An Exercise

On 5/24/2016 11:47 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:43:22 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/24/2016 9:11 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Bill W
wrote:

Here is an image with heavy fog due to my strobe light diffusing on the
glass. It is not a good image, but in view of the recent discussion I am
posting this NEF file for anyone, who is interested, to play with to try
to remove the light scatter. I will start by saying that I could not do
it, either with the ACR fog filter, or in LAB. Though I came closer in
LAB, but had some serious color shifts.

Have fun

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160522_zoo%20birds_2801.NEF

Most of this is simply using dehaze in LR. I moved it to 100%.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/1f18b2

but..but..didn't we just hear how lab mode is supposed to be better
than dehaze?


Since you have such a big mouth, let's see what you can do.

Nospam is 100% correct about this issue. Dehaze does not just change
settings that we have access to through the other sliders. It is an
entirely different process, and I could not even come close with
anything else. Honestly, it took about 60 seconds for my version, and
95% of the correction came from just shoving the dehaze slider all the
way over. I could have left it at that, and it would have been fine.

Dehaze also works great when you are trying to fix a photo that was
shot through glass.


Bill, I am not saying that the dehaze filter does not work for a lot of
images. I am saying that nospam carried his statement to a ridiculous
point when he disputed that different tools will usually require
different techniques. He seems to do that a lot. I also state that
sometimes LAB is a technique.
Take the image I posted without flare and sharpen it as you usually do.
then for comparison sharpen just the luminescence layer in LAB about 10%
more than you did using RGB. Then go back to RGB and remove about 50% of
the color cast. See if there is a difference. You will then understand
what I am talking about.


--
PeterN

On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:49:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/24/2016 11:47 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:43:22 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/24/2016 9:11 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Bill W
wrote:

Here is an image with heavy fog due to my strobe light diffusing on the
glass. It is not a good image, but in view of the recent discussion I am
posting this NEF file for anyone, who is interested, to play with to try
to remove the light scatter. I will start by saying that I could not do
it, either with the ACR fog filter, or in LAB. Though I came closer in
LAB, but had some serious color shifts.

Have fun

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160522_zoo%20birds_2801.NEF

Most of this is simply using dehaze in LR. I moved it to 100%.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/1f18b2

but..but..didn't we just hear how lab mode is supposed to be better
than dehaze?


Since you have such a big mouth, let's see what you can do.

Nospam is 100% correct about this issue. Dehaze does not just change
settings that we have access to through the other sliders. It is an
entirely different process, and I could not even come close with
anything else. Honestly, it took about 60 seconds for my version, and
95% of the correction came from just shoving the dehaze slider all the
way over. I could have left it at that, and it would have been fine.

Dehaze also works great when you are trying to fix a photo that was
shot through glass.


Bill, I am not saying that the dehaze filter does not work for a lot of
images. I am saying that nospam carried his statement to a ridiculous
point when he disputed that different tools will usually require
different techniques. He seems to do that a lot. I also state that
sometimes LAB is a technique.
Take the image I posted without flare and sharpen it as you usually do.
then for comparison sharpen just the luminescence layer in LAB about 10%
more than you did using RGB. Then go back to RGB and remove about 50% of
the color cast. See if there is a difference. You will then understand
what I am talking about.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, even though I think dehaze works
miracles, I rarely use it because it works miracles only on the
problems it's intended for, namely haze, or other issues that have the
same or similar effect as true haze (shooting through glass, and sun
glare are a couple of examples). You can use it on lots of things, and
it has interesting effects, but there are other tools that work better
for things other than true haze problems. There are lots and lots of
different tools and approaches out there, and they all have their
uses. At the same time, I'm willing to bet that in most cases, if 20
people used their own approach on the same photo, there would be no
agreement on which came out the best. I don't think that applies to
haze, though. And I don't think nospam ever argued anything other than
the fact that dehaze takes a different approach to the problem, and
that we cannot duplicate it by other means. I believe that he is 100%
correct about that. They are using an algorithm based on haze
modeling. It's their models, and their math used to correct it, and we
don't have access to those things, or access to the tools we would
need for the corrections.

