Got the same messages, but once I updated my graphics driver from Intel, it works much better.

Besides my own shots, I've greatly improved very old b&w pics I had scanned in. For ufaux, way better than PS or LR sharpen. Denoise is great also.

Started the Sharpen trial version just today. Already it has cleared up some pics. Better than I thought it would. I am an enthusist, of 70 yrs, shoot mostly with a tamron 18-400, but finding holding steady more difficult, so some do not come out as sharp as I like, thus trying Topaz. I have only used it so far on pics I already have on file, not new RAW ones. Most of my Sharpen edits were made better by the 'Stablize' mode versus the other 2. Same for other UHH'ers? Does the fact that Stabilize worked best, any indication of my shooting process?

I see from this and other postings, it does not do RAW, so.... do I work it in Lightroom first, save it Jpg/Tiff then sharpen if I fell it needs it? I feel like I will purchase this, so my next question. I looked at the Utility Bundle (Sharp, Denoise, Jpeg/Raw, and Gigapixel), and it seems like it would be overkill for me, but Denoise looks interesting. I read in another post, that Denoise might not work well after Lightrooming it. Any thoughts? Any bundle owners that rarely use some of the features?

TG-5, great quality pics for a small camera. Have used underwater, but mostly take it to places where it might accidently get wet (beach etc). Nice standing in the surf off shore and taking pics. Never know you are carrying it. I use a small pouch that holds the camera, the cord, and a spare battery. Strap is long enough to go around my waist (not small) or diagonal across my chest . We've had it awhile, so I dont know if Olympus has made a better one yet. Forgot, also got a clear screw on lens for it so if I'm wiping off the water, I'm not doing it right on the camera lens.

Meant a near-to-far focus, in learning we're told to use the F22 type aperture for near-to-far focus. thanks for the answer, good to know.

Always welcome your replies, this one is one of the best. I understand the concept behind aperture sweet spot, but what confuses me that if taking a long distance landscape shot and f22 or higher is desired for that deep DOF, are we then 'hurting' our quality by not being back at 10ish? Should we usually try for sweet and compensate for light/dark via shutter and ISO?

WWWWOOOOWWWWW!!!!!! Normally, I would have said 'lose the roof', as many intended landscape shots might catch the neighbors roof. But in this case, for LA, I think it adds to the image. Really nice shot.

Also a retired police officer.

Nice shots.....and she has way to many computers!!!!!😄

OK... one Q for the more experienced.... If we all agree that at the top end of the zooms, the image may suffer, then..... I have an 18-135 and an 18-400. IF.... I were out shooting and knew that I may be looking to take some zoom shots, would I be better taking the 400, as at a lesser focal, say 120mm, it may tend to give a better shot than the 18-135, as at 120mm it would be near the top end of its 'quality'?

Tech question. Recently I have been shooting RAW only, as I often do not find a use for the jpgs after processing the RAW's. I went to shoot the Blue Angles/Thunderbirds recent flyovers. As I was not sure of the exact line of sight or approach to my position, I set the Canon T7i on Shutter priority, and accidently set it for 1/4000 (thought 1200), lens was a Tamron 18-400. They were not that close, maybe 1/2 mile away. Took several shots and when I looked at the shots on the camera monitor, they seemed great but not to close. When I went to process the images, they were as dark as you can get, and it is then I realized the 4000 setting. Thankfully LR saved the day.

My question is, is it because in the camera it will display on your camera monitor your pic as a ('fixed') jpg? Because it was not dark, as the RAW turned out to be, I did not suspect a wrong setting.

Raw v jpg

I think they're fine. I like how you, for the most part, filled the frame with the squirrel.

easy to pick out which is the husband and which one is the wife...........;)

In learning more of my camera capabilities and at the same time new'ish' to Lightroom, I'm trying the HDR Merge feature. I set the Canon 7ti, for the 3 exposure bracket shots. I, for the time being, shoot in RAW only, since I wasnt really using my jpeg versions anyway. After merging the 3 shots, they look terribly noisy, which I figure, comes from the darker pictures. The question is, should one edit to their best, the 3 original shots first, then merge, or merge the 3 then edit? Would not editing the original 3 take away the 'features' of using 3 different exposures?

Wow, chg canon and I use the same nix. Works great, love the motion detection and 'sleep' modes.