Does anybody know how to generate this effect?

[silvestrerojas]

Does anybody know

Hi Everyone

 

[ALB68]

That's a Topaz filter or one similar.

Post the original image and we can help u better.

I did this one a while back from a post on here.

 

[Tom Mann]

Scroll down to the last post (ie, #29) in this thread:
http://www.photoshopgurus.com/forum/photoshop-newbies/43915-any-help-effect.html

Is that what you are looking for?

Tom M

 

[dv8_fx]

Thanks for the reply!

I was able to produce an image similar to the one you posted, which was why I was trying to figure out how to make it sharper and with more detail and "gloss".

Could you tell me what type of topaz filter you used? I've tried everything in photoshop, but I can't get that clear and glossy, almost cartoonish effect

Also, I posted antoher example and the original image for your reference. Thanks so much for your help

In a way, you're almost there.... Use the pentool to select and delete the background. This will help focus your eyes on the subject making edits clearer with out the background clutter.

You may have to try the smudge tool or add a couple of layer duplicates set at different modes and lowered opacity..

 

[ALB68]

I am pretty sure it is the one called CLEAN. Been a while back and I don't keep very good records. Edit: Yep, CLEAN/CURLY SMOOTH. May have done something else but I started there.

Thanks for the reply!Edit: Here is your original with Topaz Clean Curly Smooth.


I was able to produce an image similar to the one you posted, which was why I was trying to figure out how to make it sharper and with more detail and "gloss". Could you tell me what type of topaz filter you used? I've tried everything in photoshop, but I can't get that clear and glossy, almost cartoonish effectAlso, I posted antoher example and the original image for your reference. Thanks so much for your help

 

[silvestrerojas]

Thank you guys all so much for the help!

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi Silvestre - I received your PM about getting a copy of the Topaz Adjust preset that I used in that previous thread on this topic.

Unfortunately, that thread was from several months ago, and in the interim, I discarded a whole bunch of psd and related files containing responses to forum threads because I didn't think I would ever use them again. That preset was thrown out in the process, so unfortunately, I can't send it to you.

That being said, here's what I remember about obtaining the final level of sheen / gloss as seen in my last image of that thread:

1. I did precisely what dv8_fx recommended in this thread: I muted the background. I selectively desaturated it; I greatly reduced it's contrast; I darkened it; and, I masked it against any effect from the Topaz Adjust plugin.

2. I used two or three lighter applications of Topaz Adjust instead of trying to get the entire effect in one heavy application of it. I also used very different settings for the "regions" setting in each application of Topaz Adjust so that the end result was more organic and less algorithmic looking. The 1st application used about 50 regions, whereas for the 2nd application, I probably used about 25 regions. I can't remember if I needed a 3rd application or not.

3. As I recall, at some point, I used reversed positions of the blendIF sliders to target the tonal extremes with less effect being applied to the mid tones.

4. As I recall, my final step was to use a few conventional adjustment layers (eg, curves, hue/sat, etc.) masked to operate only on the subjects to dial in the exact look that I wanted.

5. I am absolutely sure that I did not use any other Topaz plugin to obtain the look -- certainly not "Clean" which results in artificial-looking curly edges that have nothing to do with the desired smooth but enhanced depth, contours and shine of the skin.

HTH,

Tom M

PS - For reference, here is the final look I obtained in the previous thread using the above techniques.

 

[Tom Mann]

PS - One other comment: Select your starting image carefully. You want a very simple image, just one or two individuals, not a whole crowd. The more subjects, the less impressive the effect - it becomes diluted and seems almost normal when applied to a group of people.

T

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi. Thank you for your email, however, since this is an educational forum, I try to answer as many questions as possible in the public forum rather than via private messages.

To answer your questions, I did not run the image through HDR or any process ahead of using Topaz adjust. Nor did I use any of the finishing touches or anything but the general global adjustments. However, throughout the entire process, I did make many individual area adjustments using standard native Photoshop tools such as levels and curves to bring things into appropriate tonal & color relationships with each other. One example would be the separate adjustment of the background that I described in a previous post. Another example would be getting the second player to be slightly less bold than the main subject. Another example would be a saturation adjustment on the Jersey of the main player to prevent it from blowing out the red channel.

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi Silvestre - I'm glad my advice was of some use.

With respect to the pixelation problem you mentioned, there are many different image artifacts that might be called pixelation.

Why don't you post a 1:1 crop of a small section of one of your images that shows this effect and I'll take a look.

Cheers,

Tom

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi Silvestre -

I see what you mean. Unfortunately, without looking at every single step you took in the production of the bottom image, it is impossible for me to tell exactly where the problem occurred. If I had to guess, it would be that some length scale (eg, number of regions in Topaz Adjust, the radius in a USM step, resolution of the starting image, etc.) was incorrect, but that's just a wild guess.

If you re-trace your steps yourself, you may be able to detect the first onset of the problem.

Sorry that I can't say anything more definitive. Why don't you post a link to the original, high resolution starting image that you used.

Sincerely,

Tom

 

[silvestrerojas]

I forgot to include the original image, which is here: http://www.theprovince.com/cms/binary/8373102.jpg

 

[silvestrerojas]

Here is the original photo, if anybody can provide any advice

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi Silvestre -

Thanks, I think, for posting the original of that image.

I tried to reproduce their tweaked version. To summarize my experience, it was a royal pain in the you-know-what. ;-).

As you discovered, there was just enough noise in the original that you posted to present a major challenge. To get the desired exaggerated tonalities without overly emphasizing the noise I had to go back and forth several times between general noise reduction (using Neat Image) and sharpening carefully tweaking the balance between the two.

In addition, there was enough popcorn noise (ie, isolated very bright and very dark pixels) to also be a significant annoyance. Those pixels were particularly problematic around edges and had to be dealt with on an almost one-by-one basis (mostly using the Dust and Scratches filter, masked, and in darken mode).

I wound up using 4 light (~ 30%) passes through Topaz Adjust, using the blendIF sliders on each pass so as not to exaggerate the effects in the extreme bright and dark areas. I stopped at 4 (and used the techniques mentioned above, eg, a larger number of low opacity treatments, blendIF, etc.) because I really didn't want to make mine quite as "shiny" and artificial as their version.

To get a reasonably close match with the colors, I had to conclude with a hue/sat adjustment layer to move the yellow skin hues towards the red, but I decided not to go as far to the red, nor as saturated as they did.

I suspect that the folks who processed that image probably had access to the full bit depth RAW file instead the 8 bpc JPG that we were working with. This would have made their task significantly easier and yielded a higher quality final product.


HTH,

Tom

 

[Tom Mann]

PS - One other annoyance in the PP of this image was that there were sharpening halos and JPG compression artifacts in the "original" image (ie, the one that you recently posted).

Unfortunately, when you intentionally exaggerate local tonality differences to get the desired "rippling muscles / shiny skin" effect, these artifacts can become terribly exaggerated. They are very apparent in their tweaked version (eg, the halos parallel to the edges of his headband, and his right (photo left) shoulder), and I did not want the same thing to happen to my version, so I spent a substantial amount of time playing with masks to exclude them from Topaz Adjust and the other adjustments.

In my version, they are present at about the same level they are in the original, but at least they weren't greatly magnified.

T

 

[Tom Mann]

PPS - Another reason I think the "Beyond The Buzzer" people worked from a high bit depth raw file is that even after the huge increase in local contrast to get the desired effect, there is little hint of posterization in the gradations of skin tones in their tweaked version.

Contrast this to my image where posterization (blocky color and tonal variation) is clearly visible in the subject's left (photo right) arm.

T

 

[Paul]

This was ALL done with photoshop, not exactly as Topaz gets it, but if i did some more work i could get a little closer maybe.
Anisotropic adjustments and varying colour adjusted layer and lighting only.

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi Tom, once again, thanks for the help. Because I'm a little new to Topaz, could you explain the following paragraph and where you found those functions on topaz? "...wound up using 4 light (~ 30%) passes through Topaz Adjust, using the blendIF sliders on each pass so as not to exaggerate the effects in the extreme bright and dark areas. I stopped at 4 (and used the techniques mentioned above, eg, a larger number of low opacity treatments, blendIF, etc.) because I really didn't want to make mine quite as "shiny" and artificial as their version." Also, do you think they might have also used Topaz Clarity? Thanks again!

Hi Silvestre - I don't want to seem like I'm brushing you off and don't want to help you, but you obviously have a very, very good eye, and have made much progress in working this effect. However, this is a *very* difficult and complicated processing effect, and you are trying to bring it to a high level of perfection. To reach this standard, you really need to be quite proficient and experienced in Photoshop. For example, with more familiarity with PS, you would have immediately known that the blendIF sliders are not within Topaz, but are among the many PS layer blending options.

In fact, in the previous thread on this topic, I similarly warned the previous fellow:

...That being said, I should caution you that using plugins like this is never a simple matter of clicking an Instagram-like preset button. To use such plugins effectively, you need to be proficient at standard Photoshop techniques such as quickly selecting a part of the image (eg, just the skin, or just the background) and performing separate actions to these areas. For example, after I used Topaz adjust to get the skin to look the way I wanted, the jerseys didn't look that good, so I masked part of the effect away from them. In addition, for drama, I wanted the background to have even deeper blacks than when it started, so I not only had to prevent Topaz from acting on it, I needed additional darkening of the dark tones. I achieved this by using a masked "Levels" adjustment layer on it, but used the blendIF sliders to prevent darkening of the colored lights in the background.

Because such tasks require a reasonable level of proficiency with PS, I don't recommend such plugins until the student is already quite facile with the tools built into PS. ...

The 3rd image that you posted yesterday shows other examples where more experience with general post processing would help - particularly, improvements in selection and noise reduction.

One final point: IMHO, you did not take to heart my previous warnings that in this thread, we are forced to deal with all the noise, artifact, and banding problems inherent in 8 bpc JPGs downloaded from the web, whereas the "Beyond the Buzzer" folks almost certainly are starting from RAW files. This makes it much easier for them to get clean and sharp final images, whereas if we want to get even close to the same image quality, we have to use every tool in our kit to clean up the JPGs while retaining sharpness.

The above is perhaps a long way of saying that there isn't one or two tricks or techniques I can point you to that will magically improve your image quality. If I knew of such techniques, I would tell you. However, even to get to the rather low quality level of the tweaked images I posted, I found it quite difficult and I had to work very hard at it. I tried to get this across in my previous post (#18 in this thread).

I've got to run, but I'll think about this some more and look in again later in the weekend.

Best regards,

Tom

PS - With respect to the possible use of the new Topaz Clarity plugin, I just downloaded a copy and tried it out for the first time a couple of days ago. It's nice, and some people may find it convenient, but IMHO, it doesn't do anything that can't already be done, and done better using Adjust and some of their other plugins.

 

[silvestrerojas]

Tom, I completely understand buddy. Thanks for the time you spent helping me. It was very much appreciated