ruthenium wrote: Jack Flesher wrote:
Here are my two quick edits. Raws, cropped appropriately then output as 6000px jpegs as you see them, all of this straight from C1. Borders were added in PS.
On image 1, I think my overall color and skin tone is maybe a touch better (you tell me), net resolution appears similar.
On image 2, I think your mixed routine did a better job of both upscaling and ISO NR, with better detail.
Edit: I spent maybe a total of 8 minutes on both images. Once adjusted in C1, the jpegs opened in PS in about 5 seconds, where I added the borders and uploaded the full 6K JPEGs to DB to link back here.
Thank you - your input is truly appreciated!
When looking closely at the girl, I tend to agree with you on the skin tone. Mine is too pinkish in comparison, and yours must be more true to life. The difference, however, is most likely personal, as when I was processing the raw I might have subconsciously wanted that "girlish" pink. I understand that your crop wasn't upscaled. This is probably one reason for seeing more detail in the image I posted above.
On Image 2, I had the expectation that most likely, there is no better alternative to DxO PL8 followed by upscaling in Topaz Photo AI for denoising high-ISO images while retaining the ultimate amount of detail.
Just to clarify, my crop on the little girl was in fact upscaled to 6000 px at C1 output, so this was a fairly hefty upscale all done in one iteration inside C1. I purposely did everything to both images all in C1 in order to render a comparison of only it. I have other tools I use on noisy images and for critical upscaling, but used neither here. I may now rework the moth shot for a more ideal using them to compare. I think the little girl shot stands well as is.
Aug 04, 2025 at 08:34 AM
Previous versions of Jack Flesher's message #16864149 « Adobe vs C1? How about some examples? »
