You can remove most background backscatter in bulk right in Lightroom with built-in functionality.

 

Linear gradient mask over background water containing BS

Subtract subject

Intersect color range on black

Invert mask 

Drop clarity and texture toward zero

Lower black level

 

This takes about 10 seconds and does the job in many cases with black water.

 

Similar variations work with blue or green water as well. Reducing clarity and texture of background water containing backscatter does 90% of the job.

 

Tools like BSX are lot more effective in complex scenes with foreground backscatter intermingled with the subject.

Edited December 8, 2024Dec 8 by Dave_Hicks

1 hour ago, Dave_Hicks said:

You can remove most background backscatter in bulk right in Lightroom with built-in functionality.

 

Linear gradient mask over background water containing BS

Subtract subject

Intersect color range on black

Invert mask 

Drop clarity and texture toward zero

Lower black level

 

This takes about 10 seconds and does the job in many cases with black water.

 

Similar variations work with blue or green water as well. Reducing clarity and texture of background water containing backscatter does 90% of the job.

 

Tools like BSX are lot more effective in complex scenes with foreground backscatter intermingled with the subject.

 

I wouldn't say 'most' ... I would say 'some' scenarios... I would say most of the times we needed to remove backscatter from absolute shit conditions taken pictures like this Isla Fernandina on Galapagos... yes it is easy to remove backscatter from black backgrounds but we already knew that and did that. The 'other' pictures were major PITA...

Edited December 8, 2024Dec 8 by RomiK

1 hour ago, RomiK said:

 

I wouldn't say 'most' ... I would say 'some' scenarios... I would say most of the times we needed to remove backscatter from absolute shit conditions taken pictures like this Isla Fernandina on Galapagos... yes it is easy to remove backscatter from black backgrounds but we already knew that and did that. The 'other' pictures were major PITA...

 

I'll stick with Most. It just requires a little practice using the tools.

 

Here is my edit of your picture doing pretty much what I described above, except I removed the unsightly branch. The invert was not helpful in this case, so I omitted it.  I only addressed the background, not the subject.

 

I think your picture is great, and it just needed a little cleanup.

 

 

 

 

null

Edited December 8, 2024Dec 8 by Dave_Hicks

On 11/30/2024 at 6:17 AM, Dave_Hicks said:

Just download StarNet++. You can run it from the command line or a simple Gui applet. It's about 80% as good as this app, but free.

Downloaded it, works on Windows and really good!

But I haven't been able to get it working on my M2-Macbook Air. 

I'm using LR on iPad which supports layers - but not plugins. 

 

If anyhow possible, I would avoid buying the Adobe-stuff. Of course, cheaper than UW-photography hardware but still I'd only buy if necessary. 

 

But maybe it won't take long until I'm in the photoshop-community, too. 

49 minutes ago, Dave_Hicks said:

I'll stick with Most. It just requires a little practice using the tools.

 

Here is my edit of your picture doing pretty much what I described above, except I removed the unsightly branch. The invert was not helpful in this case, so I omitted it.  I only addressed the background, not the subject.

 

I think your picture is great, and it just needed a little cleanup.

 

 

 

 

null

it's a great effort 👏 but you can't be quite serious about the results being comparable... just download both pictures - Xeliminator and yours so the base is same and try to look in details... instagram maybe even though the scatter you left by the iguana head in the dark is horrible and in the blue is bad too... Xeliminator cleaned it up all and it's good for print even 1x1m after enlargement...  Listen I don't mean to argue what simple things you can do with Lightroom but where credit is due credit should be given (xeliminator)...

Edited December 8, 2024Dec 8 by RomiK

52 minutes ago, RomiK said:

it's a great effort 👏 but you can't be quite serious about the results being comparable... just download both pictures - Xeliminator and yours so the base is same and try to look in details... instagram maybe even though the scatter you left by the iguana head in the dark is horrible and in the blue is bad too... Xeliminator cleaned it up all and it's good for print even 1x1m after enlargement...  Listen I don't mean to argue what simple things you can do with Lightroom but where credit is due credit should be given (xeliminator)...

 

I agree that BSX can do some cool stuff, especially with complex foregrounds. My point is you can do most of this work without such a tool. I cleaned up most of the scatter and didn't do a single spot removal. I only went after the water, not next to the head, which could be easily removed as well with the same technique. A little follow-up spot removal on subject could finish it up.

 

My hesitation on BSX is that overreliance on tools like this might reduce the impetus for photographers to improve their composition and lighting skill set to reduce backscatter, add depth, and make a great image in the first place.

 

I guess I am just not looking forward to a bunch of plasticized UW photos that look like they were shot in a studio and not the real world. Not ever extraneous spec in an image is an imperfection. 

I only found out about BSXT last week from the video "An Underwater Photography Review Of The Year - 2024".  Any help with backscatter suppression is great. Of course the primary goal is to avoid backscatter directly while shooting, but sometimes there is just no other way and conditions won't allow it. After watching the video, I immediately bought and installed it. Anything that can shorten the post process is appreciated. From my point of view in case of massive backscatter it doesn't help and just makes a bad photo less bad. However, in the case of a minor backscatter, it's totally awesome. So I definitely recommend it.

On 12/30/2024 at 3:50 PM, jkepic said:

From my point of view in case of massive backscatter it doesn't help and just makes a bad photo less bad. However, in the case of a minor backscatter, it's totally awesome. So I definitely recommend it.

 

Yes massive backscatter shots do not  turn into perfect photos but it can change the image from 'aghh, throw away' to 'ok, I'll keep it'. (Left -> Right  on this shot). After BSXT I had to manualy take away  more points but without the plugin I would not even have tried.

 

I wonder why I still had had this shot, probably because it was my only one from a red 'blue jellyfish'. And now I have to confess that, where I said before the plugin is to expensive, I bought it. And it worked, I even might be a bit less frustrated when I see all those floating particles in our waters again.

I might have missed something (and I did watch the video linked at the start of this thread) but what types of files does it work with?

 

I can't access the Ern Quigley tutorial without buying BXS...

 

With all the recent advances in ACR, I can do all my post, including masking and noise reduction, on raw files in ACR (admittedly with PS running in the background), but I don't need to create PS layers and very rarely actually use PS.

 

So can you use BXS on raw files?

 

If not, then the suggestion to use BXS early in your post processing wouldn't work for me.

 

I would have to use it at the end of my ACR workflow, converting a processed raw from ACR into something to open in PS in order to then use BSX.

 

Would this sequence work OK?

i think it will only be useful in Photoshop, I don't think it works in ACR.

I got keen and contacted Ern Quigley, who replied promptly and most helpfully.

 

The short answer is (for my workflow using Mac):

1. Open Sony arw raw file in ACR.

2. Process globally as needed, inc noise reduction.

3. With ACR still open, click "Open" in bottom RH corner. This opens the file in PS.

4. Having installed BSXT as per instructions, run it.

5. Cleanup / adjustment if required.

5. Close file which will prompt a save - as PSD or TIF. These are very large; or

6. Do local adjustments, either in PS or you can go back to ACR from PS (Shift + Option + Command + E, then choose top layer and go to Filter > Camera Raw Filter).

7. You can then export (save) whatever format you want from ACR. 

8. When you close the ACR file it will still prompt a save as PSD or TIF. If you don't save, you can always run BSXT again quite quickly if you need to.

 

The Ern Quigley tutorial is excellent and clear.

 

I bought it and it works well. Price? Fine for this sort of benefit.

5 hours ago, dentrock said:

I might have missed something (and I did watch the video linked at the start of this thread) but what types of files does it work with?

 

I can't access the Ern Quigley tutorial without buying BXS...

 

With all the recent advances in ACR, I can do all my post, including masking and noise reduction, on raw files in ACR (admittedly with PS running in the background), but I don't need to create PS layers and very rarely actually use PS.

 

So can you use BXS on raw files?

 

If not, then the suggestion to use BXS early in your post processing wouldn't work for me.

 

I would have to use it at the end of my ACR workflow, converting a processed raw from ACR into something to open in PS in order to then use BSX.

 

Would this sequence work OK?

It seems it is a Photoshop plug-in - at least the Astro version of it is, though some here are calling it an action which it could well be if it feeds a seperate app which does the processing.  If you can access plug-ins or actions within ACR then I guess you might be able to use it that way.  I use Photoshop quite a bit but it's CS6, so likely BXT won't work for me.  Though I see the Star exterminator on the RC astro site will work for CS4 or later as a plugin.  IT might be worthwhile my trying it out.

 

As for where it's best to use I expect it should also work on a completed image as long as your processing doesn't do anything strange to the backscatter.   Probably be best to download the trial version to see if it works OK or not with your workflow.

1 hour ago, Chris Ross said:

It seems it is a Photoshop plug-in - at least the Astro version of it is, though some here are calling it an action which it could well be if it feeds a seperate app which does the processing

When installed there are two things that are installed:

• It is installed as a filter accessible from the Filter menu that that just processes backscatter on the active layer

• There is an action which makes a copy of the active layer with a mask which is processed for backscatter and adds another layer called Cleanup which you can use to cleanup the bits that it misses

 

 

 

Using the action is the best way to use it.

Edited January 4Jan 4 by Gudge

16 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

It seems it is a Photoshop plug-in - at least the Astro version of it is, though some here are calling it an action which it could well be if it feeds a seperate app which does the processing.  If you can access plug-ins or actions within ACR then I guess you might be able to use it that way.  I use Photoshop quite a bit but it's CS6, so likely BXT won't work for me.  Though I see the Star exterminator on the RC astro site will work for CS4 or later as a plugin.  IT might be worthwhile my trying it out.

