![]() ![]() ![]() Where LR pulls ahead in how realistic any added detail looks. Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)Īfter looking at these for the last hour, I have concluded that they both do about the same when it comes to noise removal. Even taking the settings 1/2 way back, it still looks "fake" or "artificial" to me. I did dial back all the settings to 1/2 of what the program applied. The program wanted to add sharpening, so I went with it. Not a fan of the color shift, and I have still not been able to get the colors back to what I like. After noise removal, I used my standard wildlife preset that I use on all my wildlife photographs.įirst, something I noticed from the first time I used Topaz is the way it changes the color in the photos. This photo was taken using my OM1 with the Olympus 75-300 with the following settings: ISO 2500, 1/2000 ƒ6.7, handheld. So, let's take a look at Topaz and the new LR on a fox photo. ![]() I have always felt that the detail any of the AI programs would put back in after removing noise looked way too "fake" or "artificial." But I was never really satisfied with how it worked on, say, my fox photos. I found it to work really well on people in my portraits as well as for my Northern Light Photos. After downloading several different trials, I ended up going with Topaz Photo AI. A month or so ago, I needed some help to rescue some portraits I had done during a Northern Lights tour. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |