Lenses and sharpening

On 2014.10.06, 19:44 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:42:50 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2014.10.06, 17:27 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 22:37:46 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2014.10.05, 20:55 , PeterN wrote:
On 10/5/2014 6:57 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.10.05, 14:42 , PeterN wrote:

We went through all this some many months ago. I demonstrated clearly
that the amount of 'loss' was negligible in practical terms.


I would use the terem "color change." anstead of loss.

Any change is a quality loss. Whether that is colour difference, tone,
brightness, sharpness ... whatever, it's a loss.


Then you are using a different definition of quality.

Not at all. A non lossy process would have:

RGB-A -- X-format -- RGB-B

with RGB-A identical to RGB-B

But - the fact is that with Lab

RGB-A -- Lab -- RGB-B

RGB-A =/= RGB-B, therefore there was quality loss.


But hang on: we do accept a certain degree of quality loss as part of
the normal process of editing. It doesn't take much manipulation to
turn a smooth histogram into something like
http://pe-images.s3.amazonaws.com/ba.../fix-white.gif
Push things a bit harder and you can get
http://www.snoopy.me.uk/misc/365proj...gram/comb3.jpg
or even https://aperture64.files.wordpress.c...09/combing.gif

The 'issue' refers to the questions: "If I take my JPG and throw it
into LAB ('cause I want to do something easier done there) and then
throw it back, is there a loss? Is it important?"

1. Yes.
2. Negligible.

So in a "normal process of editing" where one goes from a high quality
image (raw) to the Adobe "editing space" format and then save as a:

PSD: no loss (other than editing effects)
TIFF: no loss (other than editing effects)
JPG: lossy

But if one went to Lab space and back along the way, then it will always
be lossy even if nothing was done in Lab space.

True, but as I found in my experiments (as described again, below) the
loss on conversion is close to zero. The argument is not whether or
not there is any loss in going through Lab space but whether or not
the loss is significant. nospam seems to equate even the smallest loss
arising from Lab conversion as significant but he forgets that the
fact that he has loaded the image into an editor is going to wreak
considerably more damage to the original image. That's why I think he
is talking nondense when he advocates not using Lab so as to avoid
damage.

We're in violent agreement ... (in all respects ;-) ).

OTOH the "need" for working in Lab space is rare (for me), but when I
want (especially) to do something creative in colour exchange, it's the
best. That's rare though.

--
Among Broad Outlines, conception is far more pleasurable
than “carrying [the children] to fruition.”
Sadly, “there’s a high infant mortality rate among
Broad Outlines—they often fall prey to Nonstarters.”
"Bestiary of Intelligence Writing" - CIA

On 10/7/2014 3:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

....large snip....


Thanks,
What you and Dr. Brown say makes sense. From a photo standpoint I will
continue to keep LAB in my workflow, while trying not to overdue it.

There is an interesting discussion on using LAB to control color
saturation at:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18308

though it may have been posted before.

I'd tend to think of Lab mode as just another tool
to work with as needed. The more tools the better,
but do take the time to learn the range and limitations
of the stuff in your tool box.

Anyway, sticking my neck out (for what little it may be
worth), I pulled the squirrel photo out from the above
"..dgrin.com/.. " thread and had a go with it in Lab space.

I've posted the before and my after in my photobucket
if anyone may care.
http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...ry/Lab%20tests
http://tinyurl.com/kyrt87u

I'm guessing similar results could be had in RGB space.

==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 10/8/2014 10:51 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 10/7/2014 3:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

....large snip....


Thanks,
What you and Dr. Brown say makes sense. From a photo standpoint I will
continue to keep LAB in my workflow, while trying not to overdue it.

There is an interesting discussion on using LAB to control color
saturation at:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18308

though it may have been posted before.

I'd tend to think of Lab mode as just another tool
to work with as needed. The more tools the better,
but do take the time to learn the range and limitations
of the stuff in your tool box.

Anyway, sticking my neck out (for what little it may be
worth), I pulled the squirrel photo out from the above
"..dgrin.com/.. " thread and had a go with it in Lab space.

I've posted the before and my after in my photobucket
if anyone may care.

http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...ry/Lab%20tests
http://tinyurl.com/kyrt87u

I'm guessing similar results could be had in RGB space.

==
Later...
Ron C

LAB is indeed another tool that can be useful. Here is an example of
saturation differences.

http://blog.epicedits.com/2007/12/20/photoshop-technique-lab-saturation-adjustments/
Yet when


--
PeterN

On 2014-10-09 15:47:57 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/8/2014 10:51 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 10/7/2014 3:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

....large snip....


Thanks,
What you and Dr. Brown say makes sense. From a photo standpoint I will
continue to keep LAB in my workflow, while trying not to overdue it.

There is an interesting discussion on using LAB to control color
saturation at:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18308

though it may have been posted before.

I'd tend to think of Lab mode as just another tool
to work with as needed. The more tools the better,
but do take the time to learn the range and limitations
of the stuff in your tool box.

Anyway, sticking my neck out (for what little it may be
worth), I pulled the squirrel photo out from the above
"..dgrin.com/.. " thread and had a go with it in Lab space.

I've posted the before and my after in my photobucket
if anyone may care.

http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...ry/Lab%20tests
http://tinyurl.com/kyrt87u

I'm guessing similar results could be had in RGB space.

==
Later...
Ron C

LAB is indeed another tool that can be useful. Here is an example of
saturation differences.

http://blog.epicedits.com/2007/12/20/photoshop-technique-lab-saturation-adjustments/
Yet

when

That is a 7+ year old article, much has changed both with photoshop,
ACR and some very useful plug-ins which do a better job than resorting
to LAB. So, regardless of whether a LAB in & out cycle is lossy or not,
the question remains; for other than some arcane specialized purpose,
why bother with LAB?

There are very good plug-ins from NIK, OnOne, AlienSkin, Intensify Pro
(for Mac users only), and even the dreaded Topaz.

For the saturation adjustment try exploring NIK Viveza 2.

I am not even going to address sharpening in LAB given the current
proficiency of the tools we have available without LAB, and the obvious
polarizing stance of folks in this room.

As for dealing with the haze issue look no further than some of the
tools available in NIK Color Efex Pro 4, or even better embrace the
haze and make if a part of the image.

There isn't much point in discussing the capabilities of Intensify Pro
here for our Windows users, other than to say it makes an interesting
alternative for the Mac user to some of the other more costly plug-ins
for $24.99.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-10-09 16:26:20 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-10-09 15:47:57 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/8/2014 10:51 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 10/7/2014 3:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

....large snip....


Thanks,
What you and Dr. Brown say makes sense. From a photo standpoint I will
continue to keep LAB in my workflow, while trying not to overdue it.

There is an interesting discussion on using LAB to control color
saturation at:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18308

though it may have been posted before.

I'd tend to think of Lab mode as just another tool
to work with as needed. The more tools the better,
but do take the time to learn the range and limitations
of the stuff in your tool box.

Anyway, sticking my neck out (for what little it may be
worth), I pulled the squirrel photo out from the above
"..dgrin.com/.. " thread and had a go with it in Lab space.

I've posted the before and my after in my photobucket
if anyone may care.

http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...ry/Lab%20tests
http://tinyurl.com/kyrt87u

I'm guessing similar results could be had in RGB space.

==
Later...
Ron C

LAB is indeed another tool that can be useful. Here is an example of
saturation differences.

http://blog.epicedits.com/2007/12/20/photoshop-technique-lab-saturation-adjustments/
Yet

when

That

is a 7+ year old article, much has changed both with photoshop, ACR and
some very useful plug-ins which do a better job than resorting to LAB.
So, regardless of whether a LAB in & out cycle is lossy or not, the
question remains; for other than some arcane specialized purpose, why
bother with LAB?

There are very good plug-ins from NIK, OnOne, AlienSkin, Intensify Pro
(for Mac users only), and even the dreaded Topaz.

For the saturation adjustment try exploring NIK Viveza 2.

I am not even going to address sharpening in LAB given the current
proficiency of the tools we have available without LAB, and the obvious
polarizing stance of folks in this room.

As for dealing with the haze issue look no further than some of the
tools available in NIK Color Efex Pro 4, or even better embrace the
haze and make if a part of the image.

There isn't much point in discussing the capabilities of Intensify Pro
here for our Windows users, other than to say it makes an interesting
alternative for the Mac user to some of the other more costly plug-ins
for $24.99.

Oops! that was for the lesser Intensify, Intensify Pro is $59.99.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/9/2014 12:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 15:47:57 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/8/2014 10:51 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 10/7/2014 3:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

....large snip....


Thanks,
What you and Dr. Brown say makes sense. From a photo standpoint I will
continue to keep LAB in my workflow, while trying not to overdue it.

There is an interesting discussion on using LAB to control color
saturation at:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18308

though it may have been posted before.

I'd tend to think of Lab mode as just another tool
to work with as needed. The more tools the better,
but do take the time to learn the range and limitations
of the stuff in your tool box.

