SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

Hi Jimmy,

I was interested in whether topaz fills in blank areas also. I ran the same process you described on lemlakit's image only to find that the blown out areas remained blown out.

I would check which file you downloaded to edit. You may have inadvertently downloaded RG's edit.

Lemlakit's posted filename was "p3104631.jpg". RG's edit was posted with filename "jordan_s_house.jpg". Your edit was posted with filename "03_jordan_s_house.01_final.jpg"

Mike

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Sounds kind of sinister but that could be what happened.
I assure you that I used the Topaz Products in the same order that I stated and I only used the "Auto" (default) settings.
I was only trying to help out the original poster that had posted a small file with very little detail.
I don't recall downloading RG's post, only the original poster's file.
I have no interest in stealing RG's work.
After I complete PP on my work I always save the file as XXX.Final.jpg or XXX.Final.01.jpg, etc.
JimmyT

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

Hi Jimmy,

I truly apologize if my post came across as accusatory. That was not my intent nor do I believe that anyone on this site would steal someone else's images. I was really interested in the possibility that, as was mentioned, Topaz AI may had progressed to a point where they could fill in clipped regions of a photo. I haven't paid the Topaz annual maintenance fees, because I hadn't seen much performance improvements thru their many updates. I'm just not interested in paying for their bug fixes. However, if this feature worked, then I would reconsider. So I tried duplicating your process but I wasn't getting the same results. In the process of trying to find out why your results were different than mine, I noticed the similar filenames. Only then did I connect that observation to a secondary discussion going on in this thread.

Again I apologize. I got a little excited to think that Topaz had made some real progress. But sadly, it looks like I was chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Mike

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Just out of curiosity, how good would Content Aware cloning be at filling in blown areas in clouds? I appreciate that as with other kinds of cloning it would need a sufficient amount of unblown sky to get its patch from. But clouds are fairly tolerant when it comes to not needing an exact match.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

​ Background:
​ Topaz Products, in order of use recommended by Topaz Products - Gigapixel AI, Sharpen AI, Adjust AI.
This may look a little "Overcooked" but I used the defaults for each program in the interest of saving time.
I did level the pic to my eye.
No, I didn't replace the sky.
I welcome comments or comments, please.
Smile,
JimmyT Sends
To: R.G., SalvageDiver, and Lemlakit
Since I “Trashed” the “Lemlakit” images soon after I had posted them yesterday, this a.m. I reprocessed the “Lemlakit” 421KB file just the same as I did before using Topaz Products - Gigapixel AI, Sharpen AI, Adjust AI getting similar results and it is embarrassing to admit that I must have used RG’s file by mistake. For that, I am sorry RG, as it wasn’t intentional.
However, I am happy that I ended up with a 20.6 MB pic file which I downsized to 6.5 MB so it would load on UHH below. Some info must have been available to Topaz Gigapixel AI for it to recover some of the details clouds, rocks, wrought iron rails, brick sidewalk, etc.???
As with anything that I post; I welcome constructive comments. Remember, as with any PP the secret is in the wrist? So with egg on my face . . .
Edit: I still don't say my colors are correct. . .
Smile,
JimmyT Sends

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Easily done.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Outback didn't respond and I tend to agree with him. Replacing the sky is always a good option, if for no other reason just for something to do and it's usually a fun thing to do. I spent less than 10 minutes replacing the sky with Affinity, and most of that time was spent going to Splash and grabbing a sky, and then reducing the levels on my original house to be more appropriate with the new sky. If I were serious about it, I would have used my own sky from my sky collection, would have used 3 or four different one's, and then spent way too much time trying to decide which one I liked best.

(Download)

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

New Sky attached below. Constructive comments please.

(Download)

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Nice sky but too blue for my tastes. I would have toned it down a bit to a paler blue. Everyone's tastes vary though, usually from hour to hour, day to day and so on, not to mention monitors can vary as well.

Also, the blue in the driveway bothers me. It bothered me in the original as well, so I de saturated it so it looked more like cement. Of course it could have been blue to begin with, who knows.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Thank you. The skies (about 100+) I use are various skies shot in and around my home, mostly w/o augmentation.
I shoot sunrise/sunset/whispy/cotton ball or streaky clouds. I will admit the whole pic was enhanced. . .
Thanks again for the comments,
JimmyT Sends

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

I never thought of that. Brilliant idea!!!, so I tried filling the clipped area with Content Aware (CA) and it worked beautifully. And it seems to avoid the repeating patterns problem with simple cloning. I tried both CA tools in PS, 1) using the CA selection in the Edit menu and 2) the CA option in the Fill selection. They both gave slightly different results.

To limit the CA to just the clipped area, I used the Select|Color Range|Highlights. I set Fuzziness to 0 and adjusted the Range slider to select only the clipped area by setting it to about 250-254. I used 252 for these sample images. Then process the sky and house as you normally would. Works great and no repeating patterns.

Thanks RG for the idea. And now I still don't need to consider the Topaz annual maintenance fee.

(Download)


(Download)

boncrayon

In PhotoShop, I would lighten the frame and raise the Contrast a bit.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

That's excellent..... except that I don't have a Content Aware tool at present .

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

The "content aware" idea was a great suggestion.
So I tried revising the original image using Affinity Photo's version of content aware: the Inpainting Brush Tool, to see what it could do with the burned out areas of the sky.
Plus a bit of straightening, perspective adjustment, recolor of driveway and minor tweaks to brightness, contrast, vibrance, etc.

(Download)

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

Oooppps... I tried in LRCC but no go. I found that it can be done in PSE, but the steps are slightly different.