Wavelets A Third Look

I suspect that by the time you read this blog post it will be out of date. Things are moving fast in RT wavelet land and wavelet tone mapping is galloping up behind me.

In my last post I talked about a three tool workflow using only wavelets, noise reduction and CIECAM. In this post I'm stripping down farther and using only wavelets.  Along the way I'll add my opinion about the multitude of adjustments that may panic a novice user into slider shock.

First question. "Are wavelets worth the learning curve?"  Yup and double yup.  With only a few adjustments you can do this.

****
If you aren't already aware how blogspot works click on the following images to bring up a menu at the bottom. Original size enlarges the screen shot into something more readable.

In the wavelet setting section the strength slider combines the wavelet and the original image.  I haven't found much use for the combined images but moving the slider back and forth between  0 and 100 is a quick way to see how wavelets have improved (or degraded) your image.

You can create a stack of up to 9 wavelets in any image larger than 1024 pixels. Unfortunately this includes 100% detail windows. They need to be large when I'm working on a D7000 image.  Since my 24 inch 1920 by 1080 pixel monitor doesn't have that much real estate I zoom to 100% and forget detail windows.  But if I spring for a dual monitor card for my birthday--I already have a 1024 oixel 19 inch monitor--I might rethink that strategy.

Change file size to tiled if you are using a 32 bit machine. For a 64 bit machine with a decent amount of memory full image eliminates any tile artifacts.

The D in edge quality stands for the Daubechies function. It's a step up from the Mexican Hat function used by Gimp since you can change the number of coefficients.  It that mathematical  talk leaves you confused the thing to remember is that you don't notice changes until you blow up your image to about 400%.  So if you aren't planning to use a very small crop or print a very large poster leave it at the default  setting. (See Update below. RT keeps improving.)

****

After playing around with wavelet I decided my Nikon D7000 and its kit len are a bit soft. Seven or eight clicks on the contrast + button improved things. I've also changed the default 'apply to' box from adding contrast to only the shadows and highlights to adding it to the full image. Since this improved all the D7000 images I have tested so far I'll include this as a default when I create my custom three tool profile. So use wavelets to check out your camera and lens combination to see how they perform.

If you are doing conventional development don't bother opening the preview image section. But if you occasionally slip into the Crazy Artist mode it's a double WOW place to start. I'll give an example at the bottom of this post.

****

There are three chromatic sub tools.  The pastel-saturated tool links the chroma changes to the contrast settings I've already set.  The slider shifts the effect from pastel tones to saturated tones. It works but has a limited range. In my first wavelet post I discussed both this and the nine point 'curve' that was replaced by the sliders in the next sub tool.

With  this sub tool  you can set the chroma change for each wavelet. I suspect if  I was working on another image with a range of details that  I wanted to make more colorful and another range of details that I wanted to mute this would be a useful tool. But don't expect big changes.

For landscape images I use the third sub tool.

The single slider goes from no changes to oversaturated. This will be the default in my three tool workflow.

****

Edge sharpening is much improved.  In my first post I dismissed  it with "a little goes a long way." It wasn't finished and created an artifact lover's heaven, This image shows the changes I've made so far without wavelet sharpening.

****

With 30% sharpening   All edges are sharper. But we are beginning to add sharpening noise to the walkway in front of the building. Wavelets haven't magically ended the battle between 'really-sharp' and 'lot-of-noise'.

Here is the noise at 65%, Sharp but noisy. At 100% it is much worse.

*****

My compromise in the battle was a sharpening of 43%,. Note how the blocks of the wall now jump out of the image and the sidewalk is reasonably noise free. To clean up that noise I used the denoise/ refine tool.  Unfortunately I was interrupted and forgot to save a screenshot.  The tool is simple, just a check box and three of the new combined sliders that control different denoising algorithms. The top setting is strength. The bottom is detail.

With this image level 2 worked best over all. But to remove all the noise residual in the blue sky I needed a small amount of level 1.

