Case study: image with wide dynamic range

[Nikolai]

Here's the image:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/108347158-L.jpg

EDIT: link to original (http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/141824921-O.jpg)
Dan, John?

I'd really like to see what's possible to do in RGB, but if your approach leads to CMYK that's fine too.

As we discussed, it would be really great if you could explain why this area, why this channel, why this particular move, etc... :thumb

[I did a little surgery on this thread and moved the parts directly relevant to the channel vs mater curve issue to the PP5E Ch2 thread (http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=50319), where I think it will be easier to find in the future. Also renamed this thread appropriately-- Rutt]

[Duffy Pratt]

I took a stab at this one.

1) False Profile Apple 1.8
2) Curves: Held flag white, and kept dark trousers blue, steepened the red and green channels by the faces. Blue channel boosted just slightly at the midpoint.
3) Convert to LAB. Shadow/Highlights to bring out sky detail, and pants detail. Pretty heavy on both, using the technique Margulis suggests in PP5.

By the way, I think this is a poor example for showing the benefits of individual curving. There is some benefit here, but its probably very slight. The major improvements, if they are improvements, come from the false profile and the S/H adjustments.

Duffy

[Nikolai]

I took a stab at this one.

1) False Profile Apple 1.8
2) Curves: Held flag white, and kept dark trousers blue, steepened the red and green channels by the faces. Blue channel boosted just slightly at the midpoint.
3) Convert to LAB. Shadow/Highlights to bring out sky detail, and pants detail. Pretty heavy on both, using the technique Margulis suggests in PP5.

By the way, I think this is a poor example for showing the benefits of individual curving. There is some benefit here, but its probably very slight. The major improvements, if they are improvements, come from the false profile and the S/H adjustments.

Duffy

Thank you for playing...:thumb

This is exactly the example I wanted. It's far too easy to go about different curves with a landscape, where all you have is green foliage, blue sky and red rocks. Each can be made a totaly different blue, gren and red, yet the average viewer still would not know the difference.

Here we pretty much can call every color. Everyone know what does the flag look like. Most people know the color schema of the federate army. Shot has dual lighting - sun and the fill flash. It *is* a real situation I have to deal with.

Now, with all due respect.... :lust

Your treatment made the shot worse than it was. :dunno

One thing Mr. Margulis keeps saying acrros the board is "do not give the viewers the color they would know better than to believe".

Union trousers cannot be green. North army was not called "Blue" for nothing...:deal

Shadows cannot be green either, not in the plain field, reddish ground and the blue troops casting it. If nothing else, I was there myself and I do not recall any green. Even my 30D does not remember one. :wink

Yet your treatment shows A(10) in shadows and A(17) in pants. :huh

Sorry, no hit... :rolleyes

[Duffy Pratt]

The pants in the original are already negative in both the A and B. You have a point about he shadows. However, the faces are strongly magenta in the original shot.

I took another shot at this. This time, no false profile. Instead I first created a new layer, luminosity mode, and applied the image to itself in Screen mode at about 50%.

Then curves as before, but this time I locked down the shadow and pants area before trying to increase the contrast in the faces and getting the skin tones a little better. Again, I locked down the white in the flag for a highlight in each channel.

And the same shadow/highlight adjustment as before in LAB.

Also, keep in mind that there is a difference between the effectiveness of a technique in principle, and the effectiveness of it in my hands. I'm still learning, and I never paid any attention to the shadows. To a cerain extent, I believe that if someone is looking closely at that shadow, then the picture is a failure already. I appreciate the feedback, even if it is a thumbs down overall, because I'm still learning this stuff (only been at PS for a little less than a year now).

Duffy

[Nikolai]

The pants in the original are already negative in both the A and B. You have a point about he shadows. However, the faces are strongly magenta in the original shot.

I took another shot at this. This time, no false profile. Instead I first created a new layer, luminosity mode, and applied the image to itself in Screen mode at about 50%.

Then curves as before, but this time I locked down the shadow and pants area before trying to increase the contrast in the faces and getting the skin tones a little better. Again, I locked down the white in the flag for a highlight in each channel.

And the same shadow/highlight adjustment as before in LAB.

