Local adjustment issue
I added a local adjustment to a landscape photo, wishing to add some impact to a somewhat bland sky. I used the masking brush to choose the sky, then made my adjustments (exposure, contrast, -ve haze, temperature). No matter what I try, I seem to be left with halos along the tree/sky line. The chisel brush appears to have minimum effect. I have tried playing around with levels in the luminosity mask, but no improvement.
I compared the result to Lightroom, and Lightroom gives a much better result - no visible halos.
It's possible that I am doing something wrong, so could someone suggest what I should do? Any help will be appreciated.
-
Could this please be moved to the Workflow and Editing section? Sorry I posted in the wrong place.
0 -
I prefer to use the Perfect Brush to create the mask edges. It takes some practice to learn the Color Threshold and Transition (think feathering) controls but if you don't like what a brush stroke does, just Undo it make an adjustment and try again. You'll pick it up pretty quickly.
I prefer less transition for harder edges and a larger transition for areas with tree branches and holes needing masking. Also, a lower Color Threshold with repeated applications to account for variations in the color above the transition level seems to work better than trying to get everything in one go.
Start with the Perfect Brush off with 0 feathering to cover larger areas smoothly.
The User Guide talks about the Perfect Brush in a few places so do a search for it to get all the pieces. Top of page 83 and bottom of 87 are some key points.
0 -
Darryl (Dale?) of On1 did an excellent video a while back involving complex masking. If I find the link I'll post it. It's a pity that his longer videos seem to have dried up and there was no response when I posted asking for more on the same topic.
0 -
Thanks Brian and Ray for your responses.
Brian, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Also, a lower Color Threshold with repeated applications to account for variations in the color above the transition level seems to work better than trying to get everything in one go." I'll have to check out the user guide. I have watched a few videos, but haven't seen one where there is a tree line and someone is trying to make the sky more interesting.
Ray, I am about to view the video you linked to. Thanks for finding that.
I will keep trying!
0 -
The Color Threshold defines how different two shades of the same color must be before the brush sees them as different. A lower threshold means more sensitivity so when you click in let's say a sky with a color gradient in it not all the blues will be included in the mask. You can see this by viewing the mask. By repeatedly clicking in the different shades of blue you can build up the mask to include more shades.
You can get the same thing by increasing the Threshold slider but you might wind up getting more selected beyond the edges you're trying to define. There's a balancing point you'll learn to find with experience.
0 -
Thanks for clarifying Brian. I will have to practice more!
0 -
Allan, I have to confess that for most sky issues I use Luminar 4's sky replacement. Photoshop now has sky replacement too.
0 -
I tend to agree with you Ray. In this case however I wasn't looking to replace a sky, just to make it less uninteresting. In Lightroom, which is my editor of choice at the moment, it is easy to select just the sky, then change the colour, contrast, exposure, etc. to make the sky a bit more colourful and interesting. I don't get the same halos in Lightroom that I am seeing in ON1. I have watched a few videos using ON1, so I will keep trying.
0 -
Have you used the masking bug? This works on images with a definite horizon, although you can use masking to stop any effects applied from affecting the foreground. There's a new colour range mask in v2021, although I haven't played around with it yet.
I sometimes use the colour enhancer filter, and there is one for skies. However, if there are blues in the foreground you will need to use a mask. I guess the new colour replacement filter in v2021 might be able to achieve something too. Also, in v2021, you can apply clouds as a brush, although there aren't as many as in the On1 demos.
By all means take a look at some of those demos, not just the one I linked before. This for example:
0 -
I just used the masking bug a few minutes ago (before I saw your post), and was able to mask out the effects from areas I didn't want affected. That worked better than using the brush to apply the effects to the sky. While the result isn't quite as good as Lightroom, it is getting much closer.
I did try the colour enhancer filter and as you say had to mask out other areas. The result was OK, but not great. I hadn't thought of the colour replacement filter - the sky I am dealing with is a nondescript greyish colour, so I don't know if that would work. I may give it a try.
I did see the cloud brushes, but I think they would work in a cloudless sky, not the sky I am working with.
Thanks for the link to the video, I will take a look. I appreciate all of your suggestions. I did watch a long video by Matt Kloskowski using ON1 2019, but a lot of what he described also works in ON1 2021.
0 -
Why not post the image and what you want to achieve, with the LR version. Even put your original file on Dropbox. I'd quite like to play with it myself, as it's always a good learning experience!
