When using face enhancement on images where the subject is not facing front-on to the camera, sometimes artifacts are introduced — it creates a second face near the model. Sometimes, this error is artistic and interesting, but it shouldn’t happen.
I’m guessing this has nothing to do with the new UI but with the AI model.
I briefly tried the new interface and think it will be good if / when I really want to work on a picture to get the best possible results.
However, I can also see how it could be decidedly less practical for processing a lot of photos at once.
Sharpening only works if some type of masking is selected. Previous versions didn’t work that way.
Agree, and sometimes we need to stop them, otherwise they can go too far.
I’m glad 2.4 works for you but the reason I went back to 2.3.2 was that version 2.4 crashes every time when trying to edit raw RW2 files from my Lumix TZ200. As I said before CR3 files from my Canon camera process ok in 2.4 so I don’t think the crashes are due to my system which is a Lenovo laptop running Windows 11 with plenty of memory etc.
There are many reasons why the owners of a product may not complain publicly (or at all) about what they believe to be its poor useability or performance. We should not assume that not speaking up implies approval: there may for example be a grudging acceptance of something they do not like.
Product improvement is at least in part due to those owners who draw attention to such issues; they are in effect an important part of product development and improvement.
None of this has much to do with being challenged by change and to make that suggestion is unwise, I suggest. It could just as easily be the business at fault for trying to push onto its customers too much too fast for a significant portion of them to willingly accept.
Who were the ‘folks’ you referred to if not other people? And yes, I do indeed believe that everyone on this forum who has shared their opinion on the new GUI - positive or negative - has given it a fair shake. As I observed elsewhere, the changes have significantly altered the workflow of the program and this has negatively impacted many users in ways laid out at length. This whole ‘well, I like it so everyone else must be wrong’ attitude is puzzling to me; I’m genuinely happy that the new interface is working well for you and others and I don’t think that your opinion is any less valid than mine. Fortunately, it seems that Topaz has listened to both sides and will be attempting to shape the software to please everyone.
I agree with you, with some correction to your statement.
Usually, 2 groups of people post their reviews: some “Very happy customers”, who have desire and time to write reviews, to let other people know, how good product is, and almost all “Unhappy customers” who are very angry, and need to write reviews, to relieve their stress.
For example: If reviews “positive ratio” 80:20, and if after we add silent satisfied customers, depends on the product quantity sold, ratio can go up to 100%, despite that fact, there still unhappy customers.
I absolutely agree with you.
I personally believe that, the reason behind new UI, are the users with laptops & desktop computer’s small size monitors.
My guess based on, sliding to the left “tools name panel”. As company probably, planning to introduce more new tools, the old style tools panel, will be required lot of scrolling, that many people hate.
In that case, sliding panel can accommodate 20 or more tool names, because it’s just lines of text, not actual tools.That gives developers more freedom in their creative work.
If my predictions are correct, many unsatisfied PAI 2.4.0 users, on that forum, might reconsider their opinion.
It’s no benefits for my use scenario, as I recently upgraded my old and reliable 49" Sony HDR LED TV, that I used for past 8 years, as computer monitor, for latest 55" Sony HDR OLED TV, and I have so much “Real Estate” to spare, but I do like new UI very, very much, and PAI 2.4. working great for me as well.
I agree.
If it were just a small amount of users having specific issues with a new release, I’m positive that the people at Topaz would gladly deal individually with those issues and help them/us out to get to terms with the whole program.
However, in this case, it’s not just a matter of a handful of users with some (related or not) issues, since those issues are not user or (owner’s) system related.
It’s a general discomfort concerning the workflow, the layout and the ability to make it work properly.
Hopefully it will be properly addressed by the only ones that can (Topaz), regardless of the “stopping them before going too far” comment. I found that line borderline to an insult, improper on this forum.
Just one short sentence says it all. Every single unhappy customer should read it first.
" Waved a white flag" - it’s a really something, and you just made my early morning. Thank you.
I agree, and my experience mirrors yours in every sentence you wrote… Thank you for taking the time to write all of that… I read every new post on this forum every day… Sometimes I get the sense that some folks bought their first computer this week and Topaz was the first software they’ve ever seen… Topaz is on the right track… I commend them and their developers for producing these products…
I did use the remove tool the first time with my RTX 4090 and it feels like driving a Coal Excavator, when drawing the mask.
Or a truck with sponge wheels.
I’m liking the update. The masking flexibility, ability to apply different amoutns of denoise of sharpening to different areas of photo, etc are really great.
It is quite noticeably slower - but the additional processing flexibility is worth it for me.
Thanks guys, nice update.
Hello Lingyu,
I need to ask you to disregard my proposal, I addressed to you in my post, 3 days ago. It’s became obsolete overnight.
I have good look at the program, and I am strong supporter of the new, redesigned PAI 2.4.0 UI.
It feels very light and very fast. It’s stand out from all software programs, designed for photographers, available on the market today, for its modern and innovative design.
In my own opinion, your company, from the very beginning, chose the right direction.