Leave the edge detection box unchecked.  The way it is setup now it blurs the image. This maybe because the defaults are wrong. Or it may need more work. It will, I suspect, be used to fine tune the noise and edge detection

{Update. With RT 4.2.173 this sub tool works far better--or I'm better at using it on an image that has a lot of detail. The default strength should be 0,  not 82, as I suspected.  The noise threshold slider cuts noise when used with the noise/refine tools.  The threshold high slider sharpens edges, mainly by increasing the local contrast. And it now has a visible effect on 100% images. especially when edge quality is set at D14 high.}

To finish I straightened the image to eliminate the jags on the verticals of the doors and windows

****

As a comparison I moved to the top and brought the strength slider down to 0.  Like I said earlier wavelet sharpening is very much improved.

****
I'm skipping over the gamut tool. It's supposed to have a much bigger effect on wavelet tone mapping so I save it for another post. And to be honest I haven't worked out how or why I would want to use it.

****

The residual image is, to quote, "what is left over once you extract the wavelets."  In practice that means nothing you do to the wavelets will change the residual and vice verse.  To modify the residual the wavelet tab come with a set of non wavelet tools.

As expected the first four sliders lighten or darken the shadows and highlights with the threshold sliders determining what tones are considered shadow and highlights. The contrast and chromaticity sliders also work as expected and the HH curves, set for blue sky, turn it greenish or purplish when I drag the blue control point up and down

When wavelets are finished I may discover a big reason for using this tool. But if I hadn't decided to everything with wavelet I 'd be using CIECAM for these adjustments.  The extra sliders and curves gives me much more control over the look of the final image.

****

I'm not going to attempt to illustrate  what you will see when you play around with preview setting. At the default--all wavelets viewed in all directions-- you see your image.  With the other setting you can see each individual wavelet or the stack of wavelets above and below that wavelet. Then you can scan the stack vertically, horizontally, diagonally or in all directions. Then you can set three different background: the unmodified residual image, the grayed out version and the blackened version.  Add the fact that what you see depends on such things as the local contrast of your original image and you have some idea of the number of combinations.

This is a stack, level 2 and I,  viewed vertically against a grayed residual image.

****

And this is the same thing viewed vertically.  A bit of a difference.

****
Some time after midnight as I was about close up, my Crazy Artist muse conked me on the head and yelled in my ear. "Forget this one tool workflow crap. artist boy. Open up all them curves and sliders and buttons. Move them control points around. Go for the ugly. Go for the weird. Go for the crazy crazy, crazy til you got something so crazy I'll let you to put my name on it. And if you don't get it exactly right first time, don't worry. I'll be back to make you do it again. Cause I'm an addictive muse, artist boy."

Best viewed original size

While this post was written using RT 4.2.151 get RT 4.2.173 from the download page
There's been some fixes and improvement but the layout is unchanged.

http://rawtherapee.com/downloads

Matching skin tones for a Kodak Moment

Every now and then I've seen posts asking how to duplicate the look of a favorite film. I've played around with the idea myself with some occasional success.  Perhaps my most successful attempt was back in ancient years--my Photoshop days--where I exhibited an image that duplicated the National Geographic look of the 1920s and 1930s.  A bit of a hassle as I remember where it took several tries before what came off the print shop's Fuji Frontier machine look like what was printed in the magazine. A learning experience and my first attempt at color management.

Now we have RT with CIECAM . The tutorial is about duplicating what the 1950s ads in National Geographic called a Kodak Moment.

Why am I working on a jpg, Raw's poor and looked down upon cousin?  Because there are a lot of  jpgs out in the world, including a several year collection backed up on my computer. Call this a gentle reminder that RT is also one of the finest jpg editor around.

This image is from Charlotte's kindergarten dance recital. It was taken flashless and handheld with a point and shoot back when ISO400 was the ultimate in digital sensitivity. So it is nowhere near as crisp and noise free as an image I would take today. But it has family significance.

When Charlotte moved on to first grade she dropped out of dance because it was no longer just fun and play and had became real work learning real dance moves. But now that she is an almost seventh grader going on high school junior she has changed her mind. Her summer vacation will be afternoons of private dance lessons followed by several weeks of 8 to 5 dance camp. With weekly  recitals that I will immortalize in pixels and  then combine with the highlight of this recital to make a photobook or calendar for mom and the grandmas. Early Xmas shopping on steroids

Pass one was standard ISO high corrections to.brightened and cleaned up the image.

Pass two added an CIECAM tone curve to lighten the girls faces without washing out their costumes. Of the two curve choices the Lightness curve was stronger than the Brightness curve

Pass three was to use the  'All' algorithm to fine tune the facial tones of the image to match those on the cover of the Kodak pamphlet.  This wasn't done with any great science; just moving sliders around until the tone match looked reasonably close. Nor was this a challenging image since I was only working with one critical tone. But it does demonstrate a workflow.

