Luminosity masks

Those of you who are users of Tony Kuyper's TK7 luminosity mask plug in will know that the new TK8 is available.

I just installed it. Under the hood, it makes use of Photoshop's new plugin architecture (the old one was an extension, currently called a "legacy extension" in Photoshop). If follows the design of the old one in that it includes a choice of a number of different panels. The Cx and Combo panels are huge and complex. I never use them, and in fact, this time, I didn't even install them. I use only the simplest of the three, which used to be "TK7 Go" and is now "TK8 Multi-Mask". Although this is far simpler, it's enormously powerful. E.g., it lets you create masks based on luminosity ranges or values (the latter being continuously adjustable), hue, saturation, edges, or a black-white conversion, among many other things, and it lets you attach the resulting mask to many common adjustments (curves, levels, hue/saturation, etc.) with a single click of a button. It also includes numerous tools for modifying a mask before applying it.

I found the huge panels to be too much to bother with. The Multi-Mask panel has a much less steep learning curve, and once you've learned the parts you want, it's extremely easy and fast to use.

I have no dog in this fight--I'm not trying to sell his product, and I have never used one of the major competors--but I thought this might be valuable .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

Those of you who are users of Tony Kuyper's TK7 luminosity mask plug in will know that the new TK8 is available.

I just installed it. Under the hood, it makes use of Photoshop's new plugin architecture (the old one was an extension, currently called a "legacy extension" in Photoshop). If follows the design of the old one in that it includes a choice of a number of different panels. The Cx and Combo panels are huge and complex. I never use them, and in fact, this time, I didn't even install them. I use only the simplest of the three, which used to be "TK7 Go" and is now "TK8 Multi-Mask". Although this is far simpler, it's enormously powerful. E.g., it lets you create masks based on luminosity ranges or values (the latter being continuously adjustable), hue, saturation, edges, or a black-white conversion, among many other things, and it lets you attach the resulting mask to many common adjustments (curves, levels, hue/saturation, etc.) with a single click of a button. It also includes numerous tools for modifying a mask before applying it.

---

For those less familiar with luminosity masking, Kuyper's original article is here:

https://goodlight.us/writing/luminos...tymasks-1.html
.

Thank you Dan and Ted, very helpful posts - timely for me as I have just started learning about luminosity masks. Kuyper's original article most illuminating (so to speak).TK8 Multi-Mask successfully installed and used.

My photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnpilkingtonphotos/

John,

I enjoyed looking at your photos. Where are you located? (Most of us put our locations in our profiles, which you can do by clicking on your profile at the top right.)

I initially found TK7 overwhelming when I started using it a year or two ago, but it was because of the larger panels that include the entire kitchen sink, replicating many Photoshop tools. Once I realized that the much smaller "Go", now "multi-task", panel had what I need (more than what I need, actually), the task became more manageable. What I find particularly useful is that one can adjust the masks on contintuous scales rather than picking tonal regions. Over time, I found myself using the panel more and more, and it's now a fairly standard part of my workflow.

Dan

Thank you, Dan. I enjoyed looking at your photos - I have sooo much to learn. Wonderful.

I've edited my profile so it is much more informative now, thanks for the hint. You will see that I live in a once rural but now semi-urban location in Sussex, UK.

Re TK8, agreed - I think I will not need more facilities for luminance masking than are to be found in the TK Lum-Mask panel. I enjoy post-processing to a limited degree. Prefer trying to get it as right as possible in the camera, and don't want to spend hours bit-fiddling in Photoshop. Having said that, in it's modern incarnation Photoshop is almost user friendly for applications like focus stacking and, I now find, luminance masking.

I've started a thread for criticism of my first trials of TK8 and look forward to some feedback ...

John

John,

to each his own, but just speaking personally, I don't see getting it right in camera and postprocessing as alternatives to each other, although in some cases they can mbe. I do a great deal of postprocessing, very little of which is to correct something I could have done differently in camera. The world often just doesn't provide things as I want the image to appear. There may be too little range in tonality, bright or dark areas that are distracting, beautiful textures that aren't apparent enough in a two-dimensional image without some enhancing, etc., etc. Take just the first of these. On overcast days, the range of tones may be very narrow, and that leads to a flat image regardless of what one does with the camera. In one recent shot I took, the combination of side lighting and the nature of the bark on some trees made the trunks of the trees stand out too much, creating a distraction. The solution is processing, I think. In hte latter case, I used TK 7 and a brush to create a mask for the tree trunks, added it to a curves layer, and burned the trunks.

One of my favorite examples is this video, https://www.shutterbug.com/content/w...us-photo-video. About 2 minutes in, it shows Ansel Adams' inconic Moonlight Hernandez image as captured, with none of Adams' meticulous processing. It looks nothing like the final print, and it's boring. He didn't make a mistake with the camera; the tones just weren't what he wanted.

Sometimes, the world deals me a good hand, and I don't feel I need to do much editing. Sometimes I can control things enough to minimize some aspects of processing, e.g., by controlling lighting in studio macro. But more often than not, I get the image up on the screen and think, to use an old-fashioned American idiom, 'this just doesn't cut the mustard without more work.'

Just my perspective.

In any case, I look forward to seeing more of your work, and delighted to have you on board.

Dan

Thanks, Dan, this is really useful. So, I'm thinking about the post processing debate (and I've looked at the recent thread on that topic) and trying to get a balanced view. In truth, both aspects (getting it right in camera, and picture control in post processing) are equally imporant. I need practice and development in both, and they are very different. Actually, there's a third aspect too, which is not often mentioned: advanced planning; thinking about what you want to photograph. Maybe I'll start a thread to discuss that.

Getting it right in camera requires quick thinking, instant decisions and maybe a Zen approach, I definitely need to work on it. I think it is more critical than post processing, only in the sense that it has to be instant, and you only get one go at it. I agree with those who feel with post processing, you do whatever you can, for however long it takes, to get the result you want. Getting the result you want assumes you know that in the first place and completes the cycle from planning (long in advance or opportunistic), in camera composition and shooting, post processing to final rendering. With post processing, I'm finding it takes a lot of time to discover how to use the many tools available creatively to achieve a desired result without running the danger of producing an over processed image. So sometimes I just think, hey, I'd rather be off with my camera taking pictures!

Random thoughts, Dan. Thanks for your help.

John
PS I think I've flagged your post as helpful, but the counter doesn't immediately update.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Pilkington

<> I'm thinking about the post processing debate (and I've looked at the recent thread on that topic) and trying to get a balanced view. In truth, both aspects (getting it right in camera, and picture control in post processing) are equally important. I need practice and development in both, and they are very different. Actually, there's a third aspect too, which is not often mentioned: advanced planning; thinking about what you want to photograph. Maybe I'll start a thread to discuss that.

Getting it right in camera requires quick thinking, instant decisions and maybe a Zen approach

---

Aaah ... the arrow, released without thought, speeds it's way to the dead center of the target ...

Quote:

---

I definitely need to work on it. I think it is more critical than post processing, only in the sense that it has to be instant, and you only get one go at it.

---

All my shots are stills, so I have all the time in the world. However, taking the example of street work, I've read that some folks studiously set everything on the camera including a fixed focus distance beforehand and then change nothing while shooting a series.

Quote:

---

PS I think I've flagged your post as helpful, but the counter doesn't immediately update.

---

The counter always lags one's click especially on my slow connection. So slow that some folks impatiently click twice and then see it come and go ...

Quote:

---

In truth, both aspects (getting it right in camera, and picture control in post processing) are equally imporant. I need practice and development in both, and they are very different. Actually, there's a third aspect too, which is not often mentioned: advanced planning; thinking about what you want to photograph.

---

I agree abpout the third element, which people often call previsualization. It's the one of the three I do least well.

I don't know that I think of the others as equally important. They're very different, and their importance depends on the image, IMHO. Some images hand you good material out of the camera--a good range of tones, tones roughly where you want them to be, good lighting in other respects, a nice balance of colors of the desired intensity, etc., etc. Many don't. And when they don't, good and often intensive postprocessing is essential.