I’m not sure about PF, but each detail layer in GIMP usually has its blending mode set to “Grain merge”. The G’MIC plugin also does this when in GIMP.
This looks like a bug, I will check…
@patdavid the layers are recombined in “grain merge” mode in PhF as well.
2 Likes
Hi,
I have another question about the feature set - is there a healing brush in PhF? I understand that the clone stamp tool is for cloning only.
Besides, has anything changed in the operation of the clone stamp tool since this post? I didn’t manage to use it on Windows 10 (pressing Ctrl+Right Click doesn’t seem to set the source spot).
Thanks!
I have looked into your “split details” problem again, and realised that what you see is “kind of normal”.
Here is my reply to the GitHub issue:
This is normal: the residual layer (the one associated with the “split details” tool) is actually outputting several images at once, one for the residual + one for each detail level. The clone layers inside the “scale 1/2/3/45” groups simply clone one of the output images of the “split details” layer, which is then blended back in “grain merge” mode.
If you hide the “split details” layer, you also disable the input of the clone layers in the “scale 1/2/3/45” groups, with unpredictable results.
In order to use the various detail levels for image sharpening, what you need to do is to add a clone of the original image just above the “split details” layer: this way, the various “grain merge” blends will be applied to the original image and not the residual one.
1 Like
The healing brush is in my long-term todo list, but not available yet. Indeed, the clone stamp tool only does pixel cloning.
The current key combination for defining the source area is Ctrl+Alt+right click, I have now corrected the blog post accordingly… thanks for pointing this out!
1 Like
Thanks.
The clone stamp works for me now, but only with the key combination of Ctrl+Alt+Left click. The combination with right click doesn’t work. Maybe it’s an operating system thing?
Regarding the wavelet issue - I understand what you are saying, but I think it will be more intuitive and convenient for the user if hiding the “split details” layer will be treated internally as the procedure you suggested - a clone of the original image will be created just above the “split details” layer and then the output will be predictable. The clone of the original image doesn’t need to be shown to the user, but it should be there for the result to be as expected by the user. I believe that this will be more straightforward and will save the need to do the cloning manually. Alternatively, you can create the clone of the original layer when the “split details” is created, but keep it hidden as long as the “split details” is shown, and vice versa (when the “split details” is hidden, the cloned layer will be shown - kind of mutually exclusive layers. And of course the user is not supposed to see the cloned layer at all). I wonder how the GIMP plugin works…
A more general question - do you maintain a list of implemented/planned feature set on the blog or somewhere else? It could help new users who aren’t sure what’s available and what isn’t. I ran into the blog post about the clone stamp accidentally while actually searching for something else. And I found this tutorial on wavelet decomposition while googling “photoflow healing brush” 
(it contains the text or the healing brush to clone details from one place to another. The term healing in this quote is actually inaccurate).
Thanks again!
No, it’s me who is typing too many things in parallel… Ctrl+Alt+Left click is indeed the correct mouse gesture. Sorry!!!
1 Like
I think that this would be quite difficult to implement, and also represent some sort of “exceptional case” that is handled differently from the rest…
Another, much simpler possibility would be to add an option in the “split details” tool for outputting the original image instead of the residual. What do you think?
Do you mean a checkbox like ‘pass-through’? this sounds good too.
In general I think that this is actually a case of a true exceptional ‘hide’ operation, because when the user wants to hide the “split details” layer the purpose is to hide only the blurred residual layer and not to disable the generation of the upper scales. If the intention was to avoid the generation of the upper layers then the user would have hidden the whole group of layers. But anyway, the idea of adding an option for outputting the original image gives the same functionality.
The code for outputting the original image instead of the residual one has been pushed to github: [tools/split details] added option to output the original image inste… · aferrero2707/PhotoFlow@0641fb0 · GitHub
I have also added a new preset that combines the various wavelet detail levels with the original image at decreasing opacity, to obtain a nice sharpening effect: PhotoFlow/presets/wavelet-sharpening-5.pfp at stable · aferrero2707/PhotoFlow · GitHub
1 Like
If for nothing else I find tiresome having to go all the way to the other side of the screen/window to change settings, but I’m as sloth as humanly possible 
I have 2 feature request:
- Make it portable under Windows (Currently, on my Windows 10 it doesn’t work to extract the Installer into a folder, the buttons aren’t rendered).
- Allow the usage of the Filters (Noise Reduction, GMIC, etc…) on JPG / PNG files.
Thank You.
I’ve found the reason why certain files (like icons) were not found… could you test this .zip file? It should be possible to extract it anywhere on your disk, and run photoflow.exe from the bin folder.
All filters should work on JPG files, at least if they have an embedded ICC profile. For PNG files and JPG files without embedded ICC profile, some filters that require conversion to Lab colorspace (like the non-local means denoising) do not work at the moment.
The next big release will give the possibility to assign an ICC profile is none is found, with sRGB proposed as default. This will allow to run any filter on any image…
Thanks!
I tend to think that it’s better to keep the layers list and controls at the same side.
Actually I just saw this post about Phocus 3.1 and its layout looks pretty damn good to me. The histogram is at the top, below it the list of layers, and each layer can be expanded to show the controls to the user. So it’s clear where everything is, and when a layer is to be edited, its settings are expanded right next to its name. I think this is more intuitive than the way it is done in 0.2.7 using a separate panel with an editing box for each layer. And it is also more convenient than jumping from one side of the screen to the other every time a layer is selected and modified.
Regardless of that, maybe I’m just very inexperienced yet, but I found the controls “X/Y shift” to have almost no use, to the extent that maybe they shouldn’t be exposed in the UI.
As far as I could see, Phocus is mostly based on modules (like Darktable and Rawtherapee), and not adjustment layers, which makes the UI a bit easier to organise… also I doubt that it supports layer groups.
Another idea I am considering it to have the controls of the active layer shown below the layer list, instead of on a separate panel. This would save space for the preview image, and also limit the mouse movements.
Concerning the X-Y movement, it actually only makes sense for image layers or clone layers, and can be used for example to “clone” some portion of the image by translating a copy of it and then masking. I agree that this can be disabled for most of the tools, and thus simplify the UI.
I think it has adjustment layers, as shown at the bottom right of the included images and also see here for example, but probably with less flexibility than PhF. And I guess you’re right that it doesn’t support groups.
Sounds very good to me.
Between these two options, I’d still vote for having the controls of a layer expandable next to its name, but I think both of them are better than the separate panel with aggregated control boxes as it is today.
And what about the Windows bundle ? 
Thank you