| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2004 11:32:34 PM · #1 |
Photoshop CS has a new feature "shadows / highlights" under the Image Adjustment tab. It does the same thing as a graduated neutral density filter - only using software.
Can we get SC opinions please, is use of this legal for a challenge with basic editing? |
|
|
|
09/26/2004 11:44:43 PM · #2 |
My opinion is that it is legal, so long as it is applied to the entire image. It appears to me to function much like a selective color adjustment as it applies based on luminance value rather than to a selected area.
This is not an official ruling, but my opinion only.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/26/2004 11:45:15 PM · #3 |
| The shadow/highlight tool functionality can be duplicated with curves (though it's not that easy), and since curves are legal for basic editing, the shadow/highlight tool very likely would be ruled so as well. I'm not aware of any specific SC discussion on this tool, a search turned up nothing. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 12:04:23 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The shadow/highlight tool functionality can be duplicated with curves (though it's not that easy) ... |
How would you go about that (need more ideas for Curvers tutorial)?
I also think that if it's under the Adjustments menu and is applied to the whole image (no mases or selections) it shoud be OK. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 12:12:20 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The shadow/highlight tool functionality can be duplicated with curves (though it's not that easy) ... |
How would you go about that (need more ideas for Curvers tutorial)?
I also think that if it's under the Adjustments menu and is applied to the whole image (no mases or selections) it shoud be OK. |
The couple times I've tried to duplicate the results, I've needed several points on the curve, resulting in a rather complex shape. the results were pretty close to the results of shadow/highlight, however I do think it's just an approximation. The shadow/highlight "radius" function cannot really be duplicated in curves. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 12:16:28 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The couple times I've tried to duplicate the results, I've needed several points on the curve, resulting in a rather complex shape ... |
I'm guessing it's a modified "S" shape, with the two ends maybe moved a little towards the middle and then the highlight/shadow segments steepened, with the mid-tones a bit flattened. I haven't seen "H/S" in action yet though ...
Message edited by author 2004-09-27 00:17:04. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 05:26:45 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The shadow/highlight tool functionality can be duplicated with curves (though it's not that easy), and since curves are legal for basic editing, the shadow/highlight tool very likely would be ruled so as well. I'm not aware of any specific SC discussion on this tool, a search turned up nothing. |
No it bloomin' can't!
It uses something along the lines of contrast masking... in advanced editing, you would create a duplicate layer, invert it, desaturate it, change the blending mode to overlay, add gaussian blur and reduce opacity. I'm VERY unhappy that this is not allowed in basic editing, as it is a vital darkroom technique, and means that I can't carry this out in non-member challenges until I upgrade PS. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 09:19:10 AM · #8 |
bobster,
how frequently ARE you happy? All you seem to do is post complaints.
Not trying to wind you up, just a concerned-for-your-health observation.
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The shadow/highlight tool functionality can be duplicated with curves (though it's not that easy), and since curves are legal for basic editing, the shadow/highlight tool very likely would be ruled so as well. I'm not aware of any specific SC discussion on this tool, a search turned up nothing. |
No it bloomin' can't!
It uses something along the lines of contrast masking... in advanced editing, you would create a duplicate layer, invert it, desaturate it, change the blending mode to overlay, add gaussian blur and reduce opacity. I'm VERY unhappy that this is not allowed in basic editing, as it is a vital darkroom technique, and means that I can't carry this out in non-member challenges until I upgrade PS. |
|
|
|
|
09/27/2004 10:26:16 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The shadow/highlight tool functionality can be duplicated with curves (though it's not that easy), and since curves are legal for basic editing, the shadow/highlight tool very likely would be ruled so as well. I'm not aware of any specific SC discussion on this tool, a search turned up nothing. |
No it bloomin' can't!
It uses something along the lines of contrast masking... in advanced editing, you would create a duplicate layer, invert it, desaturate it, change the blending mode to overlay, add gaussian blur and reduce opacity. I'm VERY unhappy that this is not allowed in basic editing, as it is a vital darkroom technique, and means that I can't carry this out in non-member challenges until I upgrade PS. |
Bobster: I'm not using CS either, so I'm not even completely sure what this tool is supposed to accomplish. What would be great is if someone can post a photo which "needs" this technique, and several of us have a go at it with various tool: you can use the multiple-step technique you described, someone can use the S+H tool, a few people can play with Curves ...
If you are correct that the effect is actually achieved using (automatically created) selections, then we may have to reconsider its legality for Basic. So far, all we have is a few opinions but no formal SC vote or ruling ...
