On 29 Nov 2010, at 12:18, John Hudson wrote:
> Two weeks or so ago someone posted a message about a Photoshop friendly /
> compatible plug-in that could be used to bring life to an otherwise dull or
> patchy sky in an otherwise decent image.
There are easy ways to do that in PS, and undoubtedly in other editors - for a
lot less added cost than $200. It's also
important to know how to select/mask sky to cover halos from sharpening,
Shadow/Highlight, etc. operations. I do it all
the time, at least hundreds of times a year.
On 11/29/2010 1:12 PM, SwissPace wrote:
> Sorry I have not had much spare time so only now starting to catch up with
> the list email again, but it was me, the software was viveza from Nik
> Software.
Back in June, '08, Moose had a different opinion, and backed it up with an
example. see below.*
> <http://www.niksoftware.com/viveza/usa/entry.php> I am also experimenting
> with their HDR software, having found their other products very good. I think
> I will end up buying their complete suite when I have some spare cash as that
> makes them reasonably affordable.
I thought Viveza was way overpriced at $200. I already have PS and found it to
do a better job than Viveza for what I
want. The sample I posted is only one of several I tried it on. it just didn't
work for me. As I detail before, below, I
saw obvious flaws in how it affected images even in their web samples.
PS was also quicker and easier, but at least part of that is user experience,
so I discounted that factor. I see it's
Viveza2 now, but don't imagine it's different in basic paradigm of operation.
All a matter of taste, of course. I do suggest that anyone contemplating it
give the free trial a good workout before
anteing up.
Moose
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* On 6/2/2008 11:53 PM, Moose wrote:
On 6/2/2008 11:53 PM, Moose wrote:
> Winsor Crosby wrote:
>> One of the tools that cause Nikon owners to pop for Capture NX is control
>> points. Like Photoshop it uses adjustment
>> layers and masks. Unlike Photoshop those things are completely hidden,
>> unless you want to see them. Instead it allows
>> you to place a control point in your picture on something that needs
>> adjustment, a face in the shadow, for instance.
>> The point has pop out tools for the size of area of influence and sliders
>> for brightness, contrast, and saturation.
>> The selection takes brightness range and color into effect. So for the
>> example of the face you could lighten it and
>> tweak the contrast a bit and only the face would be affected.
> On 6/2/2008 11:53 PM, Moose wrote:
> Winsor Crosby wrote:
>> One of the tools that cause Nikon owners to pop for Capture NX is control
>> points. Like Photoshop it uses adjustment
>> layers and masks. Unlike Photoshop those things are completely hidden,
>> unless you want to see them. Instead it allows
>> you to place a control point in your picture on something that needs
>> adjustment, a face in the shadow, for instance.
>> The point has pop out tools for the size of area of influence and sliders
>> for brightness, contrast, and saturation.
>> The selection takes brightness range and color into effect. So for the
>> example of the face you could lighten it and
>> tweak the contrast a bit and only the face would be affected.
> I read about this control point approach in NX before, and it sounded
> interesting. I viewed some of the videos on the
> Nik site, downloaded the trial version and tried it out.
>
> What I found is that the simple examples are slightly disingenuous. In order
> to be simple, smooth and artifact free,
> the selections are very soft edged unless the color/brightness difference is
> great. The highly magnified detail of
> selection of the red areas in "Precise Selections & Enhancements" seems to me
> particularly misleading. Without control
> over control point (CP) shape or color range, this becomes a smushy tool that
> will undoubtedly work great for some
> images and be poor for others.
>
> You can see the effect in their PS example for "Adding Depth to an Image".
> When he sets the parameters for the first
> CP, then expands it, the brownish part of the background above the right side
> of the head is affected as well. Once he
> has scattered control points around the background to bring it down, he
> clicks preview on and off. You can see the
> point above the head pop up along with the intended body parts.
>
> Here's the first image I tried it on:
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Viveza/Viv_386.htm>
>
> 0 - Original
>
> 1 - The effective mask from a CP on the womans's face. Diameter is just about
> the distance from hairline to chin.
> Notice how much dark speckling there is on face , indicating areas that will
> be less or unaffected by the adjustments
> and how broad beyond the face the mask feathers.
>
> 2 - Moving the CP slightly. Notice how greatly this changes the areas of the
> face included.
