dpullum wrote:
In the Photo Analysis section, a bird photo that should have been deleted by the photographer was improved by him using his Adobe Weapons.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-802502-2.html#14523912I used my Paintshop Pro 2023 and my array of Topaz and the result showed Topaz to be the winner. Could I have done better, yes, but I did a quick job of demonstrating what could be done with Corel PSPro and Topaz. Be aware, PSPro in a lifetime license and reasonable cost for the program. I update when they make significant changes and the upgrade discounted and is reasonable.
Of interest to me was the "Tools for increasing the pixel levels are 1. Increase the image size using PSPro 2023 AI tool, 2. Topaz Gigapixel, and Topaz Photo AI. A full very detailed comparison of the two Topaz tools for "Upscaling" the pixels is given here:
https://www.hitpaw.com/ai-photo/topaz-photo-ai-vs-gigapixel.htmlIn the Photo Analysis section, a bird photo that s... (
show quote)
Everyone has his/her standards for what makes a photograph acceptable to them. What is acceptable to you, or to me, might not be acceptable to the next person. Your statement that your assessment showed "Topaz to be the winner" is a completely subjective one based on
your standards for an image. Mine are much different.
I have compared every major (and some of the minor) image editor out there, including PSP, Affinity Photo, GIMP, Photoshop Elements, Photopea, and others I have forgotten, with Photoshop and with each other, and I still think that for what I try to accomplish, learning to effectively utilize the superior tools in Photoshop is more important than screeching
"I don't rent my software!" at every opportunity.
PSP has limited 16-bit functionality. That is important to me. Affinity hasn't the raw editing capability of Camera Raw, and that is important to me. GIMP has a UI that I hate, and that is important to me, and also the fact that you often need some kind of plugin or workaround to get "almost as good as Photoshop." Why do that when I can get "exactly as good as Photoshop" by using Photoshop?
After hearing the ravings about Topaz, I broke down a few years ago and bought Sharpen, Denoise, and Gigapixel. My first impression was that the artifacts that all of them created, but especially Gigapixel, were totally unacceptable. I never used it, because the result was often worse than just interpolating an image in Photoshop. I did what I always did and just deleted anything that needed to be cropped and enlarged that much. I still do, even though I eventually bought Photo AI and find it superior, if not infallible.
Topaz hasn't updated those first three for some time, and I don't expect to see it happen, given the concentration on making Photo AI the go-to for everything. Having a lifetime license to old, ineffective, outdated software isn't much of an advantage from my perspective. With my Photographer's subscription from Adobe I have received more than one update or upgrade in a single week. I always have the latest, and I never pay extra, as I had to when my Affinity got a ver.2.0 upgrade. Or when my free updates to Photo AI runs out and I have to pay again.
I am not happy, as many are, with "good enough." I want to keep improving until I get the best I can achieve. I am trying to please myself, and I am hard to please. You might consider this viewpoint when you try to convince others that the poor results obtained by these programs are "better" compared with the industry standard.