Ortonised or not; which is better?

[arith]

Ortonised




And not

[Round Tuit]

The fountain looks better in the ortonised version. One question - What does ortonise mean?

Andre

[Dave Humphries]

The fountain looks better in the ortonised version. One question - What does ortonise mean?

Try this Andre, or google for more examples.

Dave

[bnnrcn]

Hi Steve I prefer the not ortonised version . IMO the orton effect looks good on the images with a lot of grass / foliage by giving them a dream-like velvety look. May be you should give it a go with a different image

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by Round Tuit The fountain looks better in the ortonised version. One question - What does ortonise mean?

Try this Andre, or google for more examples.

Dave

That looks like a worthwhile effect, thanks for the link, Dave. I was struck by this:

The original technique involved sandwiching two or three transparencies of the same composition together. One slide contains the detail component, in focus and overexposed, the second and /or the third is the color component, and is out of focus and overexposed.

I was immediately struck by the similarity to JPEG Y'CbCr processing at the least compression (i.e. without the sub-sampling option). You'd take the Y' channel and add acutance (sharpen, micro-contrast), then blur the Cb and Cr channels and then decode it back to RGB, i.e. display it on your screen. Maybe that's what PS does . .

[IzzieK]

As with Binnur, I prefer the non-ortonized one...+1 to Binnur's comment. I am a layman so after reading the definition of orton effect, which was that Ted quoted above, I just click the arrows and compared the difference and came to the conclusion that I like the 2nd one -- without the orton effect. I still have to wrap around that effect. It is like dealing with multiple exposure and putting them as layers in Photoshop (as my mind understands it...)

[Manfred M]

Steve - I have played with the Orton effect and find that it works well if the image is fairly simple. I also find that the output needs the black and white points reset and often i will add a touch of contrast too.

In this case, I find that the image does not do well with Orton and your original is better. More PP work might get the second image looking better.

[arith]

I'm not sure how to brighten the fountain without blowing the background unless using the Orton effect. Thanks Manfred, Izzie, Ted, Binnur, Andre and Dave. This looks difficult to me, and I would like a brighter fountain.

[Dave Humphries]

A thought has occurred to me, reading Ted's quote from Orton himself about his technique;

The original technique involved sandwiching two or three transparencies of the same composition together. One slide contains the detail component, in focus and overexposed, the second and /or the third is the color component, and is out of focus and overexposed.

You have to think about the mediums in use, in the digital world, I don't see the need for things to necessarily be 'over-exposed', surely that was just a 'means to an end' with slides (aka transparencies) because if they weren't over exposed, three layers of pigment wouldn't have let enough of the projector's light shine through.

In the digital world, I'm sure that could be replicated, but also fairly sure that an alternate blend mode of the layers would avoid the need to over expose.

From what little I have seen (I'm not a follower - and have never tried it); one image, with a blend of sharp and blurred copy layers, with the saturation turned up a bit, would do the trick

I agree with Manfred that a simple composition is going to give better results than something too complex or containing lots of fine detail.

[Dave Humphries]

That fountain water looks pretty dirty, sunlit clean water spray ought to match or exceed the brightness of those umbrellas in the background.

[DanK]

You have to think about the mediums in use, in the digital world, I don't see the need for things to necessarily be 'over-exposed', surely that was just a 'means to an end' with slides (aka transparencies) because if they weren't over exposed, three layers of pigment wouldn't have let enough of the projector's light shine through.

Dave,

I've only started on the Orton method, but I think you are right. If you use sandwich transparencies, you are adding obstructions, hence darkening. That is presumably why Orton overexposed. I think the digital analogy to his method is simply to blend two or three layers, one with blur added. All the stuff I have read about overexposing, using the multiply blend mode, etc., seems not only superfluous, but different from what Orton described.

As a test, I took a simple shot of water lilies in LR, ran it into PS with no edits, duplicated the base layer, applied a Gaussian blur of about 19 pixels to the top layer, left the blend mode at normal, and reduced the opacity of the blurred layer to 76%. I didn't do any other edits. Clearly, not a work of art, but it is clearly the Orton effect, I think. I will post it below.

Dan

[arith]

That is indeed wonderful Dan, I was using a variation of Orton to make the fountain brighter because I think it is rather dirty water.

Using pin light or difference with colour and luminance seems to bring out bright objects, in this case I used vivid on a 40 pixel blur, using approximately 33% opacity on a duplicated vivid layer, and 10% luminance but anyway, just fiddled with it until I got a sparkle.

color 100
pin light 100 levels
luminosity 10
co;or 100
vivid 40
multiply 100 Gaussian 40p
screen 100
screen 100

Thanks Dave, I always overexpose to avoid noise, it can all be pulled back into exposure but leaving very dark shadows and using too much fill light looks unnatural. I just want the fountain to sparkle which I found hard to do. But still, I don't know which I prefer. Cheers.

[Round Tuit]

Try this Andre, or google for more examples.

Dave

Thanks Dave that url and the posts following yours helped.

Andre

[Loose Canon]

Hi Steve! Missed ya man! Great to see you posting again.

Hey um, if the water looks dirty (and it kind of does as shot), maybe it’s a white balance issue? The color looks a bit off Concrete of the pool, umbrellas, etc.) and I wonder if its because of that?

Can’t say about brightness. That would depend on how the light is hitting it. Effects? Might be better if a couple of things might be possible to resolve before before adding effect?

But…

Before and after a white balance adjustment (and only that) for illustration only:



Anyway just a Theory!

[arith]

That looks alright Terry and it is nice to see your still here. I used Canon DPP to set the white balance by clicking on the only grey post in the background after I thought auto was a bit harsh. Then I used Adobe to pull highlights back and fill to recover shadows.





It is here the water turns dirty but it is no longer blown.