Pushing Light Boundaries - Avril Double Take!

There's a secret hideaway restaurant that has built up a strong cult following among artists and movie creatives in Los Angeles. It's simple called The Factory Kitchen and is the lovechild of a French Canadian woman and an Italian man, devoted to genuine and generous Italian cuisine.

We celebrated my wife's birthday - she's 27 years old again and still puts up with my ever present camera activity, even at this celebratory and personal time. I discovered that waiters passing a glass panel in front of the pasta preparers marble table, had their reflection also flash past where the glass covered a round pewter tray, acting as a decorative end piece, 90 degrees to the glass panel.

So I posed the lovely receptionist Avril by the make do "mirror" and manual focused at the required 16,000 ISO. As I took the picture, the manager inserted himself into the pose and I made this picture.

It took some effort to build up both density, contrast and detail as well as remove the noise resulting from the low light exposure. at 16,000 ISO. The result pleased me as it showed the enjoyment everyone felt at the picture-taking.




However, there seemed to me to be further room for improvement. The addition of the more "tactile" strokes of oil paint to build the image seems to me to flesh our the two people far better. For this, once again, I worked hard with the brush details and contrast in Topaz Impression and was able to build a surface that pleased me more and seems to me, by pushing boundaries and exaggerating the manager's expression, to add more life and humor to the scene. This process may help us push boundaries a little further and I find it an interesting process to explore.




I show them fairly large so you can appreciate the smooth "dead" rendering of grain-laden facial details of the flat photograph and then the stimulating smoother texture of the lively and more energized brush strokes in the second version.

Your visit and comments appreciated!

Asher

I am not a big fan of this kind of photoshop treatments but I must confess that the version is attractive.
The reflection on the left is particularly interesting.

Antonio Correia said:

I am not a big fan of this kind of photoshop treatments but I must confess that the version is attractive.
The reflection on the left is particularly interesting.

Click to expand...

Until now, Antonio, except for Painter, software has been pretty rudimentary. I believe that Topaz has engineered details of brush dimensions and stroke as well as paint loading, spread, flow and smudge, that one can, if one works at it, apply just the right nature of a painting effect that nudges the picture into the frame of experience or fantasy one is trying to build into the presentation.

All this, for people like myself who also have been avoiding such filters as long as they existed.

Of course, one can use presets, but then one misses out on designing the impression that projects the feelings that are only latent on the digital image.

It's all new to me and it takes some effort to make something that truly is an extension of ideas in the picture and not just a boxes patina.

In this case, how the brush strokes developed the latent image reflected in the glass over the tray was particularly tricky - too much detail and it does not fit in, but altering brightness causes mismatch with the girl herself. Also the detail on the column really is much richer expressed in brush strokes.

Asher

Asher,

I like the idea for this composition, but I feel that the high-ISO capability of e.g. the A7S would have been beneficiary for the outcome. The reflection in the mirror suffers a lot here IMHO.

For the PP - I have to admit it is less my taste, but that's me...

Best regards,
Michael

Michael Nagel said:

Asher,

I like the idea for this composition, but I feel that the high-ISO capability of e.g. the A7S would have been beneficiary for the outcome. The reflection in the mirror suffers a lot here IMHO.

For the PP - I have to admit it is less my taste, but that's me...

Best regards,
Michael

Click to expand...

Michael,

Yes, now the A7S makes much more sense to me! Taking pictures in very low light at 16,000 ISO and then being stuck with so much noise to deal with in a huge file does not really make a lot of sense to me. It's a lot of work to deal with the noise,,then build up the density of the image and get the color right and hardly enjoyable or efficient!

I worked very well with the Canon 1D Mark II at MP, so the A7S is even better than that.

I thought of it until now as a low light camera for videos, but really I could use it for low light still photography of orchestra performance and other events where flash is disturbing.

Still, the availability of painting programs does provide some eye openers on how we can perceive our compositions to different effects.

Until we can actual print ones creations with real texture, classical prints are my preference.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Until now, Antonio, except for Painter, software has been pretty rudimentary. I believe that Topaz has engineered details of brush dimensions and stroke as well as paint loading, spread, flow and smudge, that one can, if one works at it, apply just the right nature of a painting effect that nudges the picture into the frame of experience or fantasy one is trying to build into the presentation.

All this, for people like myself who also have been avoiding such filters as long as they existed.