Also, keep in mind that there is a difference between the effectiveness of a technique in principle, and the effectiveness of it in my hands. I'm still learning, and I never paid any attention to the shadows. To a cerain extent, I believe that if someone is looking closely at that shadow, then the picture is a failure already. I appreciate the feedback, even if it is a thumbs down overall, because I'm still learning this stuff (only been at PS for a little less than a year now).

Duffy

Once again, thank you for your time! :thumb

When you say "locked" what do you mean? Selection/mask? Isn't it a big no-no in PP5E?

I'm getting a green tint on the gound now (and on lady's apron)...

I guess I need to put a bigger version of file online, cause it can make a huge difference in perception..

And, just to clear things out: we're not trying to simply improve the shot in every possible way. It was supposed to be an exercise in exactly channel-based curves, since I, for one, still can't understand how Dan (Margulis) is doing it on a channel by channel basis without selection/mask and without screwing other parts of image.

I'm starting to get a suspicion that his technique is, in fact, only possible when an image contains
1) only subset of color palette (any landscape can be a good example), or
2) colors that can be tweaked without being caught redhanded (landscape again, since it can't examine its one picture and say "hey, my leaves are not that brownish...":-)

I will locate the original and add a link to a larger file tonight.

Thank you again! :lust

[Duffy Pratt]

When you say "locked" what do you mean? Selection/mask? Isn't it a big no-no in PP5E?


By locking, I put a point in the curve (on all three channels) at the top range of the blue pants, and then somewhere below it in the range of the pants. This keeps that part of the curve straight. Since the faces are higher up on the curve, they can still be adjusted.


I'm getting a green tint on the gound now (and on lady's apron)...

The ladies apron is slightly A negative in the original. What color is it really? If you are willing to bet the picture on its being white, that might be helpful.

What's clear to me is that the original is not a fair representation of the colors. The sky is definitely off, as are the faces. What we are looking for is a good improvement in the time that someone is willing to spend on it. With a limited amount of time, and my limited abilities, something is going to give. But I still think that both of my versions, and certainly the second one, are improvements over the original.

And the ground has gone greenish yellow now. In context, does it look obviously wrong? What do you prefer, a slightly green grown, or strongly magenta faces?

I'll take another look.

As for the value of channel-based curves, the question is whether it is better than using the master curve. Can someone make a better improvement to this picture by simply using the techniques I have and the master RGB curve?

Duffy

[Duffy Pratt]

OK, I took a third shot at it.

This time we go to the same steps as in two.

The RGB curves have points at the following areas:
Red: 0,0, 32,28, 137,174, 240,240 and 255,255
Green: 0,0, 62,61, 75,75, 139,174, 234,237, and 255,255
Blue: 0,0, 64,64, 87,87, 119,111, and 255,255.

I did the curve on a dupe layer instead of an adjustment layer.

Then I moved to LAB, and with the blend if sliders, I made it so the top layer would not have any effect in areas that were A negative on the top layer.

Then I did an adjustment curves layer to make the sky bluer. This was a curve that killed the A negative and steepened the B negative. Blend if sliders limited this adjustment to where the underlying layer was in the highlights and was also A negative.

Then I did the Shadow/Highlights as before.

Duffy

[jfriend]

Duffy, I've also been thinking about the reaction to those early chapters, especially in comparison to the success of the LAB book. I've even talked to Dan about it. Of course, these days, he's experimenting with something totally different: false profile to decrease gamma a lot, convert to CMYK. Steepen K, keep copy of K channel somewhere, convert to LAB. Steepen A+B through a layer mask containing that saved K channel, HIRALOAM all three channels. Of course, his results look great, mine, not so much yet. Dan demoed this at MIT on Wednesday.

In the last advanced class I took, Dan really stressed luminosity blending for contrast enhancement. I'm just beginning to get my mind around this.

If I were Dan (or his editor), I'd unify PP and the LAB book. I'd start with the first four chapters of the LAB book. I'd do impossible colors, including RGB channel curves for color. I'd teach blending. I'd teach sharpening including HIRALOAM and how to blend HIRALOAM and USM. Only then would I get into RGB channel curves for contrast.

