Posted by Marc Adamus on March 30, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Many people on NPN who have commented on my work over the past six months have remarked that certain images have a noticeable (yet very subtle) "glow" about them. A luminosity often associated more with painting than photography, if you will.
I am all for sharing my techniques and anything else in question regarding my photography in the better interest of the community at large.
I am writing to explain this technique, and likely confuse most of you who are much more adept at Photoshop than I.
First off, I believe a lot of images can benefit from increased luminosity, as I call it. When I'm after a certain dreamy, fantastical or even surreal look to my photographs, I add a bit of this effect. Also, when images are dominated by to many fine details, this effect can really help soften things up and make them more cohesive and palatable, especially for web viewing. It's not that I'm actually reducing visible details, but rather reducing edge contrasts. The detail is still there, it's just a bit more flat.
What I'm doing is my own variation of the familiar Orton effect. Let me start here by saying, I have no idea exactly what other people do to achieve this 'Orton' effect digitally (I only understand it as it relates to film photography). Like everything in Photoshop, I am entirely self taught and don't even make an effort to look up the techniques of others. I have never owned a book, taken a class, or read anything online about others techniques except by happenstance, so bear with me. I stumbled across this method while experimenting one day, because I was trying to figure out how to mimic the effects of my unpredictable (but useful when it works) in-camera condensation technique. I decided that since the condensation technique (fogging a lens two thirds of the way through an exposure in anything other than flat light) halos the highlights slightly and softens contrasts and details, I should start by adding a blurred layer over the top of the sharp layer at low opacity - the essence of the 'Orton' effect.
Applying the blur layer (20-40 pixel Gaussian blur for a 21mp image) over the top of the sharp image at 5-15% opacity, definitely flattens the detail and makes for a more dreamy look, but not quite what I wanted here. I want the Orton's emphasis on the highlights, and I want excellent contrast. Highlights seem to glow in my eye, especially when there's not a lot of them amidst an otherwise dark scene, and I want to show this off. I soon discovered that by increasing the contrast and overall exposure to extreme levels (I mean really, really, really cranking them up) in combination with this blur layer I can eliminate the flatness and increase luminosity. It's the luminosity part that is of particular importance to me, because I feel it's something perceptible but not easily captured. I apply the blur+brightness+contrast layer altogether at 5-15% over the base image and that's it. I usually don't apply it over an entire image, because it's the highlights and extreme detail areas that are more important IMO.
Anyway, I didn't go into any spectacular detail here because I know you'll just come up with your own variations of this, and no one needs to have a laugh at my relative lack of skill in PS. I just do what feels good to me.
Marc, thanks for sharing this! I've always wondered how you achieved this feel in your images. I appreciated learning your reasoning in developing this technique as much as how you actually achieved it. Your willingness to talk about what you do and why brings you up yet another notch in my book. Thanks for continuing to inspire and challenge all of us!
Marc, Thanks for the rough details of your "glow" workflow. I recently tried to figure it out myself, and came up with darn near the same recipe. I dupe a layer, blur it by +- 40px and set it to screen blending mode @ roughly 50% opacity. Then I go back and add a curves adjustment layer in between the sharp and blurry layers to kill the flatness you mentioned, as well as darken the image back down from the screen blending. I put layer masks on all of these to give myself total control over where the effect is visible, and group the whole stack, again with a layer mask for even finer control. I also like to add some serious sharpening to the "sharp" layer, but with a very small radius, and high amount. It really lets the small details pop through. Seems to be about the same thing you are doing, I think, and it looks incredible in print.
As for the condensation trick, I also have tried it - but with little success. One thing that I have found that works for me is to do it in "reverse". I use live view, and blow on the lens, fogging it up real good. Then I wait to trip the shutter until the fog looks just right in the live preview. Its much more predictable that way, and I don't end up with my noggin in the shot any more.
Just thought I'd add that to some already useful tidbits of info. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by Larry Gloth on March 30, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Thanks for the explanation. I like how you logically reasoned out the steps to achieving the look. Photoshop is great that way in that once you know the basics you can reason out many ways to achieve a goal, kind of like cooking. Your technique is subtle yet very effective.
Posted by Paul Wegemann on March 30, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Thanks for your willingness to share, Marc. Just another reason you're one of my favorite photographers.
Thanks for the info Marc. I will add, I also tried to figure out this glow, and have found a little trick I have been using here and there for a week or two. I have been using TK's luminosity masks to select highlights and duplicate from that. Then blur those. Just a little more control.
Posted by Phillip Noll on March 30, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Thanks for sharing, Marc! I'm anxious to give this a try.
I can't wait to see how many images have this technique used over in ESS! Very cool of ya to share, Marc. You're techniques you use have given you a distinct style for sure, and most guys wouldn't give these techniques up for free.
On a personal side note, just got a roll of film back!
Posted by Marc Adamus on March 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM
Congrats, Ryan. Glad to hear of your first film endeavors. I don't feel like this or any other technique makes my style what it is, or really all that much more distinctive. And maybe I don't want it to. Post processing in general has never had much impact on my ability to convey my experiences in nature to my viewer with photographs, so no point in hiding anything. Your style comes from within. There is no technique I can share that will allow anyone to take images like I do, and the like can be said for many other photographers out there, and all artists alike.
So, since Marc started this topic, I'll put my technique out there too, which is a little different, but achieves a similar effect, and is a little simpler I think. While looking at Marc's fairyland falls picture, where he used the condensation effect, I noted, as Marc has, that the glow created there is essentially a bleeding of the highlights. This creates a magical kind of luminosity, not unlike luminist painters or the HSR.
Enough introduction - here's the process - duplicate your image, apply a light Gaussian blur 10-40 pixels, and set the blend mode to lighten. This lets the highlights bleed out onto the rest of image, softening the edges, and creating a distinct glow.
As a side note: I've found that in creating web images it's easiest to apply this effect after downsizing (obviously using a smaller radius). That just makes it easier to make sure it ends up looking right with all the various sharpening that gets applied (using similar methods as Marc's technique).
I'll have to try out Marc's technique now and see how they differ
Posted by Edward Nunez on March 31, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Marc & Floris,
Thanks a lot for sharing with us some of your techniques. It is great to see what's behind some of the great images you post!
Thanks Marc and Floris for sharing this technique. Thanks for being so open regarding your "secrets" ! I have to try it and think it through, but so far it sound like some variation of the orton-effect but just applied to the highlights and with less blur...
Have to try this one some of my recent creations...
Thanks a lot for sharing. Is there a link to a specific image that might best demonstrate your technique. I would love to see a concrete example that illustrates the benefits.
Here's a link to a tutorial on how to achieve the Orton Effect using Adobe Elements but it should also convert easily to PS. Sounds similar, but haven't tried it yet--Larry
Appreciate you sharing this Marc (and Floris for that matter). I've been messing around with it for the last hour or so to see what sort of results I can get. Just wanted to note that using Marc's technique at ~20% opacity produces almost exactly the same effect as Floris' technique at ~40% opacity, with a little variation either way, of course, depending on the photo used.
Marc, I think it's cool that you share your technique here, and this underscores the importance of every individual photographer using whatever methods they want to produce the final result they envision for each image.
Some good info re: layer blending modes in this thread, too.
You can also achieve similar kinds of effects in Lightroom, using negative clarity values and various combinations of fill light and contrast.
Thanks for starting this thread. I thought that is what you were doing. Funny as I use a very similar technique on most of my photos. 4x5 tends to have so much detail that it almost makes the image feel to 'hard' if that makes sense.
What I do is after doing what is necessary as far as tone, contrast and color balance, dodging and burning is to dupliacate all the layers and then merge them together. I then apply image screening to that layer at 100%, this makes the image very bright almost as if it was overexposed. I apply a gaussian blur to taste so that the bright areas bleed into the dark areas. I then change the layer's application from nomal to multiply and set the opacity to taste. This softens the image, creates rich color without over saturating and increased overall contrast. I will usually need to go back and mask out some of the shadowed areas as they tend to get a little dark.
In my opinion, PS shouldn't be used more than to bring the image to the real scene. I use it primarily to fix color cast, delete black spot, etc. I saw many images here in NPN suffer from too much saturation, or unrealistic contrast and all of these things will ruin Photography more than helping it, nature photography (again in my opinion) is all about showing the actual beauty of our natural world. Our natural world is so beautiful by itself..as is.
I am not saying this to downgrade any body's work but to share my opinion. Marc's images will still inspire me and I am sure he is a master with/without PS.
Discussion
18 repliesI am all for sharing my techniques and anything else in question regarding my photography in the better interest of the community at large.
I am writing to explain this technique, and likely confuse most of you who are much more adept at Photoshop than I.
First off, I believe a lot of images can benefit from increased luminosity, as I call it. When I'm after a certain dreamy, fantastical or even surreal look to my photographs, I add a bit of this effect. Also, when images are dominated by to many fine details, this effect can really help soften things up and make them more cohesive and palatable, especially for web viewing. It's not that I'm actually reducing visible details, but rather reducing edge contrasts. The detail is still there, it's just a bit more flat.
What I'm doing is my own variation of the familiar Orton effect. Let me start here by saying, I have no idea exactly what other people do to achieve this 'Orton' effect digitally (I only understand it as it relates to film photography). Like everything in Photoshop, I am entirely self taught and don't even make an effort to look up the techniques of others. I have never owned a book, taken a class, or read anything online about others techniques except by happenstance, so bear with me. I stumbled across this method while experimenting one day, because I was trying to figure out how to mimic the effects of my unpredictable (but useful when it works) in-camera condensation technique. I decided that since the condensation technique (fogging a lens two thirds of the way through an exposure in anything other than flat light) halos the highlights slightly and softens contrasts and details, I should start by adding a blurred layer over the top of the sharp layer at low opacity - the essence of the 'Orton' effect.
Applying the blur layer (20-40 pixel Gaussian blur for a 21mp image) over the top of the sharp image at 5-15% opacity, definitely flattens the detail and makes for a more dreamy look, but not quite what I wanted here. I want the Orton's emphasis on the highlights, and I want excellent contrast. Highlights seem to glow in my eye, especially when there's not a lot of them amidst an otherwise dark scene, and I want to show this off. I soon discovered that by increasing the contrast and overall exposure to extreme levels (I mean really, really, really cranking them up) in combination with this blur layer I can eliminate the flatness and increase luminosity. It's the luminosity part that is of particular importance to me, because I feel it's something perceptible but not easily captured. I apply the blur+brightness+contrast layer altogether at 5-15% over the base image and that's it. I usually don't apply it over an entire image, because it's the highlights and extreme detail areas that are more important IMO.
Anyway, I didn't go into any spectacular detail here because I know you'll just come up with your own variations of this, and no one needs to have a laugh at my relative lack of skill in PS. I just do what feels good to me.
As for the condensation trick, I also have tried it - but with little success. One thing that I have found that works for me is to do it in "reverse". I use live view, and blow on the lens, fogging it up real good. Then I wait to trip the shutter until the fog looks just right in the live preview. Its much more predictable that way, and I don't end up with my noggin in the shot any more.
Just thought I'd add that to some already useful tidbits of info. Thanks for sharing.
On a personal side note, just got a roll of film back!
Enough introduction - here's the process - duplicate your image, apply a light Gaussian blur 10-40 pixels, and set the blend mode to lighten. This lets the highlights bleed out onto the rest of image, softening the edges, and creating a distinct glow.
As a side note: I've found that in creating web images it's easiest to apply this effect after downsizing (obviously using a smaller radius). That just makes it easier to make sure it ends up looking right with all the various sharpening that gets applied (using similar methods as Marc's technique).
I'll have to try out Marc's technique now and see how they differ
Thanks a lot for sharing with us some of your techniques. It is great to see what's behind some of the great images you post!
Have to try this one some of my recent creations...
Thanks a lot for sharing. Is there a link to a specific image that might best demonstrate your technique. I would love to see a concrete example that illustrates the benefits.
Thanks,
Mike Schlansker
http://pcin.net/update/2006/11/01/the-orton-effect-digital-photography-tip-of-the-week/
Some good info re: layer blending modes in this thread, too.
You can also achieve similar kinds of effects in Lightroom, using negative clarity values and various combinations of fill light and contrast.
Fun stuff!
Thanks for starting this thread. I thought that is what you were doing. Funny as I use a very similar technique on most of my photos. 4x5 tends to have so much detail that it almost makes the image feel to 'hard' if that makes sense.
What I do is after doing what is necessary as far as tone, contrast and color balance, dodging and burning is to dupliacate all the layers and then merge them together. I then apply image screening to that layer at 100%, this makes the image very bright almost as if it was overexposed. I apply a gaussian blur to taste so that the bright areas bleed into the dark areas. I then change the layer's application from nomal to multiply and set the opacity to taste. This softens the image, creates rich color without over saturating and increased overall contrast. I will usually need to go back and mask out some of the shadowed areas as they tend to get a little dark.
I am not saying this to downgrade any body's work but to share my opinion. Marc's images will still inspire me and I am sure he is a master with/without PS.