| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/01/2004 01:20:12 PM · #1 |
You know, there was a time when grain was considered an interesting element of photography. Sure, digital photography has introduced another kind of grain (digital noise) which is not very nice more often than not, expecially at higher ISO and with consumer cameras.
NEAT IMAGE sure is a great software to get rid of digial noise and will create super cool skins. But too much of a good thing is, well, too much of a good thing. Ultra plastic skins is not what I call interesting to the eye. For instance, lots of peeople here post photographs of kids. I love these shots. Kids are great! Kids also have ULTRA SMOOTH SKIN to begin with. Use strong NEAT IMAGE on these kids and they start to look like aliens to me.
Look who's talking will you say! :-) The guy who does nude photography and uses Neat Image with almost all his photographs! You're right, I confess: I am a NI sinner. Honestly though, I make it a point of honor to find the right amount to use to make things look "as natural as possible". Well, as natural looking as fake can be. ;-)
To me, the overuse of NI can kill a photo. If the first thing we see is NI, than we miss the shot, don't we?
While I'm at it, I'll venture further on postprocessing. Heck, why not. I'm on a roll.
What's up with the abondant use of OVER BURNING? Bruning makes for dramatic visuals. Overdo it and it's like seeing a magician miss his trick: "Hey look, he's hiding the pigeon in his pocket!". A rule of thumb in PHOTOSHOP with burning and dodging: set your brush opacity to 05% and use multiple strokes to obten the degree of burning/dodging you are looking for. The technique of the "lavis" (french term; I don't know the translation sorry- this technique is the technique of working with multiple layers of transparancy, usually associated with using inks and water paint) is sure to make the best effect out of your burning and doging needs.
Not meaning to rant. Just meaning to shed some light on the traps encountered in "wanting to create effects" in photographs.
My two cents. Take it for what it's worth.
Martin
Technique du lavis:
//www.groensteen.net/technique-lavis.php
//www.superart.com/cours/aquarelle/lavis.asp
Message edited by author 2004-09-01 13:23:52.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 01:23:12 PM · #2 |
Keep ranting...I'm learning stuff!
Specifically, could you talk a little bit more about using 'multiple layers'...I'm dumb at that part of photoshop.
Edit: I should mention that I know what layers are and what they're for, but how do you get the most out of using them? What's your technique?
Message edited by author 2004-09-01 13:23:44. |
|
|
|
09/01/2004 01:26:36 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
09/01/2004 01:28:02 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
... Ultra plastic skins is not what I call interesting to the eye. ... |
I agree completely, but this comment coming from a guy that specializes in photographing a woman dressed in latex is so funny. ;)
David
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 01:29:04 PM · #5 |
I didn't refer to layers like the layers we see in photoshop. I meant it in a literal way. For instance, if you take a brush and soak it in water, then dip it in ink and use the brush on a canvas, you will get a very thin layer of ink applied and it will appear very light. U then repeat the process. The second time you apply the brush on the canvas at the same spots, it applies a second layer of ink on top of the previous one. The new brush strokes create darker areas. Repeat the process to get the desired opacity (or darker areas).
The process of burning in Photoshop can be seen in a similar way. Using the brun tool (it is ni fact a brush), use its opacity at 05%. when you do a brush stroke on your photograph with the burn tool set at 05%, you will barelly notice the difference. You will start to see it after brushing multiple times. What is good about this technique is that every stroke is never exactly at the same spot. Also, you can vary the brush size with every stroke. This will eliminate the clear edges burning can create and will make for better transitions from your light and obscure areas.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 01:31:15 PM · #6 |
gotcha, mister. I mean, doctor.
Edit: Oh, and I agree with your original post.
Message edited by author 2004-09-01 13:31:34. |
|
|
|
09/01/2004 01:33:34 PM · #7 |
Well said. Good thing NI is not available for Mac yet. Once it's available I'll probably go crazy for a while then ease off to a natural median...
