George DeWolfe's Perceptool

[D. Bryant]

Has anyone tried George DeWolfe's new Photoshop Plugin 'PercepTool' ? The results shown on his website look interesting.

http://www.georgedewolfe.com/perceptool.html

Just from looking at the examples it seems to enhance local contrast which I assume could be done without a plugin.


Also has anyone purchased his new book,
'The Digital Master Print' ?

Don Bryant

[Walter Calahan]

Some people need help with contrast, so perhaps this plug-in is made for them.

I see nothing here that I can't do in a traditional approach to interpreting an image. That doesn't make me special, but perhaps this plug-in streamlines the process?

[Kirk Gittings]

I just bought the book and intend to review it on my blog. I have not tried the Perceptool as yet. Personally I have respected and used George's approach since I started digital printing. Rooted in his experiences with Minor White, George emphasizes printing as an aesthetic process, and tries to get students to see throughout the printing process. I am looking forward to spending some time with his latest methods. He is a master printer and IMO any suggestion he makes deserves a look.

[Donald Miller]

I agree with Kirk however there are a number of different tools that aren't discussed often. Among those is luminosity and contrast masking as advocated by Tony Kuyper. I would think that those two types of masks would be more selectively applied than a general plug in.

On the subject of general plug ins. One that isn't mentioned much around here is Lucis which does have some application in both color and black and white printing...especially when one gets into blending these effects with the original image. The earlier Lucis was much more affordable than the new pro release. Lucis does work on luminosity...so this is not something entirely new

[Kirk Gittings]

Donald, yes, I too use Tony Kuypers Luminosity Mask actions, http://www.goodlight.us/writing/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-1.html probably on about 2/3 of my prints, mainly to isolate the midtones and perk them up a bit, a result I like better than what I can do with a simple curves adjustment.

I am not familiar with Lucis. There was also a product mentioned by the the guy who does custom printing in Australia? His name escapes me right now. He often contributed on any topic that involved Imacon scanners.

[Brian Ellis]

George's b&w printing workshop was great and have a very high regard for him. But I don't understand what he means when he says the tool does something that can't be done in Photoshop. When I look at the two examples he posted, the egg and the landscape, the changes seem easily doable in Photoshop in any number of different ways. Maybe it's a case of the computer monitor not showing up subtleties that would be seen in the print.

[QT Luong]

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/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-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.

[mattpallante]

Found 2 threads in Luminous Landscape under George DeWolfe.

[Doug Dolde]

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.

[Bob McCarthy]

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

[Doug Dolde]

From George....

"Doug
We will have an incredibly faster version on the website in a few days. The PercepTool is not the same as a luminosity mask. It is entirely different and does entirely different things. Which is why it is proprietary.
George"

[Doug Dolde]

I just downloaded his new version. It's very fast now. I'm still in the demo mode but from what I've seen so far I'm going to have to buy it. Pretty dramatic changes even after my best shot at processing including applying TK's luminosity masks. What is seems to do is balance the light, and that includes opening up the shadows significantly.

[Doug Dolde]

Don't mess with the 32 bit file conversion. It's pretty simple without that induced. You may need to adjust the opacity of the Perceptool layer and or erase it from certain areas, particularly the sky to fine tune. Also it tends to really push the highlights, so selecting the Super Lights with TK's luminosity mask afterwards and pulling the curve down may be needed.

I'm finding an improvement in 85% or so of my previously processed images; some dramatically so, others less dramatic but still better.

[D. Bryant]

Don't mess with the 32 bit file conversion. It's pretty simple without that induced. You may need to adjust the opacity of the Perceptool layer and or erase it from certain areas, particularly the sky to fine tune. Also it tends to really push the highlights, so selecting the Super Lights with TK's luminosity mask afterwards and pulling the curve down may be needed.

I'm finding an improvement in 85% or so of my previously processed images; some dramatically so, others less dramatic but still better.

Thanks for the report Doug. I look forward to testing the plugin.

Don Bryant

[Duane Polcou]

Maybe Ron Popeil can create an infomercial for this.

"With Perceptool, all you do is press it and forget it!!"

(audience of photographers) "Yaaaa!!"

[Donald Miller]

I believe that George's tool uses the same methodology as Lucis...albeit more limited than Lucis. Both seem to use the same terminology when describing their product.

The image that I have attached is a Lucis blended black and white conversion from a digital image. While this image is a down and dirty quick conversion it does indicate the general effect of opening up the image. Lucis has quite a few more filters and effects with infinitely adjustable sliders to gain the result one wishes for.

[D. Bryant]

I believe that George's tool uses the same methodology as Lucis...albeit more limited than Lucis. Both seem to use the same terminology when describing their product.

The image that I have attached is a Lucis blended black and white conversion from a digital image. While this image is a down and dirty quick conversion it does indicate the general effect of opening up the image. Lucis has quite a few more filters and effects with infinitely adjustable sliders to gain the result one wishes for.
Lucis seems to peter out (fail) on images with any one dimension greater than about 7000 pixels.

Don Bryant

[Donald Miller]

Lucis seems to peter out (fail) on images with any one dimension greater than about 7000 pixels.

Don Bryant


I haven't tried it on anything above 4400 (no stitched images yet)...I will need to see how it is affected. Thanks for the info.

[mandoman7]

I believe that George's tool uses the same methodology as Lucis...albeit more limited than Lucis. Both seem to use the same terminology when describing their product.

The image that I have attached is a Lucis blended black and white conversion from a digital image. While this image is a down and dirty quick conversion it does indicate the general effect of opening up the image. Lucis has quite a few more filters and effects with infinitely adjustable sliders to gain the result one wishes for.

Its not clear to me which is the improved image.

[D. Bryant]

I haven't tried it on anything above 4400 (no stitched images yet)...I will need to see how it is affected. Thanks for the info.
Another product Like Lucis to consider is Topaz Adjust. Much less expensive.

http://www.topazlabs.com/adjust/

Don Bryant

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with Don. Topaz adjust is pretty neat. Lucis is way too expensive with no demo, at least that was the case the last time I checked. Just tried the Perceptool for the first time. It definitely made the image worse. I expect that whether it's worth it will depend a lot on how you edit in Photoshop. I will try it on a couple more images.

[Doug Dolde]

Perceptool doesn't work for every image. Make all the adjustments you can before running it.

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Doug,

Fair enough.

[Donald Miller]

I have an older version of Lucis...I would not spend the money for the new Pro packaged version. I have found that applying Lucis to a duplicate background layer and then by choosing the blending mode and fill as well as opacity adjustments one can come up with some really enhanced photos. Also multiple Lucis effects can provide another approach.

Topaz Adjust is a good product...similar to Lucis. I do use Topaz Enhance in my After Effects video workflow. Topaz does produce some truly revolutionary products.

[Doug Dolde]

Here's a shot 4x5 Provia, Imacon 949 scan that I could never get right. The light was just too extreme. Well Perceptool rescued it, just balanced out the light with one click.

Before:

http://www.arizonaconnect.net/pwl/BEFORE.jpg

After:

http://www.arizonaconnect.net/pwl/AFTER.jpg

[Kirk Gittings]

I tentatively agree Doug. I have been playing with it and it seems to give some control in areas that are hard to reach through normal curve adjustments or through TK's Luminousity Masks. I like what i can do with the midtones but sometimes need to paint the shadow detail back in. I think it may be a useful tool. I need to work with it some more.

[Doug Dolde]

Yeah Kirk exactly. It seems to be working like some sort of simultaneous dodge/burn tool but with complete feathering like TK's masks. It just evens the light out in one shot. This is the most important tool I've discovered in quite a while. I'm finding a lot of old shots I'd given up on that can now be used via Perceptool.

Too bad he released the slow version first, I know a lot of people were very turned off by that including myself. He sort of shot himself in the foot.

[Kirk Gittings]

I think he just got caught in a time bind. The book was being released but the software was not quite ready yet.

[Kirk Gittings]

One of the strengths of the Perceptool is that it is capable of significant tonal manipulation without accentuating noise. I need to test this observation in actual prints rather than just off the screen, but his may make it a very good tool to use on high noise methods of capture like consumer scanners and DSLRs.

[Doug Dolde]

I reworked that shot from the original scan with Perceptool. A much better way to go than applying it to your last best attempt.

[Harley Goldman]

Doug, of the three photos posted, I prefer the first, the before image. I find it has more depth and a feeling of the brewing storm. The latter two do a good job of showing the detail the software can pull out, but come across flat for me.

[Doug Dolde]

Hmmm.

[Kirk Gittings]

I fervently disagree. I think the reworked version really sings.

[Doug Dolde]

Just to confuse things more here's the latest shot at it.

[Paul Kierstead]

I dunno Doug, I still prefer the original. It has mood. However, I'll admit, my eye is clearly largely inferior to Kirks (and I like is work very much, so his eye suits mine), so maybe it is just the time of night.

[Peter De Smidt]

While I like some aspects of the re-worked images better than the original, so far, like Paul, I prefer the first one overall, mainly because of the mood. It's a very good picture, well worth spending a fair amount of editing time on.

