Submit Your Images To SLR Lounge Awards!

how-to-use-frequency-separation

The Many Faces Of Frequency Separation. Are You Doing It Wrong?

December 31st 2015 8:36 AM

how-to-use-frequency-separation

In some of my recent articles, I’ve talked about an editing technique that I love, despite having become the bain of some photographers’ existence. It’s Frequency Separation, and it’s a technique that has been around for a long time. I started using it years ago and have changed my methods dramatically since then. There are so many videos and articles explaining this technique, but few of those tell you the correct way of doing it, nor delve into the philosophy that I feel is key. The result of this is a large number of photographers ruining their images. This article hopes to fix some of that.

[REWIND: REMOVING TRICKY COLOR CASTS ON SKIN + FREE FREQUENCY SEPARATION ACTION]

Brief Explanation Of Frequency Separation

As mentioned, I have spoken of this before so will keep this brief. Frequency Separation is the process of isolating the details of your image from the colors and tones, thus allowing them to be edited separately. The main benefits of this are that it becomes far easier to retain detail when doing in-depth edits and you have very precise control over color and tone.

Frequency Separation has, however, attained a bad name amongst many due to the way it is used. Simply put, people either do it completely wrong or they go too far. Our aim when using Frequency Separation is to create NATURAL looking, flawless skin (up to you how flawless). Ironically, by going too far, we get the opposite effect. When skin is too perfect, it ends up resembling plastic and loses its detail.

[REWIND: SKIN RETOUCHING | NO MORE PLASTIC SKIN…PLEASE]

An important point to note is that you DO NOT need to use this method on every image. Firstly, it takes some time when done correctly, and as such, it is simply not practical. Secondly, if we are operating within what I would call the “correct skin retouching philosophy,” then it is not necessary all the time. I’ll cover the philosophy side of things a little later.

Setting Up Frequency Separation In Photoshop

Rather than go into detail on how to set this up, there are quite a few steps, please download my own personal Photoshop action. You can find it here. This action will create all the layers you need and has some short explanations along the way. Please note, there are two separate actions that must be used depending on what bit-depth you are working in (8 or 16).

frequency-separation-how-to

Once you run the action, you will be left with the layers you see above. As I said, everything is explained throughout the action, but there are a couple of things I would like to draw your attention to.

1) The “High Copy” layer is where you do all your detail editing. By working on this layer, you always have the “High” layer as a backup should you do something wrong
2) On the “Luminosity” layer, you would adjust the tones using the brush settings I advise in the action. However, it’s better to do this via some Dodge and Burn layers. Why? It’s more flexible and a little less destructive than Frequency Separation. Either method is ok, but I prefer to adjust Luminosity via Dodge and Burn.

The Many Faces Of Frequency Separation

So why has this fantastic editing method become so confused? Over the years, I have watched a lot of videos about this technique. I have gone from using it the wrong way (what I classify as wrong) to a more refined version. Frequency Separation has been sold to us incorrectly as an all-encompassing wonder technique, which is perfect for everything. Due to this, it’s become very popular. When something becomes popular everyone wants to create videos on it and write articles about it (like me). Sadly, many of these people do not know what they are doing and as a result, there has been an avalanche of misinformation.

Of the numerous videos I have watched over the years, they all start the same. The setup is usually the same. The best videos include a few extra steps; adding layers in between (Colour and Luminosity in my action) and have different techniques for working on the low layer; something that I now never do. All in all, there are two methods that I classify as correct.

In this video by Phlearn, Aaron Nace takes us through the more common version of the technique. As you’ll note, the setup is the same, but the key difference between this and what you will see below is how you work on the layers created. Aaron uses the Lasso Tool to select an area and then blurs that area using a Gaussian Blur. This has the effect of smoothing the transitions between the tones. This works and technically there is nothing wrong with it but, for me, it’s not giving us enough control. Doing it this way also has the added negative of very easily creating the plastic fantastic look that I (and most others) agree is not desirable.

[REWIND: PHOTOGRAPHY COURSES: 5 ESSENTIAL COURSES FOR EVERY BEGINNER]

This is the method that I used for a long time, and I got some pretty good results with it. I even developed my own version that was used when time was very tight; a method that would have retouchers shouting at their screens. Essentially, I duplicate the Low layer, add a Gaussian Blur and then selectively paint the effect on using a layer mask. This is not something that I advise you doing, but it just goes to show how many different ways this technique can be used. The big negatives of doing it that way are the lack of control and high risk of making someone look very plastic-like. However, used with an extremely light touch, I’m able to create some decent images. You may recognize the one below from a previous article where I used this method.

How-to-do-frequency-separation

The next version of this method is shown in the following two videos by Michael Woloszynowicz and Julia Kuzmenko Mckim. Again, the main difference is the way the retoucher’s work once the layers are created. Rather than using the Lasso Tool and blurring, in these videos, you will see the brush tool being implemented. In my opinion, this technique is far superior as it allows you much greater control. In addition, you’ll see the extra layers being added in-between the High and Low layers. These added layers make the whole technique much more flexible. It’s far easier to go back and change your adjustments, AND we can use blend modes to be even more precise.

