I expect everyone on this board shares my experience. Everyone I know in photography uses something other than PW, almost always Photoshop. I get plenty of raised eyebrows, questioning looks, questions, and occasionally ribbing for using PW.
So my question: Is there anything interesting that PW can do, preferably easily, that Photoshop can only do with difficulty, or better, not at all?
Cheers, Peter
PW vs PS
Moderator: jsachs
-
den
- Posts: 859
- Joined: April 25th, 2009, 6:33 pm
- What is the make/model of your primary camera?: Canon EOS-350D/Fuji X100T
- Location: Birch Bay near Blaine, WA USA
Re: PW vs PS
This is a large topic to address... are we comparing PWP5 with CS4 or Lightroom3? ...or any of the other PS variants? ...or their 'actions' or 'plug-ins'?
Recorded image data is just image data. This data may need to be scanned or converted from RAW. Then there are specific color space models to access and manipulate it to achieve photo-realistic or photo-artistic goals. Further manipulation is needed depending upon output media and/or presentation.
As a hobbyist and having used/grown with the PWP programs, PWP5 for me will produce the desired photo-realistic images that are preferenced and printable using a mid-level consumer available scanner, camera/lens, computer system, and printer. So far, there has not been any preferenced photo-realistic PS workflow that has not been doable with PWP. Which is easier, PWP or PS, depends on one's knowledge, understanding, and program adeptness; as well as hobbyist/professional/commercial considerations and financial resources.
If there is something that the PS users are doing that you would like to see if there is a PWP method as well... post a specific inquiry with perhaps a link to the non-movie PS tutorial. I would enjoy the challenge.
Recorded image data is just image data. This data may need to be scanned or converted from RAW. Then there are specific color space models to access and manipulate it to achieve photo-realistic or photo-artistic goals. Further manipulation is needed depending upon output media and/or presentation.
As a hobbyist and having used/grown with the PWP programs, PWP5 for me will produce the desired photo-realistic images that are preferenced and printable using a mid-level consumer available scanner, camera/lens, computer system, and printer. So far, there has not been any preferenced photo-realistic PS workflow that has not been doable with PWP. Which is easier, PWP or PS, depends on one's knowledge, understanding, and program adeptness; as well as hobbyist/professional/commercial considerations and financial resources.
If there is something that the PS users are doing that you would like to see if there is a PWP method as well... post a specific inquiry with perhaps a link to the non-movie PS tutorial. I would enjoy the challenge.
-
den
- Posts: 859
- Joined: April 25th, 2009, 6:33 pm
- What is the make/model of your primary camera?: Canon EOS-350D/Fuji X100T
- Location: Birch Bay near Blaine, WA USA
Re: PW vs PS
FYI--- I recently participated in this DPReview Retouching forum thread as "aka den":
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=34147289
...starting with the OP's neutral jpg conversion image and then: (1) adjusted it to full range and preference tone range brightness, contrasts, and colors with PWP5's 3-Zone Adjustment transform; (2) performed HiPass-Softlight filter 'local contrast enhancement; performed HiPass-Softlight filter 'capture sharpening'; and (4) 'save as'/posted at jpg quality-93%, 4-4-4 sampling.
It is interesting to see the different styles and interpetations that can be used. Obviously my preferences tend toward the photo-realistic although I did leave the image with stronger LCE than usual, evidenced by the dark halos in the cloud edges...
PWP or PS?... may depend on one's styles, preferences, and goals... or perhaps one's mood at the time.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=34147289
...starting with the OP's neutral jpg conversion image and then: (1) adjusted it to full range and preference tone range brightness, contrasts, and colors with PWP5's 3-Zone Adjustment transform; (2) performed HiPass-Softlight filter 'local contrast enhancement; performed HiPass-Softlight filter 'capture sharpening'; and (4) 'save as'/posted at jpg quality-93%, 4-4-4 sampling.
It is interesting to see the different styles and interpetations that can be used. Obviously my preferences tend toward the photo-realistic although I did leave the image with stronger LCE than usual, evidenced by the dark halos in the cloud edges...
PWP or PS?... may depend on one's styles, preferences, and goals... or perhaps one's mood at the time.
-
pbandurian
- Posts: 15
- Joined: May 11th, 2009, 7:39 pm
Re: PW vs PS
I have in mind photo-realistic image processing. Source may be jpeg, raw, or scanned and edited with PWP5. Since PS is, to my mind, a creative graphics program with photo capabilities, I expect it is capable of many non-photo-realistic effects that PWP is not capable of. I thought that I had made clear that I was wondering if there was anything PWP5 can easily do that PS cannot do or can only do with significant effort. I expect that the answer is "No", but I'm wondering. If it helps, think of it as "my dad can beat up your dad" with perhaps that level of maturity.
