3 ms·
Yeah, I tried the Topaz InFocus plugin after it got a bit of buzz from the TWIP podcast. It wasn't quite as magical as the demo images on the site made it seem,
by slantyyz 15y ago
Yeah, I tried the Topaz InFocus plugin after it got a bit of buzz from the TWIP podcast. It wasn't quite as magical as the demo images on the site made it seem, and I ended up not buying it (Topaz's Denoise plugin, OTOH, is quite incredible).
I suspect people will have to manage their expectations with this Adobe plugin/feature as well.
- stan_rogers 15y agoI've gotten some rather amazing results with InFocus myself, but it does take a lot of tweaking of sliders and so on. It was mostly recovering irreplaceable stuff, otherwise it wouldn't have been worth the bother. (Taking better pictures is always the better option when you have it.) I do prefer the output of a mild application to unsharp masking for photos that aren't actually blurry, though. And, of course, running it after DeNoise just gets you your noise back, often sharper and more noticeable than before. I sort of expect Adobe to do better -- they've got a lot more resources to work on the problem. Maybe I'll finally find a reason to upgrade from CS3.
- slantyyz 15y agoCurious - how badly blurred were your images? When I tried InFocus, I used them on some shots where I blew the focus at wider apertures (now that I'm using a camera with better high ISO performance, that kind of defocus is rarely an issue, because I have the luxury of stopping down), and I couldn't get adequate results and I wasn't willing to spend a lot of time tweaking sliders. I am totally with you on the idea of taking better pictures though. The more you can reduce your effort in post with technique, the better. A lot of stuff is unfixable in post.