Detail Therapy Failed

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

I was first attracted to Topaz Impression for the painterly presets. At first blush it seemed to have a lot of the features that I like about DAP without the long wait time for the image to evolve. Working the painterly though involves giving up on at least some of the detail of the original capture. The brush stroke has to go somewhere. Obliterating detail... well that's just the cost. So I embarked on an effort to, well, live with it. I think I've had some success but perhaps transferred my thinking to the beautiful detail of the brush stroke and learning how to use color contrast between strokes to retain the sense of detail. Hmm, not exactly living with less detail.

Then there are the colored pencil presets. One of the things I like about DAP is that one can use it to uprez an image. Turn that thumbnail into a 16 MP DAP image works like a charm. Using a base image to sample then repainting a new image. Toning the original for contrast helps this process result in a fine high rez DAPed version. With the colored pencil presets in Impression I happily discovered I can draw in detail ;-) Interwoven with Nik Silver Efex for luminance blending and Color Efex detail extractor one can use thin pencil settings to sketch in detail. Just what I've always wanted.

So... just living with loss of detail in painterly, uh, er, um... just failed.



Original very soft in the middle left of the unfolding petal and soft edges on the back petals didn't work for me. First tried more painterly brush to see, then found the pencil detail. Several layers under and over original, Impression colored pencil, NIK SEP & CEP toning & detailing.

Thanks for looking (and reading if you got through it ;-)

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Dennis Bishop]

I'd like to see the original image for comparison. It certainly looks like you've managed to get detail.

I like the foreground, too, but the background adds a lot to this image. The variability in it is pleasing, and it's nice that the lightest part of it lines up with the shape of the flower to extend the diagonal.

[Cheryl Slechta]

Hi, Michael, I'd like to see your starting point also. The lighting is beautiful and I absolutely love the background

[Steve Adkins]

Hi Michael, Plus 1 for a look at the original. I'm glad you gave up on "living with it", for our sakes. Very, very interesting process and the result is delicate and believable. Well done.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Dennis, Cheryl, Steve,

Thanks much for the comments. They are much appreciated.

Original capture, just cropped as the OP.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Dennis Bishop]

Thanks for posting this, Michael. The transformation from this to your initial post is impressive.

[Anita Bower]

I'm not sure if you are satisfied with OP or not. I think not? I haven't used either Topaz Impressions nor DAP, so I appreciate learning a bit more about both from your comments and photo.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Anita,

Greetings. I'm pretty happy with the OP. What I like is that Impression uses an original image to inform what brush stroke it uses when repainting a new image. The brush stroke is modified to the users instructions as to size and shape and a number of other characteristics (paint volume and opacity, stoke length, etc,). So, with the OP I used Impression with a thin brush with a longish stroke (the colored pencil preset) such that the oof areas were repainted with a pencil sketch detail.

I overlay blended the original on the pencil sketch (I may have done this more than once). And adjusted luminance tonality with Nik SIlver Efex (a b&w conversion to just impact the luminance) then luminance blend to bring back the color. The textured background was a bonus that emphasizes the contrast to the white flower and to my eye lifts it off the page. The impact on the greenery seems to work in the same manner but perhaps some of the form is lost (though that may have been a distraction from the main event).

I'm happiest with the detail lent to the middle unfolding petal. It's translucence flattened the contrast in that region and in the original shot is just a blur.

In any event, I learned a lot about using Impression as a tool for creating images to my taste from working this image. It's pretty fun to use I expect it will become a mainstay in my toolset.

Maybe more than what you were asking, but thanks for the interest.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Jackie Schuknecht]

I really like what the luminosity has done here, and I prefer the filtered image to the original, although I might clone out the brighter bits on the foliage. So great to see you trying new things. Glad you are able to get your "detail".

[Anita Bower]

Anita,

Greetings. I'm pretty happy with the OP. What I like is that Impression uses an original image to inform what brush stroke it uses when repainting a new image. The brush stroke is modified to the users instructions as to size and shape and a number of other characteristics (paint volume and opacity, stoke length, etc,). So, with the OP I used Impression with a thin brush with a longish stroke (the colored pencil preset) such that the oof areas were repainted with a pencil sketch detail.

I overlay blended the original on the pencil sketch (I may have done this more than once). And adjusted luminance tonality with Nik SIlver Efex (a b&w conversion to just impact the luminance) then luminance blend to bring back the color. The textured background was a bonus that emphasizes the contrast to the white flower and to my eye lifts it off the page. The impact on the greenery seems to work in the same manner but perhaps some of the form is lost (though that may have been a distraction from the main event).

I'm happiest with the detail lent to the middle unfolding petal. It's translucence flattened the contrast in that region and in the original shot is just a blur.

In any event, I learned a lot about using Impression as a tool for creating images to my taste from working this image. It's pretty fun to use I expect it will become a mainstay in my toolset.

Maybe more than what you were asking, but thanks for the interest.

Cheers,

-Michael-

Thanks for the information.

[Diane Miller]

I need to digest this when I have time -- I love what you did here! I have to confess, several years ago I was so turned off by some Topaz thing (can't remember the name because I began to think of it as Curly-Que) that I haven't looked at Impression. Glad you figured out how to exercise some artistic control. Slap-on one-click filters just don't do it.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Diane,

I had a similar impression of Topaz early on. I recall the noise reduction tool had this odd curly-que method for, well, reducing noise. Not sure what that was about. But I had bought it, so it just stayed in the plugins pile periodically updating. Some time later they came out with InFocus and I tried it and liked it... surprise the curly-que thing had gone away in some update or other and I found the noise reduction tool (DeNoise) to work well for my taste.

The short story is Topaz has developed their tools over time and the Impression tool is pretty cool for my uses. It's a little slow starting. But it's something I'm likely to use frequently in the future (till something else comes along) using it as one layer blended with others. I'm also particularly fond on Nik Silver Efex and the structure controls for luminance tuning and detail.

Anyway.

Cheers,

-Michael-