Three effects, one name

The lightest version, and the one most people have. It tints toward chartreuse, lifts the blacks so the frame looks slightly milky, compresses contrast toward the midtones and adds grain.

Measured against unfiltered originals, it behaves as a per-channel gain and offset: red and green scale up together, blue drops to roughly half. That structure is what makes it removable, because a gain and an offset can simply be undone.

The heavy version turns the subject into something poured rather than photographed: skin becomes liquid, hair becomes foam. Measuring three real before-and-after pairs shows what it costs. Correlation between the original brightness and the filtered brightness falls to about 0.5, where an ordinary colour grade would stay above 0.95, and the blue channel's variation almost vanishes.

In plain terms: roughly half the structure of the picture, and essentially all of its colour, is discarded at export. This is the version no tool can reverse, including this one, and it is why the front page reports a stylisation score instead of quietly producing something invented.

A third use of the same look leans on how much it hides, applying it heavily so detail is unreadable. People sometimes arrive here hoping to undo that on someone else’s video.

It does not work, and not because of a policy choice. Detail that an effect removed before the file was saved was never written into the file that was downloaded. There is no hidden layer in a flat export. Anything that appears to reveal it is generating a guess, and a guess about a real person is worth less than nothing.

Drop the file into the tool and read the stylisation figure. Under about a third means a grade, and it will clean up. Above that means an art render, and the honest answer is that the colour is not coming back.