But then who am I? I can't reproduce Dan's results even after they have been clearly demonstrated any number of times...

This is a bit off topic, but I was just playing around with this image last night (didn't save any of my changes) and discovered that this image really, really lends itself to a steepending of the K curve in CMYK because it really helps contast in the shadows without messing with the rest of the image and without messing with the color and without impacting the highlights. Since I still rarely use CMYK, this was a cool discovery for me and worth some others trying too.

Beyond that new discovery for me, I certainly find this image a lot easier to process in the traditional methods (separating color from contrast).

[rutt]

Yes, we are off topic. That's because Nik is expecting the impossible. Not every image benefits from every technique. We can't expect that just any old image that someone happens to dig up will be amenable to a particular technique. In this case, first Andy and then Nik have posted some image or another and then posed a challenge to improve with channel based RGB curves. Much better to show images where this technique does make hay. Then keep it in mind for the time when it solves the problem at hand. As I've been saying, I don't think channel based curves for contrast is the most widely applicable technique that Dan teaches and it's too bad it gets introduced so early in PP5E. I think that's a bit of a historical accident. In previous editions, cast removal comes first and for that problem, channel based curves are a very valuable technique.

In the case of this particular image and most portraits, using channel based curves for contrast enhancement is like using your sand wedge for teeing off on a par 5 hole.

Enough hot air. I gave this image a no-hold-barred attempt and got this result:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/141796392-L.jpg

What did I do?

In RGB: Lots of luminosity blending to bring out the sky, faces and some of the shadow detail. The blue channel turned out to be more useful than I would have guessed to darken the flat skin and to lighten the uniforms a bit. The red channel was great for the sky and for the lighter colored pants (to keep them from getting too light.) Used channel based curves to get some more yellow in the faces.

In CMYK: Steepen the K curve a lot (hey channel-based curves)

In LAB: Command-click curves to get better reds and blues in the flag, add more blue and less green to the sky. Deepen the blue of the uniforms. Use the K channel from the previous step as a layer mask for this this curve layer, which has the effect of focusing the color enhancements on the highlights and midtones and keeping them away from the darker parts fo the image (ala Dan's new techniques.) HIRALOAM on all three channels with a very light touch (about 25%) and about 1/2 as much lightening as darkening. Conventional sharpening on a separate layer at about 50% with blend-if to allow the HIRALOAM shadows through.

Looks darn good to me, but I worked on it way too long. Of course I was practicing and learning some new techniques as well as trying to clear up my thoughts about channel-based-curves.

So?

[rutt]

Better, but I'm still not happy with it. I want better shadow detail in those uniforms but I don't want it to look fake. They can't be too blue.

Nik, will you make the raw version available. I want more resolution in the starting point.

Way way off topic, but jeez I think this is kind of an interesting challenge as an image.

[Duffy Pratt]

The challenge in this image is that it is so unlike most images in terms of what you think you know. Everyone thinks they know the color of the uniforms, the skin, the sky, the dirt to some extent, the flag, the sabres, the gunstocks, etc... Color correction usually involves some trade-offs. You nail the known areas and let the unknown areas slip somewhat. Here, you pretty much can't do that.

Compound that with the fact that some of the "known" values in this picture may not be true: How new is the flag? How much have the colors faded? Should the picture account for the fading or not. Is the apron white or something else? Are the trousers really blue, or closer to some sort of cyan? What happens when you apply some red dirt and dust to the trousers -- should they go to grey, or somewhere else?

And those are only the problems on the color side. The starting exposure on the troops brings up a host of contrast problems as well. And the amazing thing is that all of these problems arise in a shot that is pretty well done to begin with.

Duffy

[Nikolai]

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/141824921-O.jpg

[rutt]

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/141824921-O.jpg

No raw, Nik?

[Nikolai]

No raw, Nik?

SM does not take raws...:cry
Hold on, I'll post one on S*E site:-) Stay tuned!
....
Here you are (http://www.starexplorer.com/download/IMG_9521.zip)

[Andy]

SM does not take raws...:cry

Do so! :D

http://smugmug.jot.com/WikiHome/PhotoshopSampleFiles

[Nikolai]

That's because Nik is expecting the impossible.