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 01:33:36 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
... Ultra plastic skins is not what I call interesting to the eye. ... |
I agree completely, but this comment coming from a guy that specializes in photographing a woman dressed in latex is so funny. ;)
David |
I know! Isn't that ironic! LOL!
Even if I take these images, doesn't mean I don't appreciate the other subjects in photography. When someone is shooting a landscape, I want to feel the textures from the land. When someone is shooting a kid laughing, I want to smile with him and not worry about his skin condition. When someone shoots a bird, I don't want to worry about why the birdy does not have feathers anymore. ;-)
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 01:52:06 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Keep ranting...I'm learning stuff!
Specifically, could you talk a little bit more about using 'multiple layers'...I'm dumb at that part of photoshop.
Edit: I should mention that I know what layers are and what they're for, but how do you get the most out of using them? What's your technique? |
I'm no expert, but I follow a few basic guidelines while using layers.
- Develope a workflow for photoshop. A workflow is a set of steps needed to complete a project, the work flowing from one task to another until it is done. Break your project into as many tasks as needed and work on each one in a new layer. This one is the hardest for me; in order to plan the workflow out I have to be able to visualize each step of the way, and I am still learning to do that.
- set the opacity of every layer when starting at something lower than 100% so you can adjust the strength of the effect you created up and down. I have settled on 75%, but pick a number that works for you -- just keep it constant so you always know what opacity you started with.
- Don't merge layers. Unless you are 100% totally confident you will never need to change the effects done, or are really short of memory, create a new layer at the top and 'stamp visible layers' onto it. The has the same effect as 'merge visible layers', as it creates a single layer that contains the whole of all changes so far, but leaves the layers intact for later adjustment if needed. It also acts as a record of your changes, but can result in a large file.
- Doing the above results in a lot of layers at times, so use layer groups to organize them.
- Don't know why I'm listing this last as it is one that constantly fumbles me up, but name your layers something meaningful. Don't just leave a sharpening layer as 'Background Copy' (for instance) label it for what it is doing. That way you know what it does when you look back on it later.
David
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 01:55:17 PM · #10 |
It's a shame. I talked about this lack of texture on DPC with Gordon yesterday funnily enough.
The fact is, people vote highly on those Neat Imaged photos, and so long as they do well - people will try to emulate that and thus the viscous circle is born.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 01:59:20 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
I didn't refer to layers like the layers we see in photoshop. I meant it in a literal way. For instance, if you take a brush and soak it in water, then dip it in ink and use the brush on a canvas, you will get a very thin layer of ink applied and it will appear very light. U then repeat the process. The second time you apply the brush on the canvas at the same spots, it applies a second layer of ink on top of the previous one. The new brush strokes create darker areas. Repeat the process to get the desired opacity (or darker areas).
The process of burning in Photoshop can be seen in a similar way. Using the brun tool (it is ni fact a brush), use its opacity at 05%. when you do a brush stroke on your photograph with the burn tool set at 05%, you will barelly notice the difference. You will start to see it after brushing multiple times. What is good about this technique is that every stroke is never exactly at the same spot. Also, you can vary the brush size with every stroke. This will eliminate the clear edges burning can create and will make for better transitions from your light and obscure areas. |
Good tip, only one thing to add. Take a Snapshot before doing the multiple burns. Doing many passes at low opacity will fill your history up quick. In the history there is a little camera, that will take a "picture" of your picture. That way if you're not happy with the results, you can go back. |
|
|
|
09/01/2004 02:00:44 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
It's a shame. I talked about this lack of texture on DPC with Gordon yesterday funnily enough.
The fact is, people vote highly on those Neat Imaged photos, and so long as they do well - people will try to emulate that and thus the viscous circle is born. |
That, and also I think one of the problem is the image size. 640 pixels limits the style of images that can be used. Textures often are best viewed at a larger size.
