Continued experiments using the split frequency (read the usm is redundant thread at http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...k-is-redundant!) from our high end retouching friends. I produced this retouch in ten minutes. Only to show the technique and how it could be used by us as bird photographers.
Basically, because the colour information is on a different layer it was a simple process in PS to clone out the branch and then on the texture layer clone back in feather detail from matching areas of the bird. The same process can also be used to put back in feather detail on burnt out areas of highlight for instance, even using the detail from another image.
Not sure about the ethics of such retouching work. Is the image still 'true'. Just thought I'd share. Give it a go, let me know what you think.
kind regards.
Stu.
Last edited by Robert Amoruso; 10-17-2010 at 11:31 AM.
Reason: to add link.
Ethics? This is art not journalism. Everything is ethical as long as you don't claim a 100% as-shot photo. It is nice to mention major edits, but I would not say unethical to be silent.
Thanks Alan for the reply. Was wondering others views/opinions. It was a chance shot of a rare-ish visitor locally. Took no time or skill. The image was 'cleaned' in PS. The Siskin image I posted in another thread took 2hrs of patience. Trying to find a clean background, get close enough to the bird, waiting for the right moment. Does it detract something from the above image for this? A bit like a recent thread on gross cropping of hi-res files.
for the record, a nice image is a nice image so long as heavy retouching is declared. But I hear many lay people at open exhibitions immediately discuss a good photograph as being photoshopped just because they personally may not be able, with time or skill, be able to create the same image themselves. Slighly annoying if alot of time and effort has been put into making the image.
Nice work. I edited your post to add the link to the thread you mentioned.
Ethics is not a question here as we are discuss a technique and someone viewing this thread can use it or not use it as they see fit. Thanks for posting your newest experiment.
My general approach to this "split-frequency" issue is to use the LAB colour space or mode. Inherent in its concept is that detail is entirely in one channel (L) and colour information is contained in two other channels (A and B). I find this a lot simpler, but the idea/concept is the same.
Hi chaps. Will post a step by step. The bonus of the SF technique is everything is completely non destructive. At any time you can go back to your original or edit any retouch layers.
Raw file processed through NX2 (I use a Nikon) and then opened in PS.
Run SF action (see the above thread just saved as an action for speed) blur set to 4
Dragged Low Frequency layer into create new layer icon on the bottom of the layers pallette (this will copy to just above your LF layer)
Using clone tool/healing brush remove the twig on the LF layer copy.
High frequency layer detail still shows twig and not feather detail. Working now on the HF layer, clone feather detail in from matching areas of the bird. (clone tool must be set to sample: current layer)
Quick look over the image, any areas in the background that may look retouched you can use gaussian blur on the LF layer copy to hide it. Retouch done.
i then turn off and on the retouch (by turning off the layers) to make sure all looks correct then flatten.
Up to you now. I run another round of SF, for my D300, blur set to between 0.5 and 1. Run noiseware on a copy of the LF layer and a hide mask on the bird.
I then copy the HF layer to the top of the layer stack and alter the opacity to taste.
Sounds complicated and I suppose long winded but having SF as action as part of my workflow as really helped. It's just a case of playing with the blur settings etc to get a feel for how you could use it. Please, any questions just shout!
Just thought I'd explain why I used a blur setting of 4 for the first SF pass.
Basically with SF whatever you lose because of the blur setting becomes your detail layer. For ease of retouching, 4 seemed to be a good number as this enabled easy removal in colour channel (LF) of the twig. All of the detail was in the HF layer so we did not have to worry about cloning texture and colour.
Thanks Stu.
I thought perhaps you were using something (magic?) other than cloning to remove the branch. But you are still cloning , yes? In fact you do it twice, on LF copy and on HF copy? And this is much faster than the usual clone-on-a-layer? And gives better results.
Tom
I find it quicker as especially in the OOF areas you don't have to be precise. Any problems and you can G blur them away. As for the bird detail, I believe for me, it is easier and gives a better result than straight forward cloning.
I'm not saying this is the right way or the only way but another weapon in our armoury. I use a pen and tablet for my retouching, another help for ease and speed.
split frequency - cont'd
Reply With Quote
