you may be better off copying a mask from an existing layer if you want exactly the same mask, for if you repeat the Ctrl-Alt-~ on an image that has been adjusted and masked, you will get a slightly different mask. Additionally, you can turn off a layer before creating the selection if desired. |
|
|
|
09/11/2007 03:16:23 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by puzzled:
If anyone knows the secret to Cmd-opt-tilde using a Swedish Mac laptop keyboard, please let me know! |
Step 1:
Step 2:
Easy huh?
|
|
|
|
09/11/2007 03:04:58 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Elmakias:
mac keybaord translation anyone?
i cant get it to work |
Mac "alt" is "opt" and mac "cntrl" is ""Cmd" so yup, cmd-opt-tilde...
R. |
:-( Unfortunately, this doesn't work on a Swedish keyboard. I've been searching for how to do this with my powerbook for ages. Cmd-Opt-1, Cmd-Opt-2, and Cmd-Opt-3 work, but I can't get the tilde. I guess the Cmd-Opt-# select the red, green, and blue channels.
If anyone knows the secret to Cmd-opt-tilde using a Swedish Mac laptop keyboard, please let me know! |
|
|
|
09/10/2007 07:24:52 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Elmakias:
mac keybaord translation anyone?
i cant get it to work |
Mac "alt" is "opt" and mac "cntrl" is ""Cmd" so yup, cmd-opt-tilde...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2007 07:22:16 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Elmakias:
mac keybaord translation anyone?
i cant get it to work |
I believe it's Cmd+Opt+Tilde
|
|
|
|
09/10/2007 07:16:31 PM · #16 |
mac keybaord translation anyone?
i cant get it to work
|
|
|
|
09/04/2007 11:00:28 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Interesting realization. Seems to make sense. Makes one wonder about the viability of producing a contrasty version of the image, doing cntrl-alt-tilde on that, then exporting the mask to the original version...
R. |
You could certainly do that. Though it is probably easier to just do ctrl-altr-tilde to make the image the active selection, then either capture it as a mask layer or use the quick mask, then make the mask contrasty. All the usual curves/ levels/ and painting work on the mask layer/ quick masks anyway and would save having to 'undo' the image adjustments. I quite often blur my mask layers then use the 'levels' command mid/grey point slider to adjust the gradient of the blur edges (which adjusts the feathered edge location of the mask) or the white/black point sliders to adjust the end points of the edge.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2007 12:21:26 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by twilson944:
Thanks for the specifics. The majority of my editing is done in PSE just because of the S/H tool, but it's been a bit of a PITA when I wanted to utilize PS7's more powerful tools. I'll keep playing and reading threads for info. |
You can open in PSE for s/h adjustments, then save the image as a psd file and open it in PS7 to do the rest of your work. That's how I used Photomatix and PS7 before I got CS2.
R. |
That's exactly what I do. It's not really that big of a deal, just more time added to my workflow, and when my time is already limited... |
|
|
|
09/03/2007 11:16:27 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by twilson944:
Thanks for the specifics. The majority of my editing is done in PSE just because of the S/H tool, but it's been a bit of a PITA when I wanted to utilize PS7's more powerful tools. I'll keep playing and reading threads for info. |
You can open in PSE for s/h adjustments, then save the image as a psd file and open it in PS7 to do the rest of your work. That's how I used Photomatix and PS7 before I got CS2.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2007 10:52:10 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
S/H is an easier tool to use if you have it available. I rarely use contrast masking now that I am in CS2 instead of 7.0. But nevertheless some subtle and effective adjustments can be made with this approach. The key is that both layers will often end up at around 25% opacity, sometimes even less. And experiment with different layer modes too. I will sometimes use soft light on the highlights mask, for example.
It's like anything else, you got to play with it quite a bit to get a sense of what it can do.
R. |
Thanks for the specifics. The majority of my editing is done in PSE just because of the S/H tool, but it's been a bit of a PITA when I wanted to utilize PS7's more powerful tools. I'll keep playing and reading threads for info. |
|
|
|
09/03/2007 10:31:36 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by twilson944:
Question about the topic at hand, though. Regarding just the shadows/highlights aspect, I can read how the selection procedures are useful (feathering, transitions, etc...), but when I utilize them, regardless of opacity adjustments, the colors or tones have yet to appear anywhere close to natural. The best way I can describe it is plastic-looking. I have to admit I haven't gone on to adjusting levels, curves, etc., and my monitor isn't the best (or anywhere close to the best), but using s/h in PSE5 (lightly, vs. this method in PS7) gives me natural looking results. Am I giving up too soon? |
S/H is an easier tool to use if you have it available. I rarely use contrast masking now that I am in CS2 instead of 7.0. But nevertheless some subtle and effective adjustments can be made with this approach. The key is that both layers will often end up at around 25% opacity, sometimes even less. And experiment with different layer modes too. I will sometimes use soft light on the highlights mask, for example.
It's like anything else, you got to play with it quite a bit to get a sense of what it can do.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2007 10:22:11 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by twilson944:
[
Thanks for the clarification, and for sharing the wealth of knowledge. And to think I thought I knew anything:) |
Well, you DID know something: that none of these techniques will rescue blown highlights. :-)
R. |
Common knowledge, I would suppose, for most members.
Question about the topic at hand, though. Regarding just the shadows/highlights aspect, I can read how the selection procedures are useful (feathering, transitions, etc...), but when I utilize them, regardless of opacity adjustments, the colors or tones have yet to appear anywhere close to natural. The best way I can describe it is plastic-looking. I have to admit I haven't gone on to adjusting levels, curves, etc., and my monitor isn't the best (or anywhere close to the best), but using s/h in PSE5 (lightly, vs. this method in PS7) gives me natural looking results. Am I giving up too soon? |
|
|
|
09/03/2007 09:55:26 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by twilson944:
[
Thanks for the clarification, and for sharing the wealth of knowledge. And to think I thought I knew anything:) |
Well, you DID know something: that none of these techniques will rescue blown highlights. :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2007 09:53:18 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by twilson944:
Also at the risk of sounding dumb, I wasn't aware that anything would bring back blown highlights. Shadow detail perhaps, but blown highlights? |
Right. It won't do a thing for totally blown highlights. It's just a subtle and effective way of very smooth contrast masking to even out harsh lighting. Or do the reverse, in flatter lighting, for that matter.
R. |
Thanks for the clarification, and for sharing the wealth of knowledge. And to think I thought I knew anything:) |
|
|
|
09/03/2007 09:40:33 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by twilson944:
Also at the risk of sounding dumb, I wasn't aware that anything would bring back blown highlights. Shadow detail perhaps, but blown highlights? |
Right. It won't do a thing for totally blown highlights. It's just a subtle and effective way of very smooth contrast masking to even out harsh lighting. Or do the reverse, in flatter lighting, for that matter.
R.
|
|
