applying a mask up to the horizon line?

[vinny]

I'm attempting to change the density (using curves)77695 of this underexposed piece of film. (8bit,500+mb file, in cs4) I'd like to make adjustments to the top and bottom portions of the image independently. If I use the box tool with a feather of 15-25 pixels, I get some evidence of the correction (lighter sky) when adjusting the bottom half. Also, the horizon isn't perfectly flat due to lens distortion (i guess) and some tiny distant islands on the right so there's that to deal with. What's the easiest way to go about it? All that said, I'm pretty much a 3rd grade* level photoshop user so please keep any suggestions as simple as possible.






*third graders are probably more knowledgeable than myself, actually.

[retnull]

Learning to make arbitrary selections in PS is a very useful skill to have. The magic wand tool could be used here....here's the first tutorial that popped up on Google: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9zJts240Vk

Once your selection is made, you can do levels or curves on just that region. Then you can invert your selection to work on everything else.

[Lenny Eiger]

There are a number of ways to make masks. Selecting with a tool like the lasso, for example, is the least effective. The issue is the smoothness of the transition between the masked area and the area that is being curved, or adjusted in some other way. Feathering can help, but it isn't great....

The essential tool for this is the Wacom tablet. This allows you to paint the selection, and is controllable in ways you can't imagine until you have one.

There are three main ways to do this:

1) Start with a lasso, or box tool selection (I think its actually called a marquis). Paint over every edge to smooth it out. If you are dealing with buildings they are straight, but horizons rarely are.

2) Select by Color Range. Choose the background layer, then choose select by color range and click on the color (or tone, if in b&w) you want to highlight. Move the slider until you get closest to what you want... then get the rest of the way with the pen tool.

3) Channel masking. You can copy any channel you want and turn it in to a mask. This is very useful when you have an area that is best outlined by the computer, where a brush would take 10 hours to select and you want it to be accurate. (Color Range does this as well.) You can look individually in the R, G and B channels, or even flip into other color modes and select the Y channel if you want, and see which one best outlines what you are looking for. Then finish off with the brush.

The luminosity masks that get talked about often are simply done by selecting the whole thing RGB e.g., and making it into a mask. You can use the curves to adjust it to cover only the shadows or highlights, etc. just by making it darker, lighter, etc. It's too easy.


Masks are made by selecting some portion of the image, then adding a new adjustment layer. The selection has three modes, the marching ants, the quick mask and what I call the black and white mode. In both the quick mask and the black and white mode, you can paint right on to the mask you have made. Painting on it selects more it it, or deletes the selection. The Quick mask is usually set to be translucent so that you can paint over it while you are looking at the image.

(One difference that throws some folks is that the black and white applies your change directly, while in the Quick mask, you have choose the adjustment layer and save the selection over itself to replace it. )


With a table, painting the detailed part becomes artful. One often starts with a small brush, then one backs off the edge and goes to a larger brush and sprays a subtle amount to smooth it...

The real fun comes when you add and subtract masks from each other. It's always best to control parts of an image with one layer, rather than having one layer that makes it lighter, then another one darker, etc. I often start out with a main curve with no masking, and then I drop a portion of it out if I want to control it separately. In your case, I would select the sky, then invert it and make a new layer so that the top and bottom were controlled on different layers. That way, as I make micro adjustments, I can do it only in one place, rather than having to correct multiple layers to change one thing. With a mountain in the background that isn't sharply focussed, the partial selections can be a quite difficult...

I didn't have much sleep last night, daughter went on a trip to airport very early, so I hope this makes some sense....

Lenny

[Henry Ambrose]

Use the lasso tool at 100 or 200% view to refine your selection as shown, save the selection, then copy it to another layer. Go back to the base layer and use your saved selection to select the same area again, then inverse that to select the balance of the image and save that to a new layer. You now have 3 layers; base, ground, sky. Do a save as so you can come back here if you mess up. Work on them independently as you wish then do a manual feathering to the areas of intersection with the eraser tool turned down low. Experiment with opacity of the layers to get a blend that looks just right. That's the brute force method.