Martin
Message edited by author 2004-09-01 14:01:02.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 02:11:08 PM · #13 |
David...a question about your post:
Do you do every single step in a different layer (i.e. sharpening, contrast, levels, etc.)?
Any other tips for working with layers?
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 03:08:33 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
David...a question about your post:
Do you do every single step in a different layer (i.e. sharpening, contrast, levels, etc.)?
Any other tips for working with layers?
Thanks, |
Yes, I try to never make an adjustment to the original image, or to a 'visible stamped' layer either for that matter. I don't always follow my own guidelines, but I am still learning you know. :D
If you look at the comment sections of my images I have tried to be as detailed as possible without going overboard, but you will also see that I am still developing what has become the above list of guidelines -- guidelines that are just that by the way, I don't hold to them as never to be broken rules, but I usually regret it if I do break them.
As far as more tips, after typing I thought I should have stated something that is implied by the above, but not specically stated. Be leary of recreating what was there before, be it by selectively undoing a step by the opposite effect or even by the history brush -- think ahead and mask it before making any changes to it. As an example, even soft focus portraits often look better with sharp(er) eyes. This can be done by blurring and then resharpening the eyes only, blurring and then using the history brush to 'go back' to the previous state, or the eyes can be masked before the blurring is done. I prefer the last as the first seems to be poor planning and the second is a reverse flow in my workflow -- I prefer all my actions to flow toward the goal, not away from it. :)
And to swing this back around and show that it does concern the topic -- by using small steps there is much more control with what is done. I believe the problem most have with neatimage is that it is applied to the entire image at once. The settings needed to clear up the sky (for example) are not what are needed to make a face look good. Neatimage is great for removing the noise that comes from the sensor and can be profiled, but beyond that it is better to use the tools and filters available in photoshop (and other programs) in layers that are masked to affect just the area that needs it. By concentrating only on one area at a time, the undesired noise can be handled without the image getting that neatimage look.
David
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 03:20:30 PM · #15 |
I agree 99% except I can't stand neat image period. I guess if you're taking out the noise and then add grain it's okay. Adding grain to digital portraits [for example] works wonders [not that I really know how to do it very well].
Anyway, thanks for posting your non-rant :-)
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 03:37:33 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Well said. Good thing NI is not available for Mac yet. Once it's available I'll probably go crazy for a while then ease off to a natural median... |
I thought you were using Noise Ninja... I've been LOVING it, btw. Thanks for the recommendation.
But, is Neat Image still better?
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 03:46:26 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Don't merge layers. Unless you are 100% totally confident you will never need to change the effects done, or are really short of memory, create a new layer at the top and 'stamp visible layers' onto it. The has the same effect as 'merge visible layers', as it creates a single layer that contains the whole of all changes so far, but leaves the layers intact for later adjustment if needed. It also acts as a record of your changes, but can result in a large file. David |
What version of PS are you using? I don't see "stamp visible layers." I'm on a Mac, using CS. :) Can you point me in the right direction, because this sounds like something I need to be doing. Thanks in advance!!
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 03:52:03 PM · #18 |
Very well said indeed DrJOnes - it's something that bugs me a lot and I mention it frequently too in forums and comments.
To me, NeatImage is like anaesthetic to photography. It removes (when poorly implemented) evidence of the real and the flawed world we live in. Yes - it's annoying when a digital device adds those red/green/blue splodges but there are work-arounds - and it actually helps one hone the processing skills to get round the problems. One quick method is to convert to Lab colour and selectively work on the colour channels ('a' and 'b') while leaving the detail channel ('Lightness') in tact.
That said I would use it when it becomes available for the slickest platform in the world, but, as you rightly put it, one can have too much of a good thing. It's why I sometimes don't rate the super-smooth entries as highly as others and why I don't value winning a ribbon higher than my integrity as a digital artist/photographer.
Some good points made in the thread too - top post!
Message edited by author 2004-09-01 16:24:36.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 04:04:12 PM · #19 |
I completely agree with the initial post, I always stated that I prefere grain to neatimage, and I stick to that except when I do stock photos. There they don't accept any grain and neatimage helps. Sure digital grain can't be compared with the film grain, and when it is too much it hurts the eye, that's why my camera never goes above iso200 wich is the last acceptable level of grain on an f717. If there isn't enough light for iso200 and flash or long exposure doesnt help I reather not even try or I better underexpose it then see if I can photoshop something out of it, if not than that's it, there will be better days when I will get a better cam. But as DrJones said in the initial post, and I said it a few times before, neatimage most of the times just ruins images, gives them a verry plastic unnatural look and to me that's most of the times disgusting. There are also times when a shot of mine does not have any or verry little grain and I create it in photoshop because I really feel it enhances an image, also a last try to salvage a grainy image is to make it b/w. In b/w digital grain is not as ugly as in color and it almost looks like film grain.
Belive me you don't wanna see this one in color:
... whhile like this in b/w it surprisingly became one of my shots that people on different sites and forums appreciated it most.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 04:04:47 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
The technique of the "lavis" (french term; I don't know the translation sorry- this technique is the technique of working with multiple layers of transparancy, usually associated with using inks and water paint) is sure to make the best effect out of your burning and doging needs. |
The Latin root Lave means to wash or cleanse, as in "lavatory" or "gastric lavage." From your summary, I assume it refers to using a light opacity setting on the dodge/burn tool to simulate the effect of using a dampened brush on an already-painted area to soften, blend, and possibly lighten/darken the colors.
It's possible the "sponge" tool (grouped with dodge/burn) is intended to mimic this even more closely, but I've never played with it myself, just read a little about it ... |
|
|
|
09/01/2004 04:11:58 PM · #21 |
GeneralE, you understood correctly.
But the sponge in Photoshop is a tool to remove saturation from parts of the image. It is not the same as the lavis technique.
Message edited by author 2004-09-01 16:44:25.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 04:16:42 PM · #22 |
|
|
|
09/01/2004 04:25:45 PM · #23 |
I'm with Spazmo - I don't touch it. I don't think there's any way you can remove noise without detail, and if I want a soft effect I'll achieve it in a different way..
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 04:26:24 PM · #24 |
can you guys honestly say that if some images were'nt neat imaged you wouldn't vote it down for having (not film) grain? My Yahtzee shot .. that had grain and people commented about it. I bet that if I had known about NeatImage then and fixed that problem, my score would have jumped up a bit.
I agree to an extent, but I believe that the use of Neat Image is sometimes necessary so that the image isn't unappealing, so that the grain doesn't take away from the beauty of the photo. Yes, sometimes it can be used too much .. but you can safely use it and have the image appear clean and natural at the same time, if that is the look you're going for.
If everyone said no to NI .. I believe a lot of scores would be hurting ..
Edit : Thanks to ChrisW123 for pointing out to use NeatImage in a comment on my Yahtzee Shapes picture. ;)
Message edited by author 2004-09-01 16:30:03.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2004 04:48:58 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
I'm with Spazmo - I don't touch it. I don't think there's any way you can remove noise without detail, and if I want a soft effect I'll achieve it in a different way.. |
Well, I think this is another extreme. I don't think saying NO to NI is teh answer. I think moderation is the proper approach. Neat Image can be a very useful tool and can enhance some images. Also, I think that it can be used without loosing important details. You can use NI on one layer and then remove parts of the image where NI affected the details too much. Things like that.
I am opposed at overusing NI. Super slick skin works for magazines like FHM and MAXIM because that's the standard and image they want to project: perfect models. If this is the photo you are aiming for, then a good dose of NI makes al ot of sense. But when shooting eral people in real situations, landscapes, buildings, flowers, etc., it's kindda weird to see an overuse of NI.
Balance is key.
I think.
Martin
|
|
