- #MATCHING OLD TOPAZ STUDIO PRESENTS TO TOPAZ STUDIO 2 LOOKS. TRIAL#
- #MATCHING OLD TOPAZ STUDIO PRESENTS TO TOPAZ STUDIO 2 LOOKS. ISO#
- #MATCHING OLD TOPAZ STUDIO PRESENTS TO TOPAZ STUDIO 2 LOOKS. PLUS#
- #MATCHING OLD TOPAZ STUDIO PRESENTS TO TOPAZ STUDIO 2 LOOKS. DOWNLOAD#
If a lens has distortion, pixel dimensions may change, but I usually don't use lens profiles.
#MATCHING OLD TOPAZ STUDIO PRESENTS TO TOPAZ STUDIO 2 LOOKS. DOWNLOAD#
You download profiles for lenses and have the option whether or not to use them.
I have not noticed it altering colour, saturation, levels etc. I don't have expectations to work magic, only make the best of good images that are maybe not perfect in focus or lacking motion blur, but not far from perfect. I think it's maybe more gentle than Topaz. I have seen that Topaz can have some artifacts which need cleaning up, I have not seen any results that need tidying up with DxO. No adjustments available so assessing it's results easier. The advantage with it is: download, give it a bunch of files to process, keep the results long term if you don't buy for later asessment. I don't think there is a limit regards how many files you can process with the trial, just 30 day limit. I ran about 20 images through DxO PureRAW before deciding to go ahead and purchase. If I have time in the next little while, I should give it a try.Ĭanon R5, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses, Sony RX100
Therefore when doing comparisons, interpretation is necessary and interpretations tend to be subjective.Īt this point I would have no idea what to expect with DxO. And getting an exact match is impossible because Topaz does not apply those contrast/sat adjustments uniformly over the image. Making those adjustments obfuscates what it is doing to noise and sharpness, and makes fair comparisons very difficult unless one spends time tuning those other variables to match. Those adjustments make for a brighter, sharper-looking image, but I don't need Topaz to boost contrast and saturation. Topaz cranks up contrast and saturation when it shouldn't do that IMO. In previous posts, I was told no worries with Topaz, the defaults work great most of the time. The problem is that these trials are time-consuming if you want to do a good assessment. I don't think it's as powerful as Topaz, ie Topaz may be better to try to recover more severely soft or out of focus images.
#MATCHING OLD TOPAZ STUDIO PRESENTS TO TOPAZ STUDIO 2 LOOKS. TRIAL#
No watermarks on the results during trial period. You do get a choice to use the lens profiles or not.Īs you are obviously trialling Topaz, good opportunity to give DxO a trial. It has profiles for supported cameras and lenses. I thought I might find the lack of options or parameters that can be set by user to be frustrating but I like it. (Well there are 3 options but they are just 2 faster process options, or the 'full' option). Look at the slightly darker area in the Topaz pic. The comparison below shows LR classic on the left and Topaz Clear with Medium noise reduction and Low sharpening. I didn't want these effects, so I imported the results into LR and did my best to match the brightness, color and saturation to the LR version. Topaz brightened the photo quite a bit and boosted saturation significantly. Instead we can get some idea of what Topaz does by looking at the breast feathers on the left which are not affected by the watermark. So that area can't be used for evaluation. I am on the trial version, so Topaz leaves a watermark, and the watermark happens to land right on the bird's head. Can it do better than LR? I gave it a shot using the Topaz Clear settings. I wanted to see what Topaz could do with this picture.
#MATCHING OLD TOPAZ STUDIO PRESENTS TO TOPAZ STUDIO 2 LOOKS. PLUS#
I used 62 sharpening and 11 noise reduction for this pic ( posted in the Bird Portrait (2) thread), plus a bit of clarity and vibrance.
#MATCHING OLD TOPAZ STUDIO PRESENTS TO TOPAZ STUDIO 2 LOOKS. ISO#
I was pleased with how Lightroom handled a high ISO pic of a chickadee.
0 kommentar(er)
