This article is for dummies. In it, the frequency decomposition method is described in as much detail and detail as possible and an attempt is made to answer basic questions about this. In addition, chips and life hacks are inserted into the article, not only for retouching photos in Photoshop, but also for working with the program in general.
Introduction
Frequency decomposition in Photoshop raises many questions. And if two years ago there was little information about this, now there are answers on the Web, of course, but all of them are fragmentary and not always clear. It is because of this that it’s difficult for beginners to figure out the frequency decomposition in Photoshop.
. , "" . - , .
?
- . , , . , (), , , .
"" , , , .
, . : , - , , .
"" , . , , - .
?
. , , . .
"" . ", ". , . - , .
?
Of course, there is no “use only for portraits” taboo for this technique. And although on this, and on a number of other articles on the Internet, you might think that it is for them that it is most effective, it is not. Portraits make up the lion's share of the photo market, and their retouching always comes first, but the frequency decomposition is universal and perfect for any shots where there is a need to edit parts separately from each other.How many frequencies to lay out?
There are two types of frequency decomposition in Photoshop:
- The leather is laid out in two frequencies - tone and details. On the first layer, the skin is smoothed, on the second, defects (wrinkles, pimples, etc.) are removed.
- Decomposition is carried out at three frequencies - high, medium and low. We consider in more detail below.
The first steps
, , "" - . , - .
""
, , - .
. , . "" - .
: "" "", "" "".
"" : "" " ".
7 10 ( , . 15). - . - , - .
. . "", " ". "" High Pass. (Flter) - (Other). "" , , , .
" " , " ". - "" 12, "" 12 . - .
"" " " " ". - . : " " "".
- . , . ( ). .
! , , .
, . " CS6" .
"" " " " " ( ), "" ( , "") .
" ". .
! " " , "" , "". , .
"" , . , - , .
, , . , - , , - . , "" "" - , .
, . .
, . .
! . Ctrl+J. "", . , , , , - .
. , , - , .
. ""(High), ""(Middle) ""(Low). , , . , , - .
, "".
"" " ". , 30. - , .
"" " ". " " " ".
: . 30-10, , , 12,7, - .
"" () . " " "" ( , 30), "" (10).
. , .
?
"" . . , (Alt+ ), , .
"", . - , .
, , "" . , :
- - , . - . .
- - , "" .
- - , .
, , - . "", , . - , , , .
, .
"" ( "", "" , , ) , . ( , - ), . "".
(action - , ) - ANT, "". -. ""-"".
- "", . , .
-, - , , , . , . .
, , , - , - . , , , " ", .
, - . , , . , , . , - , . , "".
In conclusion, it is also worth saying that owning a frequency decomposition will not make anyone a brilliant retoucher. Like any tool, it has power only in experienced hands. So, you need to see the final result even before the first step is taken, notice the little things and only then choose with which tool it is best to fix them.