You can do both or either or
Topaz products
- Thread starter Ron G
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I like both Denoise AI and Sharpen AI. Pulling up the shadows on some images at higher ISO or cropping normally means they are only worth deleting and sending them to the digital trash bin. With this software it is often possible to really pep them up or repair them. I also do a lot of handheld photography, walking though the woods in lower light. I have been using the software for about 2 months now and would not miss it.
You can, but only if you have saved a standalone or full installer copy of the installation file for the version that you want to go back to. Full installation files for the latest version of any of your purchased products are available from your account information (My Products) on the Topaz website, viz.:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
and make sure that you click on the full installer link for the OS platform that you are using...in the example below, I'm choosing the Windows version:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
If you don't have an older full installer version saved, you could get in touch with Topaz and see if they can help - I've found them to be very helpful in the past.
True, but Topaz offers greatly reduced prices from time to time and that's when I bought a license for my 3 products for about $40 last month in January.
Cheers,
Alex
Don McCracken
New member
Topaz Denoise has become an integral part of my workflow because I use fast shutter speeds and relatively high ISOs. The results are usually impressive although not always predictable. Sometimes, I'm surprised by differences across modes (AI, Clear, Low Light) so I use the side-by-side comparison view and this takes time.
Dave Douglass
Well-known member
I am a regular, and happy user of Topaz's AI Clear.
pochito
Active member
Thank you. It works
For what it's worth, Audubon has just announced that in their photo competitions, images using AI or machine learning for sharpening, NR, or upsizing are not allowed and will be disqualified.
www.audubon.org
2024 Official Contest Rules
Entry Period Audubon’s 2024 Photography Awards Contest (the “Contest”) begins on Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 12 p.m. (noon) Eastern Time (EST), and ends on Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at...
For what it's worth, Audubon has just announced that in their photo competitions, images using AI or machine learning for sharpening, NR, or upsizing are not allowed and will be disqualified.
2024 Official Contest Rules
Entry Period Audubon’s 2024 Photography Awards Contest (the “Contest”) begins on Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 12 p.m. (noon) Eastern Time (EST), and ends on Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at...
Well that's pretty broad. I don't know of ANY noise reduction software that couldn't be characterized as a type of AI. Same with sharpening. I have no clue how upsizing could be accomplished without AI. While Adobe doesn't call their product Photoshop AI or Lightroom AI, there is very definitely AI involved in the programing behind these products.
For that matter, jpegs created in camera are a product of the AI built into the camera!
I don't think the intent is to ban sharpening or NR. But when sharpening or NR across an image is using machine learning and AI to apply different levels of sharpening and noise reduction to different parts of the image on an automated basis, it is different. But the rule does pretty clearly prohibit the use of Topaz products - NR, Sharpening and Gigapixel AI.
It's their rules and they can set them as they please of course - but it's unclear why the push-back against selected advances in technology that assist photographers. Why not ban autofocus or eye-tracking as well?
I tend to agree with you on this. Honestly, I rarely enter photo contests. The rules are not always clear or sensible and I wonder what the judges are really looking for, especially after seeing the winers. My wife and I have won or received honorable mention in a few but if I enter one or 2 a year it was a long year for me.
To my eye, removal of noise isn't altering an image in the same way as replacing a sky, changing colors, or even "content aware" brushing out distractions like a beer can floating in the water (yes that happened to one of my landscapes.).
But like NA4M said, it is their rules, their contest and at least they were very clear about it going in.
Jeff
After reading the rules I think that there are many post processing applications that would provide for breaching these requirements, and more importantly, what is the definition of acceptable sharpening and or noise reduction? Opening a can of worms for both entrants and judges??
pochito
Active member
I don't understand "Entering Competitions".
Has less to do with creating images than to please the "judges".
Probably a lot of creative energy gets lost in the attempt to "win"
Looks more like sport than art
Has less to do with creating images than to please the "judges".
Probably a lot of creative energy gets lost in the attempt to "win"
Looks more like sport than art
There are thousands of nature photographers that regularly enter competitions. It may not be for you, but it is a way to get feedback on your skills, publicize your images or your brand, and learn about what is viewed as successful. Shooting for competition is different than just making good images. It requires different post processing and even different types of images. Not every good image will do well in a competition - and not every image will qualify for a given contest. But if you look at some of the top competitions, you see the same names.
pochito
Active member
I understand.
