Photo AI 2 REVIEW - Did Topaz catch up? Comparison to DXO PureRaw3
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 окт 2023
- When Topaz Photo AI was released I was not very happy with the results and since spring 2023 used mostly DXO PureRaw 3 to reduce the noise in my images. Photo AI v2 has now more options and I tested and compared it against DXO Pure Raw 3 and Lightroom AI noise reduction.
You can try (and buy) the software here (Affiliate Links):
Topaz Photo AI 2: www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo...
DXO PureRaw 3: tidd.ly/3ZWqi95
Adobe Lightroom: prf.hn/l/A3kOEvY
You can test or buy the software here (affiliate links):
Topaz Photo AI 2: www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo-ai/ref/901/
DXO PureRaw 3: tidd.ly/3ZWqi95
Watched a few video's about this, this is the first one that is useful to me, thanks.
I'm definitely more charmed by the preservation of details from DXO.
Thanks
Great comparisons Fabian, it's amazing the software we have available to us now producing such results. Truly a wonderful time to be shooting!
My only regret is all the old RAW's I should have kept which I could have run through these types of programs now! :)
Thanks! I feel the same. I am now more careful with deleting blurry images - who knows what’s possible in 5 years
Nice job, a thorough review and comparison
Thanks!
A good review and has also been my experience. I am still using the older version of Topaz DeNoise and playing with the different models depending on the image. It works very well on about 85% of what I do with my Canon R7. I tried the trial version of Photo AI 1.0 and while it did an okay job with some lens blur images but I didn't feel compelled to upgrade. I'm just trying to get better in focus shots. :-) Topaz has said that big things are coming later in 2024 so we will see.
Thanks! There is a big difference between Photo AI 1 and 2 in my opinion
Thank you!
Your‘re welcome
I agree, Topaz Photo AI has improved (and there has been a lot of space for it), but there's still important details to catch up with. The clinical plastic-like backgrounds without any noise at all are not attractive. DxO leaves a bit of noise to accentuate the bokeh and details - in the plumage in this case. Look at 16:30. Lightroom will not sharpen unsharp objects, which of course is a limitation if that's what you want. PureRAW 3 delivers the obviously most pleasant background and plumage, except the eye is not sufficiently sharp. Topaz misses the plumage, except behind the beak where it looks unnatural, but renders the eye sharp. The AI models demonstrate confusion when sharpening is ordered for unsharp areas. But I like the DxO version most, because the plumage is better, and the eye can be sharpened separately in a pixel layer later, e.g. in Affinity Photo, or in Darktable still using the DNG file. This would be my way to obtain the eye-sharpness of Topaz combined with the DxO-plumage, the optimal combination in my opinion.
Thanks for your input. Yes, running them through both DXO and Topaz (using layers as you suggested) could certainly improve the resuluts
Nice review, still using Pro Raw 3 as I feel it still is the best in my humble opinion
Thanks!
Good comparisons. Thanks for that. I own both as well, so may try to mix and match like you said.
I’ve been using LR/PS new Denoise lately as well, which is not too bad either. But I agree, overall DXO is quite good. I prefer having a little noise/grain left, and not super smooth like Topaz often does.
Sometimes I will run my image through DXO or PS Denoise, then copy a layer in Photoshop and run older Topaz on that, and mask only to the head/eyes if i want some extra sharpness.
Thanks for sharing your workflow as well
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography
yeah! I was doing a test now on an older image I had, of a short-eared owl flying.
Latest DXO , I was testing the Prime and XD? variants with no lens softness correction and then standard.
With no correction, it felt a bit soft/removed too much noise, and with XD it was maybe too sharp.
Using Photoshops / LRs latest Denoise to DNG, felt like a good middle ground yet in this case. Tiny bit of grain in image still, but also not overly smooth/or not overly too sharp. So then you could easily layer topaz after the fact in Photoshop still, if want extra bit of sharpness/not overdoing it.
I did just try DXO/Photoshop and Topaz AI thing on another photo, that was pretty rough.
Topaz Photo AI seemed to do the best in this case, but I had to turn down the denoise/sharpening alot from default.
I find Lightroom Classic to be excellent with the Denoise function. No need at all for third party software. I have images shot at ISO 12800+ that come out noise free and detailed.
Glad to hear that it works well for you
With Topaz denoise combined as a plugin to Photoshop it´s som much easier to get perfect result. Example: If the most of the image looks good after denoising but there´s a lttle to much denoising and fewer details ih the plumage of the bird you just use the history brush at 15-30% an do som brush strokes over the plumage and get the details back. Som much easier to get realy good result . You can´t do that with pure raw and it´s easier to get good result comparing to using Photo AI in my opinion. And it´s so fast.
That’s a good point!
The songbird, just add Unsharpen Mask of 40 / 0.8 / 3 in PS or LR and the Photo AI file will be sharper again.
Yes, that’s a fair point. I just wanted to compare the raw output of the different programs
I like to be able to recover 4 stops of highlights in my raw images, and maintain that always. if topaz stops baking in the bright highlights then it could be considered usable. if it still hiding a jpeg as a raw format then they still should be shamed until they stop it.
I will do a more detailed test, but so far I didn’t have any problems with highlight recovery. Ares you saving as dng in topaz?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography yes as dng. If I didn't know better I'd say its a post processed jpeg displayed as a dng.
How to pronounce the names of different watches
What do you mean?