Topaz Labs worth it?

[Thern]

Last year I bought Topaz Labs Denoise, Sharpen and Mask AI
To be honest I didn’t use the apps much because we moved from Belgium to France, our new estate asked for a lot of work and time aso.
I noticed Topaz is regularly updating (almost annoying) and today when I fired up the app I got the announcement of an update and the fact my license has expired.
Like I said I didn’t really use the software, but I’ve read about issues with current software (slow, artefacts and such)
Should I update and pay for next year? Or do you think I’d better go anoher path like DXO? (And which path would that be?)

 

[BorderBirder]

Topaz Denoise is fantastic and transforms my D500 images even those at low ISO... and Sharpen and Giga also somewhat useful in my experience. I have not tried Mask AI, but Denoise improves images very nicely often revealing obscured detail too. It would be a mistake not to continue at least with it.

 

[Yellowboard]

Last year I bought Topaz Labs Denoise, Sharpen and Mask AI
To be honest I didn’t use the apps much because we moved from Belgium to France, our new estate asked for a lot of work and time aso.
I noticed Topaz is regularly updating (almost annoying) and today when I fired up the app I got the announcement of an update and the fact my license has expired.
Like I said I didn’t really use the software, but I’ve read about issues with current software (slow, artefacts and such)
Should I update and pay for next year? Or do you think I’d better go anoher path like DXO? (And which path would that be?)

No experience with DXO here, but Topaz Labs Denoise has become a vital component of my PP workflow. I don't use it on every photo but it's performance with the ones that I do use it on is simply amazing . Well worth it, unless of course, you don't see the need to use it much.

 

[pochito]

I use DeNoise and (less so) Sharpening. Now I'm supposed to pay fo the updates.
The problem is, the apps are not perfect and I open them in Photoshop to have more control above all on artifacts.
I've got the impression that I bought a good program but one which is not flawless.
Some kind of beta version.

 

[BillW]

I use Denoise and Sharpen a lot and think they are very good. It may well be that people with sufficient expertise could do something similar in Photoshop without Topaz, but not me. I use Gigapixel and JPEG to Raw less frequently, but also find them useful (Gigapixel more than Jpeg to Raw). I have, but rarely use, Mask and Adjust. I had the same question earlier this year when I got the message I needed to renew my license to get updated versions. I decided to do so, given I like the software and given it may be good for a company to have the incentive to continue to improve its product. Since then, both Denoise and Sharpen have added a comparative view mode that I find useful.

I also like and have used DxO PhotoLab for several years -- mostly to have access to Prime noise reduction which I have found useful for noisy images and good for feathers and fur. (I do most of my work in Photoshop, so I don't use PhotoLabs for most of my work.) I recently upgraded my PhotoLab 3 to PhotoLab 4, to get access to Deep Prime noise reduction. It seems good too, although I have not done any scientific tests.

I normally use Denoise first (with noise reduction off in ACR, except for color noise reduction). In some cases, with particularly noisy photos, I first run the image through DxO PhotoLab 4 (using either Prime or Deep Prime noise reduction) first, export to Photoshop and then use Denoise. That often gives me the best overall result.

If there is a downside to the Topaz AI programs, other than cost, it's probably how long it takes. I have a 2019 iMac with 128 gb of ram and an 8 gb graphics card. I think the graphics card may be more important than basic ram for speed here. Depending on the size of the underlying photo, it is not super fast on my machine, but it's fast enough given the results.

 

[jeffnles1]

If there is a downside to the Topaz AI programs, other than cost, it's probably how long it takes. I have a 2019 iMac with 128 gb of ram and an 8 gb graphics card. I think the graphics card may be more important than basic ram for speed here. Depending on the size of the underlying photo, it is not super fast on my machine, but it's fast enough given the results.

I have a late 2013 21.5" iMac with 8gb ram. I feel your pain but both sharpen and DeNoise work on my computer just have to be patient.

 

[Strodav]

IMHO both Sharpen AI and DeNoise AI are worth the money. I do almost all of my PP in Lightroom and Photoshop, which continue to improve their sharpening and noise reduction algorithms, but what sold me on Tapaz was being able to salvage older shots that were a bit blurred due to camera movement or slightly out of focus. The Sharpen AI app has 3 modes, sharpen, stabilize, and focus and I am surprised how well stabilize and focus work.

 

[Warren D]

I'll ask the awkward question, why do you feel you have to upgrade? If you only use what you have occasionally, why not just keep what you have paid for, use it until Topaz releases a compelling change. I've followed the upgrade path so far but in a few months I'll be past the one year mark. I don't plan on upgrading any Topaz plug ins unless I see one that really has something beneficial the current version doesn't.

 

[PhilcTx]

It appears Topaz's s/w has gone to monthly/yearly licensing similar to Adobe. Question - when you cease making the monthly/annual payments to Topaz does their s/w stop working altogether or just can't be updated??

 

[BillW]

It appears Topaz's s/w has gone to monthly/yearly licensing similar to Adobe. Question - when you cease making the monthly/annual payments to Topaz does their s/w stop working altogether or just can't be updated??

If I understood what Topaz said, you can keep the product as it stands when your license ends, as long as you want. You would get no functional upgrades (would that include upgrades necessary for an operating system update?) after the license ends, but maybe bug fixes. You could jump back in later if an upgrade had features you want by paying the upgrade license fee.

I am not associated with Topaz, so you should check their website to be sure of the rules/facts before making a decision.

 

[pochito]

This is what Topaz says

Product Upgrade Policy Information

Starting in August 2020, some of our applications will follow a new Upgrade Policy. Our optional Upgrade License gives you access to every upgrade for one whole year. Purchase an Upgrade License w...

help.topazlabs.com

 

[PhilcTx]

Thanks for the replies - it helped.

I visited Topaz Labs website and after a bit of digging found a letter to customers from their CEO that addresses my specific question. His reply....

"We want you to own your software instead of having to pay to keep accessing it. Once you buy one of our products, you can keep using your purchased version as long as you want regardless of upgrade status.

Similarly, you should also be able to choose when to upgrade and not be penalized for it. If you don’t think a certain upgrade is worth it, don’t renew your upgrade license just yet. Wait until it actually includes something you want to pay for."

If Topaz feels it must go with a paid upgrade business model this is one that's reasonable. Adobe should take lessons from Topaz Labs

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

I have been very pleased with the results with DeNoise and would consider it a "must-have". It really works well with bird shots against a blue sky and any high ISO shot. It really is amazing. I had a shot of Tundra Swans flying against the orange sunset (15 minutes after sunset) that was pretty much a throw-a-way due to noise. I ran it through DeNoise and it came back a real keeper!

I recently purchased a new PC, custom from DELL and I loaded up the RAM (32 GB) and went with a high-end graphics card. It was worth it. All the programs fly on that machine! Windows 10 actually works with all that RAM!

Sharpen works well, but I don't use it as much.

What I'm really excited about is Gigapixel and JPG to RAW. I have a bunch of very old digital pictures of family trips to Yellowstone. I have used Gigapixel on them to up to 4x the original size and WOW! Converted to RAW and did my thing in Photoshop. SUPER improvement over the originals and I can print something bigger than 4x6 if I wanted to.

 

[PhilcTx]

I've been seeing all the applause for Topaz's latest AI DeNoise, Sharpen products - hence my question regarding their latest s/w upgrade licensing business model.

I'm a long time Lightroom user and have been satisfied with LR's noise reduction and sharpening capabilities.

So I'm curious - what am I missing?

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

You are better at Lightroom than I am? (that wouldn't be all that hard!)....

 

[PhilcTx]

You are better at Lightroom than I am? (that wouldn't be all that hard!)....

Andrew - I don't think I do anything special.

Usually edit RAW files (not JPG); sharpening & NR done after other image adjustments; use image Navigator set to 1:1 (100%) drag the Navigator zoom box first to an area of image with some fine detail and increase Sharpening to taste but not overdone.

Then drag Navigator zoom box to a darker shadow area of image (noise will usually be obvious in shadows), increase Luminance noise reduction slider until noise mostly goes away - if I over do it - it may soften image.

Seems to work OK most of the time for me with LR 6

 

[DRwyoming]

I'm a long time Lightroom user and have been satisfied with LR's noise reduction and sharpening capabilities.

So I'm curious - what am I missing?

I'm a long time Photoshop and Lightroom user and though I'm no expert I have taught a number of classes in both for our local art association. I can achieve pretty similar sharpening results for many images using the tools available in PS and for simple slightly soft images can do fine in LR but when it comes to things like modest motion blur I can't get anywhere near the results that Topaz Sharpen AI does easily.

Similarly, it's not too hard to remove a bit of high ISO noise using the sliders in LR or things like Gaussian Blur filters and some masking in PS but I find it very hard to match what Topaz DeNoise can do automatically with images captured at high ISOs especially with my D5 files.

No doubt, there are press preprocessing and graphics arts professionals can do much more with LR and PS than I can manage and perhaps generate better results than the Topaz tools but personally I'm very impressed with what those tools can do and in the hard cases can't really achieve equivalent results using LR or PS.

But of course like all post processing discussions the better the capture in the camera the less we have to rely on fancy tools in post.

 

[ssheipel]

I'm a long time Photoshop and Lightroom user and though I'm no expert I have taught a number of classes in both for our local art association. I can achieve pretty similar sharpening results for many images using the tools available in PS and for simple slightly soft images can do fine in LR but when it comes to things like modest motion blur I can't get anywhere near the results that Topaz Sharpen AI does easily.

Similarly, it's not too hard to remove a bit of high ISO noise using the sliders in LR or things like Gaussian Blur filters and some masking in PS but I find it very hard to match what Topaz DeNoise can do automatically with images captured at high ISOs especially with my D5 files.

No doubt, there are press preprocessing and graphics arts professionals can do much more with LR and PS than I can manage and perhaps generate better results than the Topaz tools but personally I'm very impressed with what those tools can do and in the hard cases can't really achieve equivalent results using LR or PS.

But of course like all post processing discussions the better the capture in the camera the less we have to rely on fancy tools in post.

Precisely the answer on this question generally that has made my mind up; I'll be giving Topaz tools a go! Thanks for your, as usual, great insights.

 

[PhilcTx]

Similarly, it's not too hard to remove a bit of high ISO noise using the sliders in LR or things like Gaussian Blur filters and some masking in PS but I find it very hard to match what Topaz DeNoise can do automatically with images captured at high ISOs especially with my D5 files.

Thanks - very helpful.

If I have an image with any motion blur I usually bin it and make no effort to salvage it so if Topaz can help thats a plus.

I'm curious regarding high ISOs - above what approx high ISO values do you find Topaz can handle noise noticeably better than LR?

 

[Thern]

I'll ask the awkward question, why do you feel you have to upgrade? If you only use what you have occasionally, why not just keep what you have paid for, use it until Topaz releases a compelling change. I've followed the upgrade path so far but in a few months I'll be past the one year mark. I don't plan on upgrading any Topaz plug ins unless I see one that really has something beneficial the current version doesn't.

Not awkward Warren! Very good point.
In my case it’s a bit of laziness I guess.
The app comes up with a notice there’s an update available, I click okay, then it tells me my license is expired.
(Anyway to surpress that btw? Very annoying)
Now I read the last update of Sharpening is a step backwards so I was wondering wether I should upgrade or not.

 

[DRwyoming]

I'm curious regarding high ISOs - above what approx high ISO values do you find Topaz can handle noise noticeably better than LR?

That's a great question Phil and one I don't really have an answer to as I've never tried to do a structured comparison especially across different cameras. I'd say I'd generally reach for Topaz DeNoise after first trying the LR noise slider. Topaz products run pretty slowly on my processing computer so if I can get the results I'm after without using DeNoise, I'll do that.

But it's a chilly Sunday afternoon so I figured I'd see if there's a predictable break point in terms of where I should think about using DeNoise. I used the LR metadata filters to pick out some images at different ISOs and compared the original image, the LR noise reduced image and a DeNoise image using the Auto setting. I chose D5 files for the comparisons and cut out a 1:2 (2400x1600 pixels) crop for comparison. For the LR noise reduction samples I adjusted the LR Noise slider till sharpness started to noticeably drop and then added just a touch of sharpening with the Sharpening slider to help compensate as DeNoise both reduces noise and sharpens images.

Click on individual images to see them full size.

Here's some examples:

Original: ISO 6400	LR Noise Reduction + sharpening: ISO 6400	Topaz DeNoise Auto: ISO 6400
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.	You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.	You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

To my eyes there's not much advantage to DeNoise at ISO 6400 for this D5 image and the original looks pretty good to me without any noise reduction in post though there is some noise visible in the shadow areas and that bit of out of focus background in the upper left.

 

[DRwyoming]

I can't post all the attachments at one time so here's another set.

Original: ISO 12,800	LR Noise Reduction and Sharpening: ISO 12,800	Topaz DeNoise Auto: ISO 12,800
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.	You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.	You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

These are pretty close but I'm seeing a bit of advantage in the DeNoise image with a bit more noise reduction without softening the image compared to LR

 

[DRwyoming]

And the final set at ISO 25,600

Original: ISO 25,600	LR NR + Sharpen: ISO 25,600	Topaz DeNoise Auto: ISO 25,600
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.	You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.	You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

To my eyes Topaz has a big advantage here over what I can do easily in LR.

Of course all of this is completely subjective and someone else might see it very differently but it's a least a look at how the tools might differ for files out of the same camera but shot at differing ISOs.

 

[PhilcTx]

Interesting. Thank you for taking the time and making an effort to do the comparisons - much appreciated!

Good food for thought.

I see you are in Jackson WY - are you acquainted with Steve Mattheis who has a wildlife/landscape YouTube channel and lives in Jackson? No doubt lots of wildlife/landscape photogs per sq/mi around Jackson for obvious reasons.

 

[DRwyoming]

Interesting. Thank you for taking the time and making an effort to do the comparisons - much appreciated!

Good food for thought.

I see you are in Jackson WY - are you acquainted with Steve Mattheis who has a wildlife/landscape YouTube channel and lives in Jackson? No doubt lots of wildlife/landscape photogs per sq/mi around Jackson for obvious reasons.

I've certainly heard of Steve, but no I don't know him personally.

If you ever get out this way you might also check out Mike Jackson's website. Mike is a friend I've shot with over the years but he gets out a lot more than I'm able to: https://www.bestofthetetons.com/2020/11/01/november-2020-daily-journal-for-gtnp-jh/