This is perfect.
I’ve posted about exactly this a few times here and there lately.
If you are using IS-Auto on the OM-1,
please switch to IS-1 and retry these pics.
I simply always used IS-Auto by default.
A fellow OM-1 150-400 shooter told me he thought IS-1 did a better job for him.
I switched to IS-1 and immediately noticed an improved keeper rate not only with the lens and internal TC but with the 2.0 as well.
*I tried the 2.0TC on the 150-400 several times in the past (with IS-Auto) and the best I could manage was a very low number of ‘good from far but far from good’ images amongst the garbage rest.
I have images captured with IS-1 and the 150-40O with 2.0 that were included in the top picks for my 2024 bird calendar. That’s my highest criteria 😎
If you did retry and you received the same improved results I found…that would be an impressive discovery.
Also…I was a fan of Topaz for numerous years. I used Denoise and Sharpem Ai and then PhotoAi when it was offered.
For most of my Topaz Ai time there was far too many occasions where I just didn’t like results.
There was just something or other that the app did wrong that I had to wonder “what in the hell did you do that for”. Sometimes this would even be two images in the same burst sequence where one would be processed great and then other would be ‘wtf’. Saying all that I still found enough times that the apps gave me results I liked and at least could put on a layer in PS and adjust to taste further. I tried DXO PR 2 and 3 and they were mostly OK (as good as Topaz’s stuff) but they always skewed either the subject or the borders or both enough that I could not put the PR edits on a layer with the original to adjust to taste. I tried hard to figure out how to prevent PR to not skew the images…i never could prevent it.
Adobe LR’s Denoise never once has let me down. Great results all the time.
This is perfect.
I’ve posted about exactly this a few times here and there lately.
If you are using IS-Auto on the OM-1,
please switch to IS-1 and retry these pics.
I simply always used IS-Auto by default.
A fellow OM-1 150-400 shooter told me he thought IS-1 did a better job for him.
I switched to IS-1 and immediately noticed an improved keeper rate not only with the lens and internal TC but with the 2.0 as well.
*I tried the 2.0TC on the 150-400 several times in the past (with IS-Auto) and the best I could manage was a very low number of ‘good from far but far from good’ images amongst the garbage rest.
I have images captured with IS-1 and the 150-40O with 2.0 that were included in the top picks for my 2024 bird calendar. That’s my highest criteria 😎
If you did retry and you received the same improved results I found…that would be an impressive discovery.
Also…I was a fan of Topaz for numerous years. I used Denoise and Sharpem Ai and then PhotoAi when it was offered.
For most of my Topaz Ai time there was far too many occasions where I just didn’t like results.
There was just something or other that the app did wrong that I had to wonder “what in the hell did you do that for”. Sometimes this would even be two images in the same burst sequence where one would be processed great and then other would be ‘wtf’. Saying all that I still found enough times that the apps gave me results I liked and at least could put on a layer in PS and adjust to taste further. I tried DXO PR 2 and 3 and they were mostly OK but they always skewed either the subject or the borders or both enough that I could not put the PR edits on a layer with the original to adjust to taste. I tried hard to figure out how to prevent PR to not skew the images…i never could prevent it.
Adobe LR’s Denoise never once has let me down. Great results all the time.
This is perfect.
I’ve posted about exactly this a few times here and there lately.
If you are using IS-Auto on the OM-1,
please switch to IS-1 and retry these pics.
I simply always used IS-Auto by default.
A fellow OM-1 150-400 shooter told me he thought IS-1 did a better job for him.
I switched to IS-1 and immediately noticed an improved keeper rate not only with the lens and internal TC but with the 2.0 as well.
*I tried the 2.0TC on the 150-400 several times in the past (with IS-Auto) and the best I could manage was a very low number of ‘good from far but far from good’ images amongst the garbage rest.
I have images captured with IS-1 and the 150-40O with 2.0 that were included in the top picks for my 2024 bird calendar. That’s my highest criteria 😎
If you did retry and you received the same improved results I found…that would be an impressive discovery.
Also…I was a fan of Topaz for numerous years. I used Denoise and Sharpem Ai and then PhotoAi when it was offered.
For most of my Topaz Ai time there was far too many occasions where I just didn’t like results.
There was just something or other that the app did wrong that I had to wonder “what in the hell did you do that for”. Sometimes this would even be two images in the same burst sequence where one would be processed great and then other would be ‘wtf’. Saying all that I still found enough times that the apps gave me results I liked and at least put on a layer in PS and adjust to taste further.
Adobe LR’s Denoise never once has let me down. Great results all the time.
This is perfect.
I’ve posted about exactly this a few times here and there lately.
If you are using IS-Auto on the OM-1,
please switch to IS-1 and retry these pics.
I simply always used IS-Auto by default.
A fellow OM-1 150-400 shooter told me he thought IS-1 did a better job for him.
I switched to IS-1 and immediately noticed an improved keeper rate not only with the lens and internal TC but with the 2.0 as well.
*I tried the 2.0TC on the 150-400 several times in the past (with IS-Auto) and the best I could manage was a very low number of ‘good from far but far from good’ images amongst the garbage rest.
I have images captured with IS-1 and the 150-40O with 2.0 that were included in the top picks for my 2024 bird calendar. That’s my highest criteria 😎
If you did retry and you received the same improved results I found…that would be an impressive discovery.
Also…I was a big fan of Topaz for numerous years. I used Denoise and Sharpem Ai and then PhotoAi when it was offered.
For most of my Topaz Ai time there was far too many occasions where I just didn’t like results.
There was just something or other that the app did wrong that I had to wonder “what in the hell did you do that for”. Sometimes this would even be two images in the same burst sequence where one would be processed great and then other would be ‘wtf’.
Adobe LR’s Denoise never once has let me down. Great results all the time.
This is perfect.
I’ve posted about exactly this a few times here and there lately.
If you are using IS-Auto on the OM-1,
please switch to IS-1 and retry these pics.
I simply always used IS-Auto by default.
A fellow OM-1 150-400 shooter told me he thought IS-1 did a better job for him.
I switched to IS-1 and immediately noticed an improved keeper rate not only with the lens and internal TC but with the 2.0 as well.
*I tried the 2.0TC on the 150-400 several times in the past (with IS-Auto) and the best I could manage was a very low number of ‘good from far but far from good’ images amongst the garbage rest.
I have images captured with IS-1 and the 150-40O with 2.0 that were included in the top picks for my 2024 bird calendar. That’s my highest criteria 😎
If you did retry and you received the same improved results I found…that would be an impressive discovery.
This is perfect.
I’ve posted about exactly this a few times here and there lately.
If you are using IS-Auto on the OM-1,
please switch to IS-1 and retry these pics.
I simply always used IS-Auto by default.
A fellow OM-1 150-400 shooter told me he thought IS-1 did a better job for him.
I switched to IS-1 and immediately noticed an improved keeper rate not only with the lens and internal TC but with the 2.0 as well.
*I tried the 2.0TC on the 150-400 several times in the past (with IS-Auto) and the best I could manage was a very low number of ‘good from far but far from good’ images amongst the garbage rest.
If you did retry and you received the same improved results I found…that would be an impressive discovery.
