What's new
By:
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

special effects use


S

steve knott

Member
Messages
9
Likes
0
hi I was advised to contact the forum in regard to some late night editing I did on a photo of mine.
In the cold light of the next day i could not remember how I did it and have no history!

I have attached the 2 images before and after. The specific editing phases I would like to know is the double imaging of the cat-in front and behind it. I know for sure that what I did first was to add the double imaging. I then faded it which I know how to do.

I am certain I used some kind of filter distortion and /or blur method but just cannot repeat what I did. I use Photoshop CS2.

Please note that the high key of the image is not the issue here. This is is how it came out of the camera-RAW.
I am a professional wildlife photographer and hold full international copyright on these images. Please respect this.

Thank you very much

Steve Knott
 

Attachments

  • S&MKNP matjulu' test before editing.jpg
    S&MKNP matjulu' test before editing.jpg
    85.7 KB · Views: 1
  • S&MKNP matjulu'abcde test after editing.jpg
    S&MKNP matjulu'abcde test after editing.jpg
    66.3 KB · Views: 3
create a new layer and fill with white , unlock the original and drag the new blank layer to the bottom , click back on original and lower opacity

not sure if i understand the double imaging i cant see double
 
Last edited:
Hi EGosbar and thanks for replying. if you look just in front and behind the cat you will see the double image.. This is what I am trying to re-create!

Thanks

Steve
 
To make the changes made by your editing more obvious, I increased the darkness of your 2nd image to approximately match your 1st image, registered the two images at the cat's eyes, trimmed away the text (which would have jumped annoyingly between the two), and made a GIF animation (see below).

Other than brightness, the main difference that I see between the two frames is the warping. I presume this is the effect you want to recreate. If that is your question, I would suggest using the puppet warp tool in PS to accomplish this. If you are not familiar with the puppet warp tool, you can use the ordinary warp tool or the liquify tool.

In the darkened version of your edited image, I also see the extraordinarily light ( all levels > 245) secondary image that you mentioned. However, to be honest, IMHO, it looks more like a mistake than intentional. Because of its brightness, this secondary image will not be consistently displayed by anyone except individuals using hardware calibrated monitors. On some non-calibrated monitors it may not be visible at all, whereas on others, it may be displayed darker than you intend.

If you are trying to impart a sense of motion, I would suggest you make the secondary image darker and base the effect on the motion blur filter, masked appropriately so as not to muddy the original image. There are many tutorials that describe this on the web.

HTH,

Tom M
 

Attachments

  • b4-after-comparison-ps02_650px_wide_8bpc.gif
    b4-after-comparison-ps02_650px_wide_8bpc.gif
    148.8 KB · Views: 25
PS - We were typing at the same time. I now understand that you really want that secondary image. So be it. Unfortunately, it is so terribly light that I can't tell enough about it to guess at how it was initially made. It might have been something as simple as going into edit/transform and pulling the left and right handles apart, but I can't tell.

Tom
 
I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing you were trying to achieve, but here's a really quick stab at adding some motion blur to your 1st image.

Tom
 

Attachments

  • b4-with_motion_blur-01.jpg
    b4-with_motion_blur-01.jpg
    127.8 KB · Views: 24
Hello Tom and thank you very very much for replying so soon. Sorry for my delay, I was having dinner.

Ok, I have gone through your notes and yes it is the warping effect that I am trying to re-create and which you illustrated in the animated gifs. before and after.

The thing is Tom I did this without a tool from the palette .( mindful I use CS2). How else could I have achieved it though? I am certain I used one of the distortion methods under the filter tab. But I just have not been able to re-create it.

In regard to your thoughts that the extraordinarily high light levels in the ghost image look like a mistake all I can say is that i wanted it this way, ie as subtle as possible- the barest apparition.

Most importantly though the initial effect of this ( like the one you illustrate) was very strong and I simply used the fade control under edit to virtually eliminate it. Which shows you have created it in it's strongest form.

The motion filter is quite unlike the effect I creatwed irrespective of it's high light levels.

Look forward to hearing from you Tom,

Steve

Tom Mann said:
To make the changes made by your editing more obvious, I increased the darkness of your 2nd image to approximately match your 1st image, registered the two images at the cat's eyes, trimmed away the text (which would have jumped annoyingly between the two), and made a GIF animation (see below).

Other than brightness, the main difference that I see between the two frames is the warping. I presume this is the effect you want to recreate. If that is your question, I would suggest using the puppet warp tool in PS to accomplish this. If you are not familiar with the puppet warp tool, you can use the ordinary warp tool or the liquify tool.

