A VERY detailed and sharp photo, before & after piccure+
Dec 26, 2014 15:27:07 #
Yesterday I paid for my version of Piccure+. I'm very pleased with the improvement it makes to photos that I already considered very good.
BTW if you give them my e-mail address you get an additional 10% of the price. (Maybe I'll get something back I'm not sure) If you care to buy it go here:
http://piccure.com/
When you pay for it they offer you a 10% discount if you tell them who recommended it. Tell them david.debar@fairpoint.net did.
The first is a photo I thought I had had done all I could do with using DxO and Nik filters and PS.
The second one is after running through piccure+
The third one is the JPG the camera gave me.
The forth one is processed from raw using DxO, piccure+, PS.
BTW if you give them my e-mail address you get an additional 10% of the price. (Maybe I'll get something back I'm not sure) If you care to buy it go here:
http://piccure.com/
When you pay for it they offer you a 10% discount if you tell them who recommended it. Tell them david.debar@fairpoint.net did.
The first is a photo I thought I had had done all I could do with using DxO and Nik filters and PS.
The second one is after running through piccure+
The third one is the JPG the camera gave me.
The forth one is processed from raw using DxO, piccure+, PS.
Dec 26, 2014 16:00:32 #
Dec 26, 2014 16:04:08 #
mrova wrote:
WOW! Love that hummer! Great shots!
Thank you. The same camera and lens was used for both the hummer and the elk.
Dec 26, 2014 16:23:59 #
I'm as surprised as you. I thought the first hummer was perfect, but then I saw the second one. What is that; more perfect?
Dec 26, 2014 16:34:43 #
tramsey wrote:
I'm as surprised as you. I thought the first hummer was perfect, but then I saw the second one. What is that; more perfect?
:oops: <big grin>
If you blow up the second hummer all the way, some artifacts introduced by piccure+ become visible. At reasonable magnification, viewed from the proper distance, this is not visible.
Dec 26, 2014 16:39:11 #
Davethehiker wrote:
:oops: <big grin>
If you blow up the second hummer all the way, some artifacts introduced by piccure+ become visible. At reasonable magnification, viewed from the proper distance, this is not visible.
If you blow up the second hummer all the way, some artifacts introduced by piccure+ become visible. At reasonable magnification, viewed from the proper distance, this is not visible.
More in the second hummer, some in the second elk. That said still nice images.
Dec 26, 2014 16:58:23 #
lightcatcher wrote:
More in the second hummer, some in the second elk. That said still nice images.
Thank you. These are the only two images I processed with piccure+, so far. I'm low on the learning curve perhaps I overdid it a bit. There are sliders that let you control the amount of and kind of sharpening you want to apply. They have one mode to correct for camera shake, another for lens imperfections.
Dec 26, 2014 17:02:20 #
Davethehiker wrote:
Yesterday I paid for my version of Piccure+. I'm v... (show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Dec 26, 2014 17:08:18 #
Davethehiker wrote:
Yesterday I paid for my version of Piccure+. I'm v... (show quote)
Looks interesting, has my attention ;)
:thumbup:
Dec 26, 2014 17:11:23 #
Dngallagher wrote:
Looks interesting, has my attention ;)
:thumbup:
:thumbup:
You can download it for free and use it for 14 days without paying for it. I only used it for a few days before I paid for it.
It has both a stand alone version and a plug-in. I like the plug-in version in PS, because if I do something wrong I can undo it and try again. Let me know what you think, if you download it.
Dec 26, 2014 17:32:30 #
A lot of money for a few step in PS ... or at least it seems to me. The original pictures were pin point sharp but I have old eyes now.
I live in South Dakota and the Elk we have look just like your first picture, the second one is a bit washed out and liver spotted in the main body make one wonder what was wrong with it. I think I would be looking for a way to get my money back also.
I live in South Dakota and the Elk we have look just like your first picture, the second one is a bit washed out and liver spotted in the main body make one wonder what was wrong with it. I think I would be looking for a way to get my money back also.
Dec 26, 2014 18:08:59 #
Sdaupanner wrote:
A lot of money for a few step in PS ... or at least it seems to me. The original pictures were pin point sharp but I have old eyes now.
You must be very good with PhotoShop if you can perform Adaptive Deconvolution, my old version did not include that feature, until I added it with the piccure+ plug-in. It might not be your eyes, what kind of monitor are you using? If you are looking at the images on a smart phone the difference might not be visible.
On my screen I see ruffled fur, I can't make out the liver spots.
By any chance are you comparing PhotoShop's unsharp mask to the Adaptive Deconvolution used by piccure+?
Dec 26, 2014 18:32:14 #
To start with I can't even hardly say AD but I have a feeling that what I am seeing is a picture that looks a lot like in the after of the elk a bit over exposed ... but if you say so I will allow that we both have two different points of view. As to the monitor I have an HP that I use all of the time but seeing that you felt that I might have had a bit of a screw up view I went to the Acer on my Desk top unit and I still think that the first picture of the Elk is still the better.
Years ago I took a few classes in Photography this was when we used film I know things have changed since then but it seems to me that all of these new programs only allow us to back off the old ways of taking a shot and allow us to become sloppy because we can make a bad shot only better in some program that we paid to much for in the first place. So I guess that we can only agree to Disagree.
Years ago I took a few classes in Photography this was when we used film I know things have changed since then but it seems to me that all of these new programs only allow us to back off the old ways of taking a shot and allow us to become sloppy because we can make a bad shot only better in some program that we paid to much for in the first place. So I guess that we can only agree to Disagree.
Dec 26, 2014 18:41:01 #
Sdaupanner wrote:
So I guess that we can only agree to Disagree.
:thumbup: :wink:
I'm at a loss to understand why we see it so differently?
I'm using a retina display on a MacBook pro. Perhaps that's the difference? :shock:
Dec 26, 2014 18:49:47 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.