Of course, one can use presets, but then one misses out on designing the impression that projects the feelings that are only latent on the digital image.

It's all new to me and it takes some effort to make something that truly is an extension of ideas in the picture and not just a boxes patina.

In this case, how the brush strokes developed the latent image reflected in the glass over the tray was particularly tricky - too much detail and it does not fit in, but altering brightness causes mismatch with the girl herself. Also the detail on the column really is much richer expressed in brush strokes.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher, I agree Painter is better than anything out there. It is mainly for painting but cloning of photographs can be done to pretty nice effect if you use the right brushes.

There is a tool in Photoshop though, that works well for doing artistic impressions but that is not a one-button type filter. It's the art-history tool. Depending on the brushes you use, you can do some amazing work. My favorite would be using the wet brush tools already available in Photoshop and creating images that look much like real watercolors. If printed on watercolor paper, they would be hard to distinguish from the real thing, as watercolors rarely leave texture as the color gets absorbed into the paper. The fun thing is you work with layers and different sizes of brushes and actually brush where you want the cloning to happen etc.,

If you would like, I could do a watercolor rendition of this to show you what can be achieved. It might take me an hour, but that would be an hour of fun!

Maggie Terlecki said:

Asher, I agree Painter is better than anything out there. It is mainly for painting but cloning of photographs can be done to pretty nice effect if you use the right brushes.

Click to expand...

Hi Maggie,

Glad to have a knowledgeable painter here! Love to learn from your experience. Which version do you use?

Do they have versions that actually give 3D information instructions to build up paint strokes to have form as in a painting?

Maggie Terlecki said:

There is a tool in Photoshop though, that works well for doing artistic impressions but that is not a one-button type filter. It's the art-history tool.

Click to expand...

Must admit to never using it in the past!

Maggie Terlecki said:

Depending on the brushes you use, you can do some amazing work. My favorite would be using the wet brush tools already available in Photoshop and creating images that look much like real watercolors. If printed on watercolor paper, they would be hard to distinguish from the real thing, as watercolors rarely leave texture as the color gets absorbed into the paper. The fun thing is you work with layers and different sizes of brushes and actually brush where you want the cloning to happen etc.,

Click to expand...

Sounds very interesting!

I'd like to rework my ink drawings of old!

Maggie Terlecki said:

If you would like, I could do a watercolor rendition of this to show you what can be achieved. It might take me an hour, but that would be an hour of fun!

Click to expand...

That's most generous of you. Feel free to put in any menu hints and don't imagine the basics would bore anyone. It's often the simplest concepts that cause the largest blocks to understanding and fluency.

I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get my mind around the idea of "fascia" as used in Gray's Anatomy, but never completely described in my versions at the time I was dissecting my first cadaver!

Asher

Hi Asher,

My version is Corel Painter 11. It does pretty much everything I could need. I have tried their demo of their newer one, but didn't prefer it. I also own (a yet uninstalled) version of Painter Elements or something like that, the basic beginner package that I won in an illustration contest, but never installed because I have a stronger Painter version but if you would like to try it; I can rifle through my emails and pull the serial for you, as it is legit and you would be able to use it on your computer.

As for the art history brush: Well, I did 2. One a soft watercolor and another more like oil on wood. I will be going to prepare supper soon, but will come back later with some instructions on how I did these. Of course, there is a lot of intuitive work here, so you have to use your instincts to decide how you work, but the basic functions are not difficult to understand.

So here first a soft watercolor:

and oil based on stained wood:

Be back later,
Maggie

Okay, so, for Asher and anyone else interested using the Art History tool in Photoshop is not difficult but is definitely not a one step process. To get good results, you need to do the work, but the work is fun and experimenting is delightful fun.

so, to start you open up the image you want to work on. Now, please do not work on your original file, but you can add to this one if you want to. If you want the saturation to be stronger or you want a border, as I have added to the images I did because I wanted the image to extend to the outer portions as in the watercolor image, you should do that now. Once the colors etc., are done, you will right click your layer and duplicate it. When you do this, a box opens to allow you to either duplicate it unto this image (which we do not want to do) or to open it up as a new image (which we do want to do).

Now close your original, we do not need it any longer - Do not save it, especially if you have made any changes.

Also, if you have made changes to the actual background image after opening it, the art history tool will not work it will actually give you a circle with a diagonal symbol, so you must use the new image.