Perpetual license, with optional annual discounted upgrades - great
Upscale, DeNose and Sharpen, are the best on the market today - great
Face recovery tool - amazing
easy accessible Forum, with two way communication - great
every week updates - great
developer’s team implementation of tools, on the users request, that wasn’t originally planned - great
company courage, to take responsibility, for innovative approach to the User Interface redesign - amazing.
With all due respect to the users, that not very happy with company’s decision, to completely redesign Photo AI Interface, I just want to show approximate statistics:
Topaz Labs has over 1 Million of users. Let’s make fair split: 500K Photographers, and 500K Videographers. Forum web page shows 333 replies.
Lets roughly assumed, 250 unhappy ones, plus next week might bring another 250, and I hope not, which make total of 500 people who not very happy.
500,000 : 500 = 1,000 _______________100% : 1,000 = 0.1% Unsatisfied users.
Company in Good Standing: _________75%-85% Satisfied Customers
Company in Excellent Standing: _____Above 85% Satisfied Customers
Topaz Labs Standing Status: _____________100% - 0.1% = 99.9% Satisfied Customers
Majority of “Self Respected” Companies in the world, big or small, not allow to be manipulated by any users group, especially, when they are making groundbreaking decisions, that are so important for the companies future, and I believe Topaz Labs one of them.
It might be time to have 2 versions of Photo Ai. A slim version with just the up-scaling, noise reduction, and sharpening included. These would have the best versions that the developers have engineered. The second with the above plus the other enhancements that would require the newer interface to be efficient.
Well, I must applaud that fact that you are clearly a creative person! 
Even if statistics are not that malleable. There’s a great book I had to read when I was doing tech mktg and strategic planning. It was called “How to Lie with Statistics”. As a marketer, it also offered creative ways to present positioning with statistics that were handy at the time!
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=lying+with+statistics
Your note made me smile! Ah, nostalgia…
Yes that makes perfect sense
It is very odd how individual results can vary at such a large scale in 2.4. I grabbed a random poor image (jpg - cropped), nothing was done for enhancement other than through TPAI. I imported the image through PS CS5.
I spent maybe 2-3 minutes on the process.
Denoise all
Sharpen subject
Second layer, addition sharpen on the beak and feet.
For quick processing how is the result so vastly different from what others achieve. Overall this image could be improved with a little more time, color correction and some adjustments with range but it’s a very passable image.
I may have misunderstood… Are you suggesting that in order to have the ability to do the new feature of masking for each of the primary PAI functions (denoising, sharpening) as well as the already inherent PAI functions (face recovery, text preservation, scaling, exposure & color comp) we’d need to have a diff. interface that requires that new functionality be segregated into separate boxes that require more clicks to open/close & that overlay onto one’s image in the workspace?
I ask b/c in my Ps interface (which is where I run PAI as a plugin) I have a righthand column setup … my layers appear on the top portion of that righthand column and my settings/adjustments/enhancements (whatever someone calls them) are in the lower portion of the righthand panel. Never the twain meet, they are never out into the workspace on my image(s) either.
Ditto for Adobe Camera Raw - righthand panels I use pretty much daily are ‘permanently’ expanded for easy access to show settings sliders, the panels I use less often I’ve moved to the bottom of the righthand column stack and I keep them collapsed unless specifically needed. There, too, they are never overlaid on my images in the ACR workspace.
The design of the interfaces for Ps & ACR are such that if users prefer to keep all panels collapsed until used, or some open/some collapsed or wanna drag some panels out over areas of the workspace they can do so if that doesn’t bug them to have them on top of their images (or if they don’t mind working w/small images that are off to the side of the workspace).
To me, the basic ‘interface’ (layout flexibility if you will) is different than feature richness, performance of the features and image processing speed attributes of the product. But it heavily influences my (& I have to assume others’ too) product usage experience (or, lack thereof) of the features that ride on the interface.
I’ve used Topaz products for over 12 yrs. “Legacy” products used to have an “Apply” button that let users accept a series of settings (it was essentially a layers approach w/out physical layers). Users could build upon settings incrementally without having to end the session or exit the interface then come back in. I don’t remember those products having segregated boxes of settings that couldn’t be left expanded (if desired) & none of the settings covered images in the interface’s workspace for images. All the settings were in the righthand column/panel and could be expanded and left visible/expanded (or, not - to personal taste). We used a scrollbar to scroll down if necessary - which didn’t bother me at all b/c I could just roll the wheel on my mouse and it was quick to work with b/c frequently used settings were visible and easily accessible w/out clicking open/close buttons or boxes.
I believe someone else wrote in above to comment on the difficulty they perceived (as a software designer themselves) of maintaining multiple interface designs. I take their word for it. I’m not a programmer.
If the current product is somehow bifurcated feature-wise and has different interface designs too (I thought those are what you proposed), it somehow feels as if a lot of customers/users who adopted PAI for its features set would become disenfranchised. But it’s possible I may have misunderstood.
