Broicher Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I went to the north sea coast with a friend (and model) in order to take some pictures, test my new camera, and really have a lot of new material to put Affinity Photo to the test. Here are two examples: 1. I used DxO Optics Pro for the RAW development of two separate versions of the image, one for the background and one for the foreground, that were combined using AP. Due to the distance there is not so much to see of the frequency seperation, but it was my first real result with AP. https://instagram.com/p/6cqf6Gp5Ef/ orhttps://www.facebook.com/FHBPhotography/photos/ms.c.eJwNyMERACAMArCNPBDQsv9immcItoBNNREWf4y7MzhXzANwrAaq.bps.a.897152580336984.1073741829.240183202700595/1019849258067315/?type=1 2. The next one is a lingerie picture where a lot of skin is visible. What I usually do is, I do use the frequency separation to create a wedge filter, i.e. I separate 1px as high frequency from the image, then from the remaining residual image 2px frequency, then 3px and so on. In this example until I had 1 thru 15px frequency wavelets and a residual layer. I do NOT use the entire image, I select the skin using the selection brush and copy paste the skin only into a new layer and apply the above precedure. In the resulting 15 wavelets and 1 residual layer I deselect all wavelets and then start from the small frequencies and add them again until the result looks good (here 1-7 are switched on, 8-15 are off). I add a mask layer and delete the ugly colorful edge effects with a soft brush from the mask. Here you go ... https://instagram.com/p/6kJ0sdp5GH/ orhttps://www.facebook.com/FHBPhotography/photos/ms.c.eJwNyMERACAMArCNPECguv9immcIMUQPtR108Yclwpn2zgNupQaV.bps.a.897152580336984.1073741829.240183202700595/1021510681234506/?type=1 What do you think? Cheers Frank Mr. Doodlezz, banditknight and yakk 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Great explanation of your process and the final images (skin) looks perfect. Would be great to see behind-the-curtain with a comparison of the original and final images to get an idea of how far you pushed it in the processing. Broicher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broicher Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 Well, as you wish :-) I cut out the face and made it an uncompressed JPG in a before and after version. Note: I did of course some retouche before the filtering, but just a quick one. Before: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l98363jl8vk0uv1/2B2A0334korr_before.jpg?dl=0 After: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2qv0d043yrq8q9g/2B2A0334korr_after.jpg?dl=0 Cheers Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakk Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Good point to Malcolm, it's interesting to see the difference. And we can see it's huge ! I have to say it gives a bit of a "waxy" appearance. Perfectly fine in the distance but would you go that far on a high resolution pic ? Thanks for sharing. Quote OS X 10.12 - AP 1.6.6 - AD 1.6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Good point to Malcolm, it's interesting to see the difference. And we can see it's huge ! Indeed, I've dabbled with this technique a little in the past (on some personal shots) but I'm inspired to give it a go in AP now. Thanks again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broicher Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 When publishing it online you scale it down dramatically, so I don't bother. If one could get "closer" to the image and zoom in, then I would simply spend a bit more time with the beauty retouching, maybe activate some lower frequency wavelets, and take better care of the edges of the affected areas. The image is 8688px x 5792px large, that is far too big to put it online. When I upload the pics I scale them to a width of 1800px and a jpg quality of 90% that is usually a good set of parameters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broicher Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 BTW: I would so much appreciate it, if AP would provide a mechanism to use scripts or to interact with the Mac OS X Automator. Generating the layers is a dumb and boring work. The best would be to have a wedge filter generator, but might be asking to much ... GIMP has something like that though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnyb Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Would love to see a time lapse video of this process, would make an AWESOME tutorial... great results! Quote 2021 16” Macbook Pro w/ M1 Max 10c cpu /24c gpu, 32 GB RAM, 1TB SSD, Ventura 13.6 2018 11" iPad Pro w/ A12X cpu/gpu, 256 GB, iPadOS 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakk Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 That's interesting. I should give a try to this technique and see what I can get from it. ronnyb 1 Quote OS X 10.12 - AP 1.6.6 - AD 1.6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justwilliam Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Ok, this 'wedge filter' is a new one on me; but I would like to know about the process - perhaps it could be a new tool for my toolbox. But I didn't really grasp the technique; could you explain a bit more (or maybe make a video)? The lingerie photo looked as if you had done some dodging and burning; was that the case, or was it an effect of this 'wedge tool'/ retouch-layering process? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.