Thanks for that input! I hadn't run into JixiPix before, so thanks for that option. After a quick look, it looks intriguing. I'll be looking at it more closely.

I have several SSDs and my monitor is a 27" IPS UHD display calibrated with datacolor/SpyderX Pro.

Thanks for the question! Someone did ask and I answered as follows: My computer is a Windows 10 desktop with Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-9900K CPU @ 3.60GHz with 32 GB memory and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 graphics card.

I hope that helps with your recommendation.

Thanks for that input! I'm not a professional photographer but enjoy photography and post processing. Usually, I have more photos to process than I have time to spend on. I tend towards the 80/20 rule; that is, I'm okay with getting 80% of the results with 20% of the time, effort, equipment and expense. Usually, most people can't tell the difference between 80% and 100% unless they're pixel peepers. So, I allowed myself to become dependent upon being able to quickly process photos using personal custom and product provided presets/effects within Studio 2 for general or creative images. For more involved images I use Corel PaintShop Pro where I can better keep track of layers and fine edits. I've tended to think of Adobe as a more expensive and time intensive option, but perhaps my paradigm should be revised.

I'm not seeing that Photo AI is a replacement for Studio 2. From what I can tell, Photo AI basically combines Denoise AI, Sharpen AI, and Gigapixel AI into one app/plugin. I don't think there will ever be any creative processing included in the future like in Studio 2. Yes, I own Photo AI and you are correct that it is not recognized by Studio 2 as a plugin like Denoise AI, Sharpen AI, Adjust AI, and Mask AI are. According to Topaz Labs in a reply to me:

In 2020, we decided to end the development of all of our "creative" apps and focus solely on what we call our "image quality" apps (DeNoise AI, Sharpen AI, and Gigapixel AI).

The reason Photo AI does not work in Studio 2 is not because of lack of development to do so with Photo AI. It's because Studio 2 isn't capable of functioning as a host editor for Photo AI. It simply doesn't allow for any sort of integration with Photo AI because development on that program ended before we every started working on Topaz Photo AI. That program is technically still available to purchase if you can find it on our site, but it's not outwardly promoted. It's also still supported in it's current state, but will soon become a legacy program."

Haha, I'll be careful with what I say! I hear what you are saying. It's always a quandary to me whether to buy now or wait. There will always be something better down the line if you wait, but potential miss out on something to enjoy in the now.

Yes, I am aware that Photo AI is a standalone program. I'm not sure what you mean by choosing "edit in." When I open Photo AI, I can only select the photo to work with, and then Photo AI does its auto processing of noise and sharpening, with options to upscale.

Thanks for the input! It looks like On1 Raw 2023 is about to come out and has a lot of nice features and functionality. I'll definitely look at it more closely.

Nice photos! I too have used Simplify and BuzSim in many photos over the years.

Thanks for the input! I didn't know about Smart Photo Editor. It looks like it has some nice features. I'll add it to my list of options.

I agree that it's a shame that Studio 2 has been abandoned. I think there are still a lot of loyal Studio 2 users around.

In context, I would rather be proactive rather than reactive for when Studio 2 ceases to work because of new operating systems, migration to new computers, etc. and isn't supported any more. I've already run into it with the original Studio software. There isn't anything that isn't included in Photo AI that is the issue, the issue is that Topaz Labs isn't willing to support Studio 2 as evidenced by not including Photo AI as a plugin as with their other AI software. My computer is a Windows 10 desktop with Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-9900K CPU @ 3.60GHz with 32 GB memory and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 graphics card. My must haves for photo editing are covered with Corel PaintShop Pro, it's more a matter of what I'm used to with all the creative tools and provided/custom presets/effects that are included with Studio 2 and how to replace them with one or more alternatives. I was hoping that there are other UHHers that have migrated from Studio 2 to other similar software.

Thanks! Studio 2 has Impression which sounds a lot like Dynamic Auto Painter Pro, which I had never heard of, so I'll check it out.

I’m interested in changing out my creative photo processing tools and would like to know what other photographers use for their creative software and what they recommend. I’ve been using Topaz Labs Studio 2 as my go-to creative processing software. I’ve known for quite a while that Topaz Labs is not providing further support or development for Studio 2, though they continue to sell it as a current product. At some point, soon they say, it will become legacy software. Their recent offering of Photo AI has emphasized to me that I should find an alternative to Studio 2 sooner rather than later, since Topaz Labs isn’t even bothering to include Photo AI as a plugin for their own Studio 2 application, though it can be used as a plugin in third-party software. So, I appreciate learning about other’s experiences with creative photo tools and any recommended alternatives to Studio 2. Thanks in advance!