Cheers, Peter
Ps: Could you point me to tutorials for HiPass-Softlight filter 'local contrast enhancement and and HiPass-Softlight filter 'capture sharpening'. Thanks.
Cheers, Peter
Ps: Could you point me to tutorials for HiPass-Softlight filter 'local contrast enhancement and and HiPass-Softlight filter 'capture sharpening'. Thanks.
Re: PW vs PS
A few things PWP does that cannot be done as easily or as well in PS:
Tiled printing (i.e. printing an image larger than one sheet of paper)
Selective color correction (Transformation/Color/Correction) with multiple control points and brightness adjustment
Posterization (Transformation/Special Effects/Posterize) - based on custom palette with color remapping
2- and 3-Zone brightness, contrast and saturation adjustment (Transformation/Gray/2-Zone or 3-Zone)
Image registration and warping with multiple control points (Transformation/Composite).
Correction of chromatic aberration, light falloff, barrel/pincushion distortion.
Tiled printing (i.e. printing an image larger than one sheet of paper)
Selective color correction (Transformation/Color/Correction) with multiple control points and brightness adjustment
Posterization (Transformation/Special Effects/Posterize) - based on custom palette with color remapping
2- and 3-Zone brightness, contrast and saturation adjustment (Transformation/Gray/2-Zone or 3-Zone)
Image registration and warping with multiple control points (Transformation/Composite).
Correction of chromatic aberration, light falloff, barrel/pincushion distortion.
Jonathan Sachs
Digital Light & Color
Digital Light & Color
-
pbandurian
- Posts: 15
- Joined: May 11th, 2009, 7:39 pm
Re: PW vs PS
Jonathan: Thanks for the input.
Den: Thanks for the reference. The LCE work flow gives a nice, relatively subtle effect on the image on which I tried it.
I believe you have an error in the work flow description. In both Steps 4 you write:
open the Composite - Soft Light or High Light transform
I think you mean "High Pass" rather than "High Light". The Hard Light option doesn't yield anything of interest (to me).
That said, I'm not sure if I understand what is going on here. I will try to put it into words and hope that you'll be willing to straighten me out. The mask in the base layer Amount restricts the processing to chosen mid-tones. The monochrome overlay is used to "somehow" modulate the tones on the base layer. The "somehow" is the Operation, as suggested either Soft Light or High Pass, if I have it right. I partially understand the High Pass because a description is provided but not the Soft Light since no algorithm is provided anywhere that I know of.
As I understand it, the High Pass is the difference between an image and its Gaussian blurred version, presumably just as in an unsharp mask. (I note that the radius range here, in my opinion, is far too small for modern digital sensors just as it is for the unsharp mask transformation itself. The fact that Soft Light usually yields preferable results, according to you, may be due to the restricted radii available in the High Pass blur compared to what happens with Soft Light.) I imagine that the Soft Light produces something similar but I wish I knew just what.
Thus, I believe that this is a controlled way of LCE similar to what one can get with the unsharp mask transformation with a largish radius. The controls are a mask to restrict the effect to mid-tones and a monochrome overlay effect image to minimize color shifts. Is that correct? And wouldn't this all work better if larger regions, ie radii, could be affected?
I'll note, if I'm correct, that the unsharp mask with large radii can also be restricted to midtones through an appropriate mask but seemingly cannot avoid color shifts and has the advantage that much larger effect may be applied, even to the point of ugliness.
Cheers, Peter
Den: Thanks for the reference. The LCE work flow gives a nice, relatively subtle effect on the image on which I tried it.
I believe you have an error in the work flow description. In both Steps 4 you write:
open the Composite - Soft Light or High Light transform
I think you mean "High Pass" rather than "High Light". The Hard Light option doesn't yield anything of interest (to me).
That said, I'm not sure if I understand what is going on here. I will try to put it into words and hope that you'll be willing to straighten me out. The mask in the base layer Amount restricts the processing to chosen mid-tones. The monochrome overlay is used to "somehow" modulate the tones on the base layer. The "somehow" is the Operation, as suggested either Soft Light or High Pass, if I have it right. I partially understand the High Pass because a description is provided but not the Soft Light since no algorithm is provided anywhere that I know of.
As I understand it, the High Pass is the difference between an image and its Gaussian blurred version, presumably just as in an unsharp mask. (I note that the radius range here, in my opinion, is far too small for modern digital sensors just as it is for the unsharp mask transformation itself. The fact that Soft Light usually yields preferable results, according to you, may be due to the restricted radii available in the High Pass blur compared to what happens with Soft Light.) I imagine that the Soft Light produces something similar but I wish I knew just what.