 

As for where it's best to use I expect it should also work on a completed image as long as your processing doesn't do anything strange to the backscatter.   Probably be best to download the trial version to see if it works OK or not with your workflow.

I think it might work for you, as it's only a filter plus an action,but why not ask Erin? I get not wanting to download a trial, but if you do that, you can also access Erin's excellent tutorial, which gives far more info than the fairly unhelpful advertorial clip at the beginning of this thread.

 

Incidentally, I see BSXT as the solution to intractable backscatter problems, where you want to rescue a pic, but it's all too hard or impossible to do it manually. For minimal backscatter, either ignore it or remove the few spots manually.

 

FYI Erin says to run BSXT after global processing, but before local processing (which I assume means masking). I just did a test on a pic which I processed globally then did a bunch of brush masks in ACR, before running BSXT as the very last thing, then saving the result as a jpeg copy (and not saving the PSD / TIF). It worked fine. The pic was taken only to check the extent of the area of central sharpness with the SONY 20-70 using the 140 dome.

1 hour ago, dentrock said:

I think it might work for you, as it's only a filter plus an action,but why not ask Erin? I get not wanting to download a trial, but if you do that, you can also access Erin's excellent tutorial, which gives far more info than the fairly unhelpful advertorial clip at the beginning of this thread.

 

Incidentally, I see BSXT as the solution to intractable backscatter problems, where you want to rescue a pic, but it's all too hard or impossible to do it manually. For minimal backscatter, either ignore it or remove the few spots manually.

 

FYI Erin says to run BSXT after global processing, but before local processing (which I assume means masking). I just did a test on a pic which I processed globally then did a bunch of brush masks in ACR, before running BSXT as the very last thing, then saving the result as a jpeg copy (and not saving the PSD / TIF). It worked fine. The pic was taken only to check the extent of the area of central sharpness with the SONY 20-70 using the 140 dome.

 

 

Thanks for the added info,  I might get it eventually and get a trial first to see that it works or not.  The 48 hr trial period though means I have to find a slot where I have time to play with it.   Seems like it would be beneficial to provide at least some of the tutorial pages pre-trial download, it may convince some people to give a trial a go. 

 

I would think that seeing as how it can create a layer with the processed results it shouldn't matter when you do it as long as the layer is at the bottom of the stack - that way the layers above apply to the combined layers below.  If you make mask adjustments you just need to be sure the mask is based upon the combined backscatter free image - you don't want the masks to include any of the backscatter.  This would happen for example with luminosity masks that use the image to create the mask.

19 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

would think that seeing as how it can create a layer with the processed results it shouldn't matter when you do it as long as the layer is at the bottom of the stack - that way the layers above apply to the combined layers below.  If you make mask adjustments you just need to be sure the mask is based upon the combined backscatter free image - you don't want the masks to include any of the backscatter.  This would happen for example with luminosity masks that use the image to create the mask.

I'm doing my masking in ACR (actually all my processing now, except BSXT). I don't need to create layers - it's all done for you in ACR. The changes are stored in another sidecar file .acr along with my original Sony .arw and .xmp files.

On 11/27/2024 at 2:47 PM, makar0n said:

 

its the usual:

-piece of string - 1 Euro

-the same piece of string but labeled "diving" - 5 Euro

-the same piece of string labeled "diving and camera" - 50 Euro

 

And the plugin falls into the last category.

 

I wish they offered support for other software, including open source Dark Table, rather than just the Adobe "let me force you into never ending subscriptions" Photoshop. But one can dream 🤣

the 179$ it for all apps, but you just need one or two to clean your image... Rich people!! Why you need this if you can avoid? Now the Ai bring 'a lot of profissional' but in the World Champ of Underwater there is a very talented that do use nothing, yet as be a good photographer.... Welcome, woke and wanabee's generations!

Wow! Almost afraid to ask a question. I use PS Elements for my processing and yes I throw out tons of pics, but with digital I take tons of pics. And I get many shots that I'm happy with. I guess I'm intimated by PS and Lightroom and the amount of options and "tricks" they have up their sleeve(s). And now this new product? I'm in awe of what can be done. So to start from the beginning where would I go to learn about the work flow that you guys use in post processing? Does everyone use both PS and Lightroom? some use 1 or the other? and after reading this thread What is ACR? Thanks

I use Lightroom 90% of the time and only bounce an image into Photoshop either for this tool or for major surgery. Lightroom is very fast and efficient once you learn to use it, but this plug-in is really great at what it does.

There’s a clone tool that can get rid of backscatter in Lightroom, but the tools in Photoshop are much better, more flexible, and easy to undo, not even counting the plug-in. There’s a nice tutorial from Erin that shows concepts like Layer Masks if you’re not experienced with Photoshop.