 Converted with RawTherapee 4.0.12.165  which  can be found at http://rawtherapee.com/downloads

Mini Workflow Spot Color

The original image of a couple kids being photographed by their mother.

All colors except for blue are desaturated using the saturation curve of the HSV tool.

Fine tune in CIECAM using the JS Lightness and Saturation algorithm.

That's it folks.

But, of course, with RT editing nothing is ever finished. So here is the new stuff you can create when you switch to the all algorithm and start draggin' them sliders around.  The hidden artist titles this 'Cindy's Nightmare - Do you have to tell wicked step moma you caught me sneaking out to the Prince's Rave?'

Main points
The hue slider gives a full range of of colors
When  ISO6400 noise is all the same color it becomes artistic texture. Fine tune that with the Noise Reduction Chromatic sliders
The other CIECAM sliders work pretty much as expected but with different intensities. For example the Q brightness slider is stronger than the L lightness slider and at 100% washes everything except the colors to white

Happy exploring your own Hidden Artist

Processed with RawTherapee 4.0.12.165  which can be found at http://rawtherapee.com/downloads

Noisewise, Is My Camera Meeting Spec?

Noise spec? you ask.  Point to where that is printed on the camera's spec sheet, you demand.  Sorry, camera manufacturers don't  spec their noise or more accurately their signal to noise ratios. Why? Maybe it's because some of us meany pixel peepers might take the number seriously and start demanding refunds. Or, to be more charitable, it might be because accurately measuring a camera's S/N ratio takes more than a look at a computer screen?

Physics-wise, S/N ratios are complicated. Photon shot noise, addition in quadrature, Poisson  statistics--those sort of things. Complications on top of complications.

A more reasonable question would be "Is my camera as good as the camera that was used  to take the photos for the review I read on my favorite photo site? The one that convinced me to buy the camera?"

If you are lucky, yes. More likely, no. Any marketing manager worth his corner office will make sure the cameras sent to review sites were hand picked for performance. But your camera should be close or you do have the right to demand your pixel peepin' refund.

This came up in the forums recently. A new user had bought a 'bridge' camera or, as I used to call them before marketing folks invented the name, a super zoom.  Those types of cameras have little sensors since, among other things, their light weight and inexpensive super zoom lenses only make little circles of focused light. Since they also pack about 12 megapixels into their little sensor--lets say the trade offs are not favoring S/N ratios and low light performance.

Our new user picked the right place to fix his noise problems even though his expectations were originally too high. RawTherapee has great noise reduction tools but there are limitations. So a question came up. Was his camera's S/N ratio within 'spec'?

Here is the workflow I used to work out the answer by using a comparison image, RawTherapee and ImageJ

I've already posted a tutorial on how to create a noise profile in ImageJ so I won't repeat the steps here.  http://scribble-jpc.blogspot.com/2013/03/crreating-noise-profiles.html

Imaging Resource is the place to go for your comparison images. http://www.imaging-resource.com/ They have created a massive data base of reference images going back to the days when a 2 megapixel camera equaled a $1000 investment. And they did things right from the start, controlling details, such as consistent lighting, needed to create reference images that highlight real differences between individual camera brands.

To download your comparison image pick your camera in the review pages, go to the sample tab and then the sample image page.

Near bottom and after a multitude of jpg images you will find Raw downloads of their multi-image test shot taken with your camera's various ISO settings. It has the Macbeth color chart we will use. I downloaded the ISO6400 version  to compare it with  the bowling alley picture I blogged about earlier.
 http://scribble-jpc.blogspot.com/2013/03/shoot-at-iso21000-print-at-30-by-45.html

Using the neutral profile I converted both NEFs  into jpgs before loading them into ImageJ. That conversion insures I was doing a real apples to apples experiment. If your camera doesn't take RAW files, obviously you must use jpgs but then your test image must have been taken with the same setting as the reference image for any meaningful results.

Pick the closest match you can find on your image, the wall behind Rhianna, and on the Imaging Resouces' multi image, the #4 gray scale box.  Run your profiles. Compare the graphs.

That's it. Twenty minutes time max and you know how well your camera is working. Take a few more measurement, let ImageJ do the signal averaging and you have an accurate S/N number.  Then you can brag about your new camera's performance in the forums. Or. more important, toss down a hard copy on the service desk if your camera needs fixing.

As for the new user who just posted his "Thanks" -- "You're more than welcome since your questions inspired this tutorial."

You can find RawTherapee 4.0.11.1 here. The package includes an updated manual

http://rawtherapee.com/blog/rawtherapee-4.0.11-released

A Study in White and Blue

On a bright and warm May day earlier this week-today is grey and chilly- I went to the Olbrich Gardens to field test new optics. Last Saturday I had bought an oldish Nikkor 50mm f1.8 lens that uses my D7000's internal motor to focus along with a set of extension tubes with all the electrical and mechanical connections needed  to completely control the lens. The hidden artist do-something-different challenge I took on was to leave my zoom lenses in the camera bag and shoot with only the 50 mm lens.

The magnolia trees were in bloom and the sky was blue with wispy clouds. My original shot with RT's neutral profile. Obviously it could use a dose of RT magic.

After a white balance on the magnolia leaves and a default profile.  This version is better but the hidden artist within wanted a bit more ump

The HSV Equalizer tool has been updated  and is now less finicky to use. Dragging its blue bar up or down to change the value or lightness of the blue in the sky seemed appropriate. Here is up. It didn't make a massive amount of difference since the sky's value was already high.

 And here is down which did. Notice how the  blue channel has shifted to the left in the histogram

With the value curve reset I played with the blue saturation curve. Here is up.

And here is down. 

With this image it may not be immediately obvious but a judicious use of both the value and saturation curves is a great way to improve skies without going over the top like I'm doing now. The Hue curve rotates the color wheel to create totally aliens skies. This green version is one of many.

After settling on a moderate increase in the sky's value I went on to the CIECAM02 tool. A large contrast boost of 80 made both the sky and the tree far more dramatic.

And to lighten the clouds  I upped the brightness to 25.

To bring down the blues I played around with the Colorfullness curve.

And as a final comparison here is where I stated once again.

RT's color correction tools are the best around, period. So load up an image the could use a little sky magic and start dragging curves and sliders. I predict you will like what you discover.

Creating Noise Profiles

I was asked what I use to create noise profiles. It is ImageJ'  a free cross platform Java app from NIH.  The best and ad free download site is from NIH-- http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/download.html

Once you have it installed  open your photo and choose your line type. Drag it across  the area of your photo where you want to measure noise.  Cntrl+K creates the graph.

To  change the Y scale of the graph go to edit, options, plot profile options

For  my measurement in the black area of this poster I picked  min 0, max 40

Once you have a flat noise profile, go to analyse, measure or hit Cntrl+M

For an accurate noise measurement signal average several. This is a square law thing so 4 measurements doubles your accuracy and 9 measurements triples it. Summarize will do the math where your Signal to Noise (S/N) is the Mean divided by the StdDev (Standard Deviation)

Is this conventional statistical definition of S/N to best way to characterize photographic signal to noise?Probably not.  Noise peaks, especially colored noise peaks, that jump out of the average noise are far more distracting than a mild increase in the average noise. So is pattern noise.  Both these noise problems will become lost in these numbers. But if you do these comparisons carefully ImageJ is a very useful tool for working out how well the various combinations of sliders and methods work for you.

Final note.  You can not save a picture of your graph directly in ImageJ. 'Save as' creates a spread sheet file, 'Clear\' clears out you mistakes and 'Rename' allows you to start a new results list without losing your previous numbers.

Again if you want to know more about noise read Emil's article,  http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p2.html

Shoot at ISO21000--Print at 30 by 45 inches

Sounds insane.  ISO21000 noise. Huge print size.  Welcome to the world of RAWTherapee noise reduction.

Rhianna is letting the world know she just bowled a strike.

The gory photo details. The camera was set to ISO6400-- which is just a conventional way of saying the D7000's sensor's true and only ISO100 signal is preamp boosted  by a factor of 64 before it enters the A/D.    Since the photo had to be boosted again by an exposure compensation of 1.8EV to shift the red histogram I multiplied the camera's ISO by 3.24 (1.8 squared)  to get a correct noise IS0 of 21000.

