Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Comparison Two: Original jpg vs. AdjustAI, Affinity, ClearAI, Luminar, Movavi, Photolemur, & SharpenAI
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Jun 25, 2019 02:10:48   #
gessman
 
A quick comparison of an original jpg from my Sony a6500, kit lens 55-210mm using Clear Image Zoom (CIZ) processed with the default rapid enhancement of seven recent photo editor releases...
Original jpg SOOC Sony a6500, kit 55-210 lens using CIZ...
Original jpg SOOC Sony a6500, kit 55-210 lens usin...
(Download)
Adjust AI, Topaz...
Adjust AI, Topaz......
(Download)
Affinity...
Affinity......
(Download)
Clear AI, Topaz...
Clear AI, Topaz......
(Download)
Luminar...
Luminar......
(Download)
Movavi...
Movavi......
(Download)
Photolemur...
Photolemur......
(Download)
Sharpen AI, Topaz...
Sharpen AI, Topaz......
(Download)

| Reply
Jun 25, 2019 03:57:23   #
Rongnongno (a regular here)
 
Same comment as previous post.

Your camera capture as default is still the best result.

An issue is that saving in JPG does not help as there is a compression over the other, possibly distorting the results.

That is my opinion anyway.

| Reply
Jun 25, 2019 04:01:17   #
Rongnongno (a regular here)
 
A simple 'Dehaze' from ACR while uploading the image into PS CC does more than the other programs. (and this is not sharpening!!!)

Yet there is a color/contrast shift.

Saved as PNG
Dehaze
Dehaze...
(Download)
Using ACR detail sharpening. (low impact)
Using ACR detail sharpening. (low impact)...
(Download)
Using ACR detail sharpening. (high impact)
Using ACR detail sharpening. (high impact)...
(Download)

| Reply
Jun 25, 2019 13:18:54   #
Rich1939 (a regular here)
 
gessman wrote:
A quick comparison of an original jpg from my Sony a6500, kit lens 55-210mm using Clear Image Zoom (CIZ) processed with the default rapid enhancement of seven recent photo editor releases...


As before I feel you can get better results with just a few minutes of your time. I did this in Photoshop but other post processing programs are equally good for sharpening.

View in download to better see the results


(Download)

| Reply
Jun 25, 2019 13:32:18   #
gessman
 
Rich1939 wrote:
As before I feel you can get better results with just a few minutes of your time. I did this in Photoshop but other post processing programs are equally good for sharpening.

View in download to better see the results


Hey Rich, I appreciate your response. My purpose was to show what you get when you opt for the default settings in all these new would be Artificial Intelligence programs just to let people know that some of them seem Artificially Stupid and that the "buck don't stop there." Photolemur, for instance, has no setting except an intensity slider and hence makes the claim that it's all you need while all of the Topaz editors do have several other editing options, none of them are apparently able to stand on their own if you just use the default enhancement settings. I'd hoped to alert newer users that they cannot just go out and buy one of these programs and use it in default mode thinking they had a consummate solution to post processing and that's basically what all these editors are implying.

| Reply
Jun 25, 2019 13:39:23   #
gessman
 
Rongnongno wrote:
A simple 'Dehaze' from ACR while uploading the image into PS CC does more than the other programs. (and this is not sharpening!!!)

Yet there is a color/contrast shift.

Saved as PNG


I can't argue with anything you've said. Thanks for adding to the comparison with your analysis.

| Reply
Jun 25, 2019 13:44:35   #
Rich1939 (a regular here)
 
gessman wrote:
Hey Rich, I appreciate your response. My purpose was to show what you get when you opt for the default settings in all these new would be Artificial Intelligence programs just to let people know that some of them seem Artificially Stupid and that the "buck don't stop there." Photolemur, for instance, has no setting except an intensity slider and hence makes the claim that it's all you need while all of the Topaz editors do have several other editing options, none of them are apparently able to stand on their own if you just use the default enhancement settings. I'd hoped to alert newer users that they cannot just go out and buy one of these programs and use it in default mode thinking they had a consummate solution to post processing and that's basically what all these editors are implying.
Hey Rich, I appreciate your response. My purpose ... (show quote)


I hope then that I've been able to reinforce your position and that members will benefit from this conversation.

| Reply
Jun 25, 2019 13:55:23   #
gessman
 
Rich1939 wrote:
I hope then that I've been able to reinforce your position and that members will benefit from this conversation.


