Helpful Posts Helpful Posts:  0
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Annoyance at Halo.....

  1. #1
    Ollokot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    562
    Real Name
    Pat

    Annoyance at Halo.....

    Hi Folks,
    If you look at the rock in the right of the foreground in this image a halo is clearly visible,it suddenly appears when I apply Local Contrast Enhancement,an USM:20%,50px.
    Would it be caused by the contrast already present between the rock,sky,and water when LCH is applied or is something else amiss.
    Best Wishes,Pat.

    Annoyance at Halo.....

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Ollokot View Post
    Hi Folks,
    If you look at the rock in the right of the foreground in this image a halo is clearly visible,it suddenly appears when I apply Local Contrast Enhancement,an USM:20%,50px.
    Would it be caused by the contrast already present between the rock,sky,and water when LCH is applied or is something else amiss.
    Best Wishes,Pat.

    Annoyance at Halo.....
    Hi Pat,

    A USM of 20% over a 50px radius is a BIG adjustment ... I'm not surprised it's showing. Personally I use more along the lines of 40% @ 4 pixels for content/creative sharpening. You could always just mask it out (on a duplicate layer) or use the history brush if you wanted though.

  3. #3
    Moderator Dave Humphries's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Windsor, Berks, UK
    Posts
    16,079
    Real Name
    Dave Humphries :)

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Or try 10% over 250px

  4. #4
    Ollokot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    562
    Real Name
    Pat

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Hi Colin,
    Thank you for your reply,I think I could be a bit heavy handed in trying to get images as crisp as possible,with this image I was wondering why the halo hit just that part.With more practice and better inittial capture hopefully my photography will improve.
    Thanks again for your input.
    Best Wishes,Pat.

  5. #5
    Ollokot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    562
    Real Name
    Pat

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Thanks Dave,will try that,
    Best Wishes Pat.

  6. #6
    FrankMi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Mill, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    6,294
    Real Name
    Frank Miller

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Hi Pat, if you are not shooting in RAW, check carefully (pixel peep) to see if the in-camera JPEG processing is adding a halo. If it is, then additional processing can enhance the existing halo significantly. Either way, it is far more likely that the excessive contrast settings are creating it as pointed out by Colin.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Provence, France
    Posts
    906
    Real Name
    Remco

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Afaik, 20% @ 50 px is in between sharpening and LCE (local contrast enhancement)...
    and 20% seems rather high for a 50px radius.

    I'd suggest trying several radii and amounts to see the influence of the two parameters (the 10% @ 250 pixels, mentioned by Dave, is a fairly typical value for LCE). And yes, too high an amount gives you a halo, but there's a relation between radius and amount, in that a smaller radius supports a larger value for amount before you get a visible halo.

    As for why the haloing only hits the right hand rock:
    it doesn't, but it's there that it shows the most, probably due to the colour densities you have there (if you look closely you can also see haloing around the rock on the left)

    Remco

  8. #8
    Moderator Dave Humphries's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Windsor, Berks, UK
    Posts
    16,079
    Real Name
    Dave Humphries :)

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    For me 20% @ 50 px is LCE and I often use those, or quite similar figures, BUT they'll only be good for a fairly busy scene; one where there is no high contrast edges followed by smooth (ish) tones - just like the silhouetted rocks

    I think of it like this: Basically what the LCE is doing is applying a 20% exposure difference spread across 50 pixels band around the edge - now that's going to be noticeable on a smooth(ish) tone, so: reduce the exposure difference (to 10%) and spread it across many more pixels (by increasing the radius - to the max of 250 when necessary) to avoid the problem.

    Update:
    Another thing to be wary of is that in-camera dynamic range enhancements (called Active D-Lighting on Nikon bodies, but something else on Canon, etc.) work in a very similar way to LCE with these values, a classic example is a swan against a smooth mid-tone river - the swan can get a dark 'halo' around it on the water's surface
    Turn off that feature when necessary.

    Cheers,
    Last edited by Dave Humphries; 15th October 2011 at 01:14 AM.

  9. #9
    FrankMi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Mill, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    6,294
    Real Name
    Frank Miller

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Humphries View Post
    For me 20% @ 50 px is LC
    When would it be better to use the USM to do LCE instead of using an Adjustment Layer, Brightness/Contrast, contrast slider?

    What are the strengths/weaknesses of each?
    Last edited by FrankMi; 15th October 2011 at 03:28 PM.

  10. #10
    Moderator Dave Humphries's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Windsor, Berks, UK
    Posts
    16,079
    Real Name
    Dave Humphries :)

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Quote Originally Posted by FrankMi View Post
    When would it be better to use the USM to do LCE instead of using an Ajustment Layer, Brightness/Contrast, contrast slider?
    That's easy; one I know how to do and I understand the process in my mind, so why do I need the other

    What can I say; it works for me (for now).

    Therefore I cannot answer the second part of the question, sorry.

    Expanding a little; I have a theory that one can obtain, at pixel 'level', the same finished result by more than one method using Photoshop - e.g. to set white and black points one could do it with the Levels or Curves dialog (and possibly a layer and multiplication), whichever method/dialog you use is a personal choice and I have something that, for now, works for me. One day I may invest time to learn more about PS and do it another way.

    (yes I am lazy)

    Cheers,
    Last edited by Dave Humphries; 15th October 2011 at 02:50 PM. Reason: Expanding a little added

  11. #11
    arith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Burton on Trent, UK
    Posts
    4,788
    Real Name
    Steve

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    The rocks edges are to sharp. Soften it a bit and I'll hang it on my wall, if I could afford it.

  12. #12
    Ollokot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    562
    Real Name
    Pat

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Hi Folks,
    I would have replied earlier but my ageing pc is giving me a lot of trouble especially when working with photoshop elements 7.
    Here is the same image with a usm of 10%,250px and output sharpening of usm 80%,0.6px. The halo seems to be reduced and the overall image a bit softer,does it look better.

    Annoyance at Halo.....

  13. #13
    arith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Burton on Trent, UK
    Posts
    4,788
    Real Name
    Steve

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Yep, it is better. I've got an ageing pc, I built it myself years ago and I can't even remember how I did it, except one step at a time. I expected it to last a year before I needed to upgrade bits of it, but it has been going over three years now and I haven't got any money for an upgrade.
    A new one would cost at least 500 in parts not counting externals or software, but when this is gone, if it can't be repaired I'm stuffed.

    Cheered me up just by saying ageing, nice photo though.

  14. #14
    Moderator Dave Humphries's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Windsor, Berks, UK
    Posts
    16,079
    Real Name
    Dave Humphries :)

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Ollokot View Post
    Here is the same image with a usm of 10%,250px and output sharpening of usm 80%,0.6px. The halo seems to be reduced and the overall image a bit softer,does it look better.

    Annoyance at Halo.....
    Hi Pat,

    I can see some CA (Chromatic Abberation), those red/cyan-green edges, that needs to be dealt with first (before sharpening), then I'd use a maximum radius when final sharpening the reduced image of 0.3 or 0.4px.

    I'd offer to have a go if you could get a RAW to me (I'd use Elements on it myself so you know it is do-able), but I won't be around until tomorrow afternoon/evening now - as I'm hoping to get out early for some 'atmospheric' photography in the morning.

    Cheers,

  15. #15
    Moderator Dave Humphries's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Windsor, Berks, UK
    Posts
    16,079
    Real Name
    Dave Humphries :)

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Hi Pat,

    Your second for comparison
    Annoyance at Halo.....
    Well, I have had a go at the RAW, but the file does seem very susceptible to a halo developing if local contrast is used, I have it too, despite different attempts to avoid it.

    Annoyance at Halo.....

    That pic took a lot of recovery of highlight detail (which I see you got back too), the over exposure probably added to the CA, I had to clone lots out towards both sides, but I left one bit in, on a vertical on the left and even after a downsize from 4688 to 700px, it is still visible.

    Unfortnately, I didn't refer to your choice of colour temp while RAW and had to fix it later on.

    As I have not achieved anything spectacularly better than your results, there seems little point going into the details, since you did ok by yourself. I will say I did the LCE at 250px radius after the downsize to 700px, so it really shouldn't have given a halo of a few tens of pixels wide like it has. Maybe a 'blended layer' approach would be better - I've never seen the point in learning before

    Hope that helps, if only to confirm we both don't know the answer

    Cheers,

  16. #16
    Ollokot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    562
    Real Name
    Pat

    Re: Annoyance at Halo.....

    Hi Dave,
    Many,Many Thanks for your time and efforts which have indeed helped.I have learned a lot from this thread and once again have been enlightened here at CiC.
    My Best Wishes to you and to all at CiC,

    Pat,

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •