Printable View
In feedback for one of my recent posts, Don Lacy kindly suggested I try Color efex 4 detail extraction. I was unaware of this product and decided to seek information with a web search. This took me to the product marketing website and several others including Arthur Moriss's blog. I am wondering if detail extraction is something we should all be using as a general purpose tool or is it only for use in special situations? Your advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks, Ian
Detail Extractor "particularly with bird photography as Arthur does" is mostly done selectively to the bird only. It's easy to over do and can produce noise or turning whites to grey. You can always reduce the opacity when working on a selection on it's own layer.
Used to extract detail from dark areas such as dark feathers or bring out more details in whites.
Detail Extractor applied to an entire image will produce a grunge HDR-like effect. It can also really make distant clouds for example appear more dramatic.
Arthur does cover Detial Extractor well in Digital Basics, NIK software also has tutoriols you can also find on thier You Tube channel.
I wouldn't say it's a general purpose tool and best results with birds is selectively done and usually in small amounts.
You can search Artie's blog "Detail Extractor" and find countless examples to help you out.
I find it's a great tool for many images where tonal range is high. There can be a down side, as it can bring out noise. But it has a surprising ability to bring out detail in both highlights and shadows. I use it at a low percantage, and often mask it to the subject. Of course, I do as much as I can in raw processing before ever getting to PS, where I use tools like this.
You can download a fully functional 30-day trail.
I use detail extractor much like Bobby and Diane not on all my images and I selectively apply it with a mask and fine tune it with the opacity slider. Like stated above if over done it will do more damage then good.
What would you call a "low percentage"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane Miller
Personally, I usually dislike the results for anything above 10%. 5-6% is a normal range for me.
I'm rarely above 10% -- as you have found, more like 5% for a "normal" image, but I do a lot of "artistic" interpretations, for which I may go to maybe 15% max. Varies with each image, and probably significantly with the raw processing.
