On 5/12/2020 6:52 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
<<Topaz AI Denoise AI 20 0 10
<<Topaz Sharpen AI Stabilize 35 22
<<Topaz Sharpen AI Focus 35 20
Any masking involved?
Only the sky. LCE, esp. larger amounts, tends to create a soft lightening of areas next to hard edges, i.e. sky in
landscapes. SOP for me to create a layer masked for sky only after NR. Sometimes, i adjust it separately, to bring out
clouds, etc., sometimes not.
Here, I did Match Color from the processed image sky area onto the masked sky layer. I liked the color of the processed
version, but not the lighter halo in the sky.
One thing I've seen is that sharpen AI seems to largely leave sharp objects
alone unlike FM (as expected with deconvolution) --have to be very careful not
to get ringing artifacts. Like any other hammer, it is still possible to hit
it too hard though.
Yes, finding the right level isn't always easy, but generally worth the trouble. I seldom use the 'Sharpen' tab. It
hasn't done much useful when I've tried it. Both of the other two tabs can indeed be overdone, artifacts at worst, just
"not natural" looking,then, with luck, just right.
The Focus tab after Stabilize is icing on the cake, I suppose. Mine may be the only eyes it's for. :-) I usually finish
with a touch of FocusMagic after downsampling. On the Fleabane shot I just posted, I used masked bits of FM on the flowers.
FM is by no means replaced. A couple of times, the T-AI plug-ins have not done the job, or done it in most, but not all
areas, and I've added a masked layer of FM.
Have never used all three procedures sequentially like that--glad I asked.
It makes logical sense to me.
<<<Other than apparently crappy pix?
If used that criterion I would be sending lenses in for adjustment with
abandon to no avail. I tried to use it at the last supermoon total
eclipse--?9/15 and the focusing was difficult and the images not acceptable. I
tried the next day on an easy target with optimal stabilization but it was
clear the lens was off even before the shutter was pressed I assumed
collimation but have not checked. Celestron said they still service them.
I'd paid no attention to the Celestron in "Jim Chung's Ramblings". Doesn't look too bad in the PopPhoto numbers, but
pretty bad in the MTF chart. Perhaps replace it? I have two versions of the Sigma 600/8, OM and F mount, and both seem
well made and optically fine.
The Meade 1000/11 has no rep, and was very cheap to me, from a friend who was moving. OTOH, it doesn't look bad in the
PP reviews. And, for subjects small enough that it doesn't crop them, simple FL has outperformed "better" lenses with
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/