But, if we generally allow those adjustments and decide to include this one, that will give an advantage to people with CS, just like people (like me) using PS 5.0 have an advantage over people using IrfanView or other free editor ... |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 12:28:51 PM · #10 |
General I am not sure if this what you wanted .
 out of the camera
 Shadows highlights 50%
Randy |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 01:19:54 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How would you go about that (need more ideas for Curvers tutorial)?
|
Curves is probably my most frequently used editing technique in PS, and the one I would most hate to have to live without. If there is not currently a Curves tutorial, I would be willing to take a crack it at, though everything I know I learned from a chapter in Kelby's "Photoshop for Digital Photographers."
-J |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 01:35:23 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How would you go about that (need more ideas for Curvers tutorial)?
|
Curves is probably my most frequently used editing technique in PS, and the one I would most hate to have to live without. If there is not currently a Curves tutorial, I would be willing to take a crack it at, though everything I know I learned from a chapter in Kelby's "Photoshop for Digital Photographers."
-J |
I am supposed to be working on it, but am willing to try and collaborate. I am often better at editing/re-writing than the initial part anyway. Send me an email or PM if you want to discuss further ... : ) |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 02:09:59 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 02:12:50 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The shadow/highlight tool functionality can be duplicated with curves (though it's not that easy), and since curves are legal for basic editing, the shadow/highlight tool very likely would be ruled so as well. I'm not aware of any specific SC discussion on this tool, a search turned up nothing. |
No it bloomin' can't!
It uses something along the lines of contrast masking... in advanced editing, you would create a duplicate layer, invert it, desaturate it, change the blending mode to overlay, add gaussian blur and reduce opacity. I'm VERY unhappy that this is not allowed in basic editing, as it is a vital darkroom technique, and means that I can't carry this out in non-member challenges until I upgrade PS. |
IF you look at my second post, you will see that I qualified my earlier (hastily-written) remarks by adding that there is a "radius" function that cannot effectively be duplicated directly with curves alone.
Still, it is possible to approximate shadow/highlight using basic tools. A combination of curves and local contrast enhancement using USM (can require multiple repetitions) does a pretty damn decent job, but still falls short in some ways of the result obtained with shadow/highlight in effectiveness, and can in no way duplicate the convenience. |
|
|
|
09/28/2004 04:38:05 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
bobster,
how frequently ARE you happy? All you seem to do is post complaints.
Not trying to wind you up, just a concerned-for-your-health observation.
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The shadow/highlight tool functionality can be duplicated with curves (though it's not that easy), and since curves are legal for basic editing, the shadow/highlight tool very likely would be ruled so as well. I'm not aware of any specific SC discussion on this tool, a search turned up nothing. |
No it bloomin' can't!
It uses something along the lines of contrast masking... in advanced editing, you would create a duplicate layer, invert it, desaturate it, change the blending mode to overlay, add gaussian blur and reduce opacity. I'm VERY unhappy that this is not allowed in basic editing, as it is a vital darkroom technique, and means that I can't carry this out in non-member challenges until I upgrade PS. |
|
Only just seen this reply...
I'm happy most of the time. I'm only unhappy when I think I'm being ignored. It's good to know some members of the sc have taken this one on board. Again, I promised myself I would try to not rock the boat here, as the dismissive nature of a lot of the sc here really p****s me off, and it's good to know that you haven't disappointed me in that respect.
Anyway, in case this might lead to something, although you can rescue shadows and highlights using curves, you still lose a terrifying amount of contrast, and that is the beauty of the feature in CS... that you can rescue your highlight/shadow detail AND keep a picture with large tonal contrast for that extra 'punch'.
Edited for typo
Message edited by author 2004-09-28 04:38:52. |
|
|
|
09/28/2004 07:11:02 AM · #16 |
OK, I am not a Photoshop CS expert, these were done with the default settings for comparison purposes...
Levels (Auto) - Options = Find Dark & Light Colors
Shadow/Highlight Adjustment - Default values
Note: The Shadow/Highlight is very close to GeneralE's curves example except more red.
Message edited by author 2004-09-28 07:18:31. |
|
|
|
09/28/2004 07:22:46 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I'm happy most of the time. I'm only unhappy when I think I'm being ignored. It's good to know some members of the sc have taken this one on board. Again, I promised myself I would try to not rock the boat here, as the dismissive nature of a lot of the sc here really p****s me off, and it's good to know that you haven't disappointed me in that respect.
Anyway, in case this might lead to something, although you can rescue shadows and highlights using curves, you still lose a terrifying amount of contrast, and that is the beauty of the feature in CS... that you can rescue your highlight/shadow detail AND keep a picture with large tonal contrast for that extra 'punch'.
Edited for typo |
Ignoring you and disagreeing with you are not the same thing.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 07:23:06 AM · #18 |
Sittin back thinking that this was a gimme...
