User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 4:44:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Here are two shots of the DC Cherry blossoms I focused stacked into the final image.
I also removed the people by the Jefferson Memorial, because, well, I hate people.    
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2021 12:21:00 PM EDT
[#2]
This first image was already an edit that I spent some time on, but was never very happy with it.
 The second image reworked the series from the raw files. Opening up the exposure brought out the color of Betelgeuse (top of frame, middle), but it also brought out a bit more air traffic than what I had in the first edit; ok, a lot more.  To remove the air traffic, I used Sequator NR, which also, surprisingly, brought out enough detail to make out the purple fringe of the Orion Nebula, but with 30 second exposures, there is just too much movement to see decent detail in the nebula, but it is there, albeit completely washed away when compiling the composite. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2021 6:41:38 AM EDT
[#3]
I'm an enthusiast amateur and this thread is inspiring for what may be possible with the nearly 1000 RAW pictures stored in my Sony A7C from the euro trip I'm currently on.
I always wanted to document my travels better, and really hoping to learn some post skills along with mastering the controls on my camera during this trip. There's going to be a significant increase in quality from the first pic I snapped to the the last. Thanks for the inspiration. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2021 8:53:47 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JustinHEMI04: I'm an enthusiast amateur and this thread is inspiring for what may be possible with the nearly 1000 RAW pictures stored in my Sony A7C from the euro trip I'm currently on. I always wanted to document my travels better, and really hoping to learn some post skills along with mastering the controls on my camera during this trip. There's going to be a significant increase in quality from the first pic I snapped to the the last. Thanks for the inspiration. Practice makes perfect. For an exceptionally extreme example of skillset increase, consider this very early shot I took of the moon, many years ago:  DSC_1370 by FredMan, on FlickrI mean, frankly, that sucks ass. I only keep it around as an example of how poor my skills were when i first started really getting interested in photography. Now, I can produce this without even trying. The moon, for me, is a closed subject (usually), becasue there's nothing there to challenge me any more.  Moon 20190611 by FredMan, on FlickrPart of it is gear, and part of it is knowing how to run the camera. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2021 3:49:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JustinU235]
[#5]
I need some help on understand what I did wrong/should do better with this photo as an example. The first is what the camera produced as a JPEG based on my settings that night, which, I was exposing for highlights since the lights were very bright. The second is what I came up with in post. I brought up the shadows and further reduced highlights, which brought in a lot of noise in the sky. Or, is that just actually the sky? It was an overcast day so perhaps I'm bringing out the clouds. Any advice on how to take night shots and process them would be appreciated. The settings used were: f1.8, ISO100, 1/30s, (-1ev set by camera due to having it set to highlight metering).
The third is a jpeg the camera produced when not "exposing for highlights," at f1.8, 100, 1/30. Which other than the traffic in front, turned out pretty good (I think?). I didn't use it because I was trying to get a shot with minimal people/cars. I think underexposing was a mistake? ETA: I should note that the processed picture looks better on my computer. Below, it's linked from facebook which no doubt compressed it. The other two are on postimage.    |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2021 5:33:15 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FredMan: Practice makes perfect. For an exceptionally extreme example of skillset increase, consider this very early shot I took of the moon, many years ago: https://live.staticflickr.com/773/32098600401_d9a15f8e38_b.jpgDSC_1370 by FredMan, on Flickr I mean, frankly, that sucks ass. I only keep it around as an example of how poor my skills were when i first started really getting interested in photography. Now, I can produce this without even trying. The moon, for me, is a closed subject (usually), becasue there's nothing there to challenge me any more. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48046881586_1dbd520a28_b.jpgMoon 20190611 by FredMan, on Flickr Part of it is gear, and part of it is knowing how to run the camera. I would say that yes practice, practice, practice, however I am guessing there are a lot more dollars invested to produce the second picture. And of course gear is not cheap but worth the investment as seen in your comparison. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2021 7:35:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FredMan]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By resteva: I would say that yes practice, practice, practice, however I am guessing there are a lot more dollars invested to produce the second picture. And of course gear is not cheap but worth the investment as seen in your comparison. Yeah, the first was a D50 and the kit 18-55 lens, the second was a D500 and the Tamron 150-600. A cost differential of about 8x. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2021 6:12:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FredMan: Yeah, the first was a D50 and the kit 18-55 lens, the second was a D500 and the Tamron 150-600. A cost differential of about 8x. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FredMan: Originally Posted By resteva: I would say that yes practice, practice, practice, however I am guessing there are a lot more dollars invested to produce the second picture. And of course gear is not cheap but worth the investment as seen in your comparison. Yeah, the first was a D50 and the kit 18-55 lens, the second was a D500 and the Tamron 150-600. A cost differential of about 8x. Nice capture, to most shooting the moon is difficult. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2021 6:50:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By resteva: Nice capture, to most shooting the moon is difficult. I find that so odd. The moon is easy to shoot; it’s a pretty bright object. I think people get hung up on the whole night thing and overthink it. To my way of thinking if you can shoot a lamp you can shoot the moon. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2021 8:56:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FredMan: I find that so odd. The moon is easy to shoot; it's a pretty bright object. I think people get hung up on the whole night thing and overthink it. To my way of thinking if you can shoot a lamp you can shoot the moon. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FredMan: Originally Posted By resteva: Nice capture, to most shooting the moon is difficult. I find that so odd. The moon is easy to shoot; it's a pretty bright object. I think people get hung up on the whole night thing and overthink it. To my way of thinking if you can shoot a lamp you can shoot the moon. I read somewhere that the moon is just reflected sunlight, so a good starting place is a bright sunny outdoors exposure. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2021 12:03:32 AM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2021 2:51:36 PM EDT
[#12]
 Attached File Attached FileIt's amazing how much detail can be extracted from modern sensors (even ones 3-4 years old) - if one shoots in raw. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2021 2:57:06 PM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2021 7:49:43 PM EDT
[#14]
The power of raw and ETTR...
It's hard to believe this image has not one single blown out highlight.  Attached FileSee?   Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2021 8:25:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tknogeek: The power of raw and ETTR... It's hard to believe this image has not one single blown out highlight. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/216762/Tabor_20210924_131503_jpg-2120776.JPG See? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/216762/Tabor_20210924_131503-2_jpg-2120778.JPG Preach it, Brother! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2021 9:07:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FredMan: I find that so odd. The moon is easy to shoot; it’s a pretty bright object. I think people get hung up on the whole night thing and overthink it. To my way of thinking if you can shoot a lamp you can shoot the moon. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FredMan: Originally Posted By resteva: Nice capture, to most shooting the moon is difficult. I find that so odd. The moon is easy to shoot; it’s a pretty bright object. I think people get hung up on the whole night thing and overthink it. To my way of thinking if you can shoot a lamp you can shoot the moon. Exactly this. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2022 1:49:17 PM EDT
[#17]
I'm going to say that many contextual photos of the moon are rather difficult. The brightness of the moon and depth of shadows in a landscape will often go well beyond the dynamic range of a camera.
Single frame shot, pushed to roughly the tonal range that I could see with my own eyes, what I recall seeing, at the time...  And now, a composite of the bracketed shots I had to take to achieve the tonal range and shadow detail that could be seen... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2022 5:31:32 PM EDT
[#18]
I've been disappointed with this image since I first processed it, which was probably in a brewery in Albuquerque.
I had some artificial lighting and used that to illuminate the foreground and hoodoos at the end of the time lapse series, but the lighting, while it brought out detail, just left the scene flat. I had originally exposed this foreground right around sunset and had really nice sky tones and lighting on the hoodoos ... but I kicked the tripod ever so slightly just before starting the star time lapse, so I lost the ability to layer that great lighting in as a double exposure, because the hoodoos at the left had changed in perspective ever so slightly.  I came back to this series today, and took my last frame from the timelapse, dropping the lightpainting frame altogether, and bumped that final exposure about 1.5 stops, and worked some of the tonal ranges in the frame. I'm much happier with this image, and no longer feel that I wasted my only night out in the Bistihi. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2022 10:19:15 PM EDT
[#19]
I probably did this first edit in a bar in Jackson. Just enough to know that my concept for the image would work. Or, possibly at the breakfast counter at a place in West Yellowstone. Can't really recall. Definitely done with the .jpg files because my little laptop just isn't cut out for this stuff.
 I revisited this image, and worked it from the ground up with the .NEF files this time.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2022 8:26:33 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By L_JE: I probably did this first edit in a bar in Jackson. Just enough to know that my concept for the image would work. Or, possibly at the breakfast counter at a place in West Yellowstone. Can't really recall. Definitely done with the .jpg files because my little laptop just isn't cut out for this stuff. https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20210826-West/i-s3MhvL5/1/452d7fc9/X3/9920CompB1%20-%204128-X3.jpg I revisited this image, and worked it from the ground up with the .NEF files this time. https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20210826-West/i-jW33Vjv/0/b9b98693/X3/DSC_9920A%2B001-247NEF-067pct%20B%20-%204128-X3.jpg That really brings out the colors of stars in the night sky. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2022 3:29:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By L_JE: I probably did this first edit in a bar in Jackson. Just enough to know that my concept for the image would work. Or, possibly at the breakfast counter at a place in West Yellowstone. Can't really recall. Definitely done with the .jpg files because my little laptop just isn't cut out for this stuff. https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20210826-West/i-s3MhvL5/1/452d7fc9/X3/9920CompB1%20-%204128-X3.jpg I revisited this image, and worked it from the ground up with the .NEF files this time. https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20210826-West/i-jW33Vjv/0/b9b98693/X3/DSC_9920A%2B001-247NEF-067pct%20B%20-%204128-X3.jpg That second one is amazing. What is the foreground which looks like a tornado or some cloud bank on the ground? Looks awesome with a lot of colors to stars rather than bluish to white streaks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2022 7:38:18 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brass: That second one is amazing. What is the foreground which looks like a tornado or some cloud bank on the ground? Looks awesome with a lot of colors to stars rather than bluish to white streaks. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brass: Originally Posted By L_JE: I probably did this first edit in a bar in Jackson. Just enough to know that my concept for the image would work. Or, possibly at the breakfast counter at a place in West Yellowstone. Can't really recall. Definitely done with the .jpg files because my little laptop just isn't cut out for this stuff. https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20210826-West/i-s3MhvL5/1/452d7fc9/X3/9920CompB1%20-%204128-X3.jpg I revisited this image, and worked it from the ground up with the .NEF files this time. https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20210826-West/i-jW33Vjv/0/b9b98693/X3/DSC_9920A%2B001-247NEF-067pct%20B%20-%204128-X3.jpg That second one is amazing. What is the foreground which looks like a tornado or some cloud bank on the ground? Looks awesome with a lot of colors to stars rather than bluish to white streaks. The neon blue streaks to the immediate right of the Old Faithful plume are part of the Big Dipper. And that's where I'd expect pushback from someone looking at this image. And I welcome the pushback of somebody saying those stars aren't like that. Because, it's at this point where I'm just going to say to step outside and really give that constellation a good, long look under good conditions. Yes, there are some stars in the Big Dipper that are noticeably bluer than the others in that constellation, and that's what I've brought out in this image. And, I brought up all the stars together, not playing favorites. So, if there are some odd colors in there, I like to go into Stellarium, et al, and see if I can find the particular star. Every time I do this, it seems I learn something new about what's up in the sky. To get this look, it involves going into the raw files, and dropping the levels way down and saturating the remaining highlights and then either bringing those highlights back up as a "lighten" layer, or possibly using them as a "screen" layer if the sky was dark enough. No, you don't see this. Not in one single moment, anyway. But, in the collection of moments that you've sat there, in that time that everyone else with half a brain walked away, went inside, and got out of the cold, these sweeps are what you're watching. It's those hours of sitting there, by yourself, yeah imaging having Old Faithful to yourself, that's what you remember. It's hours. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2022 10:30:22 AM EDT
[#23]
I rented a Z7ii to take on an upcoming trip. The goal is to compare the second generation Nikon mirrorless with my D850 to see whether I think the third generation will be good enough to spend the coin on a new primary camera (and demote the D850 to second camera status).
