imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH_DwpZvKY

IMO, he minimizes or glazes over some important aspects but OVERALL a very even presentation ......

BTW, I found this by accident - NOT really looking for this, but clicked on it anyway out of curiosity ......

Thanks for stopping by and maybe this can help you in YOUR work .....
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

As for ME, as I have always contended, I will not go down the raw rabbit hole and I will continue to shoot JPEGS only - but am considering getting Topaz Denoise for use on my JPEGS.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I highly recommend Topaz Denoise, and after experimentation, i have found it is obviously more effective on raw vs JPEG versions of the same image. If you Google “Topaz discount”, you can usually find a discount coupon for at least a 20% discount. Also they often have sales on both a single package and combinations of Denoise and Sharpen around holidays.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Thanks !

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

Storage is so inexpensive, I can’t imagine not wanting to keep the negatives.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

My experience may be different from yours, or my standards regarding image quality may be different, or both, but I have installed all three of the individual Topaz products based on hearing over and over the recommendations of how fantastic they are. Currently, they are available for purchase individually from Topaz for $80, $80 and $100, or as a package for $199 (all figures rounded up.) The thing is, the Photo AI program is also available for $199 and does everything that the three others do, does it all better, and is still updated regularly, where the three are no longer getting updates. This is from the Topaz website:

"Topaz Photo AI or Image Quality Bundle?

"Topaz Photo AI combines the most-used functionality from the Image Quality Bundle, and then adds an Autopilot feature that helps you select the right options for each image. We update it every week with new features, improvements, and bug-fixes.

"While we still provide the option to purchase Sharpen, DeNoise, and Gigapixel individually, Topaz Photo AI will give you the best overall product experience in the long run."

All are standalone and/or plugins for Photoshop and Lightroom. The biggest difference in my experience is that the individual programs produce way too many artifacts. Gigapixel AI has to be the worst at distorting details, especially in faces, with Sharpen AI a close second. Photo AI has done much better at this, and each function has its own controls. I will usually run the Autopilot and then go in and back off the noise and sharpen to get back some of the texture that it inevitably smooths away too much.

AI is still in its infancy and is improving all the time. Right now, the best AI from Topaz is the Photo AI all-in-one and if you must use it, that is the one to spend the money on, in my opinion.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

"inexpensive" is relative ........bigger/faster memory cards, bigger/faster computers, more software, tutoring to use the software, multiple storage facilities, - for ME not so inexpensive when you consider the CUMULATIVE costs - especially if you are not selling many big prints to recoup at least some of these costs......
I do understand, that if you are rich with plenty of free time on your hands, these things become more minor ...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Thanks ! Appreciate your experience

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I didn’t mention Photo AI because the OP specifically asked about Denoise only, and the cost of Photo AI is currently well more than that single application. I have Photo AI also. My observation at this point is that it is easier to use than a combination of Sharpen and Denoise, as left to it’s own defaults, it generally produces good results. As to the artifacts or overall results, at this point, I haven’t done enough controlled tests to say, but in general, I’ve found the results to be similar is slightly different - sometimes on a specific image, one yields better results than the other, but in my limited experience, the winner isn’t always Photo AI - it may depend on the type of images that are processed. I’ve heard many suggest that ultimately Topaz will drop the other products and focus on Photo AI. I have no idea if this is the case, but if a user wants Denoise only, there is a quite large cost difference. Photo AI is $200 and Denoise AI only is $80.

BTW, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that the speed/memory your computer and especially the performance your graphics card/GPU make a huge difference in processing time with either Ap.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

All those things are a consideration with any of the current photo processing SW, but as far as just storage (for also keeping the raw image), it’s certainly so cheap in terms of $/TB that it’s a minor part of the equation. With cloud storage available for $5/month, HDs at $10/TB (or less) and fast SSDs at $50/TB (1TB of which would hold 25,000 40 MB raw images), the cost to store a raw image is at MOST, a small fraction of a cent.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, as I have been saying - one thing leads to another

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

It is the CUMULATIVE of ALL the things I mention not just storage ....

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Understood, but to clarify, all those expensive things you mentioned are necessary for new and AI based post processing, NOT storage of raw (or JPEG) files. Data storage costs are NOT related to computer power, memory or anything else. You can attach and use a 20TB HD library to a Windows XP machine with 1 GB of memory.

You mentioned two things: the fact that you are committed (at least at present) to JPEG only and the idea that you might consider using Topaz Denoise. Plus it was mentioned that saving raw images (which you might want to process one day) was cheap. My response is:

Processing using DeNoise is more effective on raw than JPEG and using it on EITHER incurs substantial costs in compute power unless you are a very patient person or if you want it to work at all. BUT saving both raw plus JPEG with the idea that one day you may want to use ALL the benefits of post processing costs a trivial amount, and preserves future options while incurring NO additional costs in memory, computing power or graphics/GPU. Simple.

Now, if what you really want to discuss is the well used JPEG vs raw argument, I’m not having any part of that other than to state the simple truth that almost any post processing (including Topaz products) is more effective on raw files - just adding my 2 cents over the use of Topaz Denoise and Photo AI. I’m done.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

Here we go again with RAW vs Jpeg. I shoot RAW.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, I assumed that - but hopefully faster on JPEG .....