Now, this is your art history tool. You will find it under your paint brush/pencil tool


When using the art history tool, you will find the tool bar at the top will look something like this depending on what version of Photoshop you have ( I know that the Art History brush has been available for at least 10 years or more so the toolbar may have changed over time)


Now we start.
- Add an empty layer above your image.
- You decide what color for your canvas. As I made a border for the watercolor one, I added a layer of off-white as my canvas. (the wood grain one, was different, as I added a rusty brown as my border and for the color layer, I filled it with the same color. I then added an extra layer with a light greyish wood texture I had and set it to multiply then merged those two layers together to get the stained wood effect. )

Now that we have set up our canvas and colors, we now choose the Art history brush.

For the Brush size, since we are starting out, we may want to use a bigger brush to just get the basic colors a bit like in real painting where you start off with the more general and the further you go, you make your brushes smaller to add more detail.
The size of the brush you choose will also vary depending on the size of the original image you are working with.

- choose a brush
- set its size
- set the area you want the brush to cover. In the beginning you may want 50 or more pixels. As you progress, we will make this area smaller as we work with smaller brushes.
- set the tolerance. 0% tolerance will mean you will allow yourself to paint anywhere, as soon as you have a certain amount of tolerance, it will not allow you to cover too much of area that has already been painted on, but that will not be a problem for us as we will work on several layers.
- Choose the type of stroke you would like to make. I tend to like more control so use tighter and shorter strokes but in the very beginning, you can set yourself any of the ones that are available and they all give different results. Some of the loose curly ones look fantastic if you are doing landscapes and not people.
- set the opacity of your brush to something around 50%. This is not an obligation, but it helps to allow you to build up your colors.
- if you do not have a tab for brushes on your layer palette, go to Window and choose Brush. If it doesn't appear in your palette and instead as a separate box, simply drag and drop it on your layer palette and it will attach itself.
Now, in your brush palette, check the Shape Dynamics and click on it to open it. Set he angle jitter to direction. This will make the brush work in the direction you move. This is very helpful especially, if you, like I, use a Wacom tablet with a digital pen. It may not always show that it is doing so, but it will be choosing information in the direction you are moving even with the mouse. You may have to apply this to each different brush you are using.
---------
Add an empty layer on top of your color canvas
with the brush you have chosen and the type of strokes you want, start painting. If you feel you need to see what is underneath to help you, lower the opacity of the color layer just enough to guide you. Later, you will need to bring this back up to 100% opacity.
-Fill as much as you want for this layer. If there are stokes that are way out of bounds that you do not like, simply use your eraser with a similar type brush and erase. If you are afraid to erase too much by accident, you can, of course, simply use the mask tool.
You will find it at the bottom of your Layer palette; the icon is a rectangle with a circle within it. Simply click on it with the layer you are on activated and it will appear to the right of your thumbnail. Simply click it and paint with Black to take away anything you have done. If you go too far, switch to white and paint to bring anything back.

- continue to add layers, but always make your brushes a little smaller and make the area that you are working on to be a bit smaller too.
- In the brushes that come with Photoshop, you will find a small gear with a triangle beside it at the top right of the tool in the toolbar. If you click on this, you will get a drop down that gives you options. At the bottom, you will see a list of brushes that come with Ps but that are not automatically loaded. This is what the options look like:


for the watercolor, I used the wet brushes at the bottom, but it's fun to experiment and that is the best way to learn and you may find brushes you really like to use.

- I also sometimes create brushes or download free ones that I find may be useful. I save them in a folder that is easy to find. If you want to use these, you can simply use the LOAD BRUSHES in options and browse to the one/ones you want. Simply append them to your list.

-Good thing to remember. If you have loaded brushes that you don't always want to load with photoshop, once you are done with your painting, simply click on RESET BRUSHES in options and do not save them. They are in your folder anyways, so why bother, right?

Once I have several layers done and I like almost everything but my edges that may look messy and not very watercolor like at this point, I take all the layers with cloning, so everything except the background layer and the canvas layer, and I select them all.
To do so easily, click on the top layer, click and hold CTRL or Command on a Mac and then select the layer just above the canvas. This will select them all. Then right click and select merge layers. They will become one.

-Now is the time to refine the outer look of the edges.
- choose the eraser tool and choose some of the wet media brushes.
- set opacity of the eraser to a low FLOW
- Make sure your brushes are not too big or small. Do a test if not the right size, then simply adjust. Different brushes work differently so you will have to judge on your own.
- If you find you are having a difficult time making your lines kind of straight, hold the shift key while you are stroking down or across and it will automatically make a straight line. Do not be overly obsessive though as you want to move in a bit to get the effect of the soft edge. One thing to watch out for though, is to not have a straight edge from your photograph; you must make those lines disappear as they are the give-away that this is actually cloned from a photo and not done freehand.
- Use your eraser tool on little areas within your frame too to pull out some of the color here and there.
- As an option, you can add a final layer where you add some paint with a brush (and not the art history brush) and perhaps even add a bit of color or a bit of splatter.
----------
Once you are done, if this is for a digital version for a watercolor etc., then you can go into your filters and add a texture. For watercolor you will want to use sandstone and not make the texture too bumpy. if you are wanting to print this, do not use a texture. Your paper will have the texture already and having it in your print will make it look fake.

----------
I guess that covers the basics. I hope I have not missed anything. If there is something that you, Asher, or anyone else that is interested would like more information on, or that I have not explained well enough, do not hesitate to ask; I will be more than happy to give more/better details.

Good luck to anyone that tries this,
Maggie

Don't **** with the concept, Asher. The first shot shows it all. The rest are leaving me wonder if you don't need a day job, with so little to occupy yourself.

Maggie,

What a great job! I appreciate your patience and kindness in going to the nth step and describing even sufficiently for a photoshop Newbie to be able to start to work with brushes.

On the way, you've actually discovered and revealed the one part of "painting" into photographs that really fully deserves recognition as it can be mastered following your directions as a start.

The only medium that can be produced as close to "perfect" as an original painting, today, is a water color rendering of a photograph printed on water color paper, especially if one uses water-based inks that will be drawn in and work into the depth of the art paper as expected.

I will experiment with the water color brushes in photoshop. It's totally new to me as I paint with acrylics mostly and have only experience with water color way back in the recesses of my mind from high school art classes and also teaching each of my kids what I didn't already forget!

Water color "painting" in photoshop or painter requires much more artistic control, as one has to do pretty much all the work oneself, stroke by stroke, whereas Topaz can make a texturized oil painting in seconds.

What I really want is a device that prints with actual texture. This will mean we might use round dots of various sizes and shapes or else classical shapes of actual brush strokes. We are years away from being able to "Paint" with oils, impasto or acrylic in Photoshop because the output has no dimension and just like regular printing is totally flat.

The New Oce and fuji printers will print 3D files taken by 3 D scans of actual oil paintings, but, to date, no one appears to have programmed the "Painter™" brushes to output to a 3D printer. When this happens, then the new revolution in photography will be upon us. now what you do with it will depend on your own skills or lack thereof.

Now, anyone can experiment with water color derivatives of photographs and to me, this is akin to choosing the right color, tones or contrast paper for wet-room printing in classical photography.

It might be that we should break with the past, stop pretending it's "water \color", forget brush strokes, and embrace the new medium and use circles, ovals or other shapes relevant to what is being printed.

Asher

Tom,

You jumped over Maggie's entire set of posts without nay a comment! You may not wish to use "brushes" in photoshop burt we already use pixels which are no way like the random grain of silver gelatin photography. So if we can use square, (or for Nikon-users, rectangular), pixels instead of stochastically generated film grain, then why not macro dots or strokes or just uniform coloring as in so-called, "watercolor" brushes. Maggie's work has my respect and I commend her work to anyone who is interested in a lyrical style with an appreciation of coloring.

Tom dinning said:

Don't **** with the concept, Asher. The first shot shows it all. The rest are leaving me wonder if you don't need a day job, with so little to occupy yourself.

Click to expand...

BTW, ****ing with things is my lifelong habit! As a kid and student, a scientist and a physician, I ways experimented with how things are put together and how to make things work better. Exploring the effects of artistic filters is educational, as it shows how weighting the elements changes perception. I'm not advocating using filters to get the most magic from photography. However, I do strongly commend the artistry but I do enjoy the added choices that well-crafted filters, Topaz, especially provide. I think there might be real benefits exploring artistic ideas stored in such filters.

These remarkable filters isolate, enhance and change the perception and rank of elements can educate and inform our own use of the camera and light in making our pictures in the first place.

It's also fun!

Asher

I thought you were being serious for a moment. Just not like you. Using filters that is. You're always serious, even when you're trying to be funny.


