![]() It looks consistent and natural, although with too much noise. ![]() To my surprise, the Lightroom photo is the most comfortable to look at. This inconsistency is repeated all over the detailed areas that are in or near to in-focus. One little area will be most impressive, then right next to it a patch of blurred detail, that should look no less detailed than the impressive bit. I don't think I could live with what they are doing. The DXO and Topaz both look quite disturbing, really. I have had a very close look at all the options posted in this thread so far. And the Neat Image photo is actually breaking up. Looking at the only part of the image that is in focus-the deer-the Neat Image version has considerably more detail than the Topaz one.Ĭonsiderable less detail, actually. As a point of self-criticism, I think that I may have sharpened a tad too much, but the fact remains that the NI version is more detailed.Īs far as background crud is concerned, it is only visible at 100% magnification and would not show up on the web or in any print. Looking at the only part of the image that is in focus-the deer-the Neat Image version has considerably more detail than the Topaz one. Because my eye never sees grain or noise in the real world, I prefer a glass smooth background free of crud, and if I can get it in one click while maintaining a slight advantage in fine detail, that's a win for Denoise AI. Also, in contrast to the OP, I chose to leave a fine grain noise pattern, as I think that it improves detail and makes for a more natural result. In the case of a file with such a high level of noise, I also applied a modest amount of NR in the raw stage (X5), although that has not been my usual practice. Raw processing in Exposure X5 and the heavy duty NR in Neat Image. Ok, here is my processed version of the Raw file.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |