Zeke is not a professional level tool, and you cannot extract more data from any image than is already there. For preference, I use photoshop and have done so for many years (20 if you must know). I posted the test because one in twelve males has a serious colour perception issue and few will achieve a perfect score on that test. I notice you avoided it.
This is not primarily about subjective aspects of colour perception, since I show before and after photos, and invite folk here to spot the obvious objective differences, arguably not so much in colour (though that may assist) so much as CONTRAST. The particles to which I refer are visible for the most part in BOTH before and after images, especially in the contrast-enhanced Shroud Scope pictures, so are NOT artefacts of the Zeke makeover.
Nope, I did not use your more 'professional' PhotoShop, but Microsoft Office Picture Manager instead, reporting results almost 5 years ago under the title:
"Shroud Scope 10: my very own gallery of 20 close-up views of the Shroud – all lightly photo-edited for optimised colour-differentiation". That is one of my most frequently visited postings, its main advantage over unedited Shroud Scope being that it differentiates between blood and body image, entirely by contrast and
coincidental colour, blood being more purplish, body image more tan coloured.
Now you may consider MS Office to be less "professional" than PhotoShop, but that term "professional" can be misleading if you don't mind my saying in the context of science where one takes nothing at face value, and where in my case one supplements one's findings by trying to find precisely what the software is doing to produce its useful discrimination between one image and another, e.g. blood/body image, and now particulate/non-particulate.
To cite just one example, I reported a later RGB analysis to find precisely how changes in contrast were able to produce useful colour changes, real or not, that made for better discrimination. Two main conclusions emerged. First, when you alter contrast on a colour image, you (coincidentally) alter the balance between yellow and blue, analogous to white/black for a B/W only image (yellow being the additive mix of red and green). Second, I realized on analysing the washed-out looking Shroud Scope images with their unhelpful purplish-hue that someone must have taken the Shroud Scope image from Durante (2002) and purposely REDUCED contrast to make them look the way they did. I put that suggestion directly to Mario Latendresse, the Canadian IT specialist/sindonologist who created Shroud Scope. He denied having done that himself, but volunteered no further comment.
While penning this comment, I've had an idea. In the next few days, I'll go back to my June 2012 posting with the 20 contrast-enhanced images, and give each a Zeke makeover, adding the result as an appendix. Nope, I don't expect to suddenly morph into a colour "professional" and will no doubt attract further flak for my choice of software. I'm content to be seen as a Shroud researcher who chooses what he considers the simplest, appropriate tools for making a valid scientific point, preferably tools that are available to anyone and everyone online, making it possible for them to check out and hopefully reproduce my findings.
I have a new term to suggest for the Shroud body image. It's "biphasic". It's either particulate (read "crud"), or non-particulate (yellow background stain) or a mixture of the two, depending on which image fibres one happens to sample and detach for microscopic and chemical study. McCrone only saw the crud, and interpreted it as inorganic iron oxides etc. Di Lazzaro only sees the superficial stain and interprets it as a radiation scorch. I see the end result of imprinting and baking thousands of oil/flour microcakes on linen
in situ!