ACR is Adobe Camera Raw. It's "free" but requires a host (either PS or LR) to run in the background with it.

I have LR but don't use it (the cataloguing system doesn't suit me at all).

I also have an old free version of Capture One which I don't use, again partly because of the annoying cataloguing.

So you use software like ACR (or LR or Capture One) to process your raw files (in basic terms, fix exposure etc etc) and output (usually) a jpg for display, sale, whatever.

PS with or without ACR doesn't create a catalogue and you can save the processed result in the same folder as the raws (my preference).

In the last year or so, Adobe has added so many tools to ACR that I find I can do all my post processing in ACR. The AI denoise function is very, very good.

The one exception is BSXT, which operates as a plug in for PS. So when I have finished all my processing in ACR I open the file in PS and use BSXT, but only when needed, which is not that often for me.

I save a copy as a jpeg and don't save the huge psd file that BSXT creates (I regard jpegs as disposable). If later I reprocess the raw file, I will need to run BSXT again, but that's simple.

On 1/8/2025 at 2:24 AM, Cutbacks_Ericeira said:

the 179$ it for all apps, but you just need one or two to clean your image... Rich people!! Why you need this if you can avoid? Now the Ai bring 'a lot of profissional' but in the World Champ of Underwater there is a very talented that do use nothing, yet as be a good photographer.... Welcome, woke and wanabee's generations!

Well, apparenlty it's OK to spend hundreds or even thousands of $$$ on a new lens or camera which "might" give me more keepers, but not OK to buy some software that DOES give me more keepers; even fixing some stuff that I would have instantly deleted.

And don't lecture me on controlling backscatter! Sometimes it's unavoidable - try diving in viz of <3m...

I must say every time I use BSXT I am gobsmacked by how good it it. I read a comment that the results can be 'too clean', but I'll take clean over dirty any time!

5 hours ago, Toque said:

Wow! Almost afraid to ask a question. I use PS Elements for my processing and yes I throw out tons of pics, but with digital I take tons of pics. And I get many shots that I'm happy with. I guess I'm intimated by PS and Lightroom and the amount of options and "tricks" they have up their sleeve(s). And now this new product? I'm in awe of what can be done. So to start from the beginning where would I go to learn about the work flow that you guys use in post processing? Does everyone use both PS and Lightroom? some use 1 or the other? and after reading this thread What is ACR? Thanks

The big difference between PS and Lightroom is that Lightroom keeps a record of changes that you make to the image and stores them in a database, rather than storing an edited image. It is effectively a Digital Asset management tool as it has ability to store your files and organise them by libraries, albums and manage metadata with filtering and search tools to find your images. The downside is all of this and the changes you make when developing are stored in a database called the lightroom catalogue, which can get corrupted. To learn there are lots of online resources out there, some free, others paid.

Personally I don't see the attraction of lightroom, as PS is more powerful and has the ability to a lot of things with layers which streamline processing for me, plus it has the levels tool which to me is invaluable. PS elements can do much of what PS can do, a big difference being that 16 bit editing is limited. 16 bit editing is quite important for UW images to avoid posterisation when making adjustments to things like blue water. As far as I know you can do levels and curves in 16 bit then convert to 8 bit for the balance of editing with elements.

ACR is Adobe Camera Raw, where you develop RAW files.

In general UW images are not that demanding of the editor, with exceptions they tend to be a little low on contrast unless you have a sun ball or highly reflective subjects. The main points to adjust are black and white points then colour balance, followed by contrast adjustments if required. Starting on the RAW editor set it to 16 bit output, then adjust exposure, white balance as required and set black and white points, sharpening as required and any adjustments to saturation you want. In elements then you can open levels and tweak it to get a full histogram and maybe open a curves layer to get it looking the way you want. Convert to 8 bit now and do any backscatter work you want to do. Save then crop as required and produce any other files you may want - resize for printing or to produce a jpeg for web display, social media etc.

Do note though that PS elements is specifically not supported for Backscatter exterminator. the cloning tools within PS elements though do place you in a better position for dealing with backscatter than the tools available in Lightroom.

Thanks for the replies. I used PS many years ago when I had a copy at work. I'm sure tons has changed since. when I went to elements(cost) I could do everything I needed with the plugins I found. and my favorite thing about it was the plugin I had was able to correct very specific areas of the photo. The name escapes me, but it was originally available on Elements and then later allowed only on PS only, and it was free! Thought someone mentioned it in this stream, but I can't seem to find it now. I am interested in this plugin, but really not needed. I would say that 90% of my pictures are macro in warm waters, so pretty easy to control backscatter. Besides I'd have to get a new computer, as it is Elements dogs my '14 Macbook Pro. I also like this ACR idea of doing processing in raw. I assume this helps keep your files bigger, less pixel loss? Thanks again