Neat Image

[PMG]

I can see myself going the same way as Graham and using neat image on everything.......

here is a coal tit which was a pretty close, crisp, clear, noise-free image to begin with:



and after submitting it to my usual processes I then decided to neat image as well just to see - and I think you can see.........



err.......... well .............. err........... neat image anyone?!

Pauline

[Tormentil]

Oh dear. Back to SpecSavers fer me, for I can see little difference between them, except one is slightly lighter than t'other (levels or shadows altered ?).

[PMG]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

Oh dear. Back to SpecSavers fer me, for I can see little difference between them, except one is slightly lighter than t'other (levels or shadows altered ?).

To be honest on here neither can I! But with the two side by side on my monitor and able to zoom in and out properly the filtered one is much smoother yet the crispiness of the bird hasn't dumbed down and this allowed me to lighten the shot - which it needed - and couldn't be done on the unfiltered one as it really showed pixilated colour blocks in the background colour. May be its a case of everyone will have to try it on their own stuff to see a difference? Perhaps its only really convincing when you can zoom up and down fully in an image to see the proper effects? It already was a good image which didn't need much doing - maybe thats it - or perhaps I need to go to specsavers instead?!

Pauline

[glsammy]

I can see the difference Pauline. It's a smoother looking image, as you say without losing the detail on the bird.

[Mungo]

Great pictures Pauline.

[Vectisbirder]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

Oh dear. Back to SpecSavers fer me, for I can see little difference between them, except one is slightly lighter than t'other (levels or shadows altered ?).

Background looks blurrier on the second (altered) photo. Bird is beautifully sharp on both - great photo Pauline!