This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > PainShop Pro Scripting > April 2006 > TPS - Tadjio's Photo Script for PSPX
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
TPS - Tadjio's Photo Script for PSPX
|
|
|
|
|
| In news:444b858a_3@cnews,
Tadjio <Tadjio> typed:
| Attached is a script that I have been developing and using for some
| time that I promised to share with others.
|
| The Photo Script is intended as a simple, easy to use, "one-step"
| script for Digital Photos and other Scanned Images. The way I use it
| is to run it against a photo that I am looking at and see whether it
| is "enhanced" or "improved" as a result. If not, I just undo the
| step (CTRL+Z).
|
| The script is written for PSPX and is based on one I developed for
| PSP9.
|
| There are 4 stages to the script with their minimal or default
| settings:- Automatic Contrast Enhancement
| Clarify
| Edge Preserving Smooth
| High Pass Sharpen
|
|
| This script is intended as an alternative to the standard One Step
| Photo Fix and Smart Photo Fix provided with PSP. I find in practice
| that it provides a simple and effective improvement to my photos.
|
| Enjoy!
|
| Tadjio
Is it possible to have this script be 'interactive' rather than running
silently? If it is possible then what is the word to edit that would
replace 'silently'?
Rose
| |
|
|
"RoseW" <wdmn@NShurontel.on.ca> wrote in message news:444bd5d8$1_1@cnews...
> In news:444b858a_3@cnews,
> Tadjio <Tadjio> typed:
> | Attached is a script that I have been developing and using for some
> | time that I promised to share with others.
> |
> | The Photo Script is intended as a simple, easy to use, "one-step"
> | script for Digital Photos and other Scanned Images. The way I use it
> | is to run it against a photo that I am looking at and see whether it
> | is "enhanced" or "improved" as a result. If not, I just undo the
> | step (CTRL+Z).
> |
> | The script is written for PSPX and is based on one I developed for
> | PSP9.
> |
> | There are 4 stages to the script with their minimal or default
> | settings:- Automatic Contrast Enhancement
> | Clarify
> | Edge Preserving Smooth
> | High Pass Sharpen
> |
> | This script is intended as an alternative to the standard One Step
> | Photo Fix and Smart Photo Fix provided with PSP. I find in practice
> | that it provides a simple and effective improvement to my photos.
> |
> | Enjoy!
> |
> | Tadjio
>
>
> Is it possible to have this script be 'interactive' rather than running
> silently? If it is possible then what is the word to edit that would
> replace 'silently'?
> Rose
No problem. I decided to make it "Silent" this time as it is quicker to use
and then un-do if unsatisfactory.
I use Notepad to edit scripts. Just change every occurrence of "Silent" to
"Default".
(If you change it to "Interactive" you cannot run it silently)
Then when you run the script you have the choice of "Default",
"Interactively" or "Silently".
Tadjio
| |
| Jerry Rivers 2006-04-23, 10:50 pm |
| > The script is based on and derived from the work of
> others, especially Kris Zaklika (who wrote JASC's
> OneStepPhotoFix in PSP8), Simon Q Walden's CleanUpAct
> (which inspired me to start on this) and Eleanor T
> Culling's AutoFix and her more recent versions. I am also
> indebted to Porter Caldwell for her excellent and copious
> notes on her web-site www.CampRatty.com and
> Spandex Rutabaga's lubricious
After Googling for l***br***s, I have to grin...
-- Jerry
advice and comments in these newsgroups.
>
> In addition to the above stages, these people included 2
> others:-
> Automatic Colour Balance
> Automatic Saturation Enhancement
>
> I found in practice that these are almost always
> unnecessary with digital photos and "spoil" the colour so
> I eventually dropped them.
>
> This script is intended as an alternative to the standard
> One Step Photo Fix and Smart Photo Fix provided with PSP.
> I find in practice that it provides a simple and effective
> improvement to my photos.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Tadjio
>
>
>
| |
| Peter Corser 2006-04-24, 7:02 pm |
| Hi Tadjio
Just had a little play with your script - it seems ok, but I do prefer Kris
Zaklika's original 5 steps (which I usually do by hand ATM) for the
following reasons:
Automatic Color Correction - usually not essential, but digital cameras do
not always get it right (particularly on auto white balance) so I usually
try it and see if there is any improvement.
