I think it looks great as presented!
Excellent images! I agree it is hard, especially hand-held, to keep those Eagles in the viewfinder. I believe the view you see in your viewfinder is the same as if you were shooting with the non-existent 1120mm lens.
Thanks everyone for the comments!
lukevaliant,Hasslla,Alphadog & UTMike, Thanks for the comments.
Bald Eagle Body Slam! Immature Bald Eagle gets body slammed into the river, knocking a fish out of it talons after following a mature Eagle too closely and messing with it's fishing. Video starts with the young one "tailgateing" the adult. I've included a little soft focus to add context to what happened before the slam. I repeat the contact part first at 1/2 speed, then at 1/4 speed to allow you to see it better. Please watch to the end for the very slow motion version. Below Lock and Dam 21 in NE Missouri on the Mississippi River 2.20.23.
https://youtu.be/YbywHd_2JvY
Very nice. I bet you wish you could have had a drone in your younger years. Enjoy seeing your shots. I sure wish I could have had a digital body in lieu if my AE1 years ago.
Answer not just about pure Sharpen programs. Topaz Sharpen is good sometimes on rescuing a bad shot. Sometimes it overdoes it, and leaves artifacts. On shots that just needed a little extra sharpening, the later versions of DeNoise did a wonderful job most of the time. A friend bugged me for months to try DXO, either PhotoLab 6 or PureRaw II.I tried it in October. If you shoot RAW, PhotoLab 6 has some amazing tools in it. I ended up buying PL 6, and I don't purchase software very often. I rarely use the Topaz products now. I might not renew my Topaz license when it expires. Do you shoot RAW or jpg?
Improve your photos? Maybe.If you are always shooting at 400 and wish you did not have to crop as much in PP, then I would say get it. If you normally used the 100-400 and get frame filling shots, only get it if money is not really of concern.There is an improvement, but not leaps and bounds. The 100-400 II is a great lens. I almost always had a 1.4X on my 100-400, and now I rarely use a converter on my 100-500. But the new 1.4 works extremely well with it. I was not going to upgrade for a while, but a family member wanted the 100-400, so that gave me the excuse to go ahead. The 100-500 has been a pleasure to shoot with.
TriX wrote:
Topaz products (at least the ones I have) produce a TIFF file which can be either imported into a PP Ap or saved - perhaps I’m misunderstanding your statement?
I think he is talking about the trial.
AirWalter wrote:
Love that image of the owl. I must say you have a lot of beautiful images.
Appreciate that kind comment!
mwsilvers wrote:
I have experimented with many images over the years during beta testing and I have not once found a single situation where applying both has not created more problems than it fixed like the creation of artifacts and significant loss of fine detail. While I suppose that some combination of factors in some situations may give you a satisfying result using both as a general rule it is a very bad idea.
Sounds like you have a great deal of experience. I have not run a lot of photos thru both DXO and Photo AI. I assume you have done most of your testing on the older DeNoise and Sharpen products from Topaz. Have you done much/any testing on Topaz's new product Photo AI? In my limited use of PL 6, I have not had a lot of shots that needed Topaz products, so have not used it much. That said, the SE Owl shot I posted was greatly helped by Photo AI, and it just used the sharpen module on it, not needing denoise. Currently my preferred product , by far, is DXO PL6 .If I did not already own Topaz Photo AI, I might not buy it. But sometimes, it really helps.