Peano wrote in post #19311758
='Peano;19311758]If the suitable threads are inactive, it's because the 50+ replies evaluating and testing various pieces of software were posted here rather than in one of those threads. You can make the appropriate thread or forum active simply by using if for these exchanges.
"The image" refers to whatever image you edited and submitted to the contest. Details about how you went about editing are appropriate and most welcome, with some leeway for technical matters related to that editing.
When we have more than 50 posts that compare software using images that were uploaded for that purpose, the thread has clearly ceased to be about Before and After - The Weekly Editing Challenge.
I have no objection whatsoever to you guys exchanging views on these topics until the cows come home -- if you do it in a thread or forum intended for that purpose. This thread isn't intended for software tests and reviews.
Look, I'm not trying to be snarky, nor am I appointing myself deputy moderator, but the following technical comments (and it's just a small sample of what was posted) had nothing to do with techniques that were used to edit the challenge images. But if everyone agrees that these exchanges are appropriate and sufficiently relevant to the specific editing challenge, please tell me in your replies. If the majority so rules, I will quietly bow out. [Footnote and mini rant: It's a shame a moderator hasn't already settled this. If I were a moderator, I would have asked those interested in software testing to please do it in an appropriate thread or forum ... not here.]
='Peano;19311758]If the suitable threads are inactive, it's because the 50+ replies evaluating and testing various pieces of software were posted here rather than in one of those threads. You can make the appropriate thread or forum active simply by using if for these exchanges.
"The image" refers to whatever image you edited and submitted to the contest. Details about how you went about editing are appropriate and most welcome, with some leeway for technical matters related to that editing.
When we have more than 50 posts that compare software using images that were uploaded for that purpose, the thread has clearly ceased to be about Before and After - The Weekly Editing Challenge.
I have no objection whatsoever to you guys exchanging views on these topics until the cows come home -- if you do it in a thread or forum intended for that purpose. This thread isn't intended for software tests and reviews.
Look, I'm not trying to be snarky, nor am I appointing myself deputy moderator, but the following technical comments (and it's just a small sample of what was posted) had nothing to do with techniques that were used to edit the challenge images. But if everyone agrees that these exchanges are appropriate and sufficiently relevant to the specific editing challenge, please tell me in your replies. If the majority so rules, I will quietly bow out. [Footnote and mini rant: It's a shame a moderator hasn't already settled this. If I were a moderator, I would have asked those interested in software testing to please do it in an appropriate thread or forum ... not here.]
"Thin clean hair lines are my preference which I don’t see with the DXO file on my 5K screen. Again this is just what I like. Nothing wrong with either software. I’m also not a fan of DXO the company."
"Joe (Bianchi) has kindly uploaded a noisy image for me to work on and do some comparisons."
"These crops are from your images. DeepPRIME is on the left. DeepPRIME's significantly greater amount of fine detail in the noise is pretty obvious. The Denoise version is softer and loses that detail. It is not just a matter of contrast. Most of the fine detail is simply missing from the denoise version. You may prefer that version, and that's fine. As I said Denoise is an excellent product."
"The default setting in Topaz also provides sharpening which DeePRIME by itself does not. What you are missing in both Topaz versions is fine detail, especially the second one which has the beginnings of that smooth plastic look of over applied noise reduction. It is unfortunate you do not like the interface. If you are both used to and comfortable with a different UI paradigm, that is understandable."
"I don't see Topaz as being crisper, but if you prefer its rendition that is all that matters."
"Yes sometimes Topaz can create a those artifacts. Interesting. DeepPrime has noise but a shows more detail than Light Sharpen that has no noise."
"Yes, detail retention is one of the areas in which DeepPRIME excels. We beta tested it for 8 months during which those parameters were continually refined."
"Has anyone seen this. I just found it today. In LrC I typically right click and select Edit In DeNoise. You have to select either TIFF, PSD or Jpeg. If you drag the file directly into DeNoise it opens as a RAW file."
"On the matter of the auto-cropping Topaz Ai when invoked as a plug-in: I received an update to Topaz Sharpen a couple of days ago and the cropping phenomenon seems to have gone away, coming from Aurora HDR. No cropping."
"Haven't researched DXO products, can Deep Prime be bought as a standalone plugin for PS, or does it come in DXO PhotoLab.. I'd like to take a trial test ride. I'll be glad to supply you with a low light high Iso 12,800 image, and run it through both Topaz Denoise AI & DeepPRIME"
I beg to differ. We often have conversations about technique in this thread which I personally learn from. Agreed the recent denoise discussion was long but the next exchange of similar length may not happen for 5 years or so. I can live with that.
