Re: [OM] More Mirror Madness

Subject: Re: [OM] More Mirror Madness
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 22:12:28 -0700
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 shorter FLs.

Longer Moose

What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>