>>4476554So far your only standards seem to be talking shit and stealing other people's credit.
Here
>>4476574I still had RAWs on my camera so I quickly re-edited the photo again, this time without any denoising applied, just +0.5 or so stops of exposure and some +200 WB, same I did before.
That's it.
Now it's your turn to pixel peep and tell everyone how denoising my photo with some evil AI algorithms completely transformed/ruined it.
Cause what I see, is that denoising made it slightly better while reducing the filesize by half, because noise = additional visual information that cannot be optimized easily by JPEG's algorithms.
So not only do you make you photos worse by not denoising them, you are also being a cunt to everyone else who has to download your noise for no good reason.
This simple truth was preached here before you were even born, probably.