BTW I looked at the rules of rhe Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition (which I try to visit every year)
(5) Digital adjustments including tone and contrast, burning, dodging, cropping, sharpening, noise reduction, minor cleaning work (e.g. removal of sensor dust or scratches on transparencies/scans, removal of chromatic aberration), HDR, stitched panoramas, focus stacking are permitted providing that they comply with the Competition’s principles of authenticity – a true representation of nature - so that they do not deceive the viewer or misrepresent the reality of nature, or what was originally captured by the camera.
(6) The following digital adjustments – but not limited to these – are not allowed: adding, moving or removing objects, animals or parts of animals, plants, people etc; the removal of dirt, highlights, backscatter, bubbles, debris and similar; composites, painting the foreground / painting out the background.
This seems sensible to me.
Judges usually aren't only photographers (naturalists, biologists...)
Of other kind of competition, I wouldn't know
As for AI, IMHO it can be more a burden than an asset if used "as is". Assuming that AI is not just a catchword
I understand.
BTW I looked at the rules of rhe Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition (which I try to visit every year)
(5) Digital adjustments including tone and contrast, burning, dodging, cropping, sharpening, noise reduction, minor cleaning work (e.g. removal of sensor dust or scratches on transparencies/scans, removal of chromatic aberration), HDR, stitched panoramas, focus stacking are permitted providing that they comply with the Competition’s principles of authenticity – a true representation of nature - so that they do not deceive the viewer or misrepresent the reality of nature, or what was originally captured by the camera.
(6) The following digital adjustments – but not limited to these – are not allowed: adding, moving or removing objects, animals or parts of animals, plants, people etc; the removal of dirt, highlights, backscatter, bubbles, debris and similar; composites, painting the foreground / painting out the background.
This seems sensible to me.
Judges usually aren't only photographers (naturalists, biologists...)
Of other kind of competition, I wouldn't know
As for AI, IMHO it can be more a burden than an asset if used "as is". Assuming that AI is not just a catchword
WPOTY is a good competition. Marsel van Oosten won that contest with an image that complies (the golden monkey image used flash and was "as shot"), but he has other images that have extensive editing, and that's more his style. He has a background in graphic design and art, and has the ability to create a successful image as he envisioned - but not necessarily as it looked when shot.
The rules drive which images are eligible. For some images, you might even re-edit so you could exclude use of a program like Topaz and be in compliance.
pochito
Active member
That with the cellphone?
I get what you are saying, Eric. But it brings up a lot of questions. For instance, is is it okay to use focus masking in Lightroom? That is selective sharpening using an algorithm. Using brushes in Lightroom or layers in Photoshop you can accomplish very similar results to the AI applications.
I know they are trying to keep from having photographs that are altered so there is no unnatural representation of a scene or subject. I applaud that. As photographers, though, we know that processing is needed to take a RAW file and make it look like the real scene, and AI can be used to help with that.
Anyway, it's their competition and their rules. And, as I said, I do applaud their efforts to make sure that photographs are a true representation of reality.
I don't think Audubon has thought it through completely yet. I'm on the Board of NANPA and we are having a similar discussion. But the inclination is that for professional work, you should use the best tools available. Topaz or other AI tools are the latest in the evolution of editing tools. PPA clearly takes the approach that a client should get the best work a photographer can deliver, so cloning, fixing a clipped wing tip, or AI would all be fair game if they improve the image for the intended use.
I respect Audubon for addressing the issue, but it's also important for photographers who might be impacted to understand the change. It's also important for Topaz users who might enter an Audubon competition.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Active member
Another issue with TOPAZ plug-ins. (Note, I love and use 'em, but this one really chaps my behind.)
If you process multiples from LR, you need to watch your count. That is, you can select them all in LR and do a right-click, Edit In, then select the Topaz plug-in of choice; but you may not get the full list of images in the plug-in. If you don't notice it, then you are unknowingly only denoising or sharpening the first x number of images.
For instance, I just selected 75 for a panorama. However, only 14 made it into the Topaz plug-in. Then I remembered this issue (doh!). This is the 6th of 6 large and VERY time-consuming panoramas. I now have to do ALL THE REST of them over.
I've bugged this with them, and their reply is basically to blame it on Adobe. Something like the method they ask for the file list, or the way Adobe delivers it, is buggy and out of their control.
(No, it's not me mistakenly selecting a sub-set. I do other things with that selection of all 75 images that get done all 75 times. And Topaz Labs admit that this issue exists.)
And it could be Adobe's problem, but they should work with them to get it fixed. But if this be the case, OTHER plug-ins should be having the same issues. Maybe they do, in which case Adobe needs to step up and fix it.
Regardless, if you're a Topaz plug-in user in LR, you have this potential problem.
EDIT: somehow, if you close the plug-in with only a partial amount of images selected, then re-launch the plug-in, you can get all of the images selected in LR.
FYI,
Chris
If you process multiples from LR, you need to watch your count. That is, you can select them all in LR and do a right-click, Edit In, then select the Topaz plug-in of choice; but you may not get the full list of images in the plug-in. If you don't notice it, then you are unknowingly only denoising or sharpening the first x number of images.
For instance, I just selected 75 for a panorama. However, only 14 made it into the Topaz plug-in. Then I remembered this issue (doh!). This is the 6th of 6 large and VERY time-consuming panoramas. I now have to do ALL THE REST of them over.
I've bugged this with them, and their reply is basically to blame it on Adobe. Something like the method they ask for the file list, or the way Adobe delivers it, is buggy and out of their control.
(No, it's not me mistakenly selecting a sub-set. I do other things with that selection of all 75 images that get done all 75 times. And Topaz Labs admit that this issue exists.)
And it could be Adobe's problem, but they should work with them to get it fixed. But if this be the case, OTHER plug-ins should be having the same issues. Maybe they do, in which case Adobe needs to step up and fix it.
Regardless, if you're a Topaz plug-in user in LR, you have this potential problem.
EDIT: somehow, if you close the plug-in with only a partial amount of images selected, then re-launch the plug-in, you can get all of the images selected in LR.
FYI,
Chris
Last edited:
@Not A Speck Of Cereal
Interesting, does this also happen when using Topaz Denoise outside LR (I don't use it)?
I have tried a number of direct Topaz Denoise trials (not as a plug in) and had no problem for more than 20 images.
It would be worth a try to do your panorama that way to check if it is Topaz Denoise or Adobe causing your problem?
Easily do the "ALL THE REST" that way at least until your problem is resolved.
I did try adding 40 images to Topaz Denoise from XnViewMP using Topaz Denoise as a plug in and I did get all the images listed in Topaz Denoise so that would suggest the reply you had from Topaz is correct.
Interesting, does this also happen when using Topaz Denoise outside LR (I don't use it)?
I have tried a number of direct Topaz Denoise trials (not as a plug in) and had no problem for more than 20 images.
It would be worth a try to do your panorama that way to check if it is Topaz Denoise or Adobe causing your problem?
Easily do the "ALL THE REST" that way at least until your problem is resolved.
I did try adding 40 images to Topaz Denoise from XnViewMP using Topaz Denoise as a plug in and I did get all the images listed in Topaz Denoise so that would suggest the reply you had from Topaz is correct.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Active member
I have not used it stand-alone / external, but I suppose I can try to see. I'll report back when I try that.
Chris
I use Denoise AI and Topaz Studio, and like them. I've tried a couple of their other products (e.g. AI Sharpen) but couldn't see the added value.
I use and like the DeNoise tool quite a bit. I use the Sharpen tool also but honestly, a little sharpening goes a long way. If you have a soft image, no amount of sharpen AI is going to make it a tack sharp image.
My biggest "beef" with Topaz right now is their tools have not yet been recompiled for the new Apple Silicon M1 chipset. The performance on the new Macs is abysmal. At least it is abysmal on my new Mac. It is about 1/3 the speed as on my aged 2013 iMac. For example, I just took an unedited photo from my D500, applied 15 sharpening and 15 Denoise to it. When I clicked apply, the time from click to when the file was saved on my desktop was 1:46. Yes, one minute 46 seconds. On my old Intel iMac it was about 35 seconds.
Once they recompile for the new Macs, I'll be happy with them again.
Jeff
My biggest "beef" with Topaz right now is their tools have not yet been recompiled for the new Apple Silicon M1 chipset. The performance on the new Macs is abysmal. At least it is abysmal on my new Mac. It is about 1/3 the speed as on my aged 2013 iMac. For example, I just took an unedited photo from my D500, applied 15 sharpening and 15 Denoise to it. When I clicked apply, the time from click to when the file was saved on my desktop was 1:46. Yes, one minute 46 seconds. On my old Intel iMac it was about 35 seconds.
Once they recompile for the new Macs, I'll be happy with them again.
Jeff
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Active member
<removed by author>
Last edited: