How can I avoid a huge retouchingjob here?

Images taken in a controlled environment or with a posed subject. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Arnstein Bjone
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:13 am
Location: Skien, Norway

How can I avoid a huge retouchingjob here?

Post by Arnstein Bjone »

I tried to search the forum, but couldn't find any answers....

I tried slabbing, following the "Slabbing"-article to the point, but it didn't help for this houseflyhead. I will gladly pay extra for upgrading for slabbing, but would like to see it works first.

Anything else I could try?

Image

Image

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: How can I avoid a huge retouchingjob here?

Post by rjlittlefield »

For a problem like yours, the key part of https://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/docs/slabbing is the second paragraph:
When you retouch with slabbing, typically you only have to reach back to the intermediate images (the slab outputs), instead of all the way back to each of the original source images. In the example, that means retouching from a set of only 30 images instead of 200.
It appears from your illustration that you are comparing (C) a PMax of the original source images, against (E) a PMax of 8 slabs, each of which was itself a PMax of quite a few source images. If that is the case, then "Not better" is exactly what I would expect.

The improvement comes in the retouching process, when you get to retouch from the slab outputs instead of from the much more numerous original source images. There is no difference in the number of bristles that need to be retouched, but there is a large difference in the number of brushstrokes needed to do that retouching.

Part of the "art" of slabbing is choosing a slab thickness that is not too thick, not too thin. If the slabs are too thick, then the slab outputs can show this "transparent foreground" problem also, and then the slabs don't help. If the slabs are too thin, then each slab output is clean but there is not so much reduction in retouching. The ideal thickness is when a lot of the focused part of each thick bristle remains acceptably clean, in each slab output.

If this is still unclear, then please post a crop from one of the slab outputs, so we can see how the bristles look there.

--Rik

Arnstein Bjone
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:13 am
Location: Skien, Norway

Re: How can I avoid a huge retouchingjob here?

Post by Arnstein Bjone »

I used to believe that slabbing would improve the stacking process, but I now understand it is all about much fewer brushstrokes during retouch.

That is fine, but it still will be a lot :-) More than a "lazy" person like me want to do...for "ordinary" images.

Is the problem unsolvable?

Image

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: How can I avoid a huge retouchingjob here?

Post by rjlittlefield »

Is the problem unsolvable?
Probably not. But I am not aware that anyone has solved it yet. The problem does seem simpler than a lot of other problems that have already been solved. If this one were as economically important as self-driving cars or smartphone selfie filters, I expect it would have been solved years ago.

Looking at your last set of images, I suggest to try again but with significantly thicker slabs and proportionally thicker overlaps. This is based on the observation that in your slabbed output, the in-focus portion of the bristle occupies only a small part of the bristle length, while the area behind it is still totally blurred. If this slab extended farther forward then more of the bristle would be in focus toward the tip. If it also extended farther backward then more of the bristle would be in focus toward the base. The retouching effort is reduced in direct proportion to the amount of bristle that is cleanly in focus at the same time. The limit comes when extending too far backward would bring the background into focus; that would introduce the "transparent foreground artifact" and mess up the whole bristle in that slab.

--Rik

Arnstein Bjone
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:13 am
Location: Skien, Norway

Re: How can I avoid a huge retouchingjob here?

Post by Arnstein Bjone »

"....I suggest to try again but with significantly thicker slabs and proportionally thicker overlaps."

Well, the first image in this thread was 30 images and 3 or 5 image overlaps, but maybe I try 60 and 10... or maybe not ;-)

Anyway, thanks a lot.

P.s.
I have been an ambassador for ZS since the beginning and have probably sold quite a few licenses for you :-)
The main "problem" for the huge majority that now is stacking (increase by 10-50 every day..?), is that using RAW is not possible (like for HF).

I tell them that you had/have good reasons for that choice, but very few care...

0.1%(?) of them use HF's retouching module.

Just something to think about...if you want to reach the hordes...

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: How can I avoid a huge retouchingjob here?

Post by rjlittlefield »

Well, there are other good reasons why casual users might prefer Helicon Focus, notably because it also runs a lot faster.

Fortunately, "reaching the hordes" is not high on my list of priorities. I'm happy to leave that goal to other people.

--Rik

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic