This is getting funny.
>>4476583>>4476598I wouldn't call proving someone wrong as them bullying me, but sure.
Let's see if I can bully you into proving me wrong.
>A photo from someone who clearly wants detail, killing that argument completely.I denoise images because I want them to have less noise, not additional details, in fact I'm fine losing a bit of detail if it means all of this disgusting-looking noise goes away with it.
And the reason I consider noise disgusting is because it's not a natural thing, it wasn't there, it adds nothing to the photo except making it look unnaturally coarse and doubles the file size in the process. The only reason I can think of why someone might want to keep it in is because they have some perverse nostalgia for "noisier days" when you had no options but to live with it.
And can you make up your mind, do all of the fake feathers "immediately jump at you" or is there not enough difference to even notice?
Here, since you are an expert ornithologist, and like to look at photos at full resolution (which totally isn't pixel peeping).
Can you point out those fake AI feathers that jumped at you? Or the ones that are so thicc they basically constitute a different species?
Lets measure them in pixels.
>>4476602The only sliders moved here are WB (+200) Exposure (+0.5) and in one of the images - Denoise.
No presets applied.
