I expect we’ll see a lot more AI based features added to software processing tools over the coming months to year. It’s here to stay whether we like it or not
Topaz star effects create a star how to#
A good image processor will know and understand how to use masks to control what’s happening to their images, and will apply the effects of the tool in a way that doesn’t lead to misinterpretation of the image data that was captured. I think I fall somewhere in the middle currently along with others that believe the power is in the users hands to wield the software and tools at our disposal in such a way as to not ruin the integrity of the captured image, but to limit the tools use for what it was intended. Others that are new to the hobby, argue that it’s fun to use and effective at getting them good results with little effort. Traditional image processors are very vocal at not using any software that adds new data that didn’t exist in the image you took, and this pertains to Denoise as well as sharpening. The debate is whether or not software like this should be used at all, and if so, should it be a requirement to disclose you used it? Right now the results of this discussion are a mixed bag. When this sharpening is applied, it can have strange adverse effects if overused, or used improperly. Topaz Denoise AI is chiefly at the front of the discussion because it’s extremely good at removing noise from the image, however some of the Denoise settings come with an added feature of AI sharpening.
There’s a massive debate happening right now across astrophotography Internet forums over whether or not AI based tools should be used in processing your astro images. The debate over AI (artificial intelligence) based tools in astrophotography
0 kommentar(er)