Ain't a cheating fudge factor. That's how sensor physics works.

Now the triumph of  RT noise reduction. But first here is what not to do.

I set the exposure compensation correctly before I went to the CIECAM02 tools to improve the color, contrast and lightness. But I forgot to return to exposure to readjust the histograms  When I caught my mistake, I checked the red color channel ( box at top) for blooming (red areas).  Because I liked my CIECAM02 fine tunings,  only one channel was effected  and the blooming area areas weren't in any critical part of the image (see http://scribble-jpc.blogspot.com/2013/02/rescuing-really-important-snapshots.html ) I decided to go with my mistake. After all I was getting a WOW Signal to Noise of 20!

Wrong move.  After wasting a bunch of time and discovering a few nagging inconsistencies  I corrected the exposure comp.  One measurement later and I discoverer the real double WOW WOW S/N was to be 28!!

A few points on experimental techniques. I took the noise line profile off Jilly's arm because that area has constant color--the curves are flat-- and the arm is close to the center of the tonal range--95 in a range of 0-255. These curves have to come out flat or don't bother doing the extra work to come up with a numerical signal to noise.  You will be measuring bumps and slopes.  Not the noise.

Looking more closely I should have shortened the length of the line profile of the last measurement  to get rid of the bump at the beginning. That error added about 0.5-1 to the last StdDev (standard deviation) number.  That's why I averaged 7 measurements to clean up these errors. Even without these moments of carelessness, remember we are dealing with noise. Three measurement are a minimum, 7 to 9 are better and a 100 measurements  would be an insane overkill.  We are doing a square law experiment and the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in with the second measurment

Plus what's so wow about a S/N of 28. Why not 280 or even 2800. If you got  the bucks to buy the camera, like the Hubble Space Telescope or the Kepler Cosmic Background Radiation Telescope in the news recently, you can go for those high S/N ratios.  But for the rest of us, with this image taken under these exposure conditions, a S/N of 28 does equal a 30X45 poster pined to a bedroom wall.

With modern tech we can pixel-peep (and complain about what we see) far too easily. Rhianna's face is 8 inches wide on my super calibrated monitor (something that the world can't see --- for the complaint  http://scribble-jpc.blogspot.com/2013/02/in-search-of-perfect-eyeball-monitor.html ) . It is 3 inches on a 11 by 14 print I had made using the older 4.0.9.185 noise reduction.  Do the math and this is what you will see on a 30 X 45 inch wall poster.

That  print had a S/N of ~15.  If you were looking for noise there was a hint of it on Rhianna's face and in the brown area under the big number one in the background. But it's nothing that jumps out at you. I sure Rianna's mom won't complain when I give her the print next time I'm over in her part of the city.

EDIT--If you looked at this post before you might notice that Jilly has suddenly morphed into Rhianna.
Rhianna is Jilly's stepsister. They both live across the street from Charlotte. I got their names mixed up. Sorry girls. :-(

After I posted this I remember I do have a big display my flat screen LCD TV with its port in the side for usb sticks and memory cards.  When I displayed this image big it looked just like I said it would from my calculations.

The details from the pp3. I started with the HighISO profile. The exposure  comp of 0.88 I set. I may have fiddled with that other setting. Or they may have come with the profile.


[Exposure]
Auto=false
Clip=0.02
Compensation=0.88
Brightness=2
Contrast=22
Saturation=5
Black=332
HighlightCompr=0
HighlightComprThreshold=33
ShadowCompr=50
CurveMode=Standard
CurveMode2=Standard
Curve=0;
Curve2=0;

The image needed some sharpening. Except for 'only edges' the setting are the defaults. If it wasn't for the 'only edges' algorithm I never would have dared using sharpening on a high noise image.

[Sharpening]
Enabled=true
Method=usm
Radius=0.5
Amount=125
Threshold=20;80;2000;1200;
OnlyEdges=true
EdgedetectionRadius=1.8999999999999999
EdgeTolerance=1800
HalocontrolEnabled=false
HalocontrolAmount=85
DeconvRadius=0.75
DeconvAmount=75
DeconvDamping=20
DeconvIterations=30

White balance off Jilly's shirt

[White Balance]
Setting=Custom
Temperature=3058
Green=0.80500000000000005

The color and appearance fine tuning

[Color appearance]
Enabled=true
Degree=100
AutoDegree=true
Surround=Average
AdaptLum=16
Model=RawT
Algorithm=JC
J-Light=27.100000000000001
Q-Bright=-1
C-Chroma=-5
S-Chroma=0
M-Chroma=0
J-Contrast=44.5
Q-Contrast=64.5
H-Hue=0

The HighIso defaults. I could have fiddled with them for a better S/N but why bother. My 30 inch printer-imaginary- is out of ink-imaginary- and will stay that way given the cost of feeding a real printer. For five bucks and change I can get a 12 by 18 inch print from my local Woodmans-one that matches the image on my screen. As long as I switch the room lights back ovet to 5000K spots. Perfect color management ain't easy.

[Directional Pyramid Denoising]
Enabled=true
Luma=50
Ldetail=50
Chroma=50.689999999999998
Method=Lab
Redchro=0
Bluechro=0
Gamma=1.7


Find RAWTherapee  4.0.11.1 here
http://www.visualbakery.com/RawTherapee/Downloads.aspx

For an excellent tutorial on noise by Emil, the guru behind RT's new noise reduction systen
 http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p2.html

Kindergarten Snow Day---Another Quickie Workflow

The history of this less than impressive image started with flickr mail about non CPU manual lenses. I had accumulated a collection from garage sales, Craig's lists and on-line non ebay auction sites back when I was shooting with a Nikon D60. One lens was an Osawa 300mm f5.5. 

If I remember right curiosity drove that purchase.  Osawa?  Never heard the name. What kind of lens was that?  Osawa turned out to be a short lived 35mm camera maker from the 1970's. But a decent lens maker who, last time I googled, was still making lens for medium format cameras.

The lens did not disappoint and became part of my D60 kit. I posted some shots on flickr but when I bought the D7000 the lens was packed away and eventually buried under other boxes of good junk being sorted. Wife has ordered what threatens to turn into a massive Spring cleaning.  So when I received the email from another Nikon lens collector asking how it worked on a D7000, I had to find it. Which delayed any lens testing to the day of the latest Midwest mini-blizzard. 

The test target was house a hundred yards away from an upstairs bedroom window. The test was: yes the Osawa mounted and yes it took pictures. The fact that kids enjoying a snow day from kindergarten  wandered into the image part of frame and a hunk of out of focus curtain half filled the rest was coincidental. That the image ended up on my computer along with a directory full of more important shots was equally coincidental. That it wasn't immediately stripped down to loose pixels and tossed away into the reject bucket wasn't coincidental.

Recently I've been reading about photographic history and aesthetics.  The super sharp, noise free, tonally perfect aesthetic embraced by most of us RT users--why else would we put up with this many check boxes and sliders and even demand more -- can be traced back to photographers like Ansel Adams and Edward Weston. Both spent inordinate amount of time and effort in the darkroom producing perfect prints. But there were other aesthetics: the pictorialism of Stieglitz's Camera Works, the abstractions of Minor White's early Aperture, the photo montages of Rodchenko revolutionary posters--and so on.

 Let's call this an example of  Scribble's ...Colorism.

An auto levels exposure correction. If I had wanted to go for an Ansel Adams Zone System tonality I would use the black point slider to expand the histogram to fill the empty left section.

As good a time as any to crop. Since a square frame worked I fixed the ratio and invoked the rule of thirds. The big difference in the histogram came from cropping out the curtain.

A white balance in a snow scene is always a good idea even though in this image it didn't make much of a difference.

Now the Colorism created with CIECAM02.  The Contrast (up) and Brightness (down)  moved the snow into the unclipped but close to pure white area of the histogram.  The Colorfulness slider fully colorized our models, human and canine, and gave the image its snap.

Now a mini confession. My first workflow wasn't as quick and clean as this tutorials claims. I played around with slider and curve combinations, made a bunch of jpgs, sent one off to flickr and even collected a comment among the views. Wasn't til the end of the mini-blizzard and the snow blowing was over that I decided this might be worth a tutorial. So I duplicated the settings from memory.  And ended up liking my first version better.

A hint. If you ever need to duplicate an image or workflow and find yourself mentally kicking yourself  for not saving a profile, load the pp3 file of your good jpg into notepad and duplicate the settings. That will usually get you back to where you've been before.

Not my usual image but --sometimes you have to go wild and live dangerously.