[adam satushek]

I think Lenny is right on about the Wacom tablet. I didn't really understand thier benefits until I started masking.

I guess I use masking in a pretty reudimentary way compared to what Lenny describes, but it is still very powerful.

Basically, I usually start by creating a new Curves adjustment layer, and use this for global contrast and color adjustment. Often times there is an area that is too light, like a sky. I will then select the mask layer that is automatically created next to the original adjustment layer and use the brush tool with black foreground selected to paint out the area you don't want affected by that curve layer. The X hotkey is nice as it allows you change between painting white/black very easily. The key to this is big soft brushes and the presure sensitivity of a Wacom. It take some practice to know how large or soft of a brush will give you the feathering you need, but I find this much easier than feathering lasso selections. If I need to darken/lighten the area more I just make another Curve adjustment layer mask off the portion I dont want to affect and make the adjustment.

It takes some getting used to but I am able to use the brush tool in combination with curves to do pretty much everything I need to do in Photoshop.

[Peter De Smidt]

I would use the pen tool. It takes a bit to learn, but it is very useful. You can then refine the selection, if feathering (or similar) is needed. I usually only feather a few pixels at most. 15-25 is a huge amount.

I don't like using Wacom tablets. (I've had a 6x9" Intuous3 for years.)

[Lenny Eiger]

I would use the pen tool. It takes a bit to learn, but it is very useful. You can then refine the selection, if feathering (or similar) is needed. I usually only feather a few pixels at most. 15-25 is a huge amount.
I don't like using Wacom tablets. (I've had a 6x9" Intuous3 for years.)

Peter,
Come on over, I'll give you the advanced lesson in how to use that thing. I think you'd be amazed at how it improves the workflow..

I have a 6x11 one. I was initially quite skeptical about them, I even asked someone at a MacWorld Expo, at the Wacom booth how to use one (for something other than retouching) and they couldn't tell me. Ultimately, I found someone who was a real pro, worked for George Lucas at Industrial Light and Magic (where they take this stuff very seriously), and he showed me the ropes. It's a good thing because I had a hundred hours of removing backgrounds to do, I had already done it with the hard-edged tools and feathering the images all looked like paper cutouts.

I would say the pen tool is ok, but its the same as selecting with the lasso, the marquis, the magic wand or any other "hard edge" tool. When you talk to the pros, they can all use those tools where appropriate, but no one I have ever known would suggest them for completing a mask. There are all sorts of tricks, every damn book has something about "just do this" for one thing or another. These things are no substitute for the long way around.

Lenny

[Peter De Smidt]

Never mind. My future policy will be to not post in a thread that Lenny posts in. He always wants everything to be a contest, and I'm tired of it.

[vinny]

ok, before this goes any further (and I get more confused), I don't own a tablet and won't be purchasing one in the near future. I used one briefly and didn't like it that much. I'll try the suggestions that apply to me. thanks

[Lenny Eiger]

Except that with a pen tool you can make very intricate curves and the points on the path can be adjusted whenever you like. It's terrific for hard (or semi-hard) edges. Isn't that what we have here?

Honestly, I don't actually think so in this case. We aren't actually looking at the file, its true, so we can't really know. However, my thought is that there are certain types of edges where a pen tool is useful. Generally, they would be harder edges, like a building.... When I have worked on images from the natural world (its most of what I do), and looked closely, these kinds of lines tend to have a million little ups and downs in them. Enough feathering would simply straddle the line, and trying to paint the whole thing isn't useful either - it might take forever, up at 200-300%. I think a mask made with select by color range, or a channel mask could get most of it - or at least half of it. I would get one half with one selection, then get the other half, then combine the masks to get 80-90% of what I want. Then I would take out the brush and do my best on the rest.

Lenny

[cabbiinc]

You could use a gradient on the mask rather than a defined line. As the horizon stretches away from the viewer the color and clarity changes naturally anyways, why not just expand on that.

[buggz]

Hmm, I did not get this from reading all the posts.
Bad day, or something?


Never mind. My future policy will be to not post in a thread that Lenny posts in. He always wants everything to be a contest, and I'm tired of it.

