On 5/22/2012 4:50 PM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> You're way too skilled at this stuff. I think I'm going to quit talking to
> you.<g>
Why thank you, Bob. :-) Maybe you will have mellowed by Fall.
I've always had the kind of mind that gathers info and experience to solve a
problem. I'm happy with solutions/tools
others have worked out, as long as they fit the need, but seldom happier than
when I work out a solution on my own where
I'm not aware of one already existing. My dad started out working in research
labs after his Phi Beta Kappa PhD. from
Berkeley and, after some other stuff, spent the second part of his career
managing one. So I come by my tendency
naturally. ;-)
I like using tools and techniques for purposes other than they were developed
for. The closest way I've yet found for
'fixing' edgy bokeh relies in part on technique from Bruce Fraser's book on
image sharpening, although used for just the
opposite purpose. :-)
I'd never dealt with just that problem before. And I took the easy way at
first, just toning down the bright bits a
little. But there's a limit to what the simple solution can do without obvious
problems.
In my usual way, I took your comment as a challenge, a problem to be solved.
What I did was not all something I'd done
before.
I commonly Select Highlights or a finer selection of only the very tippy top of
the histogram* and make a mask to show
through only those parts of the layer below, before whatever I did that overdid
the highlights. It's a quick and easy
way to avoid blown highlights. Works invisibly in very many cases.
So how to tone down the bright bits, without losing all tonal detail, so they
will simply blend in with the rest of the
grass? The Highlight dialog will just make them flat. Burning will not be
selective enough. Hmmm. They only become
objectionable after B&W conversion. What if I play with the conversion sliders?
Ahhh, that's more like it, too bright
overall, but the excessive brightness and contrast in the grass is gone. Use
Brightness/Contrast and Curves to fix that
up - and let it show through the layer above only where needed.
And now you know why LR frustrates me. :-)
Resourceful Moose
* An Action I made ages ago.
>
> --Bob
>
>
> On May 22, 2012, at 5:19 PM, Moose wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/2012 3:41 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>>> I like the Neat Image best, though was it Neat Image or a focus thing.
>>> Makes it look sharper.
>> Neat Image has a (re)sharpening function to bring back detail lost in the
>> noise reduction. With some images, it's just
>> what the Dr. Focus ordered, as here.
>>
>>> Also, I think less of the black and white conversion because of the light
>>> blades of grass running in front of the squirrel.
>> That's easy enough to ameliorate, do an alternate conversion emphasizing
>> green, set below primary conversion layer(s),
>> select highlights in foreground, mask primary conversion layer, invert mask,
>> use bright/contrast/curves on lower layer
>> to
>> taste.<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Nichols/Wary_Squirrel_89.htm>
>>
>>> True, they're bright in color, too, but they don't take control of my eyes
>>> they way they do in black and white. I'd stick with color on this excellent
>>> portrait of a lawn pirate.
>> I like the color better, too. I just did this exercise to illustrate the
>> possibilities of better conversion.
>>
>> Should I add an eye patch?
>>
>> Converted to Piracy Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|