Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58318 > unrolled thread

Simple Photoshop question )clone tool)

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Simple  Photoshop question )clone tool) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-04 05:53 -0400
    Re: Simple  Photoshop question )clone tool) M-M <nospam@ny.more> - 2014-04-04 10:05 -0400
    Re: Simple  Photoshop question )clone tool) Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-04-05 14:18 -0700
      Re: Simple  Photoshop question )clone tool) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-05 19:10 -0400
        Re: Simple  Photoshop question )clone tool) Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-04-05 16:59 -0700
        Re: Simple  Photoshop question )clone tool) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-08 03:33 -0400
          Re: Simple  Photoshop question )clone tool) Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-04-08 06:02 -0700
            Re: Simple  Photoshop question )clone tool) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-04-08 12:55 -0400
              Re: Simple  Photoshop question )clone tool) Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-04-08 13:51 -0700
    Re: Simple  Photoshop question )clone tool) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-07 09:09 +1200

#58318 — Simple Photoshop question )clone tool)

After retating a scanned slide, I need to fill in the sky. Using close
tool to fill other areas works fine. But closing the sky fails because
the close tool "pastes" a lighter version of the image.

(because this is scanned, there is grain into the scanned image that
needs to be reproduced to create the same texture of the sky which is a
gradient to make things worse.

Is this just some simple setting I am overlooking or is it a feature of
Photoshop, unable to reproduce a 150 pixel diametre round section of sky
without making it lighter ?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#58324

In article <533e810a$0$7173$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> After retating a scanned slide, I need to fill in the sky. Using close
> tool to fill other areas works fine. But closing the sky fails because
> the close tool "pastes" a lighter version of the image.
> 
> (because this is scanned, there is grain into the scanned image that
> needs to be reproduced to create the same texture of the sky which is a
> gradient to make things worse.
> 
> Is this just some simple setting I am overlooking or is it a feature of
> Photoshop, unable to reproduce a 150 pixel diametre round section of sky
> without making it lighter ?
> 
Choose a darker area to clone from and feather the edges of the clone
brush.

-- 
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58341

On 2014-04-04 09:53:13 +0000, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> said:

> After retating a scanned slide, I need to fill in the sky. Using close
> tool to fill other areas works fine. But closing the sky fails because
> the close tool "pastes" a lighter version of the image.
> 
> (because this is scanned, there is grain into the scanned image that
> needs to be reproduced to create the same texture of the sky which is a
> gradient to make things worse.
> 
> Is this just some simple setting I am overlooking or is it a feature of
> Photoshop, unable to reproduce a 150 pixel diametre round section of sky
> without making it lighter ?

What version of PS are you using?

I am currently using LR5 + PS/CC, most of the features I talk of are 
also found in CS4, CS5, & CS6.

There is a reason why PS provides several tools for doing this type of 
edit. (clone tool, patch tool, healing brush, spot healing brush, 
content-aware move tool, etc) Some will have content-aware options (for 
content-aware, texture, or proximity), and some will sample from the 
current layer, current and below, or all layers

In the case of your scanned image where you have grain on a color field 
with the added complication of a gradient, I would work on the current 
layer only.
Since you have a gradient, consider an area to the left or right of the 
area you want to fix as a source. I would use either the clone tool 
(with a larger soft brush than you might be tempted to use), or the 
patch tool (found in the healing brush tool palette by option clicking 
through the tools in that palette, or right clicking to reveal all of 
them).
Select a source area which includes a decent portion of the major 
demarkation change in the grad.
Move the clone tool brush along that demarkation line to cover your 
target area. The same can be done with the patch tool where you would 
be moving a selected patch over the target area.
Note they are two different tools and there might be some differences 
in the result.

If the patch or clone covers a detail which you actually want to 
reveal, add a layer mask to the current layer and fix that with a black 
or white brush.

Though this example of mine doesn't use a grad, it is a scan of a 
damaged print I repaired using the clone tool, the patch tool, and 
healing brush. Then finished with appropriate adjustments.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_638.jpg >

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58343

On 14-04-05 17:18, Savageduck wrote:

> What version of PS are you using?

CS6

> There is a reason why PS provides several tools for doing this type of 
> edit. (clone tool, patch tool, healing brush, spot healing brush,


Clone tool has worked well in the past. But for that and a couple of
other images, I can't seem to be able to clone at the same darkness as
the source.


> In the case of your scanned image where you have grain on a color field 
> with the added complication of a gradient, I would work on the current 
> layer only.

I almost always work on current layer only. (for cloning)


> Since you have a gradient, consider an area to the left or right of the 
> area you want to fix as a source.

I select the area immediatly to the left of the hole to be filled. And
when filled, it does not match the area immediatly to its left (aka: the
source).

In the past, I never had that problem and could succesfully propagate a
texture from one area to the next without any visible signs.

DOes the clone took have problem with 16 bit images ?  Just realised
this is what is different between my current endeavour and previous
photoshop uses.

Note that on some scanned images, the clone tool appears to work fine.

These are old Kodachrome slides and the scanning generates a lot of
grain because of the darkness of the faded slides.


> Select a source area which includes a decent portion of the major 
> demarkation change in the grad.

For a sky, the graduation is very progressive. The clone stamped area is
lighter than the source and the area around it, not just the source.

I'll have to experiment with mam,ing image 8 bits to see if the clone
tool works as before.>



< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_638.jpg >

Was the diagonal line a fold in the paper picture ? What about the
roughly horizontal lighter band ? What caused that ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58344

On 2014-04-05 23:10:52 +0000, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> said:

> On 14-04-05 17:18, Savageduck wrote:
> 
>> What version of PS are you using?
> 
> CS6
> 
>> There is a reason why PS provides several tools for doing this type of
>> edit. (clone tool, patch tool, healing brush, spot healing brush,
> 
> 
> Clone tool has worked well in the past. But for that and a couple of
> other images, I can't seem to be able to clone at the same darkness as
> the source.
> 
> 
>> In the case of your scanned image where you have grain on a color field
>> with the added complication of a gradient, I would work on the current
>> layer only.
> 
> I almost always work on current layer only. (for cloning)
> 
> 
>> Since you have a gradient, consider an area to the left or right of the
>> area you want to fix as a source.
> 
> I select the area immediatly to the left of the hole to be filled. And
> when filled, it does not match the area immediatly to its left (aka: the
> source).

Did you have opacity and flow set at 100%, and blending mode normal?

> In the past, I never had that problem and could succesfully propagate a
> texture from one area to the next without any visible signs.

As it should. Using the spot healing tool, and sometimes the clone tool 
has the potential to smooth a texture or grain which might be treated 
as a blemish.

> DOes the clone took have problem with 16 bit images ?

It shouldn't.

> Just realised this is what is different between my current endeavour 
> and previous
> photoshop uses.
> 
> Note that on some scanned images, the clone tool appears to work fine.
> 
> These are old Kodachrome slides and the scanning generates a lot of
> grain because of the darkness of the faded slides.

That should just appear as a texture which should be subject to CS6 
manipulation.

>> Select a source area which includes a decent portion of the major
>> demarkation change in the grad.
> 
> For a sky, the graduation is very progressive. The clone stamped area is
> lighter than the source and the area around it, not just the source.
> 
> I'll have to experiment with mam,ing image 8 bits to see if the clone
> tool works as before.>

I would give the patch tool a try. Just remember, that with the patch 
tool you select the area to be patched and then drag the selection to 
the source.

> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_638.jpg >
> 
> Was the diagonal line a fold in the paper picture ? What about the
> roughly horizontal lighter band ? What caused that ?

I can't speak for the original. It is a shot of my *step-daughter from 
Hell* taken by a photographer unknown to me with an unknown 35mm. 
Probably some 15+ years ago.
She inflicted the crease & tear damage with her storage method (dumped 
in a shoe box mixed in with other shots & stirred). I think the banding 
and washed out color are a result of a poor wet lab print on 
questionable paper with some sun exposure at one time or another. She 
never had the negative/transparency.
Naturally I was tasked with fixing it.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58393

I think I have found my problem.

When working with multiple layers, the clone tool does not work as
expected on the current layer (even when "current layer" mode is
selected for the tool.

Turning off all other layers' visibility makes the clone tool work fine
(ala, only the layer you are working on is selcted and visible, and
clone tool set to current layer only).

Even when the second layer is transparent in the area you are working on
for the first layer, it seems to average out the sampling when you apply
it.

The thing is that it doesn't seem to be the case all the time. There are
times when the clone tool  works fine on multiple visible layers, and
times where it doesn't. But when it doesn't, turning off other layers
fixes the problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58394

On 2014-04-08 07:33:47 +0000, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> said:

> I think I have found my problem.
> 
> When working with multiple layers, the clone tool does not work as
> expected on the current layer (even when "current layer" mode is
> selected for the tool.
> 
> Turning off all other layers' visibility makes the clone tool work fine
> (ala, only the layer you are working on is selcted and visible, and
> clone tool set to current layer only).
> 
> Even when the second layer is transparent in the area you are working on
> for the first layer, it seems to average out the sampling when you apply
> it.
> 
> The thing is that it doesn't seem to be the case all the time. There are
> times when the clone tool  works fine on multiple visible layers, and
> times where it doesn't. But when it doesn't, turning off other layers
> fixes the problem.