Automatic Saturation Enhancement - Clarify tends to desaturate the colours -
the effect of auto enhancement is often very subtle, but usually beneficial.
USM is just plain configuarable to give the result required! This is
usually only just enough sharpening to make the photo reasonably viewable on
screen since I always print using QImage with its resizing and final
sharpening facilities to give what I consider to be photographic looking
prints (not obviously digital).
Peter
--
Peter & Elizabeth Corser,
Linslade, Beds, UK
<Tadjio> wrote in message news:444b858a_3@cnews...
> Attached is a script that I have been developing and using for some time
> that I promised to share with others.
>
> The Photo Script is intended as a simple, easy to use, "one-step" script
> for Digital Photos and other Scanned Images. The way I use it is to run
> it against a photo that I am looking at and see whether it is "enhanced"
> or "improved" as a result. If not, I just undo the step (CTRL+Z).
>
> The script is written for PSPX and is based on one I developed for PSP9.
>
> There are 4 stages to the script with their minimal or default settings:-
> Automatic Contrast Enhancement
> Clarify
> Edge Preserving Smooth
> High Pass Sharpen
>
> The script is based on and derived from the work of others, especially
> Kris Zaklika (who wrote JASC's OneStepPhotoFix in PSP8), Simon Q Walden's
> CleanUpAct (which inspired me to start on this) and Eleanor T Culling's
> AutoFix and her more recent versions. I am also indebted to Porter
> Caldwell for her excellent and copious notes on her web-site
> www.CampRatty.com and Spandex Rutabaga's lubricious advice and comments in
> these newsgroups.
>
> In addition to the above stages, these people included 2 others:-
> Automatic Colour Balance
> Automatic Saturation Enhancement
>
> I found in practice that these are almost always unnecessary with digital
> photos and "spoil" the colour so I eventually dropped them.
>
> This script is intended as an alternative to the standard One Step Photo
> Fix and Smart Photo Fix provided with PSP. I find in practice that it
> provides a simple and effective improvement to my photos.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Tadjio
>
>
>
| |
|
| "Peter Corser" <peter.corser@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:444cbabe_2@cnews...
> Hi Tadjio
>
> Just had a little play with your script - it seems ok, but I do prefer
> Kris Zaklika's original 5 steps (which I usually do by hand ATM) for the
> following reasons:
>
> Automatic Color Correction - usually not essential, but digital cameras do
> not always get it right (particularly on auto white balance) so I usually
> try it and see if there is any improvement.
>
> Automatic Saturation Enhancement - Clarify tends to desaturate the
> colours - the effect of auto enhancement is often very subtle, but usually
> beneficial.
>
> USM is just plain configuarable to give the result required! This is
> usually only just enough sharpening to make the photo reasonably viewable
> on screen since I always print using QImage with its resizing and final
> sharpening facilities to give what I consider to be photographic looking
> prints (not obviously digital).
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter & Elizabeth Corser,
> Linslade, Beds, UK
Thanks Peter for going to the trouble to reply and explain.
I understand your arguments but do find in practice that I almost always
dispense with Automatic Color Correction and Automatic Saturation
Enhancement. What camera do you have?
Perhaps I should look again at Automatic Saturation Enhancement after
Clarify - after all the trouble with Clarify in PSPX I have lost sight of
the issues here. Do you think Clarify is equivalent to PSP9 now? Do you
use the decimal places or high values?
Have you experimented with High Pass Sharpen as an alternative to USM? I
still can't decide on "default" settings for HPS.
I don't know about QImage. What is it?
Regards
Tadjio
| |
|
|
"Peter Corser" <peter.corser@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:444cbabe_2@cnews...
> Hi Tadjio
>
> Just had a little play with your script - it seems ok, but I do prefer
> Kris Zaklika's original 5 steps (which I usually do by hand ATM) for the
> following reasons:
>
> Automatic Color Correction - usually not essential, but digital cameras do
> not always get it right (particularly on auto white balance) so I usually
> try it and see if there is any improvement.
