How can you remove evidence of image editing revealed when midtone levels are brightened?

[roger_norris]

<p>Does anyone have a suggestion for removing the underlying signs of digital paint brush tool marks that reveal themselves when image midtone levels are brightened?<br>

I'm working on a project in digital black and white right now and have done extensive paint brush work on my files in Photoshop. The final prints are just fine.<br>

The problem I'm having now is that I want to use some of these images online. They look fine at their set levels, but if you slide the midtones down in the levels function you can see the places where work was done and how the original subject was modified. I thought taking a screen capture might resolve the issue but it doesn't. You can still see all the evidence of underlying editing work.<br>

I'm wondering if there is a digital method that would yield the same result you would get if you were to just take a photograph of the printed image, permanently encoding the relative values as they appear, and eliminating editing marks that reveal themselves when levels are altered.<br>

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Can you give us a bit more information about the files you have used, TIFF, JPG? Do you still have the final .PSD?<br>

I guess you can always (?) see when an image is altered but especially with JPG's and other compressed formats. </p>

[roger_norris]

<p>The question of file format had occurred to me as well, but I find the problem surfaces across formats.</p>

<p>Even if you let's say convert the image to PDF, take a screen shot of the PDF, then open that file and brighten the midtone levels, you'll still see evidence of underlying editing. It appears to be baked into the file regardless of format, and reveals itself not by general brightening but by relative brightening using the levels function. I've found whether it's Windows/PS or Linux/Gimp it makes no difference.</p>

<p>Your question mark "I guess you can always (?) see when an image is altered" essentially goes to the heart of the problem. Because we generally understand that you can't always. You won't see it in corporate product shots by, for example, Apple or Nikon, some of which we have to assume are edited as well. So the question is how do you purge that information and eliminate those underlying artefacts? What is the process, apart from actually photographing a print, that essentially has the effect of recapturing or scanning the appearance of an image, locking in that appearance and liberating it from the source file?</p>

<p>The revealing of editing marks is one aspect of this problem, but in a wider sense it's about establishing image consistency. How do you ensure that the digital file you publish doesn't contain information which can be revealed later, undermining your aesthetic intentions?</p>

<p> </p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>PDFs use JPG compression as well. Have you tried Tiff or another losless format? JPG compression is such that the human eye can't see that it is comptessed but if you alter the picture artefacts may become visible. <br>

A lot of assumptions with regard to product shots and whether they are altered, and of course, how far they are altered. The better the shot the less PS work is needed and less chance that artefacts show up. <br>

I guess that when you know the peculiars of a certain sensor you can always see whether the image is altered or not but that's just a guess. (Nikon and Canon make bodies that let you somehow show that the image is not processed)</p>

 

[roger_norris]

<p>I tend to work mainly in TIFF, since most of my work is geared toward print output, and that's the format where I first noticed this. I've compared different file formats for their rendering of artefacts but see no real difference among them.<br>

<br />I guess the analogue problem in film would be if you're dodging and burning to create the print you want, and you end up with a print that appears significantly different than the negative. You would now have to photograph the print to have an accurate representation of the final image. </p>

<p>In the digital world that edited source file, and the files derived from it, conceal evidence of that dodging and burning. But is there a digital equivalent of photographing the final printed image? It doesn't appear to be available through a format conversion from what I've been able to tell. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I tend to work mainly in TIFF, since most of my work is geared toward print output, and that's the format where I first noticed this. I've compared different file formats for their rendering of artefacts but see no real difference among them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And you shouldn't. <br>

Be useful to see an example of your corrected images. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>An example would be helpful. But its useful to think of how digital processing is different than the wet dark room. For one thing, in Photoshop you can do your dodging and burning on their own layers. If you save the layers, you can always go back and redo as you wish to that layer, or toss it and make another layer with the selection tools. As a fix to what you have, if the dodging and burning is in distinctive areas, you can try to use your original file(assuming there are distinct areas you worked on, select the areas if possible and bring them in and put them on top your current layer, but most likely there's not much you can do except try to work over the top of it or just start over again with another copy of the original. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>The problem I'm having now is that I want to use some of these images online. <strong>They look fine at their set levels, but if you slide the midtones down in the levels function</strong> you can see the places where work was done and how the original subject was modified.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you want to brighten the midtones for web viewing if the finished tiff looks fine as does the print which by "fine" I'm assuming you're saying you don't see the brush tool edits.</p>

<p>Why not just post the "fine" looking tiffs converted to jpegs for web viewing as they are? This is a very rare issue you're describing so it seems like you're leaving out some aspect of the problem you're seeing that we have no idea or visual on.</p>

<p>Why not just take a photo in Raw format of a small print and brighten the midtones of the print and post online?</p>