Anyway, sticking my neck out (for what little it may be
worth), I pulled the squirrel photo out from the above
"..dgrin.com/.. " thread and had a go with it in Lab space.

I've posted the before and my after in my photobucket
if anyone may care.

http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...ry/Lab%20tests

http://tinyurl.com/kyrt87u

I'm guessing similar results could be had in RGB space.

==
Later...
Ron C

LAB is indeed another tool that can be useful. Here is an example of
saturation differences.

http://blog.epicedits.com/2007/12/20/photoshop-technique-lab-saturation-adjustments/

Yet

when

That is a 7+ year old article, much has changed both with photoshop, ACR
and some very useful plug-ins which do a better job than resorting to
LAB. So, regardless of whether a LAB in & out cycle is lossy or not, the
question remains; for other than some arcane specialized purpose, why
bother with LAB?

There are very good plug-ins from NIK, OnOne, AlienSkin, Intensify Pro
(for Mac users only), and even the dreaded Topaz.

For the saturation adjustment try exploring NIK Viveza 2.

I am not even going to address sharpening in LAB given the current
proficiency of the tools we have available without LAB, and the obvious
polarizing stance of folks in this room.

As for dealing with the haze issue look no further than some of the
tools available in NIK Color Efex Pro 4, or even better embrace the haze
and make if a part of the image.

There isn't much point in discussing the capabilities of Intensify Pro
here for our Windows users, other than to say it makes an interesting
alternative for the Mac user to some of the other more costly plug-ins
for $24.99.


The fact is that very little can be done in any plug-in that can't be
done in PS. Almost anything can be done in both RGB & LAB. LAB is a lot
easie, and faster for some processes.
that gives more flexability, which is a good thing. Getting into a tool
war, is meaningless, unless there is a reasonable accurate description
of what eah plug-in does.

Habing said that, I am annoyed that the oil paint filter was removed
from CC 2014.

--
PeterN

On 2014-10-09 17:49:40 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/9/2014 12:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 15:47:57 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/8/2014 10:51 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 10/7/2014 3:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

....large snip....


Thanks,
What you and Dr. Brown say makes sense. From a photo standpoint I will
continue to keep LAB in my workflow, while trying not to overdue it.

There is an interesting discussion on using LAB to control color
saturation at:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18308

though it may have been posted before.

I'd tend to think of Lab mode as just another tool
to work with as needed. The more tools the better,
but do take the time to learn the range and limitations
of the stuff in your tool box.

Anyway, sticking my neck out (for what little it may be
worth), I pulled the squirrel photo out from the above
"..dgrin.com/.. " thread and had a go with it in Lab space.

I've posted the before and my after in my photobucket
if anyone may care.

http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...ry/Lab%20tests

http://tinyurl.com/kyrt87u

I'm guessing similar results could be had in RGB space.

==
Later...
Ron C

LAB is indeed another tool that can be useful. Here is an example of
saturation differences.

http://blog.epicedits.com/2007/12/20/photoshop-technique-lab-saturation-adjustments/

Yet

when

That

is a 7+ year old article, much has changed both with photoshop, ACR
and some very useful plug-ins which do a better job than resorting to
LAB. So, regardless of whether a LAB in & out cycle is lossy or not, the
question remains; for other than some arcane specialized purpose, why
bother with LAB?

There are very good plug-ins from NIK, OnOne, AlienSkin, Intensify Pro
(for Mac users only), and even the dreaded Topaz.

For the saturation adjustment try exploring NIK Viveza 2.

I am not even going to address sharpening in LAB given the current
proficiency of the tools we have available without LAB, and the obvious
polarizing stance of folks in this room.

As for dealing with the haze issue look no further than some of the
tools available in NIK Color Efex Pro 4, or even better embrace the haze
and make if a part of the image.

There isn't much point in discussing the capabilities of Intensify Pro
here for our Windows users, other than to say it makes an interesting
alternative for the Mac user to some of the other more costly plug-ins
for $24.99.


The fact is that very little can be done in any plug-in that can't be
done in PS. Almost anything can be done in both RGB & LAB. LAB is a lot
easie, and faster for some processes.
that gives more flexability, which is a good thing. Getting into a tool
war, is meaningless, unless there is a reasonable accurate description
of what eah plug-in does.

Do the research, & experimenting, you have the plug-ins.

Habing said that, I am annoyed that the oil paint filter was removed
from CC 2014.

to the best of my recollection the "Oil Paint" filter and one other
were add-ons back with CS5. I see that it isn't there in CC (2014). So
I checked with the "Filter Gallery" and I see that will only be
available in 8-Bit mode, and "Oil Paint" is absent from that.

