Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Computers and Software
Piccure +
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 508729" data-attributes="member: 13090"><p><strong>Executive Summary:</strong> I'm still on the fence. Piccure+ is a "definite maybe" for me right now. </p><p></p><p><strong>Long-Winded Response:</strong> From what I can tell the sharpening it applies is not the same as Unsharp Mask or using a High Pass Filter. The sharpening looks cleaner than either of those methods but it's not a "punch to the head" sort of difference; it's subtle and I don't think you're going to be able to discern the difference by looking at forum posts. </p><p></p><p>On the upside, I was surprised at how well it corrected the exposure in my first shot, the one of the glassblower. I chose that image specifically because I thought the exposure might throw Piccure+ a bit of a "curveball" and I wanted to see how it would handle it. Both the noise reduction and the sharpening Piccure+ applied look impressive to me in that shot but I'm not sure it blows away what I'd be able to do in Photoshop. </p><p></p><p>On the downside, I tested another shot that I didn't post here because Piccure+ really didn't seem to be able to do much with it. It could be that a different set of parameters might have helped but I switched shots and used the pots and pans shot instead. Here, I too think the original looks better than the after. Again a different set of parameters might have given a different result but that leads to my big gripe about Piccure+. </p><p></p><p>What I definitely do NOT like about Piccure+ is the processing time it requires. I'd say it was taking a full minute to preview, or process, a shot. That feels like a reeeeally long time. If you don't get good results the first time around, you have make an adjustment and apply them... Which takes another full minute and that routine got old pretty fast. If I had a better handle on how to use the software, meaning if I knew better how to adjust the settings right off the bat then it might not be so bad. It's not software that encourages you to experiment, though, because each iteration takes so long to accomplish. In the long run, it might be worth it. </p><p><span style="color: #FFFFFF">.....</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Horoscope Fish, post: 508729, member: 13090"] [B]Executive Summary:[/B] I'm still on the fence. Piccure+ is a "definite maybe" for me right now. [B]Long-Winded Response:[/B] From what I can tell the sharpening it applies is not the same as Unsharp Mask or using a High Pass Filter. The sharpening looks cleaner than either of those methods but it's not a "punch to the head" sort of difference; it's subtle and I don't think you're going to be able to discern the difference by looking at forum posts. On the upside, I was surprised at how well it corrected the exposure in my first shot, the one of the glassblower. I chose that image specifically because I thought the exposure might throw Piccure+ a bit of a "curveball" and I wanted to see how it would handle it. Both the noise reduction and the sharpening Piccure+ applied look impressive to me in that shot but I'm not sure it blows away what I'd be able to do in Photoshop. On the downside, I tested another shot that I didn't post here because Piccure+ really didn't seem to be able to do much with it. It could be that a different set of parameters might have helped but I switched shots and used the pots and pans shot instead. Here, I too think the original looks better than the after. Again a different set of parameters might have given a different result but that leads to my big gripe about Piccure+. What I definitely do NOT like about Piccure+ is the processing time it requires. I'd say it was taking a full minute to preview, or process, a shot. That feels like a reeeeally long time. If you don't get good results the first time around, you have make an adjustment and apply them... Which takes another full minute and that routine got old pretty fast. If I had a better handle on how to use the software, meaning if I knew better how to adjust the settings right off the bat then it might not be so bad. It's not software that encourages you to experiment, though, because each iteration takes so long to accomplish. In the long run, it might be worth it. [COLOR="#FFFFFF"].....[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Computers and Software
Piccure +
Top
