These look much improved. Just as we lack the eye and knowledge to know what was technically wrong with them to start, we lack the eye to see anything now except how amazing you made them look.
4 Likes
Speaking of thin air data…
For most of my career I would try and explain that part to clients (over and over) who kept showing up with pictures that were barely larger than profile thumbnails who expected me to use them for print covers/posters. No matter how well I explained, there were always a few ‘brick wall’ clients who kept being bewildered. Even ones that understood one day, would forget it for the next job we worked on. It’s a common scenario in print production, the world over.
And then…
Somewhere around 4 or 5 years ago (I think), a company called Topaz came out with a product that utilized something called ‘neural networks’ AI (same tech that the inaturalist site uses for ID guesses) for the job of upsampling (taking a low rez file and increasing the number of pixels it contains) in a rather revolutionary way. Other competitive products emerged using the same basic tech, and it’s still growing.
But here’s where the ‘thin air’ data comes in. In short, it’s really using the anlytical power of a computer that’s working with developed database of many, many, MANY images, to ‘intelligently’ guess what’s going on in your image as it moves up in resolution. In effect, filling in details that you KNOW did not exist by the power of this analysis as you ask it to ‘zoom in’.
For some things, like faces, and face details, the accuracy is almost uncanny. But it IS still guess. Mathematically rich guessing, mind you. But guessing, nonetheless. The results are sometimes hard to believe.
If you’re curious about this product, and you have the gear to run it (it’s fairly processor intense), give their demo a try and see. (plug? Nope. I don’t get a nickel. It’s just intersting to image geeks like me)
Go to https://www.topazlabs.com/gigapixel-ai for more details, and some actual before/after examples that show you what it can do. It may look impossible, or a trick – but it’s the real deal.
In the pics that I’ve played with here so far, in evey case I’ve used Gigapixel along the way to help increase possible details. Now it doesn’t always work. Like I said, if you try to ‘Gigapixel’ an image that already has been upsampled (whether inside a camera or otherwise), the results are usually pretty bad. And you’ll also see strange little shapes when the tech gets pushed too hard. But I can say that I’ve kept up with the product updates and it continues to improve each year. This is the future of image processing. By the way, Topaz has other products that use similar tech for noise reduction and image sharpening as well. Which I’ve also used extensively here. In fact, every image so far, has started as a saved JPG from the observation page, which I then run through 1) JPG2RAW converter (which removes a LOT of data noise), 2) Denoise (if still needed), 3)Sharpen AI (if needed) and then onto Photoshop RAW for tone/colour and other tweaking before moving the results into Gigapixel. Most of the time I use Gigapixel to double the pixel resolution, and then take that result, and DOWNsample in Photoshop (with sharpen details on) to get back to the original resolution.
It sounds a lot more complex and marathon than it actually is, once I get going. Anyhow, I thought I would outline the basic procedures in case anyone else is interested, which some (including you) seem to indicate that they are.
It was your statement about not being able to create data detail out of thin air that made me write this statement. Once I get the Topaz tools at work, I realized that for many clients, I did not need to go chasing them for workable files as I once had. The other thing with this tech? It can breathe some real life back into older gear. You’ve got an old DSLR that just doesn’t have the sensor size, clarity, or low noise levels of the newest models? With the newest software, you’ll find that your game will change. And that goes for all image stock you might have kicking around. Had a great shot that you’ve held onto but it’s too low rez once you crop it to what you want? Or maybe a little out of focus? Chances are it’s completely salvageable. How? By creating data out of ‘thin air’. No, I didn’t really believe it myself at first. But after all these years, it’s a solid part of many of my workflows. Okay, sorry about all the techno blab. Let’s get back to the fun. And now that you’ve all seen what’s happening, maybe check your archives for possible ‘forgotten treasures’. You never know!
We now return to our regularly scheduled ‘Tweakorama’. Thank you.
1 Like
Greetings MF! Okay, I think I’m going to start including ‘BEFORES’ with this.
So, starting with this:
Add my hocus-focus…
Please let me know if the ID ever comes through on this one, if you decide to use it.
Cheers!
PS: I just looked up the reference shots for these flies and wow. Not nearly as ‘golden’ as I made it. I could go back and take that down if you like. And there is some green stuff there too. Maybe it’s the weird optics of the test tube that makes it glow like that. Let me know.
2 Likes
Can I get moth help? Thanks!
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/118878400 - frame 4 most un-edited, frame 3 from this one for color ref (either my finger or stucco, both are close to normal)
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/120463045 - frame 6 most un-edited, color ref same stucco as other links)
As I’m no moth expert at all, could you please pick which frames you think best match the colour of the real thing? I’d also prefer the frame from each shot that has the least amount of pre-existing digital editing, if possible. Even if the colour or something else is off, it would still be easier and give better results. Maybe you may need to say, ‘Use frame 2 for colour ref, use frame 4 for most un-edited.’ Something like that. Thanks!
Edited my comment and I uploaded originals to both observations. I’ll stick them here too in case the quality is better. Any magic you can work is appreciated!
Ok abuelo, gracias.
Thanks. Okay, time for one more before bed. Well, the colour seems shifted to red, but I’m not sure if that’s natural or reflection off a coloured stucco. Easy enough to fix and neutralize.
So… original.
And the tweak.
And just for fun, enlarged 2x.
The main problem is the harsh lighting. Really took out middle detail. Should be better on the next original. But… tomorrow.
1 Like
Why didn’t I know about this a few years ago? 
I think I got rid of a bunch of those.
bvcruz, after your support of the vignette, I wondered what would happen if I did a little more tweaking. Better? No? Different mood, for sure.
1 Like
Hmm I think this might be okay. Thank you so much!
I don’t feel like that is a particularly ethical rule. A great deal of the time I could get closer but choose not to so as not to disturb creatures more. Something to think about depending on your photo goals.
Thanks, it was just a quick shot I took with my phone because I didn’t know what it was…part of the mutation is that it is black. You made it crisper though and I shall put it back into my conservation filed improved…
This one is just because it’s a fun picture, I call it my frog wizard and would love to just have a better starter pic to play with. Just a little peeper i found in the garage with its front arm resting on a marble. I’ve actually been thinking about paying someone to photoshop it, but not for ID purposes. My niece loves this pic and wants me to make a copy for her…
I didn’t see a link or attachment for the ‘frog wizard’ you mentioned. Even though it can sometimes seem a bit like magic, I’m afraid I can’t work with telepathic files. (My droll attempt at humour.)
Anyhow, would you please provide an image to work with? Thanks.
1 Like
I think you uploaded the same second photo again. The front legs face up, not out. 
Yep. Sorry. Updated my post with the right pic.
1 Like
Thanks for your help! I tried to download a free trial of the gigapixel software to play with it, but it kept crashing. Mostly, I use basic Windows photo software or the iPhone editing tools. Fun to see possibilities.
Yeah, it is a pretty demanding app in terms of hardware. Well, if you ever get another shot you’d like me to look at, drop me a note and if I’m not too busy I’d be happy to help.
Happy discovery hunting.
Cheers.
1 Like