I'm not:-) I only want to see how this stuff is played outside the Canyon Conundrum :-)

So?

What a great processing (with the exception that don't like the halos on the closest trooper)! :clap

[Nikolai]

The challenge in this image is that it is so unlike most images in terms of what you think you know. Everyone thinks they know the color of the uniforms, the skin, the sky, the dirt to some extent, the flag, the sabres, the gunstocks, etc... Color correction usually involves some trade-offs. You nail the known areas and let the unknown areas slip somewhat. Here, you pretty much can't do that.

Compound that with the fact that some of the "known" values in this picture may not be true: How new is the flag? How much have the colors faded? Should the picture account for the fading or not. Is the apron white or something else? Are the trousers really blue, or closer to some sort of cyan? What happens when you apply some red dirt and dust to the trousers -- should they go to grey, or somewhere else?

And those are only the problems on the color side. The starting exposure on the troops brings up a host of contrast problems as well. And the amazing thing is that all of these problems arise in a shot that is pretty well done to begin with.

Duffy

Hey, that's exactly why I insisted on bringing in my own image :wink

I understand that this is probably the least preferable candidate for the said technique, but this is why I wanted to see how it can be done properly, if at all... :deal

[Nikolai]

Do so! :D

http://smugmug.jot.com/WikiHome/PhotoshopSampleFiles

I guess I missed something... :scratch
I clicked on the Upload document, and it told me I don't have a permission. :cry
Can you please point me towards more info on the subject? :bow

[Andy]

I guess I missed something... :scratch
I clicked on the Upload document, and it told me I don't have a permission. :cry
Can you please point me towards more info on the subject? :bow
Are you registered on the wiki :thumb

[Nikolai]

Are you registered on the wiki :thumb

I did just recently, but here's what have been getting from the jogspot for quite some time:

New users

We've closed off new account registrations while we focus on migrating to Google's systems. If you'd like to be notified when we re-open registration, enter your email address below.


I guess I'll be SOL for a while :dunno

[Andy]

I did just recently, but here's what have been getting from the jogspot for quite some time:



I guess I'll be SOL for a while :dunnoOops. Forgot.
put it on your server, for now, Nik

[Nikolai]

Oops. Forgot.
put it on your server, for now, Nik

I did :-) http://www.starexplorer.com/download/IMG_9521.zip

Do I understand it correctly you can only do through wiki, not via regular SM/API?

[rutt]

Rutt, why are the pants of the guy just to our right of the pipe-smoker, dirty in your shot?

Because I was guessing that they shouldn't be as blue as you got them.

I'm still waiting for a raw version and I'll try again, I guess.

[Andy]

I did :-) http://www.starexplorer.com/download/IMG_9521.zip

Do I understand it correctly you can only do through wiki, not via regular SM/API?No raw on SmugMug, yes RAW on our Wiki for these purposes.

[Nikolai]

I'm still waiting for a raw version and I'll try again, I guess.

It's been uploaded to S*E site, please check my recent posts

[Nikolai]

New i2e version, from Nik's raw file.

Very, VERY, VERY impressive! :huh :bow
What was that deal on i2e s/w again? :wink

[Duffy Pratt]

OK, I think I might have learned something from this thread. Here is another attempt. I did too much to describe in detail. It included:

1) False Profile 1.4 gamma.
2) Luminosity blends, Red into RGB, Blue into Green. Both limited by blend ifs.
3) Steepening K and Magenta channels in CMYK on Luminosity layer.
4) Color balancing skin tones in CMYK color layer.
5) Lab for a shadows move, and to play some with the blue in the pants and sky, and an unsharp mask.

I think this is better than my other efforts, and I still like this picture lighter than others have made it.

Duffy

[Nikolai]

OK, I think I might have learned something from this thread. Here is another attempt. I did too much to describe in detail. It included:

1) False Profile 1.4 gamma.
2) Luminosity blends, Red into RGB, Blue into Green. Both limited by blend ifs.
3) Steepening K and Magenta channels in CMYK on Luminosity layer.
4) Color balancing skin tones in CMYK color layer.
5) Lab for a shadows move, and to play some with the blue in the pants and sky, and an unsharp mask.