Here's a shot exposed at +2.7 EV (exposed on the brightest section of the sky).  Attached FileHere we can see the level of cloud detail available. (Note that this is not how I'd process this image for reals, but my goal was to see how far I could push the EV on the highlights of a scene.)  Attached FileI'll do more experimentation before my trip but, based on today's testing, I'll likely end up using +2.0 EV for my trip. Meanwhile, I'm not sure how I should interpret the results of this experiment. Is the camera intentionally pulling down the exposure? I'll grant that the early test shots I took at +0.0 EV are typically dark and even Lightroom's "auto develop" pulled the exposure up on most of them by over a full stop. Or is my experiment demonstrating that this sensor really can be pushed to ~+2.0 EV - especially for wide dynamic range scenes? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2022 11:17:19 AM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2022 5:37:24 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tknogeek: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/216762/Tabor_20210917_153253_raw_jpg-2109423.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/216762/Tabor_20210917_153253_jpg-2109424.JPG It's amazing how much detail can be extracted from modern sensors (even ones 3-4 years old) - if one shoots in raw. lol @tknogeek  Alamo Wall OOC by FredMan, on Flickr Alamo Wall by FredMan, on Flickr |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2022 11:10:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FredMan: lol @tknogeek https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52348739270_d03b1db521_b.jpgAlamo Wall OOC by FredMan, on Flickr https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52348562383_f04ec889d6_b.jpgAlamo Wall by FredMan, on Flickr 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2022 9:39:53 PM EDT
[#27]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2022 5:13:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: brass]
[#28]
Quote HistoryDodge and Burn.... Aside from cutting/splicing, the continually expanding number and spectrum of Photo editing effects is mind blowing, standing on the shoulders of giants. I remember playing with Photoshop 5 (like the version 5, Might have been 3 or 4, it was really cheap back then with their upgrade tracks) in the 90s and trying to crop somebody back into a picture. I'd nudge it over a couple pixels and wait a bit then it'd refresh and show it with the little ants marching around, then there was the laggy stamp tool (Everything was laggy when working on a picture bigger than 1024 pixels on a side) and you had to do the Gaussian fuzz to get the snip to fit after exposure matching. Today it can be done nearly automatically and it is instant. Then there was the difference between what you came out with in Photoshop to see what the Photo shop would mangle it into when making a new print. Color Correction has changed all that with everybody having access to Hollywood Studio display color matching for under 4 digits now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2022 9:31:00 AM EDT
[#29]
I taught Photoshop for a classroom of picture editors back in 92-3
I was using Silicon Beach Digital Darkroom at the time and I spent the weekend learning photoshop  Photoshop: The First Demo | Adobe Photoshop |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2022 8:42:00 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryValuable perspective. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2022 2:33:21 PM EDT
[#31]
Some infrared examples:
720 nanometers, straight out of camera, and after processing   590 nanometers, straight out of camera, and after processing   470 nanometers, straight out of camera, and after processing   |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2022 12:14:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: brass]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By keiswa: Some infrared examples: 720 nanometers, straight out of camera, and after processing https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-HDzW53X/0/11bc2be3/XL/i-HDzW53X-XL.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-JFTMSmD/0/6db6eb49/XL/i-JFTMSmD-XL.jpg 590 nanometers, straight out of camera, and after processing https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-SBvd536/0/c3c2305e/XL/i-SBvd536-XL.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-6xSNGxQ/0/fdc72cec/XL/i-6xSNGxQ-XL.jpg 470 nanometers, straight out of camera, and after processing https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mBkvQpC/0/b37cc11b/XL/i-mBkvQpC-XL.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-3WwGFZh/0/a14cfbab/XL/i-3WwGFZh-XL.jpg @keiswa What is your camera and filters? How tight of notch at 720? The Astrophotography guys having a notch pass of a few nm or a little more wiggle room than that? Modified DSLR camera or a monochrome custom? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2022 12:45:19 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brass: @keiswa What is your camera and filters? How tight of notch at 720? The Astrophotography guys having a notch pass of a few nm or a little more wiggle room than that? Modified DSLR camera or a monochrome custom? For the 720nm, I purchased a new, converted Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS8 from Kolari Vision. I don't know the size of the pass and I don't recall seeing that referenced on their website. The 590nm is my Canon 7D I had converted by Life Pixel and the 470nm is my Canon 50D also converted by Life Pixel. Both are DSLRs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2022 3:33:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By keiswa: For the 720nm, I purchased a new, converted Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS8 from Kolari Vision. I don't know the size of the pass and I don't recall seeing that referenced on their website. The 590nm is my Canon 7D I had converted by Life Pixel and the 470nm is my Canon 50D also converted by Life Pixel. Both are DSLRs. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By keiswa: Originally Posted By brass: @keiswa What is your camera and filters? How tight of notch at 720? The Astrophotography guys having a notch pass of a few nm or a little more wiggle room than that? Modified DSLR camera or a monochrome custom? For the 720nm, I purchased a new, converted Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS8 from Kolari Vision. I don't know the size of the pass and I don't recall seeing that referenced on their website. The 590nm is my Canon 7D I had converted by Life Pixel and the 470nm is my Canon 50D also converted by Life Pixel. Both are DSLRs. Can you still use the 7D and 50D for regular photography if you add an IR filter to the lens, or is it the UV conversion that makes them not usable for "normal" photography again? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2022 5:22:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brass: Can you still use the 7D and 50D for regular photography if you add an IR filter to the lens, or is it the UV conversion that makes them not usable for "normal" photography again? Yes. My two DSLRS were converted, and conversions are permanent, involving the sensor. However, there are various IR filters that can be screwed onto a lens on a "regular" DSLR. May or may not give IR results as good and a converted camera, and this usually involves long exposures and the use of a tripod....IIRC. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 9:10:48 AM EDT
[#36]
Resurrection! You can pull a lot out of raw with a little effort.