The Philosophy of Frequency Separation

This section is perhaps the most important part of this whole article. I absolutely love Michael Woloszynowicz’s editing style. Full credit goes to him and his videos for showing me how to correctly use this technique. Not only that but he has also spoken about the fact that he, too, overused this method, to the point where he ruined some of his old images.

Whenever retouching skin, you need to consider your aims. If it’s beauty retouching, then you will want a particular level of perfection whereas fashion, headshots, or portraits will be another. The overriding philosophy is to create something that appears to be natural. With beauty, it will undoubtedly be more “perfect”, and thus it could be argued to be less natural but either way, we want to retain detail, not destroy it, and produce something with a healthy appearance. Go into every edit knowing that:

1) You have Frequency Separation within my editing arsenal
2) It is not always appropriate to use and must be done with a light touch
3) Not every image needs to be “flawless.” ONLY use this when necessary

These days, when I need Frequency Separation, I will use one of the methods mentioned throughout this article. More often than not, I am working on images that either do not require it or are not paying me enough to devote the time. It’s so important, as professionals, to draw that line and make that distinction. The majority of my images are edited in Lightroom using the SLR Lounge Preset System and then taken over to Photoshop only if necessary. If you are on the hunt for a decent system for Lightroom, then I cannot recommend it enough. You can find the SLR Lounge Preset system in the store here.

About

Max began his career within the film industry. He’s worked on everything from a banned horror film to multi-million-pound commercials crewed by top industry professionals. After suffering a back injury, Max left the film industry and is now using his knowledge to pursue a career within photography.

Website: SquareMountain 
Instagram: Follow Author

Comments [13]

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Jill Schindel

    Oh man, that video from Michael was insanely helpful! I did like how basic the Phlearn video made frequency separation, but I felt like I didn’t have enough control over the tonal changes I was making. Using the brush for editing the low layer made all the difference!

    | |
  2. Mohamed Ibrahim

    where can i download unretoushed photo HD please?

    | |
  3. Muhammad Noor

    I have tried all the methods shown. And i did notice something. The skin looks too blurry.. What should i do t fix it? Will it helps if I back up the opacity a bit? Should i do that?

    | |
    • Jim Johnson

      Too much smoothing of color looks like there is no texture. One thing to keep in mind is to look a the photo in a smaller scale as you paint on the low frequency (You can duplicate the window and scale one to working size and one to a preview size).

      Always go more subtle than heavy handed and turn on and off the frequency layers to see how far off you are from the original. You’d be surprised how much of a difference you are making.

      | |
  4. Donald Jones

    I counter the primary premise in this article. There aren’t many ways to do Frequency Separation ( isolating the details of your image from the colors and tones), every person I’ve read and every video I’ve seen, perform the separation part the same. The differences are in the accessory layers included and the tools used on each layer. Is there a “right” or “wrong” way of doing that part? In the words of….his name escapes me, “more important than knowing what to do, is knowing why…you are doing it” If there is a solid reason to do it differently than the other ways, I would say, it is right…for that image.

    | |
    • Max Bridge

      Hey Donald. Thanks for commenting and happy new year. A lot of what you have said is written in the article…I thought. As you correctly point out the setup is 99 times out of 100 the same, it’s what comes after that is different; adding blank layers in between the High and Low layers, making a copy of the High layer to work on and the tools which are used on these layers. Those can range from the lasso tool to brushes to stamp tool or healing brush. When you factor in all of those there can be quite a lot of variation. Again, we seem to be in agreement here.

      I think you summed it up perfectly at the end of your comment “If there is a solid reason to do it differently than the other ways, I would say, it is right…for that image.”. I agree 100%. However, it’s important to know the different methods so you can assess what is most appropriate.

      | |
  5. Maykell Araica

    I have been doing it the Phlearn way for a while now. I love this technique, and every time someone asks me about how I retouch the skin in my photos I tell them that I use Frequency Separation :)

    | |
    • Max Bridge

      The Phlearn way is great and, as I mentioned in the article, it’s what I did for some time but I would definitely encourage you to give the other method a go. No question it takes longer but I think the results speak for themselves. In many instances it will come down to how much time you can devote to your edit.

      | |
    • Jim Johnson

      Spot on. I still use the Phlearn method for quick retouches— even sometimes on proofs for clients with severe skin issues— and for stuff that needs retouching, but not any real detail work (i.e. web images), but I always use the other method when the details matter.

      | |
    • Lee G

      The other method that you’re talking about is duplicateing the Low layer then adding a Gaussian Blur?

      | |
  6. Fisnik Islami

    the Doge is good for portraits, i’ve used it, and it’s good.

    | |
  7. Joseph Ford

    I love this technique to preserve skin texture but I always feel it was difficult to understand. Thank you.

    | |