Piccure

dlplumer · October 31, 2015

Has anyone here tried "Piccure +" software. If not check it out. http://piccureplus.com

Mitchell · November 3, 2015

Dan, what am I supposed to be seeing in this photo of leaves? Were they moving and blurry in your original photo??

dlplumer · November 3, 2015

Mitchell wrote: »

Dan, what am I supposed to be seeing in this photo of leaves? Were they moving and blurry in your original photo??

Good point Mitch

Yes, this was taken with a very slow shutter speed and hand held. I just wanted to make this community aware of this new sharpening software, that is unlike any other, and it is awesome. Go try it for free.

Mitchell · November 3, 2015

I'm intrigued and will likely give it a try.

I think your example would be better with "before" and "after" shots.

Sam · November 3, 2015

dlplumer wrote: »

Good point Mitch Yes, this was taken with a very slow shutter speed and hand held. I just wanted to make this community aware of this new sharpening software, that is unlike any other, and it is awesome. Go try it for free.

Would it be possible for you to make your raw file and your processed image file available for down load?

That way I can process your raw file using my normal methods and compare with your final result.

Sam

dlplumer · November 4, 2015

Mitchell wrote: »

I'm intrigued and will likely give it a try.

I think your example would be better with "before" and "after" shots.

Here is the before:

Sam · November 5, 2015

Dan,

Allow me to restate my original thought / request.

"Would it be possible for you to make your raw file and your processed image file available for down load?

That way I can process your raw file using my normal methods and compare with your final result."

To be accurate and though I / you / anyone, would need the original files, hopefully you shot this in RAW, along with the full res file of your processed image.

I would then import the RAW file into LR and process using my normal workflow. Once completed I would then and only then open your original full rez file processed with the "Picture" software and very carefully (pixel peep) analyze the two images.

At this point I could provide an informed opinion on the merits of this software.

Sam

JonaBeth Russell · November 5, 2015

Sam, I have one I can send you. I just used Piccure+ to salvage it from 'Deleted' status. Removed so much motion blur, I was pretty surprised! If you want, I'll send you the RAW file and the completed file. See what you can do outside of Piccure+ and lemme know whatcha find.

dlplumer · November 5, 2015

Mitchell wrote: »

I'm intrigued and will likely give it a try.

I think your example would be better with "before" and "after" shots.

Sam wrote: »

Dan,

Allow me to restate my original thought / request.

"Would it be possible for you to make your raw file and your processed image file available for down load?

That way I can process your raw file using my normal methods and compare with your final result."

To be accurate and though I / you / anyone, would need the original files, hopefully you shot this in RAW, along with the full res file of your processed image.

I would then import the RAW file into LR and process using my normal workflow. Once completed I would then and only then open your original full rez file processed with the "Picture" software and very carefully (pixel peep) analyze the two images.

At this point I could provide an informed opinion on the merits of this software.

Sam

Sam, just go to the Piccure sight and try it on your own raw file. It's free for 30 days.:D

Sam · November 5, 2015

JonaBeth Russell wrote: »

Sam, I have one I can send you. I just used Piccure+ to salvage it from 'Deleted' status. Removed so much motion blur, I was pretty surprised! If you want, I'll send you the RAW file and the completed file. See what you can do outside of Piccure+ and lemme know whatcha find.

Yes, please.

Put in on Dropbox. Raw file would be too big for email.

Sam

Sam · November 5, 2015

dlplumer wrote: »

Sam, just go to the Piccure sight and try it on your own raw file. It's free for 30 days.:D

scratch

cry

cry:bash:bash:bash:bash

cry:cry

Dan,

I will try again to reiterate my thoughts and offer.

Allow me to restate my original thought / request.

"Would it be possible for you to make your raw file and your processed image file available for down load?

That way I can process your raw file using my normal methods and compare with your final result."

To be accurate and though I / you / anyone, would need the original files, hopefully you shot this in RAW, along with the full res file of your processed image.