0 -
I've put the original raw file and my LR edit in Dropbox. The link is below. Have fun! I'm not claiming this was a great photo, it was just one that had a sky and a tree line.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/x2sgzovdr2t15xq/AACAQesdPzBdL_d1RLODqFp1a?dl=0
I hope this works. Thanks for trying to help.
0 -
That was fun!
I have to say I find your LR version a bit over-processed (to my taste anyway)
In On1, I applied Auto AI to the entire image. Then I used the Colour Enhancer effect, and wacked up the Sky saturation to maximum. I brushed out along the tree line and elsewhere in the foreground where the blue became saturated. In many ways this did enough to the sky. But to get more blue at the top I used the masking bug and reduced the exposure a bit. Finally I added Dynamic Contrast, but brushed it out in the sky and along the tree line in order to retain the slight haziness.
0 -
I think you are right about the LR edit. When I first did it, it did not look so over processed.
I like what you did and I am impressed with the lack of halos. I will have to try your workflow on some other similar photos that have a skyline with trees. I have quite a few from the river cruise from last year.
Thanks for your help.
0 -
I think it's always a good idea to take a break, walk away and take another look at an edited image—even the next day. For example, I now think the blue in my version is unnatural!
Like you, I have difficulty refining masks when there are trees. I made an attempt at replacing the sky within On1, but am not happy with the result. Luminar 4 does a much better job!
(different sky)
0 -
I often come back to an edit a few weeks later and make changes. I tend to like colourful, more contrasty images, but I have to rein that in sometimes. I have just gone through a lot of my river cruise photos and re-edited them.
For sky replacement (that I don't do a lot of), Luminar is better, as is Photoshop. I prefer to bring out what features I can in an existing sky by changing the exposure, contrast, colour, etc. Lightroom I find is good at that, as long as the sky isn't totally blown out. I have used Lightroom for many years, and although I have tried out a few other editing programs, I haven't found anything that I would replace it with. Luminar and ON1 are used as plugins for certain things, but I can't see them as replacements for LR. I just tried out Luminar AI, but I was not greatly impressed. It doesn't seem to do much more than Luminar 4, other than all the AI stuff.
0 -
I switched from LR to On1 about a year ago and have no regrets, being particularly pleased to be able to abandon Adobe's subscription model. Of course, there was a bit of a learning curve, but On1 does many things that LR can't (unless one sends the file to Photoshop, which I always found had a steep learning curve).
On1 has a LR migration tool, but I still wanted to re-edit many images: I guess it was that time passing thing we are both aware of!
I suspect that many of your sky issues could have been dealt with in camera. You probably know this, but expose for the sky and leave the foreground under-exposed, since under-exposure can be dealt with easier in post than over-exposure. You could also shoot in exposure bracket mode, although that would have been difficult from a moving boat. However, unless you merge the images manually, you will end up with the HDR look. It sounds as if you might like that though.
I gave Luminar AI a trial and abandoned it after two days. It was just no advance on Luminar 4, for sky replacement especially, and kept quitting on me.
0 -
I don't have a big issue with Adobe's subscription model, and the cost for both LR and PS is reasonable. I do agree about the steep learning curve for PS; I only use it for a few things. LR and ON1 both have their pluses and minuses, and I like the idea of using ON1 as a plugin for LR. Some of the effects in ON1 are very good.
The sky issues I had were more related to the type of day when some of the photos were taken - grey skies with no real "character", or sometimes blue skies with no clouds. A uniform sky, especially one that's grey, can look boring, and that is when I like to do something to it.
Despite that over processed photo I sent, I am not really into HDR, unless it is very mild and barely noticeable as HDR. I prefer vibrant to muted and I like some contrast as opposed to flat, but I never use any HDR presets. My main camera is a Fuji and I like some of the punchier, more colourful Fuji profiles. I really like Matt Kloskowski's work, and he has said that almost all the photos sent into him for comments lack contrast. I am in that camp, not the muted colours and low contrast look. Just personal preference.
Thanks for all your help. I think I have a better handle now on how to deal with skies and a skyline with trees in ON1. I still think the colour range or luminance range masks in LR are easier to work with and very effective. Again just a personal opinion.
0 -
Ray this is a follow up to an earlier post when you said you thought that the photo I posted was over processed. When I viewed that photo in LR, it was, to my eyes, well processed - definitely not muted or flat, but not overly processed. I exported that photo from LR, but didn't really view it in Irfanview, my photo viewer of choice. Today i did view it in Irfanview and could see why you commented as you did. The photo looked HDRish in Irfanview, but when I checked it again in LR, it was fine. I did some research and found that Irfanview was not colour managing the photo, so I made some changes to the settings in Irfanview and now the photos match. Unfortunately other apps (e.g. Windows Photos, Adobe Photoshop Express) have no settings for colour management, so the photo still looks over processed in these apps. Irfanview seems to be the only app in fact that gives the same view as LR. I am using a recently purchased computer, so may have to recalibrate my monitor. It's disconcerting to process a photo until it looks good to me in LR, only to export it and it looks very different.
On another note, I would like to send you a photo processed in both LR and ON1 for comparison if you are willing. This would be done after I have calibrated my monitor.
Thanks
0 -
Allan, I can’t comment on Irfanview as it seems to be for Windows only. And I must say that I have never bothered to recalibrate my monitor in all the years I have had a MacBook. My current one is only about six months old. When I used LR I always stayed within it for photo viewing and also used the versions for iOS and my Apple TV for slideshows. On1 now has a slideshow feature (in v2021) but it’s primitive by comparison. I therefore use a Mac-specific slideshow app called FotoMagico and upload the results to YouTube. I am certainly aware of slight differences in colour between my laptop and new Samsung 4K TV, but not enough to want to make me re-edit them.
But everything is very much in the eye of the beholder. As I said before, I don’t like over-processed pictures and am horrified by what some of the so-called influencers (shills?), especially for Luminar, do with their images. No names!So, yes, I’d be happy to see your two versions (plus the original DNG). Anthony Morganti (a YouTuber I DO respect as a teacher) did a series a while back in which he processed the same photo in different programmes. I recall the results were very similar in each.0 -
I too like Anthony Morganti, and I have watched many of his videos.
I have tweaked a few settings, and now what I see in Lightroom is also seen in other editors or file viewers. Here is a file I edited in LR - definitely not HDRish in any app I use to view it, including PS, ON1, and Luminar 4. I would be interested in knowing what it looks like to you.
This is the photo I would like to send to you, a LR version and an ON1 version, along with the original. I have been working on the sky in both apps (not replacing the sky, just enhancing), and would like to compare the results. It may be a day or two before I get to it.
Thanks
0 -
Look forward to seeing them.
0 -
OK Ray, here we go!
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vnxdn2hpm1km2ko/AADtcLTkHyzaXjhNRnRhUu6Pa?dl=0
There are 3 files in the folder - the original, unedited dng, the LR edit, and the ON1 edit.
Both edits are close to what the scene actually looked like, so definitely not over processed. The edits are remarkably similar, with only slight differences - the greens are slightly darker in the ON1 version, and the orange on the church is slightly darker on the LR version. I applied a dynamic contrast and a colour enhancer filter in ON1, the latter mainly to lighten the greens a little.
I found it easier to mask the sky in LR using a colour range mask, and a slight tweak to the amount slider. I made some changes to the temperature, exposure, contrast, saturation, and dehaze sliders to get the sky to look the way I wanted - in my opinion, a very believable sky (it was a sunny day as you can tell from the shadows).
In ON1 I used a luminosity mask, and had to play around with the feather and levels to get the result I wanted. I then adjusted the exposure, contrast, whites, haze, and temperature sliders to get something close to the same sky as in LR. The feather adjustment was needed to remove artifacts/halos along the tree line, especially on the upper left. I think the skies are very similar.
The differences in the edits may be partially due to the profiles applied - Adobe Landscape in LR, and ON1 Landscape in ON1. A change of profile in either program would change the end result significantly.
I don't think that one edit is any better than the other; I would be quite happy with either one. Both look like the scene as I remember it, and I certainly do not see any vestige of HDR in either edit. Probably because of my familiarity with LR, the process was easier. I'm sure I could make the edits more alike if I wanted.
I was actually more concerned about the tree/skyline issues than making the edits similar. As I said, I found LR easier to produce a good result, but what I did with ON1 also worked well.
I did see the Morganti video about different editors; Matt Kloskowski also did one on the same topic and came to the same conclusion, not surprisingly. The differences will always be minor, and regardless of the editor used, a good end result will be achieved. I like both LR and ON1, and I will probably continue to use both (ON1 mostly as a plugin for LR).
I will be interested to see what you think of the edits, especially the use of the masks for the sky.
Thanks again for taking the time to help me.
0 -
OK Allan, here's my On1 version. I no longer have LR so can't edit it there for comparison.
1. I cropped and straightened the image to reduce the amount of sky as it's not very interesting and to correct the wonkiness.
2. Kept On1 Standard, but could have experimented to see what others produced. Applied AI Auto, but whites were over-peaking on the church so moved the white slider to the left.
3. In Effects, selected Colour Enhancer and increased saturation to almost maximum in the Skies panel. This also impacted on the water, which was OK, but was too heavy in the hazy trees to the right so brushed out.
4. Sky could be a bit richer still, so used a linear bottom gradient to reduce exposure and then fiddled with Colour Range (new in v2021) to get a good balance. Used the refine brush along the tree line at the left where there was a bit of a blue halo. Didn't look to be needed on the right tree line.
5. Selected a new effect: Colour Enhancer again, and used the Fall option but at only 30% ( I often use a touch of this in landscapes)
6. New Effect: Dynamic Contrast and left it at default (Natural). Used the mask to brush it out in the sky and along the tree line.
7. Added a vignette
My sky is "quieter" than yours: a matter of taste, but I didn't want it to distract from the landscape.
I'd be happy with the 16/9 format for this shot too: as I make slideshows for watching on a TV. If so, I'd clone out the road sign.
0 -
As a matter of interest I just ran the image through Luminar 4, which has Enhance Sky AI. I set it to just 43%. I also used the Landscape Enhancer to add Golden Hour (similar to Fall in On1) and a touch of the Foliage Enhancer
0 -
Having zoomed in on both my versions, the left-hand tree line in L4 looks much better.
Maybe Brian could jump in here and impart his expertise in using the refine tool!
0 -
Thanks Ray.
Editing is such a personal thing isn't it? I see very little wonkiness i my photo. I tried various ways of straightening in LR, mostly the auto ways, and it barely changed the photo. The verticals look vertical, but maybe my old eyes miss something!
Again I prefer the slightly bluer sky and that is certainly my recollection of the scene. I also prefer a little less of the water, but that is entirely personal. I still think the cleanest left tree line is the LR edit, but my ON1 edit is close. I'm not totally convinced that the refine tool does a great job; that is why I used the luminosity mask. With a bit of feathering, the end result looks good. I agree that in your L4 edit, the left tree line is cleaner than the one in your ON1 edit.
I do like the Colour enhancer and Dynamic contrast filters in ON1, and I use them quite a bit. The Sunshine filter is also good.
My original post was about using local adjustments in ON1, specifically the use of the refine brush or the chisel tool to correct halos. I have tried both of these many times on a few photos, and still I am not impressed with the results. On the photo that we are now discussing, the luminosity mask gave a much better result, very close to what I can achieve with LR. Over the years, LR has made great strides with masking, and that is now a pretty powerful feature. I just tried a graduated filter mask with LR on another photo with a treed skyline, and with very little effort, I got an excellent result. I will have to try the same photo with ON1. I'm not ready to make the switch to ON1 yet, but I do see that it has many useful features.
Looking at your ON1 edit and mine, side by side, I prefer my slightly more punchy version, but there isn't a huge difference. It's all a matter of personal taste. I do appreciate your input; it has forced me to try different things with ON1. I'm learning more every day!
0 -
Strange things happening Ray!
I got an email saying you had posted again before I replied to your lengthy post. However, your post does not appear here, but I could read it in the email!! It said you thought that parts of the photo weren't sharp. Yes it was taken from a moving boat, but it was a very stable river boat on a very flat Rhine River, so very little vibration. When I zoom into 100% in LR, the castle is quite sharp, so I don't see what you are seeing. Maybe my old eyes again! The trees are not super sharp, but that seems to be a weakness in the Fuji system. They apparently use a different kind of filter from most cameras. I also see minimal noise in the sky at 100%, and even at 200% there is not much noise that I can see in the sky. I did see the spots however that I had neglected to remove. Thanks for pointing that out.
0 -
So much is in the eye of the beholder. Thankfully, no two people edit a photo exactly the same way: and I for one am not a fan of Luminar's AI gimmick since it means there would be much more uniformity if everyone were to make use of it.
Like you, I am not totally convinced about the verticals, but I adjusted anyway, using eye alone.
Regarding the out of focus, it must have been a problem when I zoomed in, maybe because both On1 and L4 were open and putting a lot of pressure on my system. L4 is pretty unstable... When I looked again, the building was indeed sharp, so I edited my original post and deleted that part. The email you got was of the first version as it were.
Good luck with your exploration of these apps.
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
31 comments