I can't remember if you have LR, but if you do, just take that photo
and jam the dehaze slider all the way to the right. It's amazing. and
try it on any photo you shot through glass. It's a great quick fix, or
at least a great start to a reasonable fix.

On 5/24/2016 4:32 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:49:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

snip


Bill, I am not saying that the dehaze filter does not work for a lot of
images. I am saying that nospam carried his statement to a ridiculous
point when he disputed that different tools will usually require
different techniques. He seems to do that a lot. I also state that
sometimes LAB is a technique.
Take the image I posted without flare and sharpen it as you usually do.
then for comparison sharpen just the luminescence layer in LAB about 10%
more than you did using RGB. Then go back to RGB and remove about 50% of
the color cast. See if there is a difference. You will then understand
what I am talking about.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, even though I think dehaze works
miracles, I rarely use it because it works miracles only on the
problems it's intended for, namely haze, or other issues that have the
same or similar effect as true haze (shooting through glass, and sun
glare are a couple of examples). You can use it on lots of things, and
it has interesting effects, but there are other tools that work better
for things other than true haze problems. There are lots and lots of
different tools and approaches out there, and they all have their
uses. At the same time, I'm willing to bet that in most cases, if 20
people used their own approach on the same photo, there would be no
agreement on which came out the best.

I would never bet against that.



I don't think that applies to
haze, though. And I don't think nospam ever argued anything other than
the fact that dehaze takes a different approach to the problem, and
that we cannot duplicate it by other means. I believe that he is 100%
correct about that. They are using an algorithm based on haze
modeling. It's their models, and their math used to correct it, and we
don't have access to those things, or access to the tools we would
need for the corrections.


The discussion chain speaks for itself.

All I have said, and will say is that there are multiple ways of doing
things in PS & LR. Different methods & tools require different techniques

I can't remember if you have LR, but if you do, just take that photo
and jam the dehaze slider all the way to the right. It's amazing. and
try it on any photo you shot through glass. It's a great quick fix, or
at least a great start to a reasonable fix.

No question about that. However, the image I posted is one that normally
would have been discarded. I just thought it might be a fun exercise.
Even after dehazing, the image is crap.



--
PeterN

On Tue, 24 May 2016 17:09:11 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/24/2016 4:32 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:49:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

snip


Bill, I am not saying that the dehaze filter does not work for a lot of
images. I am saying that nospam carried his statement to a ridiculous
point when he disputed that different tools will usually require
different techniques. He seems to do that a lot. I also state that
sometimes LAB is a technique.
Take the image I posted without flare and sharpen it as you usually do.
then for comparison sharpen just the luminescence layer in LAB about 10%
more than you did using RGB. Then go back to RGB and remove about 50% of
the color cast. See if there is a difference. You will then understand
what I am talking about.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, even though I think dehaze works
miracles, I rarely use it because it works miracles only on the
problems it's intended for, namely haze, or other issues that have the
same or similar effect as true haze (shooting through glass, and sun
glare are a couple of examples). You can use it on lots of things, and
it has interesting effects, but there are other tools that work better
for things other than true haze problems. There are lots and lots of
different tools and approaches out there, and they all have their
uses. At the same time, I'm willing to bet that in most cases, if 20
people used their own approach on the same photo, there would be no
agreement on which came out the best.

I would never bet against that.



I don't think that applies to
haze, though. And I don't think nospam ever argued anything other than
the fact that dehaze takes a different approach to the problem, and
that we cannot duplicate it by other means. I believe that he is 100%
correct about that. They are using an algorithm based on haze
modeling. It's their models, and their math used to correct it, and we
don't have access to those things, or access to the tools we would
need for the corrections.


The discussion chain speaks for itself.

All I have said, and will say is that there are multiple ways of doing
things in PS & LR. Different methods & tools require different techniques

I can't remember if you have LR, but if you do, just take that photo
and jam the dehaze slider all the way to the right. It's amazing. and
try it on any photo you shot through glass. It's a great quick fix, or
at least a great start to a reasonable fix.

No question about that. However, the image I posted is one that normally
would have been discarded. I just thought it might be a fun exercise.
Even after dehazing, the image is crap.

I'm not sure that there would even be agreement on that.

On 2016-05-24 21:09:11 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/24/2016 4:32 PM, Bill W wrote:



I can't remember if you have LR, but if you do, just take that photo
and jam the dehaze slider all the way to the right. It's amazing. and
try it on any photo you shot through glass. It's a great quick fix, or
at least a great start to a reasonable fix.

No question about that. However, the image I posted is one that
normally would have been discarded. I just thought it might be a fun
exercise. Even after dehazing, the image is crap.

;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Bill W
wrote:

try
to remove the light scatter. I will start by saying that I could not do
it, either with the ACR fog filter, or in LAB. Though I came closer in
LAB, but had some serious color shifts.

Have fun


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...o%20birds_2801.
NEF

Most of this is simply using dehaze in LR. I moved it to 100%.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/1f18b2

but..but..didn't we just hear how lab mode is supposed to be better
than dehaze?


Since you have such a big mouth, let's see what you can do.

Nospam is 100% correct about this issue. Dehaze does not just change
settings that we have access to through the other sliders. It is an
entirely different process, and I could not even come close with
anything else. Honestly, it took about 60 seconds for my version, and
95% of the correction came from just shoving the dehaze slider all the
way over. I could have left it at that, and it would have been fine.

Dehaze also works great when you are trying to fix a photo that was
shot through glass.


Bill, I am not saying that the dehaze filter does not work for a lot of
images. I am saying that nospam carried his statement to a ridiculous
point when he disputed that different tools will usually require
different techniques. He seems to do that a lot. I also state that
sometimes LAB is a technique.
Take the image I posted without flare and sharpen it as you usually do.
then for comparison sharpen just the luminescence layer in LAB about 10%
more than you did using RGB. Then go back to RGB and remove about 50% of
the color cast. See if there is a difference. You will then understand
what I am talking about.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, even though I think dehaze works
miracles, I rarely use it because it works miracles only on the
problems it's intended for, namely haze, or other issues that have the
same or similar effect as true haze (shooting through glass, and sun
glare are a couple of examples). You can use it on lots of things, and
it has interesting effects, but there are other tools that work better
for things other than true haze problems. There are lots and lots of
different tools and approaches out there, and they all have their
uses. At the same time, I'm willing to bet that in most cases, if 20
people used their own approach on the same photo, there would be no
agreement on which came out the best. I don't think that applies to
haze, though. And I don't think nospam ever argued anything other than
the fact that dehaze takes a different approach to the problem, and
that we cannot duplicate it by other means. I believe that he is 100%
correct about that. They are using an algorithm based on haze
modeling. It's their models, and their math used to correct it, and we
don't have access to those things, or access to the tools we would
need for the corrections.

that's exactly it.

i never said it's the only option to be used for every photo.

I can't remember if you have LR, but if you do, just take that photo
and jam the dehaze slider all the way to the right. It's amazing. and
try it on any photo you shot through glass. It's a great quick fix, or
at least a great start to a reasonable fix.

yep.

On Tue, 24 May 2016 13:32:44 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:49:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/24/2016 11:47 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:43:22 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/24/2016 9:11 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Bill W
wrote:

Here is an image with heavy fog due to my strobe light diffusing on the
glass. It is not a good image, but in view of the recent discussion I am
posting this NEF file for anyone, who is interested, to play with to try
to remove the light scatter. I will start by saying that I could not do
it, either with the ACR fog filter, or in LAB. Though I came closer in
LAB, but had some serious color shifts.

Have fun

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160522_zoo%20birds_2801.NEF

Most of this is simply using dehaze in LR. I moved it to 100%.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/1f18b2

but..but..didn't we just hear how lab mode is supposed to be better
than dehaze?


Since you have such a big mouth, let's see what you can do.

Nospam is 100% correct about this issue. Dehaze does not just change
settings that we have access to through the other sliders. It is an
entirely different process, and I could not even come close with
anything else. Honestly, it took about 60 seconds for my version, and
95% of the correction came from just shoving the dehaze slider all the
way over. I could have left it at that, and it would have been fine.

Dehaze also works great when you are trying to fix a photo that was
shot through glass.


Bill, I am not saying that the dehaze filter does not work for a lot of
images. I am saying that nospam carried his statement to a ridiculous
point when he disputed that different tools will usually require
different techniques. He seems to do that a lot. I also state that
sometimes LAB is a technique.
Take the image I posted without flare and sharpen it as you usually do.
then for comparison sharpen just the luminescence layer in LAB about 10%
more than you did using RGB. Then go back to RGB and remove about 50% of
the color cast. See if there is a difference. You will then understand
what I am talking about.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, even though I think dehaze works
miracles, I rarely use it because it works miracles only on the
problems it's intended for, namely haze, or other issues that have the
same or similar effect as true haze (shooting through glass, and sun
glare are a couple of examples). You can use it on lots of things, and
it has interesting effects, but there are other tools that work better
for things other than true haze problems. There are lots and lots of
different tools and approaches out there, and they all have their
uses. At the same time, I'm willing to bet that in most cases, if 20
people used their own approach on the same photo, there would be no
agreement on which came out the best. I don't think that applies to
haze, though. And I don't think nospam ever argued anything other than
the fact that dehaze takes a different approach to the problem, and
that we cannot duplicate it by other means.

I would be quite happy if that was all that he said but it isn't. He
also claims that it is always impossible to do better with Lab, and
there I must disagree with him. I have a number of photographs where I
think Lab has doned better than the haze filter. Nevertheless I always
try the haze filter first and I only go on to Lab if I'm not happy
with the results. I am not trying to claim infallibility for Lab and I
have some shots where I am not happy no matter how I try to remove
haze.

I believe that he is 100%
correct about that. They are using an algorithm based on haze
modeling. It's their models, and their math used to correct it, and we
don't have access to those things, or access to the tools we would
need for the corrections.

I can't remember if you have LR, but if you do, just take that photo
and jam the dehaze slider all the way to the right. It's amazing. and
try it on any photo you shot through glass. It's a great quick fix, or
at least a great start to a reasonable fix.

And can play havoc with the tints of various (particularly unhazed)
colors.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 25 May 2016 13:34:11 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2016 13:32:44 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:49:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/24/2016 11:47 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:43:22 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/24/2016 9:11 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Bill W
wrote:

Here is an image with heavy fog due to my strobe light diffusing on the
glass. It is not a good image, but in view of the recent discussion I am
posting this NEF file for anyone, who is interested, to play with to try
to remove the light scatter. I will start by saying that I could not do
it, either with the ACR fog filter, or in LAB. Though I came closer in
LAB, but had some serious color shifts.

Have fun

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160522_zoo%20birds_2801.NEF

Most of this is simply using dehaze in LR. I moved it to 100%.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/1f18b2

but..but..didn't we just hear how lab mode is supposed to be better
than dehaze?


Since you have such a big mouth, let's see what you can do.

Nospam is 100% correct about this issue. Dehaze does not just change
settings that we have access to through the other sliders. It is an
entirely different process, and I could not even come close with
anything else. Honestly, it took about 60 seconds for my version, and
95% of the correction came from just shoving the dehaze slider all the
way over. I could have left it at that, and it would have been fine.

Dehaze also works great when you are trying to fix a photo that was
shot through glass.


Bill, I am not saying that the dehaze filter does not work for a lot of
images. I am saying that nospam carried his statement to a ridiculous
point when he disputed that different tools will usually require
different techniques. He seems to do that a lot. I also state that
sometimes LAB is a technique.
Take the image I posted without flare and sharpen it as you usually do.
then for comparison sharpen just the luminescence layer in LAB about 10%
more than you did using RGB. Then go back to RGB and remove about 50% of
the color cast. See if there is a difference. You will then understand
what I am talking about.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, even though I think dehaze works
miracles, I rarely use it because it works miracles only on the
problems it's intended for, namely haze, or other issues that have the
same or similar effect as true haze (shooting through glass, and sun
glare are a couple of examples). You can use it on lots of things, and
it has interesting effects, but there are other tools that work better
for things other than true haze problems. There are lots and lots of
different tools and approaches out there, and they all have their
uses. At the same time, I'm willing to bet that in most cases, if 20
people used their own approach on the same photo, there would be no
agreement on which came out the best. I don't think that applies to
haze, though. And I don't think nospam ever argued anything other than
the fact that dehaze takes a different approach to the problem, and
that we cannot duplicate it by other means.

