wrote …
I’ve seen some PS discussions regarding Contrast Masking. Wonder if this
something we can do in Elements. In the olden days we did this in the darkroom with Highlight and Shadow masks.
Old Digital Bob
I put together the following document as I was looking into Contrast Masking.
http://support.wizov.com/Contrast_Masking.pdf Ed
The use of contrast masking in its simplest form has been the tip of the year for me; no more struggling with trying to carefully select dark areas of a contrasty image for subsequent lightening and then being disappointed with the results. It’s magic! And I have a lot of images that suffer from too much contrast, so it’s become almost a routine step in my workflow. Thanks to all who have pointed out tutorials and tools for contrast masking!
Chuck
Chuck,
Which tool/method have you found most effective for this purpose? Can you give us your work flow?
Ken
Ken, good morning. I use the following simple approach:
1. Open image
2. Duplicate background layer and name it Contrast Mask (just to keep things straight)
3. With the Contrast Mask layer active, go to Image>Adjustments>Invert
4. On same layer, do Enhance>Adjust Color>Remove Color
5. Again on the same layer, do a Filter>Blur>Gaussian Blur, approximately 3.0 or thereabouts.
6. Change Contrast Layer blending mode to Overlay (or for a less pronounced effect, Soft Light)
7. Adjust opacity of Contrast Layer to ‘dial down’ effect.
I find that in some cases I also have to add a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer to reduce the saturation of the masked image; the colors can get a little vivid for my eye.
Try it, you’ll like it!
🙂
Chuck
p.s. Richard Lynch’s tool does essentially the same thing with much fewer steps.
Chuck,
Thanks for this technique and I shall try it.
I have not downloaded the Lynch tools as of yet.
Best wishes for a Happy New Year.
Ken
Chuck,
I gave your process a quick try — WOW!
Even after reading various conversations regarding contrast masking, I had never been able to visualize the effect, or the benefit.
With your simple, precise explanation I now have another "trick" in my bag.
Thanks!!
Byron
Byron, I was just passing along a technique I learned here a few weeks ago, so I can’t take any credit. But I figured it was worth letting people know what a neat trick this is! (I really ought to go back in my notes and see who got this started…)
Chuck
Chuck,
I just tried it on the first picture taken with my new digital camera, on AUTO, taken out the front door and aimed at the house across the street. The technique worked very well. Now I have to study what all the settings on the camera are supposed to do.
Ken
Ken, congratulations on the new camera! The settings are pretty daunting, aren’t they? My son’s new mid-range camera came with an owner’s manual that’s over 200 pages – and that’s the English-only version! 🙂
Chuck
I have done the contrast masking technique the way Chuck described and am quite hapy with the results, but also curious as to how to use Richard’s tool to do it…….can’t seem to find the right combination to get it to work……..which tool do I use to start with? And where do I go from there?
Thanks,
Lynn
Lynn, use Richard’s Highlight mask. With your background layer active, click on the Highlight Mask tool; you’ll see the marching ants in various places on your image. Then do a Layer>New Adjustment Layer>Levels and move the white point slider to the left until the preview is as you’d like it, then hit OK. You’ll see a layer mask that looks very much like the ‘mask’ created using the other technique. You also have the advantage with Richard’s tool of being able to go into the Levels Adjustment layer and keep fine-tuning it.
Hope that helps.
Chuck
Thanks Chuck……….I find the Hidden Power Tools a little less than intuitive as yet………
I did try this technique, but liked the results of your way better on the ones I have tried so far………
Thanks for the quick response and I will keep trying both techniques…….
Lynn
Chuck,
The printed manual is quite brief, but there is a manual on the CD that came with the camera, and I printed pages selectively beyond the basic information. I bought a card reader and hence I have not installed the Olympus designed software – am using Elements, of course! One good feature for me is that an inexpensive adapter allows me to use my 55mm polarizing filter which I bought with my Minolta film equipment some years ago. Also, the camera takes AA batteries, so if I am on the road I can use batteries other than the rechargable ones if needed.
Ken
Ken, you’ll love the card reader. Just bought one for my son’s college computer; the cables will stay here… His cam takes AA, too; got a set of NiMH batteries and a charger to reduce the long-term cost.
Chuck
It is really nice to have a camera that uses standard batteries IMO. If you’re out in the sticks somewhere and your batteries fail…or if you can’t get access to AC power to recharge them, you still have another option…go buy some cheap alkalines.
That was a major criterion in our recent purchase of a Canon Powershot A70. My wife wanted a digital camera to take on safari in Africa for a week of shooting. I put a set of Lithium Blues in it, and she took a couple hundred pix…including some flash. She came home a month ago, and those batteries are still going strong! When they finally die, I’ll put in a set of NiMH rechargeables, but we’ll never take another trip without a set of those Lithium Blues in the bag for emergencies. My Oly E-20 also takes AAs.
Bert
I just discovered digital contrast masking which I use to extend the dynamic range of the scanner by scanning twice – once for highlights and once for lowlights – and then combining the best of both images.
The instructions on how to do this say I should convert the bottom (highlight) image into a layer mask, add some Gaussian blur to avoid potential artifacts, and then apply it to the top (lowlight) image.
Wouldn’t a better result be achieved to create a layer mask from *both* images, average it out and then apply that to the top image without bothering with Gaussian blur?
Yeah, yeah, I know… Try it out and have a look… ;o) But I’m learning and would like to know the theoretical justification for one or the other.
Don.
I just discovered digital contrast masking which I use to extend the dynamic range of the scanner by scanning twice – once for highlights and once for lowlights – and then combining the best of both images.
The instructions on how to do this say I should convert the bottom (highlight) image into a layer mask, add some Gaussian blur to avoid potential artifacts, and then apply it to the top (lowlight) image.
Wouldn’t a better result be achieved to create a layer mask from *both* images, average it out and then apply that to the top image without bothering with Gaussian blur?
Yeah, yeah, I know… Try it out and have a look… ;o) But I’m learning and would like to know the theoretical justification for one or the other.
Don.
"Don" wrote in message
I just discovered digital contrast masking which I use to extend the dynamic range of the scanner by scanning twice – once for highlights and once for lowlights – and then combining the best of both images.
The instructions on how to do this say I should convert the bottom (highlight) image into a layer mask, add some Gaussian blur to avoid potential artifacts, and then apply it to the top (lowlight) image.
Wouldn’t a better result be achieved to create a layer mask from *both* images, average it out and then apply that to the top image without bothering with Gaussian blur?
Since you’ll probably want to do a Curves adjustment on the mask anyway, it doesn’t matter much which of those three alternatives you start with.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:09:36 GMT, "Warren Sarle" wrote:
"Don" wrote in message
I just discovered digital contrast masking which I use to extend the dynamic range of the scanner by scanning twice – once for highlights and once for lowlights – and then combining the best of both images.
The instructions on how to do this say I should convert the bottom (highlight) image into a layer mask, add some Gaussian blur to avoid potential artifacts, and then apply it to the top (lowlight) image.
Wouldn’t a better result be achieved to create a layer mask from *both* images, average it out and then apply that to the top image without bothering with Gaussian blur?
Since you’ll probably want to do a Curves adjustment on the mask anyway, it doesn’t matter much which of those three alternatives you start with.
Even without additional adjustment the differences are minimal. I was just wondering if, theoretically, using an in-between mask is more accurate to start with (as well as more logical) unless there is some other reason for using a mask generated by the bottom layer and applying it to the top layer.
Don.