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm liking this version too. To me it is the difference between prose and poetry and I think Doug is looking for poetry.


Just to confuse things more here's the latest shot at it.

[ljsegil]

I too vote with Kirk for the newest iteration (what else did you change, Doug?), but at a bare minimum Doug's results do make me want to see what I can make happen with this new tool. I don't see how I could have taken his original image as far as he did with my current techniques. Nothing to lose by a trial, perhaps quite a bit to be gained (and I'll take all the help I can get).
LJ

[PenGun]

It's an interesting tool. In B&W I can do pretty well what it does with levels and curves. It is very fast though, to a point that it takes me a just couple of minutes to get to a point that would take ten or fifteen without it.

[Doug Dolde]

(what else did you change, Doug?)

I don't remember.

[Ken Lee]

"It's an interesting tool. In B&W I can do pretty well what it does with levels and curves. It is very fast though, to a point that it takes me a just couple of minutes to get to a point that would take ten or fifteen without it."

Perhaps this tool is targeted for those who want quick results

... shooters of digital cameras, with a beginner/intermediate knowledge of editing tools

... who want to improve their images but don't know exactly how

... in other words, the vast majority of photographers ;)

[Tyler Boley]

I have to say, after trying the demo on a few scans of difficult B&W images, I was impressed. It moved things in a direction I would have gone anyway, with a bit less hairpulling, even though I would probably continue to finesse from there. My only problem with it was some haloing, but those of us working with complex masking, and/or HDR, are used to dealing with this kind of thing...
I think many would find this useful. I'll have to play with some color with it...
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

[Ken Lee]

One solution, towards which some of are gravitating, is to shoot only when the subject looks right. No special treatment is required.

In general, these prints feel natural and wholesome - because they are.

I mean this sincerely. It's not easy, but it's the best approach I have found so far.

[Tyler Boley]

One solution, to which some of use have gravitated, is to shoot when the subject looks right. No special treatment is required.

In general, these prints feel natural and wholesome - because they are.

I mean this sincerely.

well I was first going to reply with a quipped- isn't that a given?
But then I realized... in this day and age, less and less so.
So it doesn't hurt to say it again and again.

I agree of course, learning to see is the true endeavour. This is just another interesting tool, and an approach to some problem solving I think is somewhat unique and potentially helpful, compared to many we have developed by pure coders.
Tyler

[Ken Lee]

We are often encouraged to believe that without lots of equipment, training, and credentials, we are nothing.

Gimmicks become very attractive to us, because they present a shortcut, through all the effort and clutter that we think we need.

When I think of my own personal favorite photos by the "old masters" of Large Format - Weston, Strand, Stieglitz, Adams, etc. - they possess a certain uncontrived feeling. They just seem unfold naturally, like a flower before our eyes.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/murdoch.jpg
Portrait of Murdoch MacRury
Paul Strand, 1953

[sanking]

One solution, towards which some of are gravitating, is to shoot only when the subject looks right. No special treatment is required.

In general, these prints feel natural and wholesome - because they are.

I mean this sincerely. It's not easy, but it's the best approach I have found so far.

Ken,

But the concept of "when the subject feels right" is highly subjective. As I look at the various renditions of the canyon shot submitted by DD I am struck by the fact that none of them look absolutely right to me in comparison to the others. What DD did in his use of Perceptool, and what others might have done, is only one of many different ways that landscape might have been interpreted.

Frankly, I preferred the dark and somber look of th original to any of the subsequent interpretations. I might have liked a bit more opening in the deep shadows of the original, but not nearly so much as with the Perceptool.

But of course, I did not stand there and see the original scene.

Sandy

[Ken Lee]

But the concept of "when the subject feels right" is highly subjective.

You are certainly right, and I agree with you about the variations on the canyon shot.

All I really mean to say, is that (for now at least) I've basically stopped shooting images which require manipulation or rescue. You might say that part of my initial selection criteria, is that the subject is already easy to shoot, process, and print.

After all, we can avoid challenging lighting and other similar obstacles. We can "just say no" and move on. This frees us to concentrate on the nuances of tone and composition, which often constitute the real content of our work.

[Bruce Watson]

One solution, towards which some of are gravitating, is to shoot only when the subject looks right. No special treatment is required.

In general, these prints feel natural and wholesome - because they are.

I mean this sincerely. It's not easy, but it's the best approach I have found so far.

Absolutely! I've been trying to do this for years. It's far easier to make excellent prints from photographs that were made when the light was right and the subject was ready. Those are always my most successful prints exactly for the reasons you specify.