It is applied to the whole photo. IE you do not select an area. Similar to selective desat.
What it does is increase the brightness of shadow areas and decreases the brightness of the highlighted areas.
Then there is a colour correction slider and a midtone contrast adjustment if you want to use these.
I have been using this tool for the past few weeks since I got PS CS and I love it I never even thought that it could be illegal as no area is selected. It just happens to work mainly on selected areas of the photo.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 07:35:08 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Ignoring you and disagreeing with you are not the same thing.
-Terry |
I don't want to continue this spat for too long, but right now I don't have a problem with this issue, as I can see that members of the sc have taken the issue on board and have posted opinions on it.
I have mentioned this issue in the past, and it has been ignored.
Do you really think that:
'how frequently ARE you happy? All you seem to do is post complaints.
Not trying to wind you up, just a concerned-for-your-health observation.'
is an acceptable way to answer a criticism of the current working of the site? I am critical sometimes because this is often how things are moved forwards.
If the sc stopped being so damned defensive, perhaps more would get done.
Anyway, like I have said before, it seems absolutely pointless to point out anything less than perfect about this place, otherwise people are treated dismissively and defensively.
I refuse to be involved in any more arguments around here... I'll let the sc find other people to react defensively to.
Like I said in an earlier post, I'm really trying NOT TO CARE about what happens on DPC. Not really an attitude you want to encourage. |
|
|
|
09/28/2004 07:56:58 AM · #20 |
All: As the original poster - I had no idea this would turn into a thread about the alleged politics of DPC. Sorry if I stirred things up, but rest assured it was not intentional.
Now, back to the point. Based on the majority of SC who responded that shadow/highlight was legal in basic, I plan to submit a Wack Food image that uses that technique.
My next question is: Should I also post an admin note saying that I used Sahdow/Highlight? I assume it won't be reviewed fully by the SC unless I do - or else someone requests a DQ, or heaven forbid, it finishes very high.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 08:10:45 AM · #21 |
hm. i should have clarified that i posted that question just as an individual, not in my 'sc role'.
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Do you really think that:
'how frequently ARE you happy? All you seem to do is post complaints.
Not trying to wind you up, just a concerned-for-your-health observation.'
is an acceptable way to answer a criticism of the current working of the site? I am critical sometimes because this is often how things are moved forwards. |
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 08:43:28 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by photom:
All: As the original poster - I had no idea this would turn into a thread about the alleged politics of DPC. Sorry if I stirred things up, but rest assured it was not intentional.
Now, back to the point. Based on the majority of SC who responded that shadow/highlight was legal in basic, I plan to submit a Wack Food image that uses that technique.
My next question is: Should I also post an admin note saying that I used Sahdow/Highlight? I assume it won't be reviewed fully by the SC unless I do - or else someone requests a DQ, or heaven forbid, it finishes very high. |
I personally wouldn't worry about it... when CS first came out I remember a lot of threads on this subject, which all confirmed (as far as I remember) that this was a legal technique. I doubt that the application of this would be noticeable enough for someone to recommend a DQ, unless you'd really overdone it which is inadvisable anyway! I'm sure all the sc would recommend writting up all your PS work in the comments field though. |
|
|
|
09/28/2004 09:06:40 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by photom:
All: As the original poster - I had no idea this would turn into a thread about the alleged politics of DPC. Sorry if I stirred things up, but rest assured it was not intentional.
Now, back to the point. Based on the majority of SC who responded that shadow/highlight was legal in basic, I plan to submit a Wack Food image that uses that technique.
My next question is: Should I also post an admin note saying that I used Sahdow/Highlight? I assume it won't be reviewed fully by the SC unless I do - or else someone requests a DQ, or heaven forbid, it finishes very high. |
I would and I have added it into my comments on the post shot editing that I have done. Then if a dq request comes up it is already in my comments. It has not happened yet but if and when it does at least I'm not trying to hide it.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 09:09:56 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Gurilla:
I would and I have added it into my comments on the post shot editing that I have done. Then if a dq request comes up it is already in my comments. It has not happened yet but if and when it does at least I'm not trying to hide it. |
You've really requested an admin note, as well as put it in your comments? |
|
|
|
09/28/2004 10:17:20 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by Gurilla:
I would and I have added it into my comments on the post shot editing that I have done. Then if a dq request comes up it is already in my comments. It has not happened yet but if and when it does at least I'm not trying to hide it. |
You've really requested an admin note, as well as put it in your comments? |
No Bob, just put it in my comments as with all editing I do. Until now I did not even think that it would be necessary. Actually I still don't as it is not a ajustment of a selected part of the photo.
|
|
