GRMACK wrote:
.

First, thank you for playing around with my pictures. If you want to learn some feedback:
1) Median is not the right way to clean up "dirty" pictures I would use surface blur and than mask out, it keeps the edges(if I have time I will show how this would look like)
2) Using this makeup filter turns, for my eyes, the pic into a freak show.

anchev wrote:
Interesting version, funny indeed. Were you following any particular direction or just playing?

Naw. Just playing and hit the Dramatic button and this popped up which startled me.  I normally employ a MUAH person so stuff like eyes are tended to, but this electronic stuff was sort of a shock.

anchev wrote:
Are we invited?

I don't know.  He looked like the guy who was on the DaVinci Resolve 12 movie editing website. He was trashing his Apple Thunderbolts and buying four 31" Eizo CG-318 4K monitors (or whatever the $6K things each are called.) for replacements.  He didn't like the Apple T's for lack of shadow detail, glare, and too much vibrancy, which is also why I was at the same show to see them side-by-side before buying my cheapo 24" Eizo CG-278 4K monitor.  Sort of humbling really.

Fwiw, I just looked and the DaVinci Resolve 12 edit bay is $30K, and four Eizo 31" are $24K, so someone is making serious cash to do that sort of work.  He said he'll commute back and forth daily and seems to work late to avoid the rush hour stuff from Santa Clarita to Hollywood.  It was cheaper to build his new studio in Santa Clarita than LA.  I should have got his card maybe, but he likely has a whole lot of connections down there to do that too.

Frank Sanders wrote:

First, thank you for playing around with my pictures. If you want to learn some feedback:
1) Median is not the right way to clean up "dirty" pictures I would use surface blur and than mask out, it keeps the edges(if I have time I will show how this would look like)
2) Using this makeup filter turns, for my eyes, the pic into a freak show.

Your probably right that Median isn't the best way to go along with the Quick Wand (or whatever its called) to mask an area.  I've played with it before and seems to even things out and hold onto shadows so it was my quickie tool than cloning.  I've never used the surface blur other than to soften something.  No doubt there's a lot of different ways to do something in PS.

And yes, the image looks like a freak show, but it was just for play and to demo this bizarre Face Filter software that works quick.  It could be dialed back in percentages - maybe - but the initial effect was shocking and meant as a demo for fun only - or maybe not depending on the person who likes that sort of artsy thing.

Problem for most images we see at the end is that we don't know what was at the front of the line.  Could be totally different.  Dunno.  I know when I shoot, I'm thinking of doctoring somehow at the end as it's often "bleah!" to me during the shoot.  The end often intensifies the beginning for me.

As to color issues far above, I have several devices and any image looks different on ALL of them:  Notebook. Tablet. Desktop. Cellphone.  They all appear different no matter how or if the devices are calibrated.  No doubt that difference is why when one sends the same image to several different labs, they rarely get back two that look alike.  Sometimes, not even the same lab can match a second run to the first.

The Eizo I have has an Emulation mode where I have all my gizmos loaded into it and can act on its screen as they would on the other device itself.  I can scroll the devices on the Eizo screen and watch the sundry device's image change.  I might like one on a given device, but the gamut the other device will never get there.  Example: One OLED is really blue, and the other is really red.  One has a rich black and no shadows; the other has shadows.  Pick one.  Which is right?  Whichever one I like.

While I was at the Eizo demo, the guy said their monitors are actually more than 100% Adobe RGB 1998.  How?  Because that Adobe RGB 1998 triangle we see in that CIE diagram contains more of the bottom portion of the triangle with their monitors than the assigned one in the CIE diagram.  So although their coverage is more, it does not quite hit the upper edge so they call it 99% Adobe RGB 1998 although it has more area in reality.

Plus, no two monitors are ever alike per X-rite even calibrated with consumerist tools.  What you see and what I see are likely not the same.  Same goes for lab outputs with their inks and monitor calibrations.  Perfect it isn't.  If we all used the same gear, maybe - but still tolerances exist as well as what the people who design this stuff think is good (i.e. X-rite  ColorTRUE, Apple ColorSync. MSI True Color. 15 different versions of sRGB lurking on a computer or Corel's PSP X8 sRGB current mess vs. Adobe. NKRGB.  Etc.).  It's a mess, and seems to be getting worse, imho.