[I assume this refers to my crazy use of outrageous filters on a perfectly good photograph - editor's comment] A pleasant looking woman dressed up like a tart isn't a good look and we loose the beauty of the original personality. We can go back to where we started or keep adding bling. Then she starts to look like a whore and the only people interested are the trench coat brigade.

Tom dinning said:

I thought you were being serious for a moment. Just not like you. Using filters that is. You're always serious, even when you're trying to be funny.

Click to expand...

Tom,

I too have devotion and affinity to classical photography!

The Topaz company has advanced the use of compositional and textural tools as they understand how painters build the picture on the canvas. This insight is itself rich and beneficial!

These tools are evolving fast. They might, on occasion, help us put into physical form feelings that cannot be found in classical photography processing. I'm open to that. Still, the lack of 3D descriptions of the print strokes does give me great pause, (except for watercolor reproduction which does not need dimension in a 3rd plane).

Tom dinning said:

A pleasant looking woman dressed up like a tart isn't a good look and we loose the beauty of the original personality. We can go back to where we started or keep adding bling. Then she starts to look like a whore and the only people interested are the trench coat brigade.

Click to expand...

Of course, anyone can ruin a good face with sloppy makeup!

Asher

Maggie Terlecki said:

and oil based on stained wood:

Click to expand...

Maggie,

I prefer the second version. i'd have not chosen wood as a b.g. But it works well, LOL!! I think that the fact you are an accomplished painter with real water color and brushes on paper, means that you know the boundaries of the medium and can avoid pitfalls that less experienced painters might have. Frankly, I'd never choose a wood b.g., but you would get more sales.

Yes, to me it's still a photograph and I'd be proud to give it to the girl.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Maggie,

I prefer the second version. i'd have not chosen wood as a b.g. But it works well, LOL!! I think that the fact you are an accomplished painter with real water color and brushes on paper, means that you know the boundaries of the medium and can avoid pitfalls that less experienced painters might have. Frankly, I'd never choose a wood b.g., but you would get more sales.

Yes, to me it's still a photograph and I'd be proud to give it to the girl.

Asher

Click to expand...

Well, it doesn't have to be on wood. It can be anything and that is what experimenting does. I no longer think of it as a photograph; I think of it as a paint-over.

Maggie Terlecki said:

Well, it doesn't have to be on wood. It can be anything and that is what experimenting does. I no longer think of it as a photograph; I think of it as a paint-over.

Click to expand...

....but a photograph is mean to be a drawing with or from light and the "paint over " term does not contain that. Need a new name for this I guess!

Asher

After such a fantastic explanation and a very small Google search I got interested in the process !!

Thank you Maggie !! You have - you are - fantastic !
Lot's of work done ! Great ! Thank you so much again !

Antonio Correia said:

After such a fantastic explanation and a very small Google search I got interested in the process !!

Thank you Maggie !! You have - you are - fantastic !
Lot's of work done ! Great ! Thank you so much again !

Click to expand...

Thank you, Antonio. I'm glad that it provokes interest and exploration. We cannot be hurt by that; there is only knowledge to be gained and pleasure doing so.
Maggie

Antonio Correia said:

After such a fantastic explanation and a very small Google search I got interested in the process !!

Thank you Maggie !! You have - you are - fantastic !
Lot's of work done ! Great ! Thank you so much again !

Click to expand...

This is great, Antonio! I'm so happy that people as classically competent as you are, are so open to such new ideas.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

This is great, Antonio! I'm so happy that people as classically competent as you are, are so open to such new ideas. Asher

Click to expand...

I hope to be able to post my experiences on this matter only in a couple of weeks.
I can only study this tool back home and I do have an expo to prepare in December which I will talk to you soon in a separate thread .

The fundamental flaw in low light photography of this sort, is to expose for mid gray. Actually, the model has dark skin and one really needs to over-expose by 1.5 stops - enough so that the white of her eyes and her teeth aren't blown out to an amorphous bright white. Then one can recover the skin, bringing it down. That way, even the reflection in the glass, against the steel tray, would have been lively.

So unless one uses an A7S with fantastic light sensitivity and low noise, flash is really needed. however, since she is dark skinned, light needs also to come from 90 degrees to her face to get some highlights. So this type of picture is a real challenge.

My plan is to repeat it with flash.

