Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 26, 2010, 12:44 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
Please do. I'm interested in seeing how it does on shots that are already very good. I'm going to play around with a bit more and see if it will improve the shots I have that were taking with the Sigma 135-400. Would be worth the money just for that if it works.

John
Great point, John. Hadn't thought of trying it out on the images taken using the Sigma. I have, as you do as well, quite a few shots taken with that lens that would be perfect candidates for this test.

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2010, 2:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
Please do. I'm interested in seeing how it does on shots that are already very good.
John
So are you going to send him some?

JUST KIDDING! It's been a busy week (I worked yesterday) and I'm working on an adult beverage now.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2010, 4:14 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default Wigeon with sigma

Here's a comparison of a Wigeon shot that was taken hand held with the Sigma at 400mm. 100% crop of the head both as is and with InFocus. I'm pleased with the results and may consider using the Sigma again if I can tweak the shots so easily.

John
Attached Images
  
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2010, 7:28 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
Here's a comparison of a Wigeon shot that was taken hand held with the Sigma at 400mm. 100% crop of the head both as is and with InFocus. I'm pleased with the results and may consider using the Sigma again if I can tweak the shots so easily.

John
That's impressive results.
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2010, 7:50 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

Hi John,

Well, so far all my efforts with using Topaz In-Focus have resulted in images that have too many artifacts or too noisy, or just aren't any sharper than the results that I'm getting using ACR6.2 in Photoshop CS5.

After I had a cup of coffee this morning, I had an epiphany and realized that I'm trying to make a soft image sharper rather than improving the focus of a blurry or out-of-focus image.

Now that Thanksgiving is over and the clan has departed, I'm going to work on finding some out of focus images(shouldn't be too hard to find) and then trying the software on those.

The software is easy to use and seems very straightforward.. But, so far, I'm not getting anything that I haven't been able to get with ACR6.2

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2010, 1:30 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
Hi John,

Well, so far all my efforts with using Topaz In-Focus have resulted in images that have too many artifacts or too noisy, or just aren't any sharper than the results that I'm getting using ACR6.2 in Photoshop CS5.

After I had a cup of coffee this morning, I had an epiphany and realized that I'm trying to make a soft image sharper rather than improving the focus of a blurry or out-of-focus image.

Now that Thanksgiving is over and the clan has departed, I'm going to work on finding some out of focus images(shouldn't be too hard to find) and then trying the software on those.

The software is easy to use and seems very straightforward.. But, so far, I'm not getting anything that I haven't been able to get with ACR6.2

Zig
I think most of what Topaz plugins do could be done with ACR6 but what i like about them is that I don't need anything better than my Elements 2to run them. Heck, if I wanted i could use them with Irfanview and not have to spend a penny for anything else.

Took a bunch of pics with the E-1 and Sigma yesterday, will have to see if any can be improved. Wasn't good light so they may just be soft and not out of focus.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2010, 1:32 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

An idea that was posted in the thread on this subject on the Pentax forum was to take a soft image, use InFocus then resize it down and use DeNoise to remove some of the artifacts. I haven't tried it but I could see how it might work.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2010, 9:30 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
bobbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 600
Default

I can't post anything using the demo copies - for some reason Topaz doesn't let me actually save the result, but here are my non-scientific impressions.

Focus magic gives far superior results with far less effort. BUT just about crashes my slow single-core processor computer. It is SLOW as a plugin, better as the standalone

InFocus leaves too many artefacts, and you have to fiddle with parameters and reprocessing. It's faster, but so far the results are unacceptable to my eye

In my opinion, NEITHER is necessary for what I do. If I needed a forensic program that magically makes license plates visible, then I'd need one of these, But if my images to be printed at 16x20 are out of focus enough then I'd be better off chimping and retaking the shot immediately.

Sigh... just sayin'

BB

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
Hi,

I'll be looking forward to seeing your results. When you do post, it would be great to post b4 and after examples.

Thanks
Zig
bobbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2010, 9:40 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbert View Post
InFocus leaves too many artefacts, and you have to fiddle with parameters and reprocessing. It's faster, but so far the results are unacceptable to my eye

In my opinion, NEITHER is necessary for what I do. If I needed a forensic program that magically makes license plates visible, then I'd need one of these, But if my images to be printed at 16x20 are out of focus enough then I'd be better off chimping and retaking the shot immediately.

Sigh... just sayin'

BB
Hi,

And thanks for the follow up.

I think we're both in agreement as I've been unable to improve any image that I've tried beyond what I can already do in Adobe's ACR6.2 program. ACR is also easier. I may be prejudiced, because I'm much more comfortable in the use of ACR, but, so far I've not managed to find where this program will be of benefit to me.

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2010, 1:31 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbert View Post
I can't post anything using the demo copies - for some reason Topaz doesn't let me actually save the result, but here are my non-scientific impressions.

Focus magic gives far superior results with far less effort. BUT just about crashes my slow single-core processor computer. It is SLOW as a plugin, better as the standalone

InFocus leaves too many artefacts, and you have to fiddle with parameters and reprocessing. It's faster, but so far the results are unacceptable to my eye

In my opinion, NEITHER is necessary for what I do. If I needed a forensic program that magically makes license plates visible, then I'd need one of these, But if my images to be printed at 16x20 are out of focus enough then I'd be better off chimping and retaking the shot immediately.

Sigh... just sayin'

BB
For sure, if you can just retake the pic that is by far the best way to go. I wish I didn't have to do as much PP on my images as I do but to get them the way i like it's necessary. Interesting that you prefer Focus Magic while over in the Pentax forum it was the other way. Guess it's all in how the eye sees it.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:26 AM.