[Lenny Eiger]

Never mind. My future policy will be to not post in a thread that Lenny posts in. He always wants everything to be a contest, and I'm tired of it.

Peter,
It's true that I did not imagine (at least initially) you had this experience. However, it's not a contest. I just disagreed with you. I hope you notice in the second post I made that I explained my reasons without any thought of more or less experience. If there was any annoyance, it was writing a long piece about how to do this "correctly", from a pro's perspective, then having people say things like just use the magic wand, which I think is ridiculous. I chose to respond to you because you were there and I didn't want to start going off on other people.

If one can actually use a pen tool well, it can be very useful. I do this every day, its not my favorite tool, but I have spent a lot of time with it. I still think I could enhance your like of the tablet. But maybe not. I do believe we can always learn things from each other. And I'm sorry if I pissed you off...

I think forums are difficult in that one rarely knows the experience of the person who's speaking. They could be experienced professionals or rank beginners, and everything in between.

Lenny

[Peter De Smidt]

Imo, when someone asks for advice, one should simply state what they would do and why. If someone else posts a different technique, one you don't like for some reason, then it behooves you to be careful. You could let the poster find out which way they prefer by actually trying the various techniques, especially with Photoshop, as there is usually a huge number of ways to accomplish something. Or you could decide to criticize someone else's suggestion. If so, though, it pays to simply state the pluses and minuses of the various approaches, since if your not careful, the thread will become an off-topic pissing match which benefits no one. This is especially the case when you know that the other person is an imaging professional.

For instance, Lenny likes his Wacom. That's great, and I know a lot of pros who love theirs. I too am a professional (as Lenny knows) and have worked in commercial post-production studios on work for clients such as Kohler, Gulfstream, Kohls, Harley-Davidson.... Yes, I even work with a fellow that Industrial Light and Magic uses as a digital imaging consultant. I've used a Wacom tablet for years, including with custom brushes, touch sensitivity.... My Wacom died about a year ago, and I find that I prefer working with a mouse. I certainly do so for such a simple task as making a basic mask. As such, my opinion about a using a Wacom is an informed one, but it's not one that I insist that Lenny share, nor is their any need for me to imply that Lenny doesn't really know how to use a mouse. I expect that he does. In any case you do not need to buy an expensive Wacom tablet to make a simple mask, as I'm sure Lenny will agree with.

Name-dropping, though, does nothing good. First, it doesn't follow that the person with the best resume is always right, as people with the most impressive credentials sometimes make poor suggestions. Everyone makes mistakes. Second, when there are many ways to accomplish something, the matter often resolves into nothing more than preference. Third, it's an unnecessary appeal to authority, one which most people will not be in a position to make a great judgment on. I mentioned a way that many newbies don't know about, and it's one that is very useful to know. In the post-production departments that I've worked in, it's the one that's used the most. Is it the only way or the best way in every circumstance? No!

Basically I object to the 'If you only knew what you were doing, then you would agree with me!' attitude.

Lenny did write a much more thorough response than I did. I was in a hurry and only trying to be helpful.


I appreciate Lenny's latest post.

[bob carnie]

First thing I did when looking at this image was open up the color range and tried to separate the horizon line.. not so simple as there was not a clear separation I was looking for.


I have enough PS work right now that my business partner would kill me if he saw me working on Vinnys file.

this one is tough because of the clearly defined line, probably a combinations of a few apporaches would be workable... I think the gradient tool along with colour range and even some channel blending would be some of the options..

Possibly a monster high radius sharpening to create a division line and then paint out either top or bottom to make mask.

or the Blend if Tool would most certainly work in this situation...

Vinny try a bunch of things and you will certainly get there..

I do not use a Wacom Tablet, but prefer the mouse... we all come at this differently.

[Brian Ellis]

First, I'd suggest forgetting the pen tool for now. Peter is right, it's a handy tool but it isn't easy to use and you said you're at a third grade level. I'd also forget the Wacom tablet at least for now. I have one, it's nice but nowhere close to necessary for what you want to do. An easy and effective way to do what you want to do without having to make a selection and deal with selection lines, feathering, etc. is as follows:

Make a duplicate of the Background layer (Ctrl/J) so you don't lose your original image (or just make a duplicate of your original and then work on the dupe). After doing this you'll have two layers, your Background layer and the duplicate layer which will be labelled "Layer 1." That layer will be colored blue and will be the active layer on which you'll work.

