This is probably dependent on the computer. I tested it and the stand alone opened (no picture) in 6 seconds while opening the plugin from Affinity Photo was 16 seconds but that included loading a picture. Topaz Denoise plugin opened and loaded a picture in 6 seconds.
Yes it will remain a separate product as well as being incorporated into PhotoRaw 2022. The same happened a year ago when On1 released Portrait AI. It is still available as a separate product that can be used as a plug-in.
I havenât watched the Kowalski video, but guys like him who make a living from YouTube and as âaffiliatesâ never seem to process really difficult images using an app with which they are associated!
And does anyone know why DNGs produced by DeNoise are so huge?
You have a much faster setup than I do!
I imagine youâre right that launching/processing time will vary depending on someoneâs system. I could only gauge the times relatively on my own system when comparing the two oranges. My timing perceptions are based on how my other programs run⊠(But I do have fast processor envy for those with zippier systems!).
Yes, agree!
Was someone talking here about NoNoise producing a darker raw file?
Hereâs a comparison.
All produce a darker image than the original, with Topaz Sharpen AI being the darkest. The original might be considered under-exposed though.
If you add brightness or exposure (in a post-processing program) after getting those darker results does your image look like what you want it to (denoised)?
Or, is the darkness hiding the caliber of noise removal?
Mostly itâs not an issue, since I can adjust within my main editing programme. Sometimes however, I have an image that I have under-exposed, usually a mistake, and then itâs better to make the adjustment prior to putting it through a denoise programme.
Your raw image doesnât even get into Ps 2021. Behind the scenes ACR converts the raw image into a (pixel based) PSD before it gets into Ps, so thatâs all that can be passed to any plug-in, whether itâs from Topaz or anybody else. Ps cannot read raw files - only pixel based ones - PSD, TIFF, JPG etc.
It is misleading, Paul, because the filenames that I see in Ps are the raw extension filenames.
So anyone who isnât a s/w engineer looking at what appears in Ps will presume that what we are working with (and thereby also sending to 3rd party plugins) is a native, proprietary raw image.
Perhaps, if that isnât the case, some sort of disclaimer box should pop up that explains we are no longer working with a raw image + a little check box in the corner with the option to ânot show this againâ.
Itâs certainly confusing but thatâs how it works. I think youâd need to take the issue up with Adobe and ask why they chose to do it that way.
I can see where it can be misleading. However, what is displayed is the name of the image you are working on. It is only when you Save, you are not able to save in the native RAW format.
Trouble is⊠customers are told we can process raw images in Topaz products. Itâs part of the mktg product claims.
We see a file(name) in our Ps (or, other) host that gives the impression of being a raw image.
We select a Topaz plugin filter from the filters menu to process the ârawâ image (that the company mktg says we can do in Topaz products). Thatâs what we (w/out our MS or PhD in EE or s/w engineering) try to do. We think the raw image (or what appears to be one) is whatâs being processed by the Topaz (not Adobe) software as a raw image.
Thatâs the point at which Iâm suggesting a disclaimer alert (that can be set not to show after a 1st viewing - if desired) pop up. Saying, that the image (any image) being sent to a Topaz product plugin for processing is not in a raw format & if you (mr./ms. user) want to process your raw image as a raw then (pls) use the Topaz standalone product & not the host plugin version.
Iâm not waving the wht flag on this. It is not intuitive.
It is a commercial plugin provider responsibility to let users who canât (shouldnât have to) see under the hood (of hosts or plugins) know whether their plugin products will work with a raw image. It is not a philosophical discussion about how Adobe should/should not handle raw images - there are more than enough other issues w/their products that thatâs not even worth debating. It is a request that a plugin mfr alert users wrt where the product claims re: being able to process a raw image will work - standalone, plugin, both, neither.
ON1 NoNoise AI Seems like a rushed release with not fully trained models. They leave a bit plasticity looking results and donât retain as much details as Topaz or DXO. ON1 approach to user interface and workflow seems pretty good and instant results are welcomed, once the image is loaded, easier to judge the effect, but underlying AI models are not as good yet. Overall I welcome the competition, users benefits. However I feel overall for now ON1 still needs to play catch up with its AI models, but it has other advantages to compensate so for initial release its not bad, just not as good.
I simply explained how it works - if you have a problem with that take it up with Topaz and/or Adobe - itâs Adobe who puts the raw file extension at the top, and thatâs whatâs causing the confusion. I made no comment about how Adobe should/should not handle raw images - just about their naming convention.
Donât shoot the messenger.
@Fotomaker
Robyn I really donât understand your position. IMHO it is not the responsibility of the merchant to fill in the gaps in our knowledge or cater to our individual workflows. When you buy a car do you expect the dealer to show you how to drive it? When you started using Adobe Photoshop did you expect them to teach you how to use it? No, you did your research and learned how to use the tools that they provided.
I think that you are misinterpreting what it means when Topaz says that they can process the RAW file. They can. But what does that actually mean? They are able to take the information that is provided by the RAW file and process it with their program whether standalone or plugin. The result of that processing is pixels, not modification of the RAW data. You cannot save back to the RAW file format image data with any graphics program. As you know there are some post-processing programs that cannot deal with raw data at all, and can only open jpegs and the like.
IMO it is unrealistic to expect that Topaz put a disclaimer for something that is not uncommon knowledge when working with post-processing applications. As a software trainer, I am sympathetic to your cause, but donât feel the burden is on Topaz.
It often doesnât make any difference if the picture is from a RAW file or is passed to a plugin via another format such as tiff as long as the bit depth is the same. All companies use tutorials to inform the user how to use their software so that is their responsibility. In the case of ON1 NoNoise it is presently very bad at noise reduction on any format except a RAW one. They do warn the user of this and they should be able to correct it with an update. Topaz Denoise does a good job on both RAW and other formats.
âIt often doesnât make any difference if the picture is from a RAW file or is passed to a plugin via another format such as tiff as long as the bit depth is the same.â
It depends heavily on the way you process the file later. TIFF is basically like PSD, yes it can preserve the bit depth up to 16 bit and file size larger than PSD, it supports layers etc, but it does not support RAW data, most notably demosaicing process and White Balance is limited. Depending on what you want to do with the file later, this is a big deal, not only in terms of final result but also the fact that some features only work with RAW files but not TIFFs or they work differently.
âAll companies use tutorials to inform the user how to use their software so that is their responsibility. In the case of ON1 NoNoise it is presently very bad at noise reduction on any format except a RAW one. They do warn the user of this and they should be able to correct it with an update.â
Yes thatâs true. Their program N1 NoNoise AI seem seems to have been rushed to the market, the AI models they use are not as good as Topaz and DXO yet, they need more training, at the moment they produce more artificial results and lose details , compared to competition , but its initial release so I expect that to get better over time.
âTopaz Denoise does a good job on both RAW and other formats.â
I would not agree with that entirely, because lens correction and other corrections as well as color rendition is sub par and you still canât save DNG with all the data. like you can with DXO PhotoLab or PureRAW. They need to improve on that and I doubt they will catch up to DXO since it has a serious head start with all their lens profile data and color science.
I agree but it is our responsibility to take the tutorials, fill in any gaps we have and not expect the software companies to cater to our individual workflows.
I agree