I would then import the RAW file into LR and process using my normal workflow. Once completed I would then and only then open your original full rez file processed with the "Picture" software and very carefully (pixel peep) analyze the two images.

At this point I could provide an informed opinion on the merits of this software.

To add some clarity.................in general I don't cotton much to free trial software offers. (Quite possibly a personal quirk):D

My thoughts were to take your original, (known) unaltered RAW image file and process it on my very own with my own software and knowledge.

Then I can compare that with your original unmodified finished image to judge my results with yours.

To simply use one of my own files and try and discus or debate the merits of this program is tantamount to the proverbial apples and oranges.

Besides I don't have any images that far out of focus.

:D:D

Sam

PS: It was just a thought and offer.

ziggy53 · November 6, 2015

Sam wrote: »

... I don't have any images that far out of focus. :D:D

...

Piccure is both a deconvolution software, apparently motion blur and lens blur/OOF, and a "beautify" engine. It tries to calculate the degree of convolution/blur and correct for that automatically, where in most previous deconvolution software the user needed to try different manual amounts of deconvolution settings in order to gain the best result.

The problem with this, and every other deconvolution software for that matter, is that it doesn't know depth relationships; i.e. the distance from subject to background/foreground. Deconvolution software treats every part of the image as though it is all blurred the same. This means you may still wish to isolate the effect of deconvolution to the subject using background/foreground separation.

The other problem with deconvolution software is that it works best when there is minimal blur, when there is just 2-3 pixels of blur. When you have images visibly soft "In Toto" and

Sam wrote: »

... images that far out of focus. ...

then they may still be largely unrecoverable.

I suggest that no one expect miracles from this or any other deconvolution software.

The other part of the software, what I call the Piccure "beautify" engine, seems to work nicely and I suspect that it compares well to "Perfectly Clear" and such.

Mitchell · November 6, 2015

Interesting comments, Ziggy. I'm not familiar with this type of software. If shooting a subject wide open with a fast lens, would you just suggest masking out the background to maintain the OOF bokeh while letting the software perform it's actions on the unmasked subject?

Any thoughts how this would actually look?

Sam · November 6, 2015

Ziggy,

Thanks for the explanation, but to be clear as related to this post. I don't care what it's called deconvolution, convolution, or pixie dust or how it does what.

I just had a request and offer to test my little buttons and sliders against this new magic bunch of buttons and sliders.

Do it do a better job than my buttons and sliders?

Easy peasy...................... or so I thought.

Sam

puzzledpaul · November 6, 2015

Sam wrote: »

Besides I don't have any images that far out of focus. :D:D

No probs ... I've got more than enough for everyone...

D/l this to give it a whirl, but my 'ol pc wants a newer installer version to install it ... so will just have to see what results others get with it instead

pp

ziggy53 · November 6, 2015

Mitchell wrote: »

Interesting comments, Ziggy. I'm not familiar with this type of software. If shooting a subject wide open with a fast lens, would you just suggest masking out the background to maintain the OOF bokeh while letting the software perform it's actions on the unmasked subject?

Any thoughts how this would actually look?

Yes, the background and subject should be masked from each other and only the subject should be deconvolved. I do suggest using some feathering of the edges to allow a more convincing rendition.

Alternately, you might copy the entire image to another layer, run the deconvolution software against the bottom layer, then expose the subject portion by erasing some of the top layer using the Eraser tool and a soft-edged brush.

Lots of ways to achieve a similar effect but the important message is to leave any foreground/background elements of the image bokeh soft if that is your photographic intent.

Sorry, I don't currently have anything to share in an image using Piccure processing.

I have used Photoshop's "Smart Sharpen" deconvolution to somewhat recover a lens blur/OOF image which I may show at a later date. (The original image is on a stored HD so all I can show are surrounding images of a cake cutting sequence for a reference.)

Piccure

Comments