> Automatic Saturation Enhancement - Clarify tends to desaturate the
> colours - the effect of auto enhancement is often very subtle, but usually
> beneficial.
> USM is just plain configuarable to give the result required! This is
> usually only just enough sharpening to make the photo reasonably viewable
> on screen since I always print using QImage with its resizing and final
> sharpening facilities to give what I consider to be photographic looking
> prints (not obviously digital).
>
> Peter
>
This may be dependent on your images format. When I used Jpeg's from my
cameras I always had to adjust colour balance and contrast ect. But since
using Raw I find the auto Default based on the Cameras WB info In either
KM's software or Pixmantics, produced correct colour balance and Exposure
99% of the time
| |
|
| In news:444cc404$1_1@cnews,
Trev <trevbowden@dsl.pipex.cominvalid> typed:
| "Peter Corser" <peter.corser@btinternet.com> wrote in message
| news:444cbabe_2@cnews...
|| Hi Tadjio
||
|| Just had a little play with your script - it seems ok, but I do
|| prefer Kris Zaklika's original 5 steps (which I usually do by hand
|| ATM) for the following reasons:
||
|| Automatic Color Correction - usually not essential, but digital
|| cameras do not always get it right (particularly on auto white
|| balance) so I usually try it and see if there is any improvement.
|| Automatic Saturation Enhancement - Clarify tends to desaturate the
|| colours - the effect of auto enhancement is often very subtle, but
|| usually beneficial.
|| USM is just plain configuarable to give the result required! This is
|| usually only just enough sharpening to make the photo reasonably
|| viewable on screen since I always print using QImage with its
|| resizing and final sharpening facilities to give what I consider to
|| be photographic looking prints (not obviously digital).
||
|| Peter
||
| This may be dependent on your images format. When I used Jpeg's from
| my cameras I always had to adjust colour balance and contrast ect.
| But since using Raw I find the auto Default based on the Cameras WB
| info In either KM's software or Pixmantics, produced correct colour
| balance and Exposure 99% of the time
I responded to the other post (Kris Z's 1 step PhotoFix) and speculated
on this thought (Raw converted vs jpg) The converted .tif is pretty well
how I want to see the image but I do no sharpening in the Rawshooter
Pro. Its the final 'little' polishings that I expect to do within PSPx
so I have the converted image immediately open in PSPx mainly because my
thought process is on that particular image. The noise removal in PSPx
seems to be more controllable and the high pass overlay emphasizes edges
so I try figures like 60/20 and vary the second number.
Clarify for me isn't consistent so using it becomes a 'try it and see'
It usually creates a too dark situation.
I'm inclined to go with the WB info producing the colour etc in the Raw
processing followed by appropriate noise removal and sharpening.
Rose
Rose
| |
|
|
"RoseW" <wdmn@NShurontel.on.ca> wrote in message news:444cd816$1_3@cnews...
> In news:444cc404$1_1@cnews,
> Trev <trevbowden@dsl.pipex.cominvalid> typed:
> | "Peter Corser" <peter.corser@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> | news:444cbabe_2@cnews...
> || Hi Tadjio
> ||
> || Just had a little play with your script - it seems ok, but I do
> || prefer Kris Zaklika's original 5 steps (which I usually do by hand
> || ATM) for the following reasons:
> ||
> || Automatic Color Correction - usually not essential, but digital
> || cameras do not always get it right (particularly on auto white
> || balance) so I usually try it and see if there is any improvement.
> || Automatic Saturation Enhancement - Clarify tends to desaturate the
> || colours - the effect of auto enhancement is often very subtle, but
> || usually beneficial.
> || USM is just plain configuarable to give the result required! This is
> || usually only just enough sharpening to make the photo reasonably
> || viewable on screen since I always print using QImage with its
> || resizing and final sharpening facilities to give what I consider to
> || be photographic looking prints (not obviously digital).
> ||
> || Peter
> ||
> | This may be dependent on your images format. When I used Jpeg's from
> | my cameras I always had to adjust colour balance and contrast ect.
