![]() In my eyes, 'Serious Photography' is an artistic expression using the medium of photography. I don't know really, when I think about it, what a 'serious photographer' is. In terms of which photo is better capable of attracting and keeping a viewer's attention, I think it is clearly the one on the right. You'd have to define 'absolute terms', I think. In the meantime, I am also using Adobe Bridge. I'm hoping the photo management features improve and they improve the performance. options and settled on DxO Photolab 4, primarily because of the excellent RAW conversion and noise reduction. I think Topaz may be better for anybody looking for a one button solution.Īs a Mac user that held onto Lightroom 5.7.1 as long as I could, I considered a few. I use AP and the combination works so well together. It doesn't really matter whether its hIgh or low iso, what it does is produce a much better raw file which you can then process using your normal workflow. What I really like about DXO Pure RAw is it isn't the solution, it is the first step to the solution. I tried both (not latest version) and DXO Pure RAw won easily. It is great that we have so many options for cleaning things up - even older images from earlier cameras when NR was a lot less sophisticated than it is now. having all the settings I would normally have for interpreting the RAW data into an image and get a far better file than I would get using ACR (by itself), even from an image taken at base ISO taken in full day light. The bonus for me is I can run my RAW files through the app, output to DNG (Adobe's universal RAW format) and then process through Bridge (ACR) to finesse white balance, etc. The most current one is DeepPrime and really does a phenomenal job of cleaning things without compromising detail. 2) You have three algorithms to choose from for noise reduction. The thing I like about DxO Pure RAW is that it is a two trick pony: 1) It uses their huge database of cameras and lens combos to apply needed corrections (if you choose this), which I find really sharpens things up. I have used it with RAW files from three different cameras and a few different lenses, especially on the EM1 III - and from base ISO (100/200 depending on the camera) to 3200, and it works great on all the images, compared to what I would create from the RAW with only ACR (via Adobe Bridge 2021). I was exploring the current generation of noise reduction software, and settled on DxO PureRAW. I mean, isn't this added unreal information exactly the key complaint of "serious photographers" when discussing modern AI phone cameras? Aren't these modern denoise tools just bringing us one step closer to accepting phones over cameras as the winner of the contest? It's a fine balance, how much A.I. (*) by real information, I mean information that really existed in the photographed subject too, not fantasy information added later by the software. ![]() I agree the left image is more pleasing to the eye, but does this really make it the better picture in absolute terms? ![]() Yes, but the left image still contains more real (*) information and less artifacts. Left - Original Film Scan Right - Topaz NeNoize Severe Noise AI ![]() I suppose it will also bring new possibilities with modern camera's at high ISO. The new Severe Noise mode of Topaz seem to do an excellent job of enhancing these old photos. I don't have that many photographs that have severe ISO noise but I do have a few old film scans shot with ISO 400/800 film that had significant ISO noise. Topaz DeNoise AI just released their latest update and I'm pretty impressed by it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |