Isn't the Clarity control in Lightroom something similar (not the exact same, but aimed at the same issue)? This is what Jeff Schewe says about it here:
Clarity
The word says it all…this new control (one that I’m very fond of since I personally begged and pleaded with Thomas Knoll to put in) is a hybrid of using USM at a low amount and high radius-called Local Contrast Enhancement in an article by Michael Reichmann quoting a technique mentioned by Thomas-and a technique called MidTone Contrast Adjustment taught by Mac Holbert of Nash Editions
I do use Clarity on almost every image, but I do not think of it as the same as Local Contrast Enhancement. My impression is that Clarity has more effect on hues than simple LCE. Just my impression.
I do use Clarity on almost every image, but I do not think of it as the same as Local Contrast Enhancement. My impression is that Clarity has more effect on hues than simple LCE. Just my impression.
Pathfinder, there is an easy visual way to see what is taking place!
1) Render out a raw image with no clarity settings.
2) Render out a second raw image, this time with clarity settings applied.
3) Layer the clarity image over the top of the base image in normal mode. Take a history snapshot for quick reference.
4) Change the clarity layer to luminosity blend mode. Take a history snapshot for quick reference.
5) Change the clarity layer to color blend mode. Take a history snapshot for quick reference.
Click between the three snapshots and note what is taking place.
Dan's HiRaLoAm (high radius low amount) sharpening is not the same thing as clarity. For example, on a given image, simulating the clarity setting with USM may end up using a radius of say 100 pixels. The HiRaLoAm sharpening may be using a radius of 20 pixels. Output sharpening may be using a radius of 1 pixel. HiRaLoAm is more about adding "shape" and "depth" - it is not sharpening in the traditional sense, it just uses sharpening tools to achieve the effect.
Dan's ideas of raw processing (setting ACR sliders to zero and then fixing the resulting turd) is his M.O. Its silly but the minions buy into it for some odd reasons.<g>
minion |ˈminyən|
noun
a follower or underling of a powerful person, esp. a servile or unimportant one.
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from French mignon, mignonne.
</g>Cute!
<g>
Perhaps some people have actually tried both methods, and for some images or edits they have decided that they are more happy with the final result using one method over another. Some may care more about end results than theory. In other cases, this may mean that the raw controls are preferred over Photoshop edits.
Dan does not recommend setting every slider to zero, only ones that have a negative impact on later planned moves - if one is not attempting to do everything in the raw pipeline. Dan is not against setting white balance in raw (as far as that goes). Dan is not against setting exposure and or highlight recovery in raw. Dan does have issues with the tonal editing abilities offered by ACR, so brightness and contrast is zeroed out - as are curves, as he will be using channel blends, channel curves and other moves on the rendered image. The rendered image is hardly a "turd". What works for Dan may not work for others, I know plenty of Dan's readers that both disagree and agree. They do what they see is best for themselves.
Andrew, there are many Camera Raw and Lightroom titled topic threads in this particular forum that would benefit from you knowledge and experience - however they do not recieve any attention from you as you prefer to spend your time bashing another author that you have a long negative history with. I personally think that you would present a better image and be a better part of the Digitial Grin community if you spent more time helping people than by attempting to score points by making negative comments in almost any and every thread relating to Dan. However I sort of get the impression that you don't care about the image that you present to others and that helping others is more of a side issue if you have the choice between ranting about Dan's methods or ignoring anything to do with Dan.
I've studied Dan's books, been to his workshops more than once, and generally gotten to know him. One thing stands out about his methods: he is an empiricist. He carefully collects opinions about results. At a talk at M.I.T. his talk focused not on methods, but rather on "what looks good," exploring which results people prefer. Dan has continually reexamined his methods to get better results with less effort. His books teach an understanding of the Photoshop toolbox, of the theory behind how they work. He gives some examples of combining the tools to achieve specific results. But more than anything, he teaches how to think about how to get particular results. So it's a much larger commitment to read and really understand Dan, than to learn some recipes. But for some it will be well worth the effort.
In some ways I'm at a much lower level than most of you (except if you look back a couple of years I'm the one who wrote that analysis of the LAB quiz in Dan's book.
Several years back (when Dan's prior book Photoshop LAB Color was still on the bookshelves) I became quite interested in the topic of LAB. I was intrigued by the idea of separating luminoscity from color when working on an image.