I would be quite happy if that was all that he said but it isn't. He
also claims that it is always impossible to do better with Lab, and
there I must disagree with him. I have a number of photographs where I
think Lab has doned better than the haze filter. Nevertheless I always
try the haze filter first and I only go on to Lab if I'm not happy
with the results. I am not trying to claim infallibility for Lab and I
have some shots where I am not happy no matter how I try to remove
haze.

I think that at least some of the thinking in this thread is that the
haze filter is intended for washed out colors, or anything that "looks
hazy", but it's not, unless the colors are washed out because of
natural, atmospheric haze. Plenty of things can cause washed out
colors, and haze is only one of them. For other causes, dehaze might
help, and help a lot, but that's not what it was intended for, and
other approaches are almost certain to work better. I've tried dehaze
now on just about every sort of thing because I didn't know any
better, but now I have a pretty good idea what it's useful for.

I believe that he is 100%
correct about that. They are using an algorithm based on haze
modeling. It's their models, and their math used to correct it, and we
don't have access to those things, or access to the tools we would
need for the corrections.

I can't remember if you have LR, but if you do, just take that photo
and jam the dehaze slider all the way to the right. It's amazing. and
try it on any photo you shot through glass. It's a great quick fix, or
at least a great start to a reasonable fix.

And can play havoc with the tints of various (particularly unhazed)
colors.

Absolutely, along with other problems.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Nospam is 100% correct about this issue. Dehaze does not just change
settings that we have access to through the other sliders. It is an
entirely different process, and I could not even come close with
anything else. Honestly, it took about 60 seconds for my version, and
95% of the correction came from just shoving the dehaze slider all the
way over. I could have left it at that, and it would have been fine.

Dehaze also works great when you are trying to fix a photo that was
shot through glass.


Bill, I am not saying that the dehaze filter does not work for a lot of
images. I am saying that nospam carried his statement to a ridiculous
point when he disputed that different tools will usually require
different techniques. He seems to do that a lot. I also state that
sometimes LAB is a technique.
Take the image I posted without flare and sharpen it as you usually do.
then for comparison sharpen just the luminescence layer in LAB about 10%
more than you did using RGB. Then go back to RGB and remove about 50% of
the color cast. See if there is a difference. You will then understand
what I am talking about.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, even though I think dehaze works
miracles, I rarely use it because it works miracles only on the
problems it's intended for, namely haze, or other issues that have the
same or similar effect as true haze (shooting through glass, and sun
glare are a couple of examples). You can use it on lots of things, and
it has interesting effects, but there are other tools that work better
for things other than true haze problems. There are lots and lots of
different tools and approaches out there, and they all have their
uses. At the same time, I'm willing to bet that in most cases, if 20
people used their own approach on the same photo, there would be no
agreement on which came out the best. I don't think that applies to
haze, though. And I don't think nospam ever argued anything other than
the fact that dehaze takes a different approach to the problem, and
that we cannot duplicate it by other means.

I would be quite happy if that was all that he said but it isn't. He
also claims that it is always impossible to do better with Lab, and
there I must disagree with him. I have a number of photographs where I
think Lab has doned better than the haze filter.

not with haze, it didn't.

other things, maybe, but chances are you could have done as good or
better *without* a lossy rgb-lab-rgb conversion.

working in lab is very rarely needed.

Nevertheless I always
try the haze filter first and I only go on to Lab if I'm not happy
with the results. I am not trying to claim infallibility for Lab and I
have some shots where I am not happy no matter how I try to remove
haze.

that's ok.