Would you care to share your settings for your example.
I am finding that presets are particularly important with this module.
The settings are in the jpg file.
Thomas beat me to it …load the JPG as a sidecar
1 Like
oh wow guys, 21 favs in 6 hours, thank you all!
1 Like
You get triple because
- it highlights the power of a relatively new module
- it is a good picture (besides the fog before processing)
- you are popular
3 Likes
One thing I love about this module (along with Color Balance RGB) is how they preserve the colors. Somehow, to my perception, the colors in both pictures are “the same”, except they are foggy in one and not in the other. It’s mind-blowing.
2 Likes
On that, it would be a good exercise to use it on mountainous landscapes with a strong haze (see Play Raws or sample images from other threads). Usually haze removal comes with saturated colour casts. Newer algorithms have improved but it would be nice to see how this module does.
Nah, it’s just accurate physics. Rutherford said “science is either physics or collecting stamps”. He was right.
I simply never expected such a brilliant result (figureatively and literally) and was quite amazed 
I am really glad you are more into physics than stamps
1 Like
I know, but the way I see it, something can be accurate and physical, and still mind-blowing 
Don’t get jaded! It’s almost as bad as believing it’s magic.
Blending dehaze in lightness or some other mode will usually avoid the cast…though I think some people enjoy the boost in saturation…I know the dehaze in RT is a very strong effect but I think it does also offer to use a luminance mode…Funny I like the dehaze preset in diffuse module but to me it does not give the traditional appearance of dehaze…it adds a lot of detail and actually seems to brighten the image a bit as opposed to darkening it …at least in my experience…
It does not explicitly brighten or darken, it just increases the magnitude of gradients. So the result depends on how shadows/highlights are distributed in your pic.
It’s very effective…and for me I like the result better…I guess I could say imo it’s not the traditional look of a dehaze operation but for me that’s a good thing…
I don’t think I would have ever arrived at the first instance that you used… might be useful on flat images… final result is really nice. I thought for sure at some point you might have used a multiply blend mode but the deep darkening comes from that first instance… Thanks for sharing…
1 Like
I must admit that in the beginning, before watching @s7habo 's video, I hat a lot of difficulties with this module
I am using it but I think I don’t understand everything about the way it works
but I guess you have surpassed yourself with it, again
1 Like
I have a question concerning the sliders iteration and speed. I get that more iterations may slow down the processing but, when sharpening or increasing local contrast, is it better to have more iterations or more speed - in terms of the end result (image quality)? what exactly is the difference? Or is it quality wise more or less the same just more speed means more time to calculate? I mean both sliders do increase the effect, don’t they?
Without getting into what the module does (we have experts for that), I will speak more generally about filters and processing. A lot of it comes down to two issues:
- The degree
- The accuracy
Often iteration increases an effect. For instance, I can drink multiple cups of water a day. With each cup, I receive more hydration. I could change the size to pitchers but if I had to drink the entire volume at once, that would adversely affect the usability!
Other times, in the name of speed, we use faster less accurate methods. One simple example is the box blur. It is fast. We usually use it for the guided image filter. But it is an approximation of the Gaussian. Repetition allows box to converge to a Gaussian. This may not always be true or pat (as in perfect - not Pat David - sorry, bad joke 
).
1 Like
(also completely without knowing what you folks are talking about) i’m going to point you to wikipedia
which describes in general how step size and number of steps progresses your simulation walking along a differential equation. just look at the images on the right side: larger step size walks faster, but potentially the wrong direction. more iterations with small step size will be more accurate.
2 Likes
Ha, I am divergent too but yeah this stuff is interesting. Hope these help, Anna.