With Layer 1 active adjust the sky to make it look like you want it to look without worrying about or paying any attention to what that's doing to the water. You could adjust the sky using a curves adjustment layer, a levels adjustment layer or any number of different ways to adjust contrast, tone, and saturation in Photoshop. I'll assume for now that you used a Curves adjustment layer. That will add a third layer with a white box (the mask) in it.

You'll now have the sky the way you want it. The water will probably look awful but don't worry about it for now. Invert the mask by clicking on the word Channels in the Layer/Channels panel and then clicking on the word "Invert" in that same panel. This will change the mask from white to black. Your image will now revert to the way it looked before you adjusted the sky.

Now click on the brush tool in the tool box, make sure the opacity is set to 100% (at the top of the screen opposite the word "Opacity") and that your brush is soft. Paint over the sky to bring back the adjustments you made with curves, levels, or whatever other way you made the sky look like you wanted it to look. You don't need to make a selection, just don't paint below the horizon line. You also probably don't need to paint right up to the horizon line, you probably can leave a little of the original sky between the horizon and the portions of the sky you changed.

You'll now have an image with the sky the way you want it and the water foreground as it was in the original image. To change the foreground first flatten the image (just to keep things simple, as you advance in Photoshop you'll probably want to keep all your adjustment layers) by clicking on the word Layer at the top of your screen, scroll down to "Flatten Image," and click on it). Now work on the foreground water without worrying about what that's doing to the sky. When you have it the way you want it just repeat the above steps (i.e. add an inverted layer mask etc.).

There are literally 10, 15, probably more ways to change one part of an image in Photoshop independently from other parts. But I like this way for your image because it eliminates the need to make a selection and then deal with adjusting the edges of the selection and removing the selection lines.

I use inverted layer masks and adjustments with almost every photograph I edit in Photoshop so it's become second nature to me. If I've left out any steps or if you aren't clear on anything send me a PM and I'll explain further. But using inverted layer masks is one of the easiest and most effective ways I know of to alter one portion of an image without changing other portions. So if you learn to do it with this image you'll have something you can use constantly in the future.

[vinny]

Thanks brian.
I took a one on one all day photoshop workshop last year but it was right before we had our second child and moved across the country. In short, I didn't get the chance to practice ANY of what I learned. I have been doing basic adjustments with layers but nothing very complicated and your step by step approach is clearer to me than much of the other's who've forgot I'm an idiot. What I don't like about photoshop is the "15 ways" to to everything. In the darkroom where I do my b+w work, it's more nuts n bolts and maybe two ways is enough.

[bob carnie]

Vinny , thats exactly what's so great about PS , its huge... I am going on a 4 day Bootcamp on Cs6 next month in Atlanta, I hope to learn a lot I forgot and all the things I did not think were important when I started this learning curve.

Brian describes a pretty good workflow.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks brian.
I took a one on one all day photoshop workshop last year but it was right before we had our second child and moved across the country. In short, I didn't get the chance to practice ANY of what I learned. I have been doing basic adjustments with layers but nothing very complicated and your step by step approach is clearer to me than much of the other's who've forgot I'm an idiot. What I don't like about photoshop is the "15 ways" to to everything. In the darkroom where I do my b+w work, it's more nuts n bolts and maybe two ways is enough.

Thanks Vinny. I agree about the "15 ways to do everything" aspect of Photoshop. It's really nice to have all those options if and when one becomes a Photoshop expert but it can drive you crazy at first. I remember taking Photoshop workshops where the instructor would go on at length about how do something I wanted to do. I'd frantically take detailed notes, get it all down on paper, and then the instructor would say "but a better way to do it is . . . . " For me, and perhaps for you, I just wanted to learn one good way to do something and figured I'd worry about "fastest," "easiest," "best" later.