In the darkened version of your edited image, I also see the extraordinarily light ( all levels > 245) secondary image that you mentioned. However, to be honest, IMHO, it looks more like a mistake than intentional. Because of its brightness, this secondary image will not be consistently displayed by anyone except individuals using hardware calibrated monitors. On some non-calibrated monitors it may not be visible at all, whereas on others, it may be displayed darker than you intend.

If you are trying to impart a sense of motion, I would suggest you make the secondary image darker and base the effect on the motion blur filter, masked appropriately so as not to muddy the original image. There are many tutorials that describe this on the web.

HTH,

Tom M
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for that Tom. I have just found it-( in red colour) DOn't know what I did wrong but I'll try to send it again, thank you Tom ,thanks for bearing with me!
 
Hello Tom and thank you very very much for replying so soon. Sorry for my delay, I was having dinner.

Ok, I have gone through your notes and yes it is the warping effect that I somehow achieved and actually what a
I am trying re-create to give an apparitional ghostly effect as distinct from one of movement as in the motion blur effect you did for me.

The thing is I definately did this without using a 'tool' from the palette. I am certain I used one of the distortion modes from filter> But I just have not been able to re-create it. The closest I got just a moment ago was to use filter>distort>spherize which pulls out the front & behind of the cat and then, most importantly I use edit>fade almost to the max to create that 'double -appariitonal effect.

What do you think of this please?

In regard to your thoughts that the extraordinarily high light levels in the ghost image look like a mistake all I can say is that i want it this way, ie as subtle as possible- the barest apparition.

Look forward to hearing from you Tom,

Steve
 
steve knott said:
Hello Tom and thank you very very much for replying so soon. Sorry for my delay, I was having dinner.

Ok, I have gone through your notes and yes it is the warping effect that I somehow achieved and actually what I am trying re-create to give an apparitional ghostly effect as distinct from one of movement as in the motion blur effect you did for me.
Click to expand...


Ahh. Now I better understand the look you are trying to achieve.
The thing is I definately did this without using a 'tool' from the palette. I am certain I used one of the distortion modes from filter> But I just have not been able to re-create it. The closest I got just a moment ago was to use filter>distort>spherize which pulls out the front & behind of the cat and then, most importantly I use edit>fade almost to the max to create that 'double -appariitonal effect.
What do you think of this please?
Click to expand...


I'm quite sure it isn't "spherize" because I would have seen that. If all you want to do is pull out the front and rear of the cat, did you try what I suggested in my previous post, ie, edit/transform/scale and pull outwards on the two side handles?
In regard to your thoughts that the extraordinarily high light levels in the ghost image look like a mistake all I can say is that i want it this way, ie as subtle as possible- the barest apparition.
Look forward to hearing from you Tom, Steve
Click to expand...

Subtle is good, but I can almost guarantee you that no one will see it.

If you want to convince yourself, just put the eyedropper tool (set to 1x1 pixel) over the areas where you put the double images in your 2nd image, and get some RGB readouts. Initially, I thought the levels were over 245, but I now believe that I read those values on my darkened version of your edited image. When I repeated the measurement on your edited version without my darkening, I actually couldn't find any pixel in the ghost areas that was under 253 (out of 255). Talk to any fine art printer or person knowledgeable about monitor performance and calibration, and they will tell you that probably fewer than a small fraction of a percent of the public will have monitors that can resolve a 253 gray from a 254 from a 255 gray. As an example, look at the reaction of the first responder in this thread, egosbar - he couldn't see it, and he does a lot of graphics art work.

Gotta run.

Best regards,

Tom M
 
Hi Tom, Tom because i'm in OZ it's very late here so I must get some sleep now !

Thank you very much for your great help and guidance. Maybe when I check back in the morning you might have come up with some more possibilites along those the lines I require.

Essentially it's that ghostly shadow effect i'm aiming for!

Thanks so much Tom,
goodnight
 
Tom thank you so much!! you're the Master!! Everything you wrote from go to woh now makes complete sense from EG:

"As an example, look at the reaction of the first responder in this thread, egosbar - he couldn't see it, and he does a lot of graphics art work."
says it all!
I will strictly stick to what you recommended, and just fade it out much less, so that Tom, ( no pun intended ) Dick and Harry can see it ( Geex my monitor must be good!

Sincerely appreciated Tom

Steve Knott
 
Back
Top