I've gone thru the book at least twice and probably three times (some chapters more). I realize Dan suggests we use the approach most fitting the image at hand. But I took a different approach.
I developed a workflow in LAB and I vary the values according to the requirements of the image. Since I now think in LAB and understand what I'm doing, that's what I use.
This brings up a different thought. Does it matter which approach one uses if those who are important like the result (is it really important to improve an image 1/100 of one percent?). And of course, the person most important is the one who has to be pleased. In most cases it's the owner of the image.
I was quite excited when I just happened to take a look at this thread and noticed there were some recent entries (I looked because I thought of deleting the link). Then I became dismayed when I read the detail of the entries. Very little of interest as it's ideas I'm most interested in.
Mostly petty back sniping.
I'd really like to see this thread revived.
It's a thread devoted to analysis of Dan's book Professional Photoshop (actually I'd be happier if more was devoted to LAB).
Let's keep it that way and be civil.
Well, I got that off my chest.
I'll check back in few days.
Dan does not recommend setting every slider to zero, only ones that have a negative impact on later planned moves - if one is not attempting to do everything in the raw pipeline**. Dan is not against setting white balance in raw (as far as that goes).
On Apr 18, 2008, at 2:32 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:
With respect to doing things that might make the picture temporarily look
better, ACR should be avoided in this workflow because of its master-curve
approach* to setting range. Instead, accept the camera's white balance** and
zero everything else out. I recommend this approach even in traditional
workflows, but in this new workflow it's particularly necessary.
*A made up Dan term.
** He doesn’t appear to understand what this means, the camera WB is simply a metadata suggestion, every raw processor will produce a different rendering!
*** In terms of the Adobe raw pipeline, the order makes zero difference as long as you produce preferred appearance of the image. All metadata edits (totally non destructive) are applied at rendering in the optimal processing order.
What Dan should have told users of the ACR pipeline is despite the idealized processing order (which isn’t the case in Photoshop), working top down, left to right (in ACR) is going to provide a faster means of getting the idealized color and tone appearance because the product was designed this way. IOW, fix the biggest issues first and move on (you wouldn’t yank on Vibrance then fix Exposure although you can, you’ll spend far more time getting to your goal).
if you spent more time helping people than by attempting to score points by making negative comments in almost any and every thread relating to Dan.
That’s exactly what I’m trying to do, expecting users to render idolized pixels from a raw converter (correctly), making the turd polishing techniques some seem to be so in love with be totally unnecessary. As I said elsewhere, if someone hands you digital lemons, use his techniques and make digital lemonade. But far too many read nonsense like zeroing out a raw converter, effectively making a digital lemon so that a technique that’s unnecessary now seems like a stroke of genius. Or as the late great Bruce Fraser would say (and often directed at you know who):
You can do all sorts of things that are fiendishly clever, then fall
in love with them because they're fiendishly clever, while
overlooking the fact that they take a great deal more work to obtain
results that stupid people get in half the time. As someone who has
created a lot of fiendishly clever but ultimately useless techniques
in his day, I'd say this sounds like an example.
Comments
I do use Clarity on almost every image, but I do not think of it as the same as Local Contrast Enhancement. My impression is that Clarity has more effect on hues than simple LCE. Just my impression.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Pathfinder, there is an easy visual way to see what is taking place!
1) Render out a raw image with no clarity settings.
2) Render out a second raw image, this time with clarity settings applied.
3) Layer the clarity image over the top of the base image in normal mode. Take a history snapshot for quick reference.
4) Change the clarity layer to luminosity blend mode. Take a history snapshot for quick reference.
5) Change the clarity layer to color blend mode. Take a history snapshot for quick reference.
Click between the three snapshots and note what is taking place.
Dan's HiRaLoAm (high radius low amount) sharpening is not the same thing as clarity. For example, on a given image, simulating the clarity setting with USM may end up using a radius of say 100 pixels. The HiRaLoAm sharpening may be using a radius of 20 pixels. Output sharpening may be using a radius of 1 pixel. HiRaLoAm is more about adding "shape" and "depth" - it is not sharpening in the traditional sense, it just uses sharpening tools to achieve the effect.
Stephen Marsh
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
noun
a follower or underling of a powerful person, esp. a servile or unimportant one.
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from French mignon, mignonne.
</g>Cute!
<g>
Perhaps some people have actually tried both methods, and for some images or edits they have decided that they are more happy with the final result using one method over another. Some may care more about end results than theory. In other cases, this may mean that the raw controls are preferred over Photoshop edits.
Dan does not recommend setting every slider to zero, only ones that have a negative impact on later planned moves - if one is not attempting to do everything in the raw pipeline. Dan is not against setting white balance in raw (as far as that goes). Dan is not against setting exposure and or highlight recovery in raw. Dan does have issues with the tonal editing abilities offered by ACR, so brightness and contrast is zeroed out - as are curves, as he will be using channel blends, channel curves and other moves on the rendered image. The rendered image is hardly a "turd". What works for Dan may not work for others, I know plenty of Dan's readers that both disagree and agree. They do what they see is best for themselves.
Andrew, there are many Camera Raw and Lightroom titled topic threads in this particular forum that would benefit from you knowledge and experience - however they do not recieve any attention from you as you prefer to spend your time bashing another author that you have a long negative history with. I personally think that you would present a better image and be a better part of the Digitial Grin community if you spent more time helping people than by attempting to score points by making negative comments in almost any and every thread relating to Dan. However I sort of get the impression that you don't care about the image that you present to others and that helping others is more of a side issue if you have the choice between ranting about Dan's methods or ignoring anything to do with Dan.
</g>Stephen Marsh
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
In some ways I'm at a much lower level than most of you (except if you look back a couple of years I'm the one who wrote that analysis of the LAB quiz in Dan's book.
Several years back (when Dan's prior book Photoshop LAB Color was still on the bookshelves) I became quite interested in the topic of LAB. I was intrigued by the idea of separating luminoscity from color when working on an image.
I've gone thru the book at least twice and probably three times (some chapters more). I realize Dan suggests we use the approach most fitting the image at hand. But I took a different approach.
I developed a workflow in LAB and I vary the values according to the requirements of the image. Since I now think in LAB and understand what I'm doing, that's what I use.
This brings up a different thought. Does it matter which approach one uses if those who are important like the result (is it really important to improve an image 1/100 of one percent?). And of course, the person most important is the one who has to be pleased. In most cases it's the owner of the image.
I was quite excited when I just happened to take a look at this thread and noticed there were some recent entries (I looked because I thought of deleting the link). Then I became dismayed when I read the detail of the entries. Very little of interest as it's ideas I'm most interested in.
Mostly petty back sniping.
I'd really like to see this thread revived.
It's a thread devoted to analysis of Dan's book Professional Photoshop (actually I'd be happier if more was devoted to LAB).
Let's keep it that way and be civil.
Well, I got that off my chest.
I'll check back in few days.
On Apr 18, 2008, at 2:32 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:
With respect to doing things that might make the picture temporarily look
better, ACR should be avoided in this workflow because of its master-curve
approach* to setting range. Instead, accept the camera's white balance** and
zero everything else out. I recommend this approach even in traditional
workflows, but in this new workflow it's particularly necessary.
*A made up Dan term.
** He doesn’t appear to understand what this means, the camera WB is simply a metadata suggestion, every raw processor will produce a different rendering!
*** In terms of the Adobe raw pipeline, the order makes zero difference as long as you produce preferred appearance of the image. All metadata edits (totally non destructive) are applied at rendering in the optimal processing order.
What Dan should have told users of the ACR pipeline is despite the idealized processing order (which isn’t the case in Photoshop), working top down, left to right (in ACR) is going to provide a faster means of getting the idealized color and tone appearance because the product was designed this way. IOW, fix the biggest issues first and move on (you wouldn’t yank on Vibrance then fix Exposure although you can, you’ll spend far more time getting to your goal).
That’s exactly what I’m trying to do, expecting users to render idolized pixels from a raw converter (correctly), making the turd polishing techniques some seem to be so in love with be totally unnecessary. As I said elsewhere, if someone hands you digital lemons, use his techniques and make digital lemonade. But far too many read nonsense like zeroing out a raw converter, effectively making a digital lemon so that a technique that’s unnecessary now seems like a stroke of genius. Or as the late great Bruce Fraser would say (and often directed at you know who):
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/