sorry, I don’t understand your question ; what do you mean?
Advanced math is usually built on basic math.
Here’s math that isn’t based on ‘basic math’, but describes ‘basic math’
E ← S
S ← P ((’+’ / ‘-’) P)*
P ← W ((’’ / ‘/’) W)
W ← V (’^’ W)?
V ← [0-9]+ / ‘(’ E ‘)’
3 Likes
Ah yes, the “real” art in the “real” galleries. As opposed to the fake art in the fake galleries.
3 Likes
On the web “art photography” is sometimes used to describe a style. Im not sure what it is but seems to be non documentary fantasy type arranged stuff with a lot if pp or dreamy black and white with scratches.
Thats a different thing than real art displayed in real art galleries. Which can well have documentary aspects. To do the web version of art photography you need no connections to other artists or traditions.
Im against the separation of art and life and pretty much detest the gallery world. Doesnt change the stuff about industry standards, jobs as assistants etc.
Correct - top of the class with 5 gold stars!
But those folk are all Lightroom ‘fan boys’ for the most part; they cannot use Photoshop for love nor money. Neither do they see a need to, which is sad yet shows their total ignorance of the photographic process.
As someone who makes a living from using/teaching Ps I have always found the Lr/ACR demosaic process to be the ‘Adobe workflow’ Achilles Heel - and it’s that above all else which brought me to RT in the first place.
I use RT as an ‘alternative’ when the job is demanding in terms of either output - big print being an example, or when a shot has big swings in contrast which are too large for Lr/ACR to cope with.
But irrespective of the raw processor I use, the image will still have to go to Ps for final improvements and retouching (have you ever tried removing dust spots in Lr - it’s absurd!) but then it’ll be handed back to Lr for print, DAM etc.
So even though I sound as if I use RT as an alternative, Lr still figures in the equation somewhere.
5 Likes
HI,
I don’t know LR or PsP, but I’ve tried a lot of other software to remove stains or even remove an element from a photo and for the moment I haven’t found better than FastStone for this job.
This is of course a very personal opinion and the results, of course, are sufficient for my expectations.
hey i like my plastic pictures rather than the flesh and blood 
1 Like
As to focus merging - take a look at enfuse. Batch-convert your RAWs, then use enfuse to focus-merge the resulting TIFFs. While most people think of enfuse for exposure fusion, it also actually performs well for focus stack merging if you change the weighting metrics (basically turn off saturation/exposure weighting and only use contrast weighting)
As to pano stitching - I’ve heard good things about Affinity, it sounds like they have an optical flow/depth-aware algorithm that can compensate for parallax errors, something that is still lacking in Hugin. In general hugin does very poorly with the increasingly common workflows of multilens “rig” cameras - it can be used but you have to jump through hoops, and has no decent method for compensating for the inherent parallax errors from such devices.
Once you look at Affinity Photo’s pano stitching, also look at its focus merging function. I had after lots of fiddling really bad results with enfuse, and the first try with Affinity was perfect and took just a few Minutes.
This said, not OS/FOSS, but free, Picolay.de also gave me very good result at first try without any RTFM 
Also agree on the Affinity Photo focus stacking being marvelous.
50 shot macro stack, after cloning out a little haloing, just perfect. Stinker Final | Pat Cunn | Flickr
Actually the opposite. There are only two.
1 Like