So, for now if you want to use the "Oil Paint" filter you will have to
uses PS CC or CS6.

That said I am sure that with some digging about it can be located and
installed. Perhaps Adobe support might be able to help.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/9/14 PDT, 11:55 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:49:40 +0000, PeterN said:
On 10/9/2014 12:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:

The fact is that very little can be done in any plug-in that can't be
done in PS. Almost anything can be done in both RGB & LAB. LAB is a
lot easie, and faster for some processes.
that gives more flexability, which is a good thing. Getting into a
tool war, is meaningless, unless there is a reasonable accurate
description of what eah plug-in does.

Do the research, & experimenting, you have the plug-ins.

Habing said that, I am annoyed that the oil paint filter was removed
from CC 2014.

to the best of my recollection the "Oil Paint" filter and one other were
add-ons back with CS5. I see that it isn't there in CC (2014). So I
checked with the "Filter Gallery" and I see that will only be available
in 8-Bit mode, and "Oil Paint" is absent from that.

So, for now if you want to use the "Oil Paint" filter you will have to
uses PS CC or CS6.

That said I am sure that with some digging about it can be located and
installed. Perhaps Adobe support might be able to help.

If you really want to paint, get StudioArtist v. 4. Amazing program.
Free trial.

And, IIRC, there used to be actions you could download (or make
yourself) that'd do painterly things.

On 2014-10-10 03:26:22 +0000, John McWilliams said:

On 10/9/14 PDT, 11:55 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:49:40 +0000, PeterN said:
On 10/9/2014 12:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:

The fact is that very little can be done in any plug-in that can't be
done in PS. Almost anything can be done in both RGB & LAB. LAB is a
lot easie, and faster for some processes.
that gives more flexability, which is a good thing. Getting into a
tool war, is meaningless, unless there is a reasonable accurate
description of what eah plug-in does.

Do the research, & experimenting, you have the plug-ins.

Habing said that, I am annoyed that the oil paint filter was removed
from CC 2014.

to the best of my recollection the "Oil Paint" filter and one other were
add-ons back with CS5. I see that it isn't there in CC (2014). So I
checked with the "Filter Gallery" and I see that will only be available
in 8-Bit mode, and "Oil Paint" is absent from that.

So, for now if you want to use the "Oil Paint" filter you will have to
uses PS CC or CS6.

That said I am sure that with some digging about it can be located and
installed. Perhaps Adobe support might be able to help.

If you really want to paint, get StudioArtist v. 4. Amazing program.
Free trial.

Not really for me, my painting skills are questionable at best, so I am
not going to spend $300 on that type of program.
Peter is the one who misses the "Oil Paint" filter in PS CC (2014).
However, he has both CS6 & PS CC where it still exists and functions as
designed. Also the PS "Filter Gallery" gives the artist access to a
whole bunch of brushes, styles and effects.
My less ambitious painting skills are catered to with stuff bundled
with my Wacom Intuous 4, Corel Painter Sketch Pad, & Sketchbook
Express. Then with my iPad I have the very powerful ArtStudio.

And, IIRC, there used to be actions you could download (or make
yourself) that'd do painterly things.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/9/2014 11:26 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 10/9/14 PDT, 11:55 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:49:40 +0000, PeterN said:
On 10/9/2014 12:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:

The fact is that very little can be done in any plug-in that can't be
done in PS. Almost anything can be done in both RGB & LAB. LAB is a
lot easie, and faster for some processes.
that gives more flexability, which is a good thing. Getting into a
tool war, is meaningless, unless there is a reasonable accurate
description of what eah plug-in does.

Do the research, & experimenting, you have the plug-ins.

Habing said that, I am annoyed that the oil paint filter was removed
from CC 2014.

to the best of my recollection the "Oil Paint" filter and one other were
add-ons back with CS5. I see that it isn't there in CC (2014). So I
checked with the "Filter Gallery" and I see that will only be available
in 8-Bit mode, and "Oil Paint" is absent from that.

So, for now if you want to use the "Oil Paint" filter you will have to
uses PS CC or CS6.

That said I am sure that with some digging about it can be located and
installed. Perhaps Adobe support might be able to help.

If you really want to paint, get StudioArtist v. 4. Amazing program.
Free trial.

And, IIRC, there used to be actions you could download (or make
yourself) that'd do painterly things.


Thanks for the information. I have used Corel Painter XI, but there are
a lot compatibility issues. My workaround is to convert my file to tiff,
wich can be a PITA. I am currently testing a new Topaz Impressions, and
keeping CS6 installd.

--
PeterN