I think this is better than my other efforts, and I still like this picture lighter than others have made it.

Duffy

I think this is definitely better than the previous tries :thumb
Yes, you made it lighter, I guess it's a judgement call. I should mention that this version delivers the feeling of the heat downing upon the marching troops from the merciless sun...:thumb

[Duffy Pratt]

One more general observation about this image. Because the color areas are so "uniform," it is really quite easy to do what amounts to fake selections using the "blend if" sliders. The deep blue jackets lie in one area, the light trousers in another, the sky has its own unique aspects, as does the skin. In many ways, this is a very non-typical image.

Duffy

[Nikolai]

In many ways, this is a very non-typical image.
Duffy

Yet this is of the kind that gets purchased, so it's quite important from all practical purposes. :wink Reenactments are my best sellers, if you don't count appointments...

[rutt]

Duffy, much closer to what I was looking for. Unplugging the shadows in those uniforms makes a huge difference to me. I have an idea I want to try out, but it's not that different from what you described. HIRALOAM the K channel and stamp it into the false profiled (and maybe shadow/highlighted) RGB with a multiply layer.

[rutt]

Yes but it's pretty darn good considering the extremes of the image :rutt

How did I get that old man with the cane and beard named after me? Andy, how old are you? And cranky?

Anyway, I have a sort of long time thing I've been trying to invent. 1/2 algorithm and 1/2 person. Sort of a Cyborg photoshop and/or i2e thing. It uses human judgment to control very sophisticated post processing algorithms in a series of QA steps.

Is this sky? Skin? Water?
Want the glamor look?
How old is this person?
Is there something neutral?
Is the the lightest point of interest?
Too dark?


Maybe 1 minute not 5 seconds and definitely not hours. Very deterministic. Best results possible. Now how much would you pay?

[wxwax]

Very, VERY, VERY impressive! :huh :bow
What was that deal on i2e s/w again? :wink
For those wondering what Nik was quoting, it's here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=524095#post524095), in the i2e thread.

[rutt]

Otherwise I think I'm gonna hang out at a much cooler place (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=57102)... :D

Great. I'm sick of that darn image of yours anyway. I'm hoping somebody like Edgework might take a swing at it. Or perhaps somebody has gotten good at lightzones? This might be a good image for that approach.

[Nikolai]

Great. I'm sick of that darn image of yours anyway. I'm hoping somebody like Edgework might take a swing at it. Or perhaps somebody has gotten good at lightzones? This might be a good image for that approach.

Glad you liked it... :lol3

Apart from the last smiley-related OT this has been a great thread so far. for me at least. I learned several new things, which does not happen often :deal

[Duffy Pratt]

Rutt,

I agree with you that part of this thread has to do with Chapter 2 in particular, and there should probably be a link from there to here. But there are other parts of the image treatment that have to do with false profile, luminosity blending, steepening the K, and color evaluation. So while I agree that the "content" parts of this thread deserve a nod from Chapter 2 of PP5, I think this thread could also stand archiving for reference in the discussion of other chapters. Much of the banter could be stripped without any loss for purposes of PP5, as could these discussions of where the thread belongs.

Duffy

[rutt]

Let me know if you like what I did. Maybe I'll get around cleaning up what's left in this thread as well.

Rutt,

I agree with you that part of this thread has to do with Chapter 2 in particular, and there should probably be a link from there to here. But there are other parts of the image treatment that have to do with false profile, luminosity blending, steepening the K, and color evaluation. So while I agree that the "content" parts of this thread deserve a nod from Chapter 2 of PP5, I think this thread could also stand archiving for reference in the discussion of other chapters. Much of the banter could be stripped without any loss for purposes of PP5, as could these discussions of where the thread belongs.

Duffy

[rutt]

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/142482228-L.jpg

I took one more swing at this. You might want to download and look in photoshop because I cut it very close between showing the detail in the fabric and keeping the uniforms dark. Looks much better in PS than in Firefox for some reason I don't really understand.

I took a much more conservative approch than before.