Thus, I believe that this is a controlled way of LCE similar to what one can get with the unsharp mask transformation with a largish radius. The controls are a mask to restrict the effect to mid-tones and a monochrome overlay effect image to minimize color shifts. Is that correct? And wouldn't this all work better if larger regions, ie radii, could be affected?
I'll note, if I'm correct, that the unsharp mask with large radii can also be restricted to midtones through an appropriate mask but seemingly cannot avoid color shifts and has the advantage that much larger effect may be applied, even to the point of ugliness.
Cheers, Peter
-
den
- Posts: 859
- Joined: April 25th, 2009, 6:33 pm
- What is the make/model of your primary camera?: Canon EOS-350D/Fuji X100T
- Location: Birch Bay near Blaine, WA USA
Re: PW vs PS
Hmmm… I see that I used “capture” instead of “creative” in my 2nd posting [3rd thread post] in this thread… sorry for the confusion. …my suggestions/comments in this thread apply to HiPass “Creative Sharpening”.
Peter:
Item (1):
Item (2): Nuances
The linked HiPass LCE/Edge Sharpening web page contains nuances that may obscure the basic understanding of the HiPass - Soft Light/Hard Light workflow for LCE and/or Edge Sharpening…
…These are for a 3456x2304 pixel, 16-bit color image:
(a) a LCE effect is usually achieved with a radius of 50 or greater [usually 75] and an Edge Sharpen effect is usually achieved with a radius of 5 or less [usually 3];
(b) a mid-tone mask when used for the LCE effect prevents loss of detail in the deep Shadows and high Highlights that may be caused by clipping/posterization in these tone ranges by aggressive settings;
(c) a mid-tone mask when used for the Edge Sharpen effect prevents the increase in “noise’ detail in the deep Shadows and high Highlights; and
(d) if the Composite-Soft Light or Hard Light transform Overlay image is converted from color to a 8-bit or 16-bit black/white HiPass blur image, there will be less color shift.
Item (3): A HiPass LCE/Edge Sharpening Workflow without the Nuances
Step1: Open or click on a ‘starting image’.
Step2: Open the Blur transform; select High Pass; select a Radius [50 or more for LCE; 5 or less for Edge Sharpening for a 3456x2304 pixel image. SCALE for other pixel dimensions]; and click OK, creating the HiPass image. Note: all other transform settings at “program initial defaults“.
Step3: Click on the ‘starting image’ and open the Composite-Soft Light or Hard Light transform. Select the HiPass image as the Overlay. Adjust Overlay Amount to preference while monitoring Preview. Click OK, creating a LCE or an Edge Sharpened image version depending upon the High Pass blur radius selected in Step1.
Hope this helps to clarify… from your posting, it would seem you have the basics. For LCE, small radius and an aggressive amount for Composite-Soft Light or Hard Light Overlay can produce obvious halos, similar to aggressive USM LCE and/or sharpening. I generally prefer HiPass-SoftLight LCE because the radius selection will go up to 128... and a 75 setting seems to work well for the nature landscape 3456x2304 pixel images, I take.
Also… some images do respond well to LCE color shifts while others do not. Depends on the image content and one’s preferences.
There is no direct relationship between PS and PWP’s various radius ranges as the PWP tool/transform algorithms differ from PS‘s…. And yes, the smaller ranges tend to produce stronger gradients but if one uses smaller amounts that PS may call for, the effects seem to be about the same… depending upon a ‘starting image’s’ pixel dimensions.
As an example, for PWP LCE USM settings of Radius = 40 [the maximum] and Threshold = 0 for a 3456x2304 pixel image,,, the Amount should be perhaps 20 or less [usually 10 to 15]. Any amount greater then that suggested exceeds my preferences and tends produce too obvious light and dark halos.
For many of PWP’s radius selections, scaling may be needed to be taken into account.
Peter:
Item (1):
Composite-High Light is correct. The High Light filter is the same as Soft Light except that it has a stronger effect. Read the “Background” section and note its illustration near the top of the web page here: http://www.ncplus.net/~birchbay/tutoria ... /index.htm to see how the Softlight filter responds for a given gray tone when used as the Overlay in the Composite-Softlight transform. The Composite-Hard Light transform works the same way except with a more aggressive effect. I too rarely use Composite-Hard Light and if used, usually with an [white mask] amount 1/3 or less of that would be used for Soft Light.…I believe you have an error in the work flow description. In both Steps 4 you write:
open the Composite - Soft Light or High Light transform
I think you mean "High Pass" rather than "High Light". The Hard Light option doesn't yield anything of interest (to me)…
Item (2): Nuances
The linked HiPass LCE/Edge Sharpening web page contains nuances that may obscure the basic understanding of the HiPass - Soft Light/Hard Light workflow for LCE and/or Edge Sharpening…
…These are for a 3456x2304 pixel, 16-bit color image:
(a) a LCE effect is usually achieved with a radius of 50 or greater [usually 75] and an Edge Sharpen effect is usually achieved with a radius of 5 or less [usually 3];
(b) a mid-tone mask when used for the LCE effect prevents loss of detail in the deep Shadows and high Highlights that may be caused by clipping/posterization in these tone ranges by aggressive settings;
(c) a mid-tone mask when used for the Edge Sharpen effect prevents the increase in “noise’ detail in the deep Shadows and high Highlights; and
(d) if the Composite-Soft Light or Hard Light transform Overlay image is converted from color to a 8-bit or 16-bit black/white HiPass blur image, there will be less color shift.
