PL32 future features request

Here everybody can post his problems with PhotoLine
User avatar
Hoogo
Betatester
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sun 03 Jul 2005 13:35
Location: Mülheim/Ruhr

Post by Hoogo » Mon 09 Oct 2006 13:50

You could try to split the picture into 3 layers r/g/b and then scale these layers centered. I don't know if you get comparable results, but you could try.

Splitting a picture:
-duplicate the picture 2 times
-choose white color and the paintbrush
-paint the whole layers: one layer only r/g, one layer only r/b, one layer only g/b.
-choose multiply for the uppermost layers.

DJJohnson
Mitglied
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat 30 Sep 2006 08:12

Post by DJJohnson » Mon 09 Oct 2006 21:55

Yes, I could do that, but .... that would defeat the purpose of having this filter in the first place if I had to do it all manually. :-) This is how I used to fix it in the past with other older editors, it was awkward, time-consuming, no instant preview as you made adjustments (meaning you had to adjust one layer it a bit, see if it helped, move it back, and do this over and over again), etc.

I have a Plugin called PTLens that does the same thing as the CA Filter in PL32, that does it better (with even more options) than the one built into PL32, but I'd like to see PL32 be as good if not better one day, than having to include 3rd-party add-ons. I particularly like one feature in PTLens, where it will overlay the color layer you are adjusting over a gray-scale version of the green/magenta reference layer if you hold down the ALT key while adjusting its respective blue/yellow or red/cyan slider. This feature also makes the 3rd color-layer disappear so it's easy to line up just the one you are working on to the (now gray) green/magenta reference-layer. But suggesting that the one in PL32 do this too might be over-kill and add to too much programming bloat, so I didn't mention it. Not many people even have a strong need for this kind of filter. (I happen to do a lot of macro photography with unique lens combinations so it is important to me. But I'm not like the average photographer.)

I also use some other plugins, like one called NoiseNinja to make noise removal even better than the one in PL32. Although it might be that I don't know how to use the noise-filter in PL32 properly yet. The adjustments aren't very easy to understand what they do. I see no way to sample the noise in the photo in clear areas without detail. Perhaps it does this automatically? But I don't see any evidence of this. (This could make for an interesting discussion in another post, to help people like me figure out how to properly use the noise filter to the best effect.)

I also use a freeware plugin called SmartCurve to make using a Curves Tool a little nicer for basic curves editing on a photo. I like the features in PL32's CLUT tool, but for basic photo-adjustment I don't need all of the more elaborate features that the CLUT tool has (which are important to other PL32 features). Plus I can keep this plugin handy as a single mouse-click on my customized tool-bar.

This reminds me. It would be nice if I could assign different little icons to my Plugins that I put on my customized tool-bar. Having them all being the same default yellow-dot with the red X through them makes it a little confusing. The little help dialogue pop-up with the Plugin's name takes care of that, I just scan over them with the mouse to find the one I want. Still, it would be nice if I could make those icons on my tool-bar unique for each Plugin. I've noticed too that if I add a new Plugin to my plugins folder, then it shifts all the icons on my tool-bar to new Plugins, so I have to go back and reassign them after adding a new Plugin. I can understand why it does this (PL32 picking them sequentially from a plugin list). But it would be nice if they stayed the same after adding a new Plugin. :-) It's not a big deal reassigning them, because most people don't add a lot of plugins very often. It's just something I noticed.

User avatar
Koyaanis
Mitglied
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon 25 Sep 2006 20:23

Image Leveling Help

Post by Koyaanis » Tue 10 Oct 2006 05:35

A trick that I often use to get an outdoor scene perfectly horizontal, is to strike a vertical line between something on the land and its corresponding reflection in the water of a lake or pool. Near the center of the image if possible, to avoid lens and perspective distortions at the sides that would throw it off from being perfectly level. Using the whole image like one huge bubble-level, if you will. (Try this method, it works great! A little something I figured out on my own.)

In the Rotate Document or Rotate Layer tools, there's a nice feature where you can strike a horizontal line on the photo and let the rotate tool make that line perfectly horizontal. I would like to see a check-box where I could choose to make that line perfectly vertical too when needed.