Shadow/highlights on a layer to bring out fabric detail. Very low tonal width (about 0). Turned town opacity until the details were only just visible.
Used Dan's new inverted/blurred/overlay technique from PP5E, Ch 18. Used lighten and darken layers from the original to turn down the lighten and darkening effect separately.
To CMYK and steepen the K curve radically to bring out the folds in the uniforms and reestablish that dark blue.
Keep CMYK duplicate and move to LAB.
Fix green cast in the sky and pants with a command-click curves layer.
Fix the magenta cast in the faces and enhance all the colors with a second command-click layer. Try to get the L curve steep through the dark-midtones for the faces. Use the K channel from the CMYK duplicate as a layer mask to keep the shadows deep and more neutral.
Sharpen USM and HIRALOAM on separate layers and blend with sliders and blend-if sliders.


My favorite so far. What do you think?

[Duffy Pratt]

It looks good but is still too dark for my taste. Here are my other quibbles:

The officer's face is still more magenta than yellow. The rest of the troop have about equal magenta and yellow.

There's now some green in the apron shadows.

The fill in the near blown sky just over their heads on the right is overdone for my taste. It looks more like a picture of the sky now than of the troops. (My problem with your first correction is that on first blush, it looked like a picture of the flag, with the troops as an afterthought. This one, because of the tonal balance, is still to focused away from where we should be looking.)

Here's something I've been tussling with in this photo. In the original, the sky is definitely too green. And the faces are definitely too magenta. The use of fill flash might explain the conflicting casts. But what about the trousers? They are also too green (everyone seems to think), but they presumably would get some of the same magenta cast that the faces got if the flash was the cause. So one of the following must be true: 1) the faces really are that magenta, perhaps from overheating on a march, 2) The trousers are actually bluish green, or 3) there is some other factor that's causing strange casting that I don't see or understand. Or perhaps there is a combination of the three.

I see a difference between the firefox version and the PS version. And I too cannot explain it.

Duffy

[Nikolai]

I took one more swing at this. You might want to download and look in photoshop because I cut it very close between showing the detail in the fabric and keeping the uniforms dark. Looks much better in PS than in Firefox for some reason I don't really understand.

I took a much more conservative approch than before.

Shadow/highlights on a layer to bring out fabric detail. Very low tonal width (about 0). Turned town opacity until the details were only just visible.
Used Dan's new inverted/blurred/overlay technique from PP5E, Ch 18. Used lighten and darken layers from the original to turn down the lighten and darkening effect separately.
To CMYK and steepen the K curve radically to bring out the folds in the uniforms and reestablish that dark blue.
Keep CMYK duplicate and move to LAB.
Fix green cast in the sky and pants with a command-click curves layer.
Fix the magenta cast in the faces and enhance all the colors with a second command-click layer. Try to get the L curve steep through the dark-midtones for the faces. Use the K channel from the CMYK duplicate as a layer mask to keep the shadows deep and more neutral.
Sharpen USM and HIRALOAM on separate layers and blend with sliders and blend-if sliders.
My favorite so far. What do you think?

For whatever reason I noticed that I cannot stand the slightest hint of Shadows/Highlights :dunno It has certain tell-tell signs that immediately kills the whole thing for me.
I wonder how this image would look like if you omit that dreaded step? :scratch
Oh, and I like Andy's version of the sky much better (the one that i2e made from raw). :deal

[Nikolai]

So one of the following must be true: 1) the faces really are that magenta, perhaps from overheating on a march, 2) The trousers are actually bluish green, or 3) there is some other factor that's causing strange casting that I don't see or understand. Or perhaps there is a combination of the three.
Duffy

I'd say it was mainly #1. It was pretty darn hot that days (November is a still a summer month here in SoCal) and the poor souls were standing under the scorching sun for at least an hour.

Don't you just like this picture? :wink Two totally different light sources, and every single important color is called for.. :deal

[Duffy Pratt]

Assuming that you are right, and they are flushed from the heat, the next question is what to do in a correction. To a certain extent, it would depend on the purpose of the shot. If you are trying to show the heat of the day, and the effort, then by all means make them flushed and a bit sunburned. But if you are trying to sell the participants these shots, then you would probably want to eliminate some of the magenta, even if it was there. And you might take a third approach if you were trying to pretend that these guys were actual civil war troops (they would have been more weatherbeaten, and probably tanned). So that's an area of choice and taste, to a certain extent.