That makes sense and is something I have experienced, which was why I 
suggested using the current layer only. I can see that deactivating all 
layers in the stack other than the current layer should address the 
problem.
Another thought regarding making this particular clone/patch fix, is to 
move the clone/patch step up in your workflow do that it is done before 
all other adjustments.

i.e.: duplicate the background layer, and make the clone/patch 
correction on the current background copy. Then start your adjustments 
on subsequent adjustment layers.

Also, if you use NR make that the first step in the workflow after any 
clone/patch work, and finish whith whatever sharpening method you have 
chosen (Smart Sharpen, or USM).

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58397

Savageduck:
> Also, if you use NR make that the first step in the workflow after any 
> clone/patch work, and finish whith whatever sharpening method you have 
> chosen (Smart Sharpen, or USM).

Another sharpening routine: Duplicate the background (layer that you
want to sharpen). On the duplicate layer apply Filter > Other > High
Pass. Use a radius of 1 pixel as a starting point. You will see a gray
image with just a trace of the outline of your image. Close the filter
dialog and set the blending mode of the duplicate layer to "Overlay."
Toggle visibility of the duplicate layer to judge results.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58402

On 2014-04-08 16:55:51 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:

> Savageduck:
>> Also, if you use NR make that the first step in the workflow after any
>> clone/patch work, and finish whith whatever sharpening method you have
>> chosen (Smart Sharpen, or USM).
> 
> Another sharpening routine: Duplicate the background (layer that you
> want to sharpen). On the duplicate layer apply Filter > Other > High
> Pass. Use a radius of 1 pixel as a starting point. You will see a gray
> image with just a trace of the outline of your image. Close the filter
> dialog and set the blending mode of the duplicate layer to "Overlay."
> Toggle visibility of the duplicate layer to judge results.

High pass sharpening (HPS) can provide an element of *pop* to the final 
finish of an image and you can use any of three blending modes; 
Overlay, Soft Light, or Hard Light to reach the desired effect. The big 
caveat when using HPS is subtlety and less is more than adequate, and 
more can be disastrous.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_640.jpg >

When using the sharpening filters applied via an adjustment layer as 
part of the final process it is usually best to set the blending mode 
to *Luminosity*, that way any sharpening doesn't effect any prior 
color/hue/sat/contrast adjustments. Also, the sharpening algorithms in 
PS CS6 & CC have been considerably improved and using *Smart Sharpen" 
adds a another element of control, especially if you use *Smart Objects*

Then with CS6/CC you also have the option of applying very selective 
sharpening with ACR or the Camera RAW Filter, or use the same technique 
in LR5. This is where you can mask areas, such as large color fields, 
sky, deep shadows, etc. where you don't want or need sharpening, and 
allows you to apply a stronger effect where needed without worrying 
about noise and sharpening artifacts added where they become a problem.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_646.jpg >

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58368

In article <533e810a$0$7173$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> After retating a scanned slide, I need to fill in the sky. Using close
> tool to fill other areas works fine. But closing the sky fails because
> the close tool "pastes" a lighter version of the image.
> 
> (because this is scanned, there is grain into the scanned image that
> needs to be reproduced to create the same texture of the sky which is a
> gradient to make things worse.
> 
> Is this just some simple setting I am overlooking or is it a feature of
> Photoshop, unable to reproduce a 150 pixel diametre round section of sky
> without making it lighter ?

150 pixels is a bit excessive. That might be fine for quickly covering
a large area, but you would then need to go back and fine tune the
edges. It depends what you're trying to cover / repair, but I'd use a
much smaller size - I usually use around 20-30 pixels as the biggest
size and do tidy-up with under 10 pixels.

Sky may be blue, but unless you're working on a cartoon image, it's
never the same blue all over, and no matter how clever Photoshop thinks
it is or how good you think your eyesight is, telling the difference
between slightly different shades is difficult until you see it in
place. It may be better to simply copy-paste (with feathering) a
section of clear nearby sky so you can nudge it around until it looks
best. Masking out the problem area (again with feathering) so you don't
change too much of the existing sky may also give a better fix /
repair.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web