Thanks. That's what I was hoping as well, hence the effort.

| Reply
Jun 25, 2019 15:54:07   #
G Brown
 
This has also been discussed regarding raw processors - the more you try, the greater the differences - even when your camera raw is 'apparently' on their list.

We need to reiterate that 'the process' of 'producing a final image' has many paths and cannot be done 'by rote'.

| Reply
Jun 25, 2019 17:41:34   #
gessman
 
G Brown wrote:
This has also been discussed regarding raw processors - the more you try, the greater the differences - even when your camera raw is 'apparently' on their list.

We need to reiterate that 'the process' of 'producing a final image' has many paths and cannot be done 'by rote'.



| Reply
Jun 27, 2019 17:47:28   #
Linda From Maine
 
I think your demonstrations are valuable and informative; however, without having seen the conversations that prompted your creating these topics, I'm not sure why you asked me to comment.

Are there really that many "unsuspecting people looking for an inexpensive way out," as you described?

Certainly, new users of post-processing have a wide range of goals and interests: from those who have a strong desire to spend many organized hours learning the craft to those who want and need only minimal tools.

Hopefully, anyone thinking about purchasing software will have the opportunity to do a free trial first. If one is not available, then the product probably isn't very expensive and the user will not have invested much. If the user decides to explore bigger and better, I'm sure they will return here for more advice

| Reply
Jun 27, 2019 18:23:43   #
gessman
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
I think your demonstrations are valuable and informative; however, without having seen the conversations that prompted your creating these topics, I'm not sure why you asked me to comment.

Are there really that many "unsuspecting people looking for an inexpensive way out," as you described?

Certainly, new users of post-processing have a wide range of goals and interests: from those who have a strong desire to spend many organized hours learning the craft to those who want and need only minimal tools.

Hopefully, anyone thinking about purchasing software will have the opportunity to do a free trial first. If one is not available, then the product probably isn't very expensive and the user will not have invested much. If the user decides to explore bigger and better, I'm sure they will return here for more advice
I think your demonstrations are valuable and infor... (show quote)


Ahhhh, that feels much better. Thank you!

| Reply
Jul 1, 2019 09:57:48   #
camerapapi (a regular here)
 
My experience has been that processing an image and watching it in the computer not always represents exactly what I saw. Many factors are involved and calibration of the monitor is one of them. Images tend to look better in the monitor than when they are printed and again several factors are involved including the profile of the paper in use and the calibration of the printer.

My best results when printing have come when I have used proprietary software to edit images. An example, Nikon Capture NX-D for my Nikon images. You can see here a shift in color depending on the software in use. For landscape photography a print could be acceptable but NEVER for the portrait photographer who needs good skin colors.

| Reply
Jul 1, 2019 10:21:22   #
Rongnongno (a regular here)
 
camerapapi wrote:
My experience has been that processing an image and watching it in the computer not always represents exactly what I saw. Many factors are involved and calibration of the monitor is one of them. Images tend to look better in the monitor than when they are printed and again several factors are involved including the profile of the paper in use and the calibration of the printer.

My best results when printing have come when I have used proprietary software to edit images. An example, Nikon Capture NX-D for my Nikon images. You can see here a shift in color depending on the software in use. For landscape photography a print could be acceptable but NEVER for the portrait photographer who needs good skin colors.
My experience has been that processing an image an... (show quote)

You might want to calibrate your monitor to your printer regardless of the end product.

Yet this is off-track as the idea is to show that 'default' as set by a software manufacturer (even Nikon) and less than trust worthy.

| Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.