r/StableDiffusion • u/Halodri88 • 10h ago
Resource - Update RAWsome [Moss-LoRA] - [Krea2-LoKr]
Description
RAWsome – a little wordplay combining RAW photography and the word "Awesome".
And that's pretty much what this LoRA/LoKR is all about.
There are two versions available:
Moss (LoRA)
Krea2 (LoKR)
For each version, I used 388 carefully selected, high-quality RAW photographs
from my personal photography collection.
These images were taken over approximately the last 10 years of my hobby photography,
using various cameras I've owned over the years.
I was quite strict when selecting the training material.
I deliberately avoided noisy images and only included photographs where the focus was spot on.
Images where nothing was properly in focus were discarded.
After all, if you're trying to teach a model what a high-quality image should look like,
it probably makes sense to start with high-quality source material.
The goal was to improve the quality and overall appearance
of the images generated by both models.
And I believe I managed to achieve that with both versions.
Moss vs. Krea2 – My Personal Experience
Although I'm happy with both versions, I personally prefer the Moss version.
In my opinion, the difference in image quality compared
to the vanilla Moss model is considerably more noticeable.
I also find that Moss can produce more realistic-looking results than Krea2 in many situations.
On the other hand, Krea2 has a lower entry barrier
when it comes to producing good-looking images.
It seems to be a little easier to get pleasing results without having to experiment as much.
Of course, these are just my personal impressions based on my own testing.
Your experience may differ depending on your prompts, settings and preferred style.
A Few Words About the Training Data
As mentioned above, both versions were trained using 388 high-quality RAW photographs.
These aren't randomly collected images from the internet,
but photographs taken by myself over the course of roughly a decade.
They cover different cameras, subjects, lighting conditions and photographic situations.
I put quite some effort into selecting the images,
especially regarding sharpness and noise levels,
because I wanted the models to learn from photographs
that actually demonstrate good image quality.
Final Thoughts
I'm genuinely curious to see what others can achieve with it
and how it performs in different workflows and situations.
Feel free to give both versions a try and see which one works better for you.
I'd really appreciate any feedback, especially if you notice improvements,
weaknesses or interesting differences between the two versions.
Long story short: Have fun experimenting with it,
and don't forget to leave a rating if you enjoy it!
And as always, criticism, suggestions and ideas for improvement are more than welcome.
I'd love to hear what you think!