I've also been thinking about Rutt's preoccupation with the uniform details. If this was a picture of an actual group of soldiers marching, the focus would be much more on the faces, their expressions, the people themselves. But its a re-enactment, and so I think the uniforms probably matter almost as much, if not as much as the people. But, if this was a picture of, say, troops in Afghanistan (sp?), I don't think we would be as likely to be concerned with the folds in their uniforms, because the power of the shot would much more likely be in their faces and postures. Tio a certain extent, we could take the uniforms for granted. In a re-enactment, the uniforms are, however, very much the point of the exercise as much as anything else.

And yes, I think its a very good shot for studying. That's why I've spent so much time thinking about it.

Duffy

[rutt]

Can't help your shadow/highlights heebeegeebees, Nik, but really I don't think that's what you are seeing. I limited it to just those folds. More likely you didn't like the radius of the inverted overlay blend or even the flatness of the raw conversion I started with (flat curves, 0 contrast). You cold try another approach and do 3 conversions and treat like HDR and see what you get. I've been on record saying that's not the greatest idea, but in this case it might be. I also sent this image to Fabio, the father of Lightzones. Maybe he'll see what he can do.

Ah, two light sources! Fill flash, but not enough. Probably there isn't enough fill flash in the world for that So Cal sky.

OK, you guys are right about the sky. And I was stupid. I omitted a Dan standard: red channel L blend of skies. It really never fails to be a good thing:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/142620014-L.jpg

I just did this as a final step. I suppose it's an example of fine tuning at the very end after sharpening. Ooops, might have been better to do earlier, but better to do last than not at all. Same with a little B channel burn for the faces and sponge for the apron. Very subtle, but looks a little healthier.

As Nik points out, part of what is so strange about this shot is that these guys aren't dressed for the weather. I've found that it's ok to have some magenta > yellow in the flesh as long there is a lot of flesh where it's the other way around. Exercise, hot or cold weather, homeless people, that's where you find this most. Could fix that flesh in the officer with a

[Duffy Pratt]

It looks good.

I played with your last version a little bit. Basically, I put a 1.4 gamma version on a new layer, in luminosity mode, at 40% opacity, and with an inverted L channel mask. It looked better in PS. The troops and uniforms were lightened up some without messing with the sky or flag.

Then I posted it, and it looked worse. Something strange is going on between PS and Firefox. These were side by side images. In PS, the change was a definite improvement to my eye, but in the browser it was worse. So I deleted it. Go figure.

Duffy

[rutt]

Then I posted it, and it looked worse. Something strange is going on between PS and Firefox. These were side by side images. In PS, the change was a definite improvement to my eye, but in the browser it was worse. So I deleted it. Go figure.

Duffy

Looks especially bad in linux firefox. I wish someone would explain this ff vs ps issue. David? Baldy?

[DavidTO]

Looks especially bad in linux firefox. I wish someone would explain this ff vs ps issue. David? Baldy?

FF is not color space aware. Make sure you're converting to sRGB before posting/uploading. If you're saving in aRGB or some other color space, nothing will look right. Baldy has some great posts on this, especially relating to Safari (goes to find it....)

.....and here it is:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=52712

[rutt]

I wish this were the problem, but I don't think it is. This image was uploaded in sRGB and looks different in FF and PS and even worse in linux FF.

This happens to me once in a blue moon and nobody has ever really explained it.

One theory that I've heard is that PS is not only aware of the profile of the image but also of the monitor. I don't really understand this, but perhaps it means something.

FF is not color space aware. Make sure you're converting to sRGB before posting/uploading. If you're saving in aRGB or some other color space, nothing will look right. Baldy has some great posts on this, especially relating to Safari (goes to find it....)

