Don, Jeanie, Andrew and others,
Thank you for taking time to try and test Shadow Illuminator (
www.shadowilluminator.org) and for sharing your opinions. Please continue to do so. Either through this forum if its of general interest, or directly via email provided in “contact us” link on the web site.
Shadow Illuminator algorithm has been originally designed to do what our eyes do (loosely speaking). In fact, the enhanced results that Shadow Illuminator produces will often resemble what our eyes see when we take the photograph. Our photographs are not as capable as our eyes so shadows appear more dramatic in the photographs. I personally love deep shadows as artistic expression in the art and studio photography. But I don’t like when those great moments that we cannot re-shoot (e.g., event photography, photo journalism, etc.) result in less then acceptable photographs. We all deal with this. We mask, we dodge, we burn, and do what not to salvage those great shots only if it wasn’t for the inappropriate illumination we had to accept at the moment. Retouching can produce great results and amazing effects.
RP community is an example of amazing technical and artistic expertise that exists out there.

As Don and others pointed out, Shadow Illuminator has a potential to be “hand’s off” automatic tool to provide a starting point for additional manual retouching. It is smart.

The current version works reasonably well for wide variety of images. For some images, however, the default setting may be too high. Things will be more visible, but the photorealistic appeal of the picture may be degraded. This is exactly what Andrew, Don and Jeanie pointed out (more or less). It is the issue of tonal mapping. The more of the tonal range (from nature) we want to “squeeze” and render within the available tonal range of our displays and/or print, the more the pictures will look “flat”.
(I probably could automate Shadow Illuminator further, but I though that we really want at least one slider.)
Andrew’s comparison image (see Andrew B’s posting in this thread for the attached image file) compares what Shadow Illuminator’s default setting does on one example and what can be (quickly) done in Photoshop. This is a great comparison. Exactly the kind I was looking for. If I can do something easily and efficiently in
PS, why would I bother with other tools? (Photoshop is a powerful tool, as we know. In principle anything can be done if we had time, (and talent, for some of us.)
I’ve expanded Andrew’s comparison to include two additional results (the quad comparison image is at
www.shadowilluminator.org/examples/SIcompare.jpg ). One version uses the result of Shadow illuminator at its default setting (denoted by SI @ +/-0) and applies
PS USM (58,42,0). The outcome does not look as “flat” anymore. In fact the tonal depth and color are very close to what can be done in
PS, while still showing a bit more of the shadow details.
Another way to preserve tonal “depth” is to reduce the amount of shadow enhancement required from Shadow Illuminator. If we check the most left button at the website, thus selecting the least amount of shadow enhancement, then we get the picture labeled (SI @ -2). This looks more photorealistic and still shows sufficient amount of detail.
All this comparison illustrates is that Shadow Illuminator is “work in progress” and that with simple fixes it can work reasonably well on its own, or in a workflow people are using today.
My main goal was to provide good visibility for robot vision. The photorealistic rendition was secondary. So the current default setting may be too much for some pictures. Especially fine features and textures such as hair and carpet fibers situated in deep shadows may be over enhanced in the result. To remedy this, choose lesser amount of enhancement. (Currently you must upload the original image again, basically start over, and apply a new desired setting. You cannot re-manipulate already uploaded image. Sorry…)
The bottom line: what I am currently demonstrating on the web is a bare bones research version. It will work well on most images, but not all (as is the case with most of the tools and techniques we have at our disposal). The bare bones version doesn’t do anything to improve or change color or other things. This is because at the moment I want to isolate and demonstrate what the Shadow Illuminator does by itself. I am thinking about those additional improvements, and I may have more to show you soon.
Please continue using Shadow Illuminator and continue providing comments and suggestions. If you find a particularly bad example, where SI didn’t do as good of a job, perhaps you could share a before-and-after image by posting a link that can be generated from the web site. Likewise if you could share a particularly impressive before-and-after result, please provide a link also. Examples where the SI result was further improved with modest retouching effort may also be interesting to see.
So where are we going from here? Don wants it TODAY on his desktop, and if that is not possible, than he wants to be able to upload images larger than 1MB.

OK, I will increase the file size limit for signed-in users to 1.5MB. This should be plenty for even large pixel count JPEG’s.
This tool is not meant to be a web application. (Who wants to deal with network delays with 20MB tiff’s.) But my research code is in such a state that the web is the only way for me to feature it. So for now we have to use this demo site. What we really want is a
PS plug-in. I can’t do this as a
PS action because the computation involved is not available within Photoshop’s built-in tools. Hopefully in the next 2 months I’ll have the plug-in.
Let’s continue evaluating, and confirm that it is worthwhile pursuing the plug-in. So far, the responses are positive.
This community rocks. Thank you for all your help. I promise from now on I won’t write "essays" like this.

So don’t ask hard questions…
Best regards,
Vladimir