Thank you for your answer.
Iâd also prefer the granular control for now.
But I applaud the idea that it should tacle more blurs.
I think it missed an out of focus + motion blur settings, because thereâs plenty of case where the image has both issues.
Another one would be diffraction blur, for macro shots.
3 Likes
Version 1.3 is definitely NOT an upgrade, at least as far as image sharpening is concerned. As luck would have it I had just taken some shots where I had to max out my zoom and use manual focusing. This new âstrongâ sharpening model just does not cut it â whereas in previous versions I could choose which sharpening model gave me better results, now I have no choice and a poor rendering to boot. Please bring back the options to choose between motion blur vs lens blur.
BTW, is there a technical reason why those options were mutually exclusive? What if you had a picture that was both slightly out of focus and also had some motion blur; for example when taking pics of birds in trees at a distance, auto-focus may not work properly and maxing out zoom increases the likelihood of introducing some motion blur; nature doesnât always make it convenient for you to get clean, unobstructed shots âŠ
4 Likes
I agree with you about being not being satisfied with the 1.3.0 version
This to me is going in the wrong direction. Less control with more artifacts and degradation of image with no alternative way to correct or improve!
We need more manual controls left in the program. With each new version update we get less.
3 Likes
I had the same. I removed all earlier versions from within Lightroom as well as the app itself and reinstalled. Now it works again.
I am just an ordinary user who uses Topaz Photo AI exclusively as a plug-in with Lightroom Classic. Once I got it working properly I noticed the sharpen module does nothing at all (at least I cannot see a difference). When I load the same image into the stand alone version sharpen does work.
I am a very recent purchaser/user of Topaz PAI (about 1 week now) and I was very happy to see the great results I was getting in the 1.2.x version. When 1.3.0 was released I was excited with the promise that we would be getting greater control to fine tune for specific use cases that the AI models cant cope with. Donât get me wrong, I love the idea for having a hands off approach especially when it âjust worksâ, and when it âjust worksâ I am more than happy to keep my fingers off of the keyboard and let the AI work its magic. BUT when the AI is not able to determine the right set of corrections, we absolutely still want and need to have the granularity and the manual controls to override the automated settings.
Commercial airplanes have had autopilot for decades, yet we still have pilots at the controls, and those pilots still have to fly the plane in instances where the autopilot cannot. Please provide the ability to allow the users to override and control the corrections ourselves.
When I bought PAI the other day I was presented an option to buy the legacy bundle of Denoise AI/Sharpen AI/Gigapixel AI. I chose PAI because it had a great mix of automated AI and manual controls, giving me the flexibility and the confidence that I could get great results in almost any situation. Had I realized that you would be removing the manual controls from your users, I would have purchased the legacy bundle and would have upgraded to PAI at a later date.
As I read through the other comments and feedback, I can see that I am not alone with my concerns.
Is there any way for me to get the licenses (without having to purchase them) for the legacy trio while you sort this out?
5 Likes
I agree more controls are needed. We need to be able to override the AI when it gets something wrong.
2 Likes
Thatâs planned! Thereâs a couple problems with the CLI weâre hoping to resolve soon before highlighting itâs functionality within the docs.
1 Like
Using Lightroom Process with TPAI v1.3.0 the resulting DNG file looses the Camera Profile. Lightroom says it is missing for the DNG, so I cannot apply my profile of choice.
Do you have examples of images where the new sharpen model introduces artifacts where the previous models did not? The main goal with the new model was reducing artifacts and on that front weâve heard nothing but positive responses.
Correction, itâs 22H2 version. My bad!
Youâve only heard positive responses since this update? Have you read all the posts on this thread?
My first post about this unneeded change generated over 20 âlikes.â Based on that and other comments, the majority of users are unhappy with the loss of Lens Blur + Motion Blur.
Iâm currently running a poll on my Youtube community; over 80% are unhappy with the changes.
There was no communication on the abrupt change we woke up to Friday. Imagine having used Lens Blur + Motion Blur on thousands of images for the past few months, and then POOF⊠theyâre gone!
My workflow has been disrupted, and now I have to rethink how Iâm going to use PAI. All weâre left with is rolling back to an older version. We also wonât be updating any time in the future (or renewing) until this mess is sorted out.
5 Likes
Iâve been dealing with this bug for a few weeks. Itâs a known issue, among other problems that are not on the roadmap. Theyâre too busy âfixingâ things that donât need to be fixed⊠like the Sharpening debacle.
Disagree. This is the first time I did a roll-back after an update. Just installing old on top of newer did not work. I did uninstall (and note was asked to keep Topaz account info!) and the re-installed from the MSI found in release notes download link.
I see other comments recommending to uninstall updated version before installing the older version. This makes perfect sense and is always a good practice.
Yes, Iâve only seen positive responses with respect to the new model having fewer artifacts than the old ones. Iâm aware of the general consensus about the models not being universally superior to the previous models.
Are the noise issues in post #115 not considered artifacts? They arenât random blurry patches or sparkles but itâs overall grain-type appearance thatâs been added in the post processed view. Iâd also originally posted an image (Cameron said âyikesâ) in which a large color patch artifact was generated on my 1st test image in this rel. - at least one other user (that I saw) posted a snip with a very similar color patch (it almost looked like a bad bruise midway thru the healing process) over their processed imageâŠ
The MAJORITY of users hate the new model! I and others did not have issues with âartifacts.â
So, you âfixedâ an issue a small part of users were experiencing, which was âartifacts,â with another Sharpen model that does a worse job of sharpening.
Why not return the old models and fix the âartifactâ issues vs. introducing a new tool most people dislike?
I agree - those are definitely artifacts! I was trying to say the new model has fewer artifacts than the old models, and wasnât trying to imply there are never artifacts. I believe that is true based on the feedback weâve seen and images sent.
2 Likes
I understand your frustrations, and can assure you all the feedback is being collected and used to help determine what we should do both for these models and for future models.
4 Likes
