George DeWolfe's Perceptool
Has anyone tried George DeWolfe's Perceptool Photoshop plug-in/script (download a 30-day trial at http://www.georgedewolfe.com/) ?
I have downloaded it and tried it a bit, and while it does makes the image "pop" a bit, I am not sure the effect couldn't be obtained by a simple curve, possibly in conjunction with a luminosity mask (http://www.goodlight.us/writing/lumi...ymasks-1.html).
DeWolfe refers to the problem of separating the luminance values into what is due to the light source and shading (illumination) and what is due to the surface properties (reflection), but of course in general, there is no un-ambiguous solution from a single image, even though many very clever perception/artificial intelligence researchers have tried to attack the problem.
Re: George DeWolfe's Perceptool
Found 2 threads in Luminous Landscape under George DeWolfe.
Re: George DeWolfe's Perceptool
I also downloaded it. I tried it but didn't have much patience for it. It runs terribly slow and I have a fast Mac Pro with 16gb ram.
I've been using Tony Kuyper's luminosity masks for quite a while and find them extremely useful.
For example run the basic mid-tone action then load the selection created. Apply a steep curve and you'll see the mid tone contrast increase nicely. For some images the expanded mid tones will work with a stronger effect though generally the basic mid tone mask is sufficient. This generally causes an increase in saturation, but if it isn't wanted just change the blending mode from luminosity (default) to normal.
Another good use is to bring down blown highlights. Just run the super lights mask, load it, then create a curve but pull down the top highlight end. Fine tune with opacity.
Frankly Mr. DeWolfe's plug in looks like a good way to make money for him, but I didn't like it. If I hadn't already been using Tony's luminosity masks I might have given it more of a chance, but don't see much reason too.
Re: George DeWolfe's Perceptool
I began testing the filter but my first impression was it's too slow to even consider with large format. The first attempt crashed after 15 minutes. Second attempt was aborted again after 15 minute with the progress bar only half way across. I was working with a 5x7 negative scanned at 1200 dpi so it was a sizable file.
I'm using an 8 core mac pro with 8 GB so processing power is rarely an issue.
Maybe it's fine with small files from digital cameras but its too slow for me to mess with.
Besides I'm very pleased with the look of my output. No sure what it brings to the party.
I will experiment further with smaller files to see the impact, but it still needs work for me to consider using it..
bob