[Peter De Smidt]

Make sure that when you make apply the correction you check the transition area at 100% view or greater. You want to catch any mistakes in your mask or selection early on. One thing that helps is to make your tonal adjustment a little more extreme than you need. That'll make problem areas easier to see. You can then either adjust the curve or lower the opacity of that layer in the layer's panel.

[Lenny Eiger]

I wouldn't suggest duplicating the background layer. Not to create a mask like this... This is a very old technique that was popular before they had layers, before CS, and its the reason they have layers to begin with. It also can be problematic when you work with large files. I would say that its much better to learn how to work with layers, they are very efficient.

I would also not suggest flattening anything unless you had to. I have heard George DeWolfe state that you should make changes right on the image, be a man, or some such nonsense, and with all due respect to George (he can print very well) I would never do this. Certainly not for a client.

I know there are people who are going to get good results by doings things differently than I do. However, for my part, I can't imagine doing this kind of work without a tablet and brush. It takes literally half the time it would to spot things, and the ability to work with the selections via painting them is tremendous...

When I first got trained I didn't have a tablet and the trainer wouldn't come back to my office until I got one... There's a lot of things in Photoshop that can be done many ways. The program is deep. However, usually 12 out of 15 of the ways to do something are cumbersome. IMO it's best to learn the tools the pros use and make them your own. For example it took me a long time to get the curves dialog down, but I knew I had to. I use curves now 85-90% of the time. I don't ever use Levels, just took it out of the toolbox... It takes long time to learn adjustment layers well enough to understand most of what they can do. Adding and subtracting them is magic. Blending modes, well that's a whole 'nother world.

Lenny

[Jim Noel]

"What's the easiest way to go about it?"
In the darkroom with lith film.

[Brian Ellis]

"What's the easiest way to go about it?"
In the darkroom with lith film.

Thanks Jim, we can always count on you to jump into a Photoshop discussion with an irrelevant and useless (not to mention incorrect in this instance) response that something can be done better, easier, faster, whatever in a darkroom.

[RichardSperry]

XRes by Macromedia allowed easy painting and editing of mask marquee, in 1993.

And Adobe bought Macromedia, so there's really no excuse that it's not on PS now.

Lightroom's mask painting is what I would use, vinny, for editing that pic. Fix the horizontal distortion first would be my plan. I would clone out the islands if they don't add to the photo, especially if they are in the way.

I don't know why you would want to spend "10 hours" just getting the mask right for such a photo. I would take that time to just go take it again the right way.

[RichardSperry]

"What's the easiest way to go about it?"
In the darkroom with lith film.

Lightroom would take much less time than the Darkroom.

The selective curves sliders(I don't know what they are called but that's what they do) would make quick work of doing just about anything that vinny wants done to this pic, without masking.

[vinny]

Fix the horizontal distortion first would be my plan. I would clone out the islands if they don't add to the photo, especially if they are in the way.

I don't know why you would want to spend "10 hours" just getting the mask right for such a photo. I would take that time to just go take it again the right way.
No. I'm not into cloning out islands. Local purchasers are smarter than that and I've got more guts than that. Hell, Why not just create the entire image in photoshop and stay home?
Lightroom? No, unless you're sending me a free copy and a bikini-clad instructor.

[RichardSperry]

Best I can do is get you the free Lightroom.

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom

You'll have to get the instructor yourself. LR is very intuitive, I would bet you the learning curve AND your edits are under 30 minutes, even if you know PS at third grade level.

[Peter De Smidt]

Vinny, you might want to add "good looking" to your requirements. :)

[Brian Ellis]

Lightroom would take much less time than the Darkroom.

The selective curves sliders(I don't know what they are called but that's what they do) would make quick work of doing just about anything that vinny wants done to this pic, without masking.

The reason for suggesting a mask is that as I understand the question, Vinny wants to change both the sky and foreground but presumably not making the same changes to both. Using a mask, which is automatically created when a curves, levels, etc. adjustment layer is opened, and inverting it (which takes one click) is a quick, easy way to make different changes to different areas of the image. I don't know what "selective curves sliders" are so I can't compare the two methods but if you want to explain that method maybe he'd prefer to use it.