On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:52 AM Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The one piece that I mention often is the "sharpening" effect on low ISO
> images (Defined here, with contemporary
> cameras, as below 800.) of Topaz Denoise AI. As no one ever responds,
> positive or negative, perhaps they don't believe
> me, don't care . . . ?
>
> One of a few examples I've posted.
> <
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Topaz%20AI/TopazDenoise%20modes/TopazNRAI.htm
> >
>
I'm not viewing from my big monitor at the moment, but I've looked at
similar examples you've posted at my 24". Since most of us do the mail
from laptops, I'll wager, we're probably not doing you justice from the
outset with this example. But I suspect that you are also demonstrating a
certain connoisseurship in the demonstration. You're trying to illustrate
which wine goes best with the pate fois gras when the rest of us are
perfectly happy with Two-Buck Chuck and beanie weenies. The differences
may be greater in your discovery process than can be delivered to a
stranger's eye. Plus, I know that I still distrust my monitor to effect
such nuances even though I probably shouldn't (see below).
> And here a whole slew of subjects.
> <
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Topaz%20AI/TopazDenoiseAI_sharpen/TzDeNAIshrp.htm
> >
>
> The result is that I use AI Sharpen seldom, relative to Denoise.AI
>
Easier to see the effect here even on a laptop. I will give Denoise a
trial. It is interesting the way noise and sharpening increments seem to
be built into all three of Topaz's products. Rocks my world a little.
So if you do happen to use Sharpen AI after Denoise, do you let AI work
(i.e., auto), or do you null out the NR effects and so forth (i.e., go
manual)? (I like to see what AI wants to do most of the time and generally
like the result or at least feel there is some improvement -- but not
always.)
> > I'm especially happy feeling that there is an afterlife for my E-1
> images,
> > mostly because of the shooting I was fortunate to be able to do in that
> > era.
>
> I feel just the same, except about images from my Canon 300D! 😁
>
> Some of the best images I've ever taken were done with that camera. A
> little photo essay from 2004.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/SteepFalls/index.htm>
>
> I've revisited some of them at various times over the years, as post
> processing software has improved, along with my
> skills with it.
>
Those are very crisp images! "Revisiting" is sort of where I'm at right
now. I can't really travel as I'm the primary caregiver for my 98-year-old
mother. Otherwise, there's what's in the yard and tidying up the
computer. We haven't seen our kids for well over a year. I seek out
photos from their infancy and childhood that, if they had seen before, they
didn't care about, and I shoot them to them in texts. They are thrilled
with them now. It's emotional for me in so many ways -- it will soon be
over, I hope.
I've been rethinking my mindset as I give the E-1 images a workover.
Images now live far more as efforts that are judged by how they appear on a
monitor than as printed works. I don't think anyone probably still thinks
entirely of a workflow whose terminus ad quem is a print (let alone a "fine
print"), unless that's our job. Yet that has been part of my calculus for
most of my digital life. As a result, I have tended to think unimportant
the minor issues on screen which I know will not transfer to a print. And
I would do things like output sharpening a la Bruce Fraser that seem to
improve prints in some ways but certainly ruin the image as a screen objet
d'art. Amongst all my digital paraphernalia, it's the monitors which seem
to have improved the most. I'm still viscerally attracted to an attractive
print, but I no longer cling to the assumption that the print is the
ultimate revelation of what the photograph is or should be. As a practical
matter, it's been that way for years, but my head has not been there. I'm
actually only just accepting this sort of awareness.
I am a full convert to mirrorless. Some OMs in the house, but no DSLRs,
> unless I've missed one. 😉
>
It becomes easier over time to miss one here or there. 8^0
I'm not claiming any prescience, but my very happy experience with the
C8080 convinced me that something like mirrorless was the way to go. I
don't know if any camera with the Olympus marque will ever be made in the
future that I might be interested in, but I think I should eventually get a
E-M1 iii just to allow my E system lenses a nice ride into the sunset.
That would probably be more fun when there is a chance to take a photo trip
again. I wouldn't mind a Sony but just am not gripped with GASious
desire. An A7R would be interesting to play with. Maybe I'll try out a
beater one of these days to see. Meh.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|