Moose, couldn't agree more. I'm seeing more and more halos, but I really did
think they were angelic in origin. <g>
LR4's clarity slider lessens the effect considerably, but it's still important
to keep a close eye on the halo. I'm much less hesitant to get what I want
using brushes in LR or masks in PS now.
Or, to be honest, simple curves. It pays huge dividends to really learn the
curves tool in PS.
--Clarified Butter, er, Bob
On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Moose wrote:
> I don't know who to pick out, so I'll pick out several folks.
>
> I know not only LR causes this, but with the recent discussions of LR vs. PS
> and the many recent posts of otherwise
> lovely images with various versions of the same problem, well ...
>
> Generally, our images here are not of angels, at least not the sort wearing
> halos. And yet, halos abound, on trees,
> buildings, hills, and so on in our images.
>
> Let me define what I'm talking about. USM, in it's many guises, including
> LCE, in its various forms, including the
> Clarity slider in LR, works by enhancing contrast at contrasty edges. When
> overdone, it leaves visible light halos
> around darker objects and, less often visibly, dark halos around light
> objects. Other tools, that don't obviously use
> USM still leave halo tracks; the Shadow/Highlight tool in PS is one that
> tends to leave large, soft, feathered halos.
>
> A very few things that we photograph have a halo from strong light behind
> silhouetted subjects. This may be some
> combination of actual subjects and lens flare, but is not what I am talking
> about. And yet, here and all over the web,
> there are endless images of things with halos. Is it the coming of a new age
> of Angels? ;-)
>
> Since I already did this example, and Bob W is so in Hog Heaven that he won't
> mind being picked out again, here's what I
> hope is a clear example.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Whitmire/w-NewHarbor_ND.htm>
>
> I particularly like this example because the halos along the house/tree line,
> upper left are small, but clear, those
> around around the sign are so very obvious and because it has a good example
> of a dark halo. Look at Enlarged Sample 2.
> The sign is what is most obvious, but look at the edge of the rock. This very
> dark line is a more subtle, insidious sort
> of halo. Not always visible at normal size, it may nevertheless add an odd,
> hard to define sense of unreality to parts
> of an image.
>
> So here's a rather random, very incomplete set of examples, a very minor
> Angelic Hall of Fame.
>
> Chris' landscape sunrise is quite lovely, but there is a pixel+ wide line of
> white and lighter gray along the tree line.
> $ to donuts that's not on the original.
> <http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/chris-details.php?product=1642>
>
> Phillipe's slightly eerie building lit from below has a similar, harder line.
> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/282051-1/Kaunas+-+Lituanie-00267-5.jpg>
>
> Here, Bob A. has captured magical light, only to detract from it, at least to
> my eye, with a large halo of artifact
> light around the building and tree competing with the natural light.
> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/rgacpa_HI/L1005768-Edit.jpg.html>
>
> Yes, there are plenty of others, both from some of the above and others, but
> I hope I've made my point - and I'm too
> lazy to track down a bunch more.
>
> I tend to think it's a result of people getting comfortable with the Clarity
> slider in LR, liking the overall effect as
> they crank it up some more and ignoring the details. I think you'd find, if
> you went back over recent years here that
> the overall 'pop' of images we've posted has gone up. People who were leery
> of enhanced contrast and saturation have
> become more comfortable with it.
>
> It seems to me that an interesting thing has happened with images posted here
> over that time. It used to be Moose who
> was most often on the cutting, or bleeding, edge of post processing, and
> rightly called on it often enough.
>
> Now, he has largely learned to temper his effects, while a new contingent of
> post happy folks are leading the artifact
> parade.
>
> In PS, it's fairly easy to use masks to control this problem in many color
> images to the point where it not there, or at
> least isn't obvious. In many cases, selecting the sky in a layer prior to the
> tool causing the effect, making a masked
> layer from that selection and putting it above the affected layers simply
> makes the problem disappear.
>
> B&W is trickier, as selection is harder without color differences. However,
> other tools are more effective for B&W
> contrast adjustment than for color.
>
> I know effects may be brushed in, rather than global, in LR4, but I suspect
> clean edges aren't part of that process, at
> least without lots of time and effort.
>
> Masked Avengel 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/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