Unfortunately, time is not infinite. Sometimes you have to make the photograph you can under the conditions you have because you can't come back when the conditions are better. It's a judgment we all have to make from time to time -- would I be better off making this photograph, or letting it go?

Tools like this are often most useful for working these less-than-excellent photographs maybe.

[falth j]

Hello,

With reference to Doug's iteration's or incarnation's of the Grand Canyon scene, and if I were spending money, I would buy Doug’s first, original version.

For me, it has depth and mood, with a feeling of expectation and foreboding from an approaching storm, and not the flatness exhibited by the moderated light forms, that tend to look like many other Grand Canyon shot's.

[Ken Lee]

Landscape photography is hard, especially if he have... expectations. One might travel thousands of miles, and have bad light, bad clouds, no clouds - or rain, or heavy wind.

With digital equipment, one can "spray and pray": take unlimited photos and hope that something will work out. And there are tools which will help rescue some of those images. With Large Format and film, it can be painful to "just say no", and painful to process a bunch duds.

The best way to photograph an area, might just be to live there for a long time, as Ansel did in Yosemite, and Edward Weston did in Carmel.

[Kirk Gittings]

With digital equipment, one can "spray and pray": take unlimited photos and hope that something will work out. And there are tools which will help rescue some of those images.

Mythology and romanticizing about film. Your statement is true of film too, set a motorized 35 film camera on auto exposure, auto focus and go to town. There is nothing inherent in digital that requires one to "spray and pray" any more than film. It is either a lack of expertise or experience with any camera that leads to a spray and pray approach (though film costs can be a limiting factor). If you had ever taught a beginning photo class before the digital era this point would be obvious. The first thing you try and do is get students to slow down, shoot less, and think about what they are doing or students will bring in 4-36 exposure, poorly exposed rolls of their cat, girlfriend or b&w sunsets for every critique and one good image from the bunch that was largely an accident or luck.

[Brian Ellis]

Doug, of the three photos posted, I prefer the first, the before image. I find it has more depth and a feeling of the brewing storm. The latter two do a good job of showing the detail the software can pull out, but come across flat for me.

Me too. I think it's an artistic decision, i.e. what kind of print does one want to make from this image. The first is closer to what I'd try to do with this subject but that obviously doesn't mean it's "better." And like someone else said about the two motorcycle images, I can't tell which is supposed to be the better one. The one on the left looks artificial to me but I guess it's more dramatic so it perhaps would be the better one if the photograph was made for commercial use (e.g. in an ad).

[Bruce Watson]

Mythology and romanticizing about film. Your statement is true of film too, set a motorized 35 film camera on auto exposure, auto focus and go to town.

I took that differently -- that he was talking about the difference between LF and digital. Because what you say is clearly true for roll film formats, and because this is the LF photography forum.

[Ken Lee]

You're both right.

Sorry, I was a bit vague. I just meant that with digital, one can take as many photos as one likes - until the memory cards fill up anyhow - and delete them... at no cost.

I forgot about 35mm auto-everything cameras.

Either way, speedy technology fuels an approach which Kirk described so well... ouch !

[Brian Ellis]

Landscape photography is hard, especially if he have... expectations. One might travel thousands of miles, and have bad light, bad clouds, no clouds - or rain, or heavy wind.

With digital equipment, one can "spray and pray": take unlimited photos and hope that something will work out. And there are tools which will help rescue some of those images. With Large Format and film, it can be painful to "just say no", and painful to process a bunch duds.

The best way to photograph an area, might just be to live there for a long time, as Ansel did in Yosemite, and Edward Weston did in Carmel.

That's odd. I don't "spray and pray" with digital equipment. I think that's because I came to it from many years of LF photography so I pretty much use my digital camera in the same way I did my LF gear. But "spray and pray" is exactly the way I was taught to use my 35mm film cameras. The methodology I was taught with 35mm was to first make the "record" shot to make sure you got something on film, then "work the subject" (or "spray and pray" if you like). It's a mistake IMHO to assume that one must work in a certain way with a particular type of equipment.

[Ken Lee]

"It's a mistake IMHO to assume that one must work in a certain way with a particular type of equipment".

You are right. I appreciate your comment.

I will henceforth try to limit my gratuitous babbling, think more, and speak less. :rolleyes:

[Stephen Best]

Here's a shot 4x5 Provia, Imacon 949 scan that I could never get right. The light was just too extreme. Well Perceptool rescued it, just balanced out the light with one click.

Try this:

1. Duplicate layer
2. Apply large diameter Gaussian Blur (50-250 pixel radius depending on resolution and desired effect)
3. Invert layer
4. Set blend mode to Overlay
5. Adjust Opacity for desired effect
6. Send half of what you'd pay for Perceptool to my PayPal account

28139

[Doug Dolde]

For that result? Go away.

[nathanm]

Stephen Best makes a good case for existing utility. I combined all four variations into one document in Photoshop and Doug's #2 version and Stephen's are very close aside from color and some blown-ish highlights. With some additional curves you can make them match much closer. Minor note: It is probably better to do the blur after putting the layer in overlay though, so you can see the results of different radiuses (radii?)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2645/3677970521_a8aaa0e7a0_b.jpg

I haven't tried the Perceptool yet, but the idea of having any kind of one-click filter for photos kinda puts me off. Half the fun is working with all sorts of tools to get the look you like. A one-click filter assumes there is some sort of "correct" look. Although not that it isn't possible, for instance a duped layer in Soft Light will get a milky scan 75% of the way there in my experience.

[Peter De Smidt]

I thought that Doug's response to Stephen was a little out of line, and so I PM'd him the following:

>Doug, your response to Stephen was a wee bit unfriendly, considering that he spent a little time trying to help out.

Something along the lines of:

"Hi Stephen, thank you for the alternative version and workflow. It's not really what I was after, but I appreciate the effort!" would've been more appropriate.<

His response was:

"so you are another moron eh?"

[Doug Dolde]

Peter are you a girl ?

[Stephen Best]

For that result? Go away.

The fact of the matter is that, in the rights hands and with some tweaking, the method I outlined is very powerful and achieves results that can't be otherwise obtained. And it has more knobs to play with than Perceptool's one trick pony, the latter clearly based (in part) on the technique I outlined. And it's free.

Rest assured, next time I won't bother.

[Michael Gordon]

Peter are you a girl ?

Doug demonstrates once again his keen sense of tact and humility.

[Kirk Gittings]

I haven't tried the Perceptool yet, but the idea of having any kind of one-click filter for photos kinda puts me off. Half the fun is working with all sorts of tools to get the look you like. A one-click filter assumes there is some sort of "correct" look.

Natanm. Dude. PERCEPTOOL has a FREE trial. Try it. It is not a one click filter. It is tool with a fair amount of adjustment. You might try it before you make such presumptions.......

[Harley Goldman]

Kirk,

Doug Dolde has referred to Perceptool as a "one click script" on another forum (Naturephotographers.net), if not also here as well. I am assuming that is what is being referred to in the post.

[nathanm]

From the site:

"In the software, one click changes the luminance image into the luminosity percept of the visual cortex. For those of you making that one click, remember that the development time and research involved behind that click took 30 years."

This is followed by two very mundane examples of basic contrast changes in an egg and a landscape. Sorry, but color me underwhelmed. I'm just referring to the concept of any sort of "this is THE best tool!" kind of thinking, that's all. I mean, when you know all the possibilities available with Photoshop and Lightroom it's hard to get excited about something that seems to do something basic. And the other thing is that I don't necessarily WANT to make things so quick and easy when making art. The journey is the whole point.

But I have downloaded it, and am installing now. I'll gladly eat crow if it turns out to be the cat's pajamas.

[nathanm]

*tries it*

Meh. No thanks. Slow, unresponsive sliders, results are nothing special. If it works for ya'll that's great, but I will have to pass on this one.

[Donald Miller]

The fact of the matter is that, in the rights hands and with some tweaking, the method I outlined is very powerful and achieves results that can't be otherwise obtained. And it has more knobs to play with than Perceptool's one trick pony, the latter clearly based (in part) on the technique I outlined. And it's free.

Rest assured, next time I won't bother.

Stephen,
Thanks for posting the action that you did. I have tried it on several images and the results are quite nice.

Best regards,
Donald Miller

[Kirk Gittings]

Stephen,
Thanks for posting the action that you did. I have tried it on several images and the results are quite nice.

Best regards,
Donald Miller

I agree, a very useful tool.

[Ed Kelsey]

Has anyone tried his new version?

http://www.georgedewolfe.com/perceptool.html

[Kirk Gittings]

I had lost my earlier version in a computer crash and not replaced it. This new tool is faster and more pliable. It seems to work well though there is a learning curve. I need to play with it some more.

For a cheaper alternative that gives similar effects try Tony Kuyper's donation ware actions for Luminoscity Masks (http://goodlight.us/writing/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-1.html)

[Ed Kelsey]

I tried it and I'm not so sure I like it any better than the original version. In fact, the Perceptool Effect seems muted in version two.