Item (3): A HiPass LCE/Edge Sharpening Workflow without the Nuances
Step1: Open or click on a ‘starting image’.
Step2: Open the Blur transform; select High Pass; select a Radius [50 or more for LCE; 5 or less for Edge Sharpening for a 3456x2304 pixel image. SCALE for other pixel dimensions]; and click OK, creating the HiPass image. Note: all other transform settings at “program initial defaults“.
Step3: Click on the ‘starting image’ and open the Composite-Soft Light or Hard Light transform. Select the HiPass image as the Overlay. Adjust Overlay Amount to preference while monitoring Preview. Click OK, creating a LCE or an Edge Sharpened image version depending upon the High Pass blur radius selected in Step1.
Hope this helps to clarify… from your posting, it would seem you have the basics. For LCE, small radius and an aggressive amount for Composite-Soft Light or Hard Light Overlay can produce obvious halos, similar to aggressive USM LCE and/or sharpening. I generally prefer HiPass-SoftLight LCE because the radius selection will go up to 128... and a 75 setting seems to work well for the nature landscape 3456x2304 pixel images, I take.
Also… some images do respond well to LCE color shifts while others do not. Depends on the image content and one’s preferences.
There is no direct relationship between PS and PWP’s various radius ranges as the PWP tool/transform algorithms differ from PS‘s…. And yes, the smaller ranges tend to produce stronger gradients but if one uses smaller amounts that PS may call for, the effects seem to be about the same… depending upon a ‘starting image’s’ pixel dimensions.
As an example, for PWP LCE USM settings of Radius = 40 [the maximum] and Threshold = 0 for a 3456x2304 pixel image,,, the Amount should be perhaps 20 or less [usually 10 to 15]. Any amount greater then that suggested exceeds my preferences and tends produce too obvious light and dark halos.
For many of PWP’s radius selections, scaling may be needed to be taken into account.
-
den
- Posts: 859
- Joined: April 25th, 2009, 6:33 pm
- What is the make/model of your primary camera?: Canon EOS-350D/Fuji X100T
- Location: Birch Bay near Blaine, WA USA
Re: PW vs PS
Another Hmmmmm....
Step3 should read: ...depending upon the High Pass blur radius selected in Step2... rather than Step1 as originally posted....Item (3): A HiPass LCE/Edge Sharpening Workflow without the Nuances
Step1: Open or click on a ‘starting image’.
Step2: Open the Blur transform; select High Pass; select a Radius [50 or more for LCE; 5 or less for Edge Sharpening for a 3456x2304 pixel image. SCALE for other pixel dimensions]; and click OK, creating the HiPass image. Note: all other transform settings at “program initial defaults“.
Step3: Click on the ‘starting image’ and open the Composite-Soft Light or Hard Light transform. Select the HiPass image as the Overlay. Adjust Overlay Amount to preference while monitoring Preview. Click OK, creating a LCE or an Edge Sharpened image version depending upon the High Pass blur radius selected in Step1...
-
pbandurian
- Posts: 15
- Joined: May 11th, 2009, 7:39 pm
Re: PW vs PS
Den:
It appears I did not make myself sufficiently clear. You say "High Light". In my version of PW (version 5.0.1.2) there is no "Composite - High Light". There are, among others, "Soft Light", "Hard Light", "Low Pass", and "High Pass". "High Light" sounds like a confabulation of the second and fourth listed. Which do you really mean?
I'll [attempt to] study your additional referenced tutorial http://www.ncplus.net/~birchbay/tutoria ... /index.htm tonight. Thanks.
Cheers, Peter
It appears I did not make myself sufficiently clear. You say "High Light". In my version of PW (version 5.0.1.2) there is no "Composite - High Light". There are, among others, "Soft Light", "Hard Light", "Low Pass", and "High Pass". "High Light" sounds like a confabulation of the second and fourth listed. Which do you really mean?
I'll [attempt to] study your additional referenced tutorial http://www.ncplus.net/~birchbay/tutoria ... /index.htm tonight. Thanks.
Cheers, Peter