 Schwartzman Premerch OOC by FredMan, on Flickr Schwartzman Premerch by FredMan, on Flickr
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 9:38:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: tknogeek]
[#37]
 Attached FileStraight out of camera  Attached FileAfter edit to mimic the way it appeared in the woods. (It was a heavy overcast morning.)  Attached FileI'll also throw in a comment about ISO. This image was shot at ISO 10,000. Modern processing tools are good enough that there is no need to fear high ISO values. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 12:24:02 PM EDT
[#38]
A few before and after shots from my works.
 Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 8:23:19 PM EDT
[#39]
@tknogeek, what are you using for NR? I’ve been using the built in LR tool, but I’ve heard good things about the DxO plug-ins.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 10:45:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: tknogeek]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FredMan: @tknogeek, what are you using for NR? I've been using the built in LR tool, but I've heard good things about the DxO plug-ins. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2023 6:09:43 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tknogeek: My go-to tool these days is DXO PureRaw 3. For me, it does a far[/i] better job than LR. I still use Topaz DeNoise AI periodically, but PureRaw usually works better for me. Copy that. LR is not bad, necessarily, but I've seen some examples from DxO that blow my mind. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2023 10:12:06 PM EDT
[#42]
I was shooting up above some wildfires the evening before, so my white balance was all jacked, and Lord only knows what my .jpeg tonal preferences were.
 The settings were so jacked up, that I think it wasn't until this January, or so, that I pulled this in for an edit. Fortunately, I shoot .jpg +.NEF, emphasis on the latter. 38mm focal length, FWIW. Maybe about 9 or 10am, looking at the shadows.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2023 10:22:22 PM EDT
[#43]
 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 4:06:48 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By @FredMan: Copy that. LR is not bad, necessarily, but I've seen some examples from DxO that blow my mind. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By @FredMan: Originally Posted By tknogeek: My go-to tool these days is DXO PureRaw 3. For me, it does a far[/i] better job than LR. I still use Topaz DeNoise AI periodically, but PureRaw usually works better for me. Copy that. LR is not bad, necessarily, but I've seen some examples from DxO that blow my mind. I just may have a new go-to option. LR's new denoise enhancement is very impressive. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2023 7:41:42 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tknogeek: I just may have a new go-to option. LR's new denoise enhancement is very impressive. You know, I just updated my copy, and I’ve noticed significant improvement. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2023 5:12:30 PM EDT
[#46]
Subtle, but effective
 Compton Oak OOC by FredMan, on Flickr Compton Oak by FredMan, on Flickr Colonial Courthouse OOC by FredMan, on Flickr Colonial Courthouse by FredMan, on Flickr
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 8:49:01 PM EDT
[#47]
 36 Inch CBO Selfie OOC by FredMan, on Flickr 36 Inch CBO Selfie by FredMan, on FlickrNow here's the really cool thing. LR's new AI Denoise is nothing short of phenomenal. This is after using manual NR within LR  36 Inch CBO Selfie Noise Detail by FredMan, on FlickrAnd the Denoise feature  36 Inch CBO Selfie Noise Detail by FredMan, on Flickr |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 10:29:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FredMan: Now here's the really cool thing. LR's new AI Denoise is nothing short of phenomenal. I haven't opened DXO PureRaw for processing images since LR's update. __________ I had a little fun with this scene I found in Cuyahoga Valley National Park (Ledges Trail). Original:  Attached FileFun version:  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2023 2:19:01 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FredMan: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52904120848_58a7a9e713_h.jpg36 Inch CBO Selfie Noise Detail by FredMan, on Flickr And the Denoise feature https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52903831714_e19b5f6f23_h.jpg36 Inch CBO Selfie Noise Detail by FredMan, on Flickr That is nothing short of amazing! Is it a slow process or is it done on an online server type cloud system? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2023 8:08:47 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brass: That is nothing short of amazing! Is it a slow process or is it done on an online server type cloud system? With the GoPro raw file it took about 15 minutes. NEF raws only take 2-3 minutes. All on my local machine. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File