I can easily rotate the image 90 degrees and still use the tool as-is, then rotate the image back where it belongs. But then it becomes hard to detect what might or might not be the corresponding reflection in the water to the object on land. Particularly if the water is not very calm.

Thanks if you can add this!

Oh wait! It already does this automatically! Never-mind. :oops: I'm going to post this anyway just to share the image leveling tip. :-)

User avatar
Hoogo
Betatester
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sun 03 Jul 2005 13:35
Location: Mülheim/Ruhr

Post by Hoogo » Tue 10 Oct 2006 21:52

I've also got a M42-lens that tends to some CAs. PTLens doesn't work with Win98 anymore, so I have to live without it. I have found this link in a forum: http://www.sd3.info/pf828/CAfree/CAfree0-1.html. It approaches CAs slightly different, and it works quite fine for me.

Now that I think about CAs it seems quite impossible to eliminate them. It's all because of a slightly different focal lenght of different colors, right? Doesn't that mean that the colors are not only slightly different in size, but also have a different focus point? A yellow spot in focus might appear sharp in red/green channel, but a red/green dot in the same distance will appear blurry in red/green. And at a different distance this red/green spot should even appear "unwantedly" sharp in one channel...
Looks very tricky to me.

DJJohnson
Mitglied
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat 30 Sep 2006 08:12

Post by DJJohnson » Tue 10 Oct 2006 22:29

hoogo wrote:I've also got a M42-lens that tends to some CAs. PTLens doesn't work with Win98 anymore, so I have to live without it. I have found this link in a forum: http://www.sd3.info/pf828/CAfree/CAfree0-1.html. It approaches CAs slightly different, and it works quite fine for me.
Thanks. I remember playing with CAFree in the distant past, and totally forgot about it. I'll see what it can do. But even better is that I forgot about his other program PFree, this filter deals with the type of chromatic aberration that PL32's filters do not. Color fringing/blooming in digital camera sensors. This will replace the only thing I was missing from giving up on PSP. :-) (Now I can uninstall PSP and not worry about losing any favorite editing tools.) PFree isn't quite as good as the one in PSP, but ... it'll do!
hoogo wrote:Now that I think about CAs it seems quite impossible to eliminate them. It's all because of a slightly different focal lenght of different colors, right? Doesn't that mean that the colors are not only slightly different in size, but also have a different focus point? A yellow spot in focus might appear sharp in red/green channel, but a red/green dot in the same distance will appear blurry in red/green. And at a different distance this red/green spot should even appear "unwantedly" sharp in one channel...
Looks very tricky to me.
Yes, trying to correct for common lens defects like CA is tricky. I've found in the past that even though they call it "linear CA", where the colors are brought to focus at different planes across the image (the effect amplified further from the center axis), this is not always true. On close inspection this shift of colors is not usually linear. Sometimes the colors even have different pincushion or barrel distortion compared to the others. So, I just try to reach a happy-medium by averaging out the defect. It really does help to correct for this problem though. NO lens no matter how expensive is totally free from this problem, unless your optics are all done with mirrors (only reflecting surfaces, no refracting surfaces, mirror-lenses are free from CA effects). It's just a fact of physics and light. If you bring those mis-focused colors back where they belong your image snaps into sharper focus. This is where digital processing excels because it can correct for a property of physics and light that no advanced achromatic lens design could ever accomplish alone.

Again, thanks for the reminder about CAFree and (more importantly) PFree. My tools are more complete again. :-)

p.s. Koyaanis -- neat tip! That's a great idea! I'll have to remember to use that the next time I take a photo of a stream or lake. It's so hard to tell how to level those images if the distant shore is not perpendicular to your line of view. Those types of photos always drove me nuts trying to level them. :-)

DJJohnson
Mitglied
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat 30 Sep 2006 08:12

A Few Extra Filter Brushes

Post by DJJohnson » Sat 21 Oct 2006 13:46

Something that I've always missed having available in other editors (of one type or another), are:

A Contrast Brush (higher lower)
A Hue Brush (shift either direction)
A Saturation Brush (higher lower)
A Curves Brush (from curves/histogram settings)

One of the most difficult situations to fix in any photo is removing some multi-colored lens flares. I've had to make adjustment-brushes like these often to remove lens-flare artifacts in photos. A flare not only washes out part of an image, but reduces its contrast as well as having a hue and/or saturation shift.

In most all other editors, including PL32, I've had to make "Adjustment Brushes" by using a working/adjustment layer of the type I'd need. Flooding that layer with black, and then using a white (or grays) brush to apply the effect to parts of an image with a variable size and density brush. I always though it'd be nice if these were a one-click option. While some editing programs have one or two of these available as a brush, none of them have all of them as brush options. So I'd always have to resort to making them out of working/adjustment layers.

It'd be nice if most any working-layer (adjustment layer) type could be selected as a brush instead.

This makes me wonder now .... if an option could be placed on all filters, even for things like the Light/Shadow filter ... where after you've made the adjustment you want there could be a little selection box/button where instead of applying that filter to a whole image that effect could be transfered to a brush. Now THAT would be way cool! This would circumvent times where creating a mask or lasso wouldn't even be needed to apply a filter to selected parts of an image. With right or left mouse-button drags applying or removing that effect. (Like painting with white or black on an adjustment layer, as I do now.) Just a little button on each filter/effect dialog that says "Use as Brush". The filter would minimize and leave you with a variable size/shape brush tool. Or something like that. Could it be done?

This would really speed-up some work-flow. I see this being similar to the way PL32 makes multiple use out of its Curves Palette, where one curve can be applied to many functions. If you could have all your filters and effects available as a brush-effects library.

Anyway, even if that couldn't be done, I'd still like to see the extra "Filter Brushes" that I've listed above (and a few others I can't think of right now) on the drop down selection list. :-)

User avatar
Koyaanis
Mitglied
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon 25 Sep 2006 20:23

Post by Koyaanis » Sun 22 Oct 2006 07:18

Nice idea. If that is possible to have a brush-effects library/palette, I wonder if that capability could be extended to have all plug-ins appear in the brush-effects library. I could have a FocusMagic brush, an Impressionist Art brush, etc. The types of editing-brushes would be limitless. I've never seen anything like that in any editor. A whole other way of approaching editing. Like you, I've always had to build those effects through layers and selections in the past, very time consuming.

Even nicer is if all effects-brushes could include the "Preview Copy" option that's in the clone-brush (copy brush). I love that "Preview Copy" feature in PL32's copy/clone-brush. I can see exactly what I'm going to lay down before clicking the mouse button, instead of having to use the undo button if it's not right the first time as I do in all other editors. That feature is a HUGE time-saver.

User avatar
Hoogo
Betatester
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sun 03 Jul 2005 13:35
Location: Mülheim/Ruhr

Post by Hoogo » Sun 22 Oct 2006 12:18

If you take that idea to its limit, you might end up with something similar to Jeskola buzz, only for graphic instead of sound.
In Jeskola you have a lot of generators (here layer/channels, curves, colors, cursor positions, picture size, usual sliders/checkboxes) and filters, and you connect the output of the generators with the inputs (in Jeskola only one) of the filters. Connect a slider, a curve and the cursor position, and you'll get a brush. Take the blur-filter, connect the brush to the "area"-input, a layer to the "data"-input and a mask to the "size"-input, and you have a brush to simulate depth-of-field. Everything gets much more simple, no more need for tools, layer modes, brushes... And the best: At least 100 persons in this world will understand that :P :P
OK, back on topic...
There's a filter-brush-tool (don't know how it's called in then english version) wich offers the mostly used filters as a brush. Having any internal filter for this purpose would be cool, though I don't miss it. It should be easy if filters were done in a kind of "ask for input"-system like above. I don't think that this will work with plugins. If plugins would just ask for parameters, they should appear in the look and feel of the host application. As they don't I doubt that they can be automated that much. An action that duplicates a layer, applies the plugin and creates an empty mask might be handy.