>
> 3 - A second CP. The woman's top is visually pretty much one color, and quite
> distinct from anything around it. Yet
> the selection mask picks up less of the color as it moves out from center and
> picks up part of her arm and a lot of
> the chair back.
>
> 4 - The effect of Vivenza. Although it's done a decent job on the face, and
> would be better with practice with the
> controls, I don't like the hot spot effect. I either have to live with the
> hot spot or have the effects spill further
> out than I would like.
>
> I intentionally went overboard with the shirt adjustments, to see what would
> happen. It clearly shows the uneven color
> selection, the effect on the chair back and the odd effect around the hair.
> These problems wouldn't be readily
> apparent, perhaps not at all, with a more subtle adjustment. I was trying to
> learn how it works when pressed. I want
> to know how a tool really works so I can find how best to use it.
>> If you have ever dealt with Photoshop's shadow control and gritted your
>> teeth after doing a judicious lightening of
>> the foreground when you discover the translucency artifact of trees on the
>> skyline you will like a control point's
>> lack of ugly artifacts.
> I don't grit my teeth, I click on a mask, and paint out the effect in the
> areas where I don't want it. Or I may have
> selected an area and created a mask more carefully beforehand. Whether that
> is easier than Vivenza will, I think,
> depend on practice and the nature of the image. The mask approach will give
> much more control. You can, of course, add
> a mask to a Vivenza layer, but that just seems to me to add complexity
> unnecessarily, at least for me.
>> Nik Software wrote the software for Nikon and they now have their own
>> version as a plug in for Photoshop, Elements
>> and Aperture. It is pricey, $250, but is a very nice tool.
> Wildly overpriced, IMO, at least in this Ver. 1 release. Add the ability to
> control shape (grab and pull shape would
> be great) and feathering tightness of the control area, add control over
> color breadth selected and add a decent LCE
> effect to the controls, price it at $60, and you have a tool I might buy.
>
> A. Testy Moose
On 6/3/2008 3:25 PM, Moose wrote:
> Winsor Crosby wrote:
>> Did you try putting a control point in the area where you saw spillover?
> I assume you are talking about my example. I didn't go any further, as my
> goal of seeing just how the tool works had
> been satisfied. Certainly, I could have generated a bunch of CPs to do a
> better job. However, It would have been
> messier and more time consuming than using other tools. Selecting the lilac
> top or the woman's face is a matter of a
> few moments. Less, certainly, at this stage of my experience, than forcing
> Vivenza and considerably more precise.
>
> Winsor Crosby wrote:
>> After looking at your example, I think the problem is that your image
>> appears to be fully corrected by global
>> processing. The control point is used after that, if it is needed. The hot
>> spot or gradient effect is an attempt by
>> the software to blend the correction into an underexposed photo.
> Perhaps pictures are clearer than words. Yes, the global correction does a
> good job. However, bringing the face and
> hair up a bit makes her more effectively the focal point of the image. No
> particular reason to change the lilac, but
> since I used it to test Viveza's color selection, I used PS selection tools
> to make it a different color, too.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Viveza/Viv_386.htm>
>
> To me, especially if you just look at the result, not jumping back and forth
> for a minute, the lighter face looks
> entirely natural, like the actual light from outside on her is a little
> brighter than it was. You can also see how the
> shirt color is evenly changed, without affecting the hair.
>> Sorry I missed your bit about the extra control points when I first read
>> your post. Thanks for your careful analysis.
>> I provides something to chew on.
> I'm not saying Viveza may not be useful, just not for what I wanted to do to
> this image. It's a powerful new paradigm
> in concept. I'll try it on some other image problems as I work.
>
> Moose
> IanW aka Swisspace
>
>
> On 11/29/10 3:33 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>> I don't think that that was I, John. It might have been Swisspace.
>>
>> Crhis
>>
>> On 29 Nov 2010, at 12:18, John Hudson wrote:
>>
>>> Two weeks or so ago someone posted a message about a Photoshop friendly /
>>> compatible plug-in that could be used to bring life to an otherwise dull or
>>> patchy sky in an otherwise decent image.
>>>
>>> If memory serves right the poster or the first responder might have been
>>> Chris Barker and the operating system on which the plug-in worked was Apple
>>> Mac.
>>>
>>> Does Chris or anyone else recall the name of the plug-in, whether there is a
>>> Windows version and from whence a copy could be obtained?
>>>
>>> jh
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|