These two screenshots should show the issue:
Retouch screenshot (The red arrow points to a small section that has been retouched):

Original PMax output:

The retouched spot is much lighter than the original.
Moderators: Chris S., Pau, Beatsy, rjlittlefield, ChrisR
Is it possible to use the color and brightness from the input image when doing retouching?
I'm not sure what's being asked, but I assume it's related to what size detail gets copied.stevekale wrote:Is resolution constrained?
Hhmm... I admire your diligence in checking the end cases, but if would be nice if you'd let me know about these problems when you notice them, instead of letting them fester.I have found that when the brush is very small - a few pixels - it sometimes doesn't seem to copy anything.
Ah, I see. I did not notice the exact phrasing of elf's question, which may be a bit misleading. In normal operation, Zerene Stacker creates a set of "preview images", one per source image. Those are full resolution but low quality in the sense of high compression JPEG. There's a frequent request to export arbitrarily high quality versions of those same images. I implicitly assumed that's what elf was talking about, and that export feature is what I'm working on.stevekale wrote:My question was prompted by the wordswhich led me to think that output resolution was constrained in some way.elf wrote:could we get a method to output full resolution aligned images?
let me know about these problems when you notice them,
Good point. The radius=0 bug does prevent filling in a small region with a single-pixel brush, which was intended to work (but doesn't because of the bug).ChrisR wrote:If retouching a triangle shape, coloring in with a single pixel can make sense, not the same as "retouching single pixels".
I actually did remember and review that conversation. The problem was that I didn't recognize it as being related to your comments here about a "very small" brush.ChrisR wrote:let me know about these problems when you notice them,
I did Rik, it's not a new thing. I think the devil is in the "seems to", ie on some images something happens which isn't apparent on another. You went to some lenghts to explain how the brush wasn't like a Photoshop brush. I used the word "hardness" at the time.
...
I think you can be forgiven for not remembering every wrinkle and oddity that someone thinks they've seen
You've already quoted part of my reply. Another part that may help readers here is this:Working from the cleaner image on the left, the retouch brush is needing several passes to transfer the Black area, about where the cursor is.
It's behaving like a low hardness brush in Photoshop. The effect is actually larger than the brush circle.
With a very small brush, it's doing almost nothing on each pass.
There may be good logic behind this, but for these images it isn't useful.
Perhaps it's only/mostly at high magnification?
None of this depends on the absolute size of the brush. It would do the same thing if this were a radius 200 brush working inside a very large fuzzy image.One style of use that helps a lot is to first use a brush that's about the same size as the big features you want to copy, then shrink the brush if necessary to refine some of the details. For example if you're trying to copy a black bristle, then start with the brush about as big as the bristle diameter. If you make the brush much smaller than the bristle, then when it's in the center of the bristle it's not going to do much if anything because there are no differences to be painted there.
The screenshot that you sent represents just about the worst case. Comparing that little black area inside the brush against the big black area around it, there's no detail the size of the brush to be copied, so what gets copied over are zeroes. But on the right side, the area inside the brush is so fuzzy that those pyramid cells were almost zero anyway. Hence the brush doesn't have much effect. To get a decent effect, you would need to make the brush maybe 3 or 4 times bigger.