I agree with cjc2’s comment that likens Raw to a digital version of a negative from the film days. Ansel Adams said, “I have often said that the negative is similar to a musician's score, and the print to the performance of that score. The negative comes to life only when "performed" as a print.” Similarly, the “raw” data from a camera’s image sensor only comes to life with post-processing. You can decide to let the camera do the performance/post-processing into a JPEG image or you can take the raw file and do your own performance/post-processing using whatever photo editing tools you desire. You can only have one version of the raw sensor data, but you can have infinite versions of JPEG, TIFF, etc. performances. Trying to compare a negative (raw sensor data) to a print (JPEG) makes no sense.

If you are going early Oct. you don’t have much time left before you leave. There’s a lot of info available by doing a web browser search for photographing the northern lights, including videos. Some key things to consider are:
• Use a tripod as others have mentioned. I don’t recommend hand held. Even if the aurora is fuzzy in the image, you’ll want to compose with landscape elements if possible for a more interesting image and you don’t want stationary objects to look fuzzy and motion-streaked unless you like that look.
• Use a remote shutter release. I have an IR remote shutter release that works well for me.
• A good wide angle lens as others have mentioned will provide best results. I love my Tokina SD 11-16 F2.8 lens for nighttime photography. As others have said, rent, borrow, or buy a good lens. If you think you might do more nighttime photography in the future, you might want to invest in a good lens now. Don’t use a filter of any kind. Set the lens to manual focus and focus at infinity. If the lens has stabilization, turn it off. Double check the focus with a test image.
• If it is cold outside, it is recommended to keep your camera in an airtight bag when transitioning between outside and inside. Oct. might not be too severe for cold temperatures so it might not be an issue, but if it is cold, let the camera temperature stabilize in the bag before taking it out. When I was shooting in Fairbanks in March it was big issue for me since the temperatures were usually -15F to -20F at night.
• Have extra batteries as cold weather can really zap the energy from them.
• To view the aurora you need to have an active aurora, clear skies, and luck. A location without light pollution is best. A phone app that I use for predicting the aurora is “My Aurora Forecast,”: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jrustonapps.myauroraforecast&hl=en_US . With the app you can follow the real-time progression of the aurora, see cloud cover in your area, and it will even ding you with an alert when there is probability of seeing the aurora in your location in the next 30 min or so. I’m going to Iceland Oct. 2—14, so am hopeful to see and photograph the aurora again. FYI, the current long-term forecast is for KP5-6 on Oct. 7-8! So I’m keeping my fingers crossed for clear skies. It’s hard to know ahead of time when the best auroras will happen. My first night photographing we had great auroras about 10 pm. On another night, it was so good I was out from midnight until 4 am when my last camera battery gave out. You just got to keep monitoring the real-time progression of the aurora to see how it is developing. The app helps a lot. Also, check to see if there are any real-time aurora cams in your area as that can give you some insight if the aurora is becoming active.
• Use manual camera settings to photograph the aurora. The strength of the aurora is a big factor when photographing the aurora. Weak auroras, maybe KP2-3 or less, are hard to see with the naked eye, but a long exposure, 15-30 seconds can make them very visible in a photograph. A strong aurora, KP6 or more, are easy to see with the naked eye. KP7-8 is like seeing fireworks in the sky with the aroura dancing at unbelievable speed in the sky. My first time photographing the aurora I experimented a lot. I was lucky to have a strong aurora to work with. I started with ISO 2000 and could get a good exposure with 5 sec. and F2.8 on my Tokina lens. To my surprise, the aurora got stronger and faster and I realized that my highlights were being blown out and had to cut the exposure to 2.5 sec for a good exposure. You want to be sure to watch and enjoy the live show, but the tricky part is to not forget about taking photos too. Keep monitoring your highlights if the aurora is changing a lot, especially if getting stronger and faster, and adjust your exposure accordingly to get rid of the highlight “blinkies” in your highlight playback screen. For really strong and fast auroras my exposure was 1 sec at ISO 2000, F2.8. If interested, you can see some of my results at https://mrgarci.shutterfly.com/12977 .
I hope that helps.