.....and here it is:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=52712

[Nikolai]

Can't help your shadow/highlights heebeegeebees, Nik, but really I don't think that's what you are seeing. I limited it to just those folds. More likely you didn't like the radius of the inverted overlay blend or even the flatness of the raw conversion I started with (flat curves, 0 contrast). You cold try another approach and do 3 conversions and treat like HDR and see what you get. I've been on record saying that's not the greatest idea, but in this case it might be. I also sent this image to Fabio, the father of Lightzones. Maybe he'll see what he can do.

Ah, two light sources! Fill flash, but not enough. Probably there isn't enough fill flash in the world for that So Cal sky.

OK, you guys are right about the sky. And I was stupid. I omitted a Dan standard: red channel L blend of skies. It really never fails to be a good thing:

I just did this as a final step. I suppose it's an example of fine tuning at the very end after sharpening. Ooops, might have been better to do earlier, but better to do last than not at all. Same with a little B channel burn for the faces and sponge for the apron. Very subtle, but looks a little healthier.

As Nik points out, part of what is so strange about this shot is that these guys aren't dressed for the weather. I've found that it's ok to have some magenta > yellow in the flesh as long there is a lot of flesh where it's the other way around. Exercise, hot or cold weather, homeless people, that's where you find this most. Could fix that flesh in the officer with a

Sky is much better now, but the rest... Maybe it's the profile, IE7 and some other things all mixed together, but all I see now are the halos and other signs of a major sharpening done, most likely hiraloam in biblical proportions...

This treatment may have followed all the designated steps, but as the end result I'd say I like my original more (except for the skies) :dunno

[rutt]

Sky is much better now, but the rest... Maybe it's the profile, IE7 and some other things all mixed together, but all I see now are the halos and other signs of a major sharpening done, most likely hiraloam in biblical proportions...

This treatment may have followed all the designated steps, but as the end result I'd say I like my original more (except for the skies) :dunno

Download orignal and look in PS. How different?

[Nikolai]

Download orignal and look in PS. How different?
Will do tonight.

[rutt]

Will do tonight.

When you do, also make sure to look at an even size multiplication (25%, 50%)

[Nikolai]

When you do, also make sure to look at an even size multiplication (25%, 50%)

Mea culpa, mea culpa :bow

Upon looking on a good monitor (and in CS3, not IE), I can honestly say: your treatment is great! :lust

(Funny how the hardware and software makes the difference, though:-)

Now the real question is: would you be willing to provide the whole exact detailed series of steps along with the the layer palette/dialogs captures? :thumb

[rutt]

Upon looking on a good monitor (and in CS3, not IE), I can honestly say: your treatment is great! :lust


It better be. Andy spent 2x5 seconds on his two versions. I spent the better part of the weekend and then thought about it for during my commute and on the elliptical trainer and then redid while my wife watched The Antiques Raodshow. I'd say I lost the resuls / effort contest big time. But unlike I2E, I did actually learn something, so I guess that's something.


Now the real question is: would you be willing to provide the whole exact detailed series of steps along with the the layer palette/dialogs captures? :thumb

You had to ask that, didn't you? I am soooo sick of processing this particular image. But I have two good ideas:

Let's see if I can lead YOU through the steps without giving you the exact value of every slider and opacity setting. Then you can post it if you like. I think we can get pretty darn close and probably you'll like it even better when we are done. I can help a little. Here (http://colortheory.us/IMG_9521.xmp) is my xmp file for it, so you can start with my flat raw conversion.
Why not contribute this image to Dan to use in his classes? It's perfect torture for that purpose. I'll bet you'll end up with some great treatments over time? Email me if you are interested.

[rutt]

(Funny how the hardware and software makes the difference, though:-)

We understand a lot of this, but not all. Looking at it at an even multiple of it's actual size we already know is important for evaluating sharpening. Good monitors display shades where bad monitors show banding. Combine these and aggressive sharpening is going to look way overdone.

What we don't understand is why this particular image looks so much darker in FF (and I assume IE) than in PS. My current theory is that I took the shadows so close to the edge that PS's knowledge of the monitor profile is relevant.

Nik, do you have a professional ink jet printer? Which RIP? If so, try printing and see how it looks. If not, email me and I'll print for you with ImagePrint and my Epson 4k. My guess is that this version will look pretty good, but it would be interesting to see how it compares to the I2E version when printed.