> | But since using Raw I find the auto Default based on the Cameras WB
> | info In either KM's software or Pixmantics, produced correct colour
> | balance and Exposure 99% of the time
>
> I responded to the other post (Kris Z's 1 step PhotoFix) and speculated
> on this thought (Raw converted vs jpg) The converted .tif is pretty well
> how I want to see the image but I do no sharpening in the Rawshooter
> Pro. Its the final 'little' polishings that I expect to do within PSPx
> so I have the converted image immediately open in PSPx mainly because my
> thought process is on that particular image. The noise removal in PSPx
> seems to be more controllable and the high pass overlay emphasizes edges
> so I try figures like 60/20 and vary the second number.
> Clarify for me isn't consistent so using it becomes a 'try it and see'
> It usually creates a too dark situation.
> I'm inclined to go with the WB info producing the colour etc in the Raw
> processing followed by appropriate noise removal and sharpening.
> Rose
On the issue of Clarify creates a too dark situation, I find that this is
balanced by use of Auto Contrast Enhancement first.
Some people suggest Auto Saturation Enhancement afterwards, but I tend not
to do so.
Tadjio
| |
|
| In news:444ce47e$1_3@cnews,
Tadjio <Tadjio> typed:
| "RoseW" <wdmn@NShurontel.on.ca> wrote in message
| news:444cd816$1_3@cnews...
|| In news:444cc404$1_1@cnews,
|| Trev <trevbowden@dsl.pipex.cominvalid> typed:
||| "Peter Corser" <peter.corser@btinternet.com> wrote in message
||| news:444cbabe_2@cnews...
|||| Hi Tadjio
||||
|||| Just had a little play with your script - it seems ok, but I do
|||| prefer Kris Zaklika's original 5 steps (which I usually do by hand
|||| ATM) for the following reasons:
||||
|||| Automatic Color Correction - usually not essential, but digital
|||| cameras do not always get it right (particularly on auto white
|||| balance) so I usually try it and see if there is any improvement.
|||| Automatic Saturation Enhancement - Clarify tends to desaturate the
|||| colours - the effect of auto enhancement is often very subtle, but
|||| usually beneficial.
|||| USM is just plain configuarable to give the result required! This
|||| is usually only just enough sharpening to make the photo reasonably
|||| viewable on screen since I always print using QImage with its
|||| resizing and final sharpening facilities to give what I consider to
|||| be photographic looking prints (not obviously digital).
||||
|||| Peter
||||
||| This may be dependent on your images format. When I used Jpeg's from
||| my cameras I always had to adjust colour balance and contrast ect.
||| But since using Raw I find the auto Default based on the Cameras WB
||| info In either KM's software or Pixmantics, produced correct colour
||| balance and Exposure 99% of the time
||
|| I responded to the other post (Kris Z's 1 step PhotoFix) and
|| speculated on this thought (Raw converted vs jpg) The converted .tif
|| is pretty well how I want to see the image but I do no sharpening in
|| the Rawshooter Pro. Its the final 'little' polishings that I expect
|| to do within PSPx so I have the converted image immediately open in
|| PSPx mainly because my thought process is on that particular image.
|| The noise removal in PSPx seems to be more controllable and the high
|| pass overlay emphasizes edges so I try figures like 60/20 and vary
|| the second number.
|| Clarify for me isn't consistent so using it becomes a 'try it and
|| see' It usually creates a too dark situation.
|| I'm inclined to go with the WB info producing the colour etc in the
|| Raw processing followed by appropriate noise removal and sharpening.
|| Rose
|
|
| On the issue of Clarify creates a too dark situation, I find that
| this is balanced by use of Auto Contrast Enhancement first.
| Some people suggest Auto Saturation Enhancement afterwards, but I
| tend not to do so.
|
| Tadjio
The issue for me is that the available settings in both the Contrast and
the Saturation are stronger than what is necessary or what I want. In
fact, if I do that step it has been more successful using the layer
adjustment for Contrast or just going into the drop down menu and using
a slight adjustment on that Contrast dialoque box.
Its a lot of extra steps so this is only done if my initial impression
of the image is that it needs 'something' so I try those adjustments.
Basically, if I do it right in Rawshooter then these adjustments are not
necessary in PSPx
Rose
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-04-24, 7:02 pm |
| Tadjio wrote:
> Perhaps I should look again at Automatic Saturation Enhancement after
> Clarify - after all the trouble with Clarify in PSPX I have lost sight of
> the issues here.
The sidebar here might be helpful
http://campratty.com/2photos/ppages/p01autotips.html
> Do you think Clarify is equivalent to PSP9 now?
I doubt it. I don't know what it does but my impression is that it
has changed more than simply in the range of available values. It
may be working on a different image property than before. I don't
know whether you read Bart Hickman's posted technique where he
splits into RGB channels, clarifies each separately and then
recombines into a single RGB image. He indicated that this does
not effect saturation as much as simply running Clarify on the
original RGB image. For me this is an illustration that, whatever
Clarify is doing, it can be done in more than one way and I'm
inclined to think that "way" has changed from PSP 9 to PSP X. The
person who changed it clearly screwed up initially. Whether that
is a fundamental problem to which a Band-Aid was applied to hide
it or whether it was a simple bug that was fixed I do not know.
> I don't know about QImage. What is it?
http://www.ddisoftware.com/
| |
| Peter Corser 2006-04-24, 7:02 pm |
| <Tadjio> wrote in message news:444cbf16_1@cnews...
<snip>
>
> Thanks Peter for going to the trouble to reply and explain.
>
> I understand your arguments but do find in practice that I almost always
> dispense with Automatic Color Correction and Automatic Saturation
> Enhancement. What camera do you have?
>
> Perhaps I should look again at Automatic Saturation Enhancement after
> Clarify - after all the trouble with Clarify in PSPX I have lost sight of
> the issues here. Do you think Clarify is equivalent to PSP9 now? Do you
> use the decimal places or high values?
>
> Have you experimented with High Pass Sharpen as an alternative to USM? I
> still can't decide on "default" settings for HPS.
>
> I don't know about QImage. What is it?
>
> Regards
>
> Tadjio
>
Hi Tadjio
I own various digital cameras (all Canons, one of which is now 8 years old
and almost retired) & still do some scans (although these are only of old
film shots nowadays).
Auto Colour Correction often doesn't have any meaningful effect, but can
sometimes slightly improve a shot (or add/reduce warmth as an artistic(?)
effect). As I am gradually moving back towards shooting raw with my latest
camera (EOS 350D) I expect to do most/all of this adjustment at the
conversion stage, but could still be useful for S2 IS jpegs.
Clarify on its own can produce a pretty horrendous change. Very small
values (around 2 or 3 with decimal values, if required) seem best overall.
To my mind it is only valid to use clarify as part of a sequence using
contrast enhancement, clarify and saturation enhancement (in that order) to
produce the best output. BTW if the image is dark before application of
clarify (e.g. dark image not made lighter or light enough in contrast
enhancement) it will be lightened by clarify and not darkened - the two
tools work together. The effects of saturation enhancement after clarify
are often very subtle (I always use default settings - hate garish
colours!).
Yes, I have tried High Pass Sharpen, but just feel that USM is more
configurable (and I have been using it for a long time so can usually (!!)
judge what changes are required to get the effect I desire). In other words
I am personally more comfortable with USM. I tend to use USM just on the
lightness channel - I prefer the overall effect.
QImage is a program written by Mike Chaney of DDI Software at
http://www.ddisoftware.com/ - this is designed to rescale/resize the output
to the printer at the printer's native resolution so that you have control
of this within QI rather than leaving it to the printer driver which is only
left to work out the dithering required for the colour. It does quite a lot
more, if you want it, but is not intended to be an image editting programme
as such. The other good thing is that Mike is basically a one man band who
keeps touch with the support forum and has been known to issue a free update
within an hour of someone reporting a bug! All updates to QI are free - you
just pay to purchase it the first time. The differences in print are
subtle, but IMVHO extremely worthwhile. It also uses print templates in a
similar way to PSPX, so multiple prints on a single sheet are easy.
I think that you could do all that QI does within PSPX (probably with some
or a lot of scripting) but QI does away with all the mental arithmetic as
well as using as good an algorithm for upsizing/downsizing as I have ever
seen.
Peter
--
Peter & Elizabeth Corser,
Linslade, Beds, UK
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2009 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|