Your loss. Remember, I've consistently attacked the method, not the person, but maybe you can't handle someone saying "the king has no clothes"? Because if you use the built-in spotting tools properly, the dehaze method is really of negligible value.
Well John, I think not, I have actually compared the methods myself after reading this thread and have come to the conclusion that it works a treat for me for the images I tried it on, tried the 'official' method as well of course. So not saying it works better in all cases but it seems a welcome addition. (there you go Pegelli, I'm not dismissing anything here
![Wink ;)](https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
)
Meticulously examining an alternative method suggested and pointing out possible throwbacks is one thing, but trying to burn it down to the ground using a huge number of posts, dismissing given examples and filling up this thread with loadsa "I am right and you are all wrong " is another. I came back to the thread to see if there was more news, information or suggestions and I find this...
BTW I haven't accused you of attacking the person, it's the way you attack the method that I dislike. Can't get my head around why you would spent so much posts basically screaming of the top of your lungs that what Bret suggested is 100% wrong. I apologize for the fact that couldn't get over that, leave it be etc. etc. and instead did make a remark that is in the end personal.
Be that as it may I wish you personally all the best in getting on with your site and business, pretty sure many people will enjoy that and benefit from it, just not me likely.
byebye, Sander