Asher

I do like the concept and the original shot you got. Grain is a very natural thing to me from my "silver halide" darkroom times long ago, so I find this very pleasant. You already know that I'm not a PP guy who does his work afterwards, so yes, I like it a lot "as is"...

Dr Klaus Schmitt said:

I do like the concept and the original shot you got. Grain is a very natural thing to me from my "silver halide" darkroom times long ago, so I find this very pleasant. You already know that I'm not a PP guy who does his work afterwards, so yes, I like it a lot "as is"...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the note, Klaus, i love the original too. Still, I now must plan to return and use flash. I have designed and had built an ultralight strobe. It weighs just 0.5lb and about 15 oz with cable weight. I carry two lights, one on the camera and the other on a stand or perhaps on the camera as a key light reflecting of a 21" umbrella. Just have have to make sure they don't mind this intrusion!

Asher

Hi Asher,

I am very much with Tom Dinning and others here, as somebody who does not care for digital reproductions of paint strokes. There is something deeply-unsettling about using an instrument to "capture light" (camera), as input to something that mimics human brush strokes. To me, it represents the crossing of a domain boundary. Remarkable as the software is, I just couldn't see it in the same light as a hand-painted artwork, and thus, to me, represents a frivolous and pointless activity.

This is just my opinion though, and I in no way judge others who feel different. The results, as posted on this thread, are certainly visually beautiful, and so "authentic" it's scary.

Back to you photo: I really like the spontaneous moment you've captured, and the enigma in the mirror reflection. That adds enormous interest.

I was wondering if you'll let me have a go at the de-noising of your image, if you wanted to PM me a link to a RAW file? If not, that's fine, but I have this gut feeling that I can get it quite a bit better than your post using some open-source software, not to mention a restoration of some of the "lost" colour

Would be an interesting experiment. I totally understand if you'd rather not send it though, but it may have been interesting to compare the software capabilities, with a bit of a tech write-up posted here.

Dawid Loubser said:

Hi Asher,

I am very much with Tom Dinning and others here, as somebody who does not care for digital reproductions of paint strokes. There is something deeply-unsettling about using an instrument to "capture light" (camera), as input to something that mimics human brush strokes. To me, it represents the crossing of a domain boundary. Remarkable as the software is, I just couldn't see it in the same light as a hand-painted artwork, and thus, to me, represents a frivolous and pointless activity.

Click to expand...

I hate to say Tom might be right, as that's a crack in my armore that he could exploit, but, yes, I grant that painting algorithms do seem to be a little non-kosher. But then, a lot of folk thrive on "treif"! But even "treif" can be slopped on a plate or presented beautifully!

Dawid Loubser said:

This is just my opinion though, and I in no way judge others who feel different. The results, as posted on this thread, are certainly visually beautiful, and so "authentic" it's scary.

Click to expand...

Thanks,

Asher

Dawid Loubser said:

Back to you photo: I really like the spontaneous moment you've captured, and the enigma in the mirror reflection. That adds enormous interest.

I was wondering if you'll let me have a go at the de-noising of your image, if you wanted to PM me a link to a RAW file? If not, that's fine, but I have this gut feeling that I can get it quite a bit better than your post using some open-source software, not to mention a restoration of some of the "lost" colour

Would be an interesting experiment. I totally understand if you'd rather not send it though, but it may have been interesting to compare the software capabilities, with a bit of a tech write-up posted here.

Click to expand...

That would be wonderful, Dawid. I am very interested in any new tools to rescue pictures taken in extreme conditions!

I just have to dig back and locate the file!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

That would be wonderful, Dawid. I am very interested in any new tools to rescue pictures taken in extreme conditions!

I just have to dig back and locate the file!

Asher

Click to expand...

Looking forward to it! I hope I am not mistaken that e.g RawTherapee's LMMSE de-mosaicing, pyramid de-noising selectively applied using parametric masking, CIE CAM 02 (colour appearance model), and other goodies not found in mainstream processors will allow me to show you a thing or two If I'm wrong, then we know.

Asher Kelman said:

That would be wonderful, Dawid. I am very interested in any new tools to rescue pictures taken in extreme conditions!

I just have to dig back and locate the file!

Asher

Click to expand...

Do you happen to have more than one from the about the same viewpoint? This is actually one of the use cases I have in mind for this project.

Sam Hames said:

Do you happen to have more than one from the about the same viewpoint? This is actually one of the use cases I have in mind for this project.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm happy to send them to you too!

Asher