The only advantage of V 3.00 is that it did not crash/hang this time for a batch of 83 photo’s.
It starts fairly fast ( 16s between photo 3 and 4) but
at the end its 62s per photo!
The whole batch of 83 took 24m16s.
Earlier version processed much faster.
2 Likes
One screenshot of your overall memory usage tells us nothing.
The memory leak has been well documented and proven.
users should just lurk in these forums instead of making useless posts like this.
3 Likes
I can only agree. Please enable DNG again.
1 Like
Please consider adding support for MRAW and SRAW photos from the Sony A7RV. They still instantly crash this version with no error message.
1 Like
Why is this still here?
On the overall scale of things, objectively, it shouldn’t be a big deal, but for no rational reason, I subjectively find it extremely annoying, to have this notice telling me the same thing I already know, and I resent having to make an extra gratuitous click just to get rid of it every time.
It serves no useful purpose, and just clutters up my screen.
On a related note, about the 3.0.x user interface, it seems to me, now, that it is what the 2.4.x interface was trying to hint at. At this point, I think nearly everyone agrees that the 2.4.x interface was, in almost every possible way, far inferior to the 2.3.x and before interface. I don’t think anyone liked it at all.
With 3.0.x, at least some useful function has been added, that gives it some obvious advantage over the 2.3.x and below interface. For now, I’ll withhold judgement over whether the 3.0.x interface is superior or inferior to the 2.3.x interface; but at least you’ve finally achieved the point of it not being undeniably inferior. Looks like there may still be an issue of the users having to spend more time and more effort to interface with it to achieve the same end purpose, but possibly with enough additional capability to justify the increased demand on the users’ time and attention.
6 Likes
When i batch 1500 or more - TAI is always just stopping responding (after 25 per cent or so)
1 Like
That’s the memory leak issue.
1 Like
Remove Tool often crashed , and PC reboot automatically ,no logfile
Do you have to uninstall Topaz Photo AI 3.0.0 first before installing v2.4.2?
Massive drop (90%) in performance / speed (export to LrC) compared to prior version (on my iMac 2023, OS Sonoma 14.4.1).
1 Like
Yes I did
For me, it begs the issue of how the software is architected. One would think that the UX would be isolated from the “back end” (as the core capability has been referred to) such that UX elements could be changed practically at will without impacting core capabilities. That clearly isn’t the case, as witnessed by the memory leak issue arising past 2.3.2.
What concerns me more is the focus on UX “improvements” at the expense of core capability. This is akin to “putting lipstick on a pig” - if the core capability is malfunctioning, who cares about the UX?
In my opinion, the memory leak issue needs to be the highest priority issue addressed in order to continue to retain quality core capabilities while the UX issues are ironed out.
6 Likes
I just got the “Update Available” this morning and put 3.0 on the desktop. Way different than 2.4.x and WAY different than 2.3.2, which I went back to 'cause 2.4.x was so unproductive.
I don’t know if the new UI is better than 2.4.x or not. It’s a lot more convoluted than 2.3.2, but if I can get used to it and it’s significantly faster than 2.3.2, I’ll likely use it…
Two questions:
It may be some egregious breach of protocol to ask other users why they’re doing something, but is there a specific reason you’d want to balance the color or adjust the lighting in Photo AI? In my workflow, all images sent to PAI are either exported from Lightroom (80%), sent from the Lightroom plugin (very rare since it involves a lot of flopping around to use), or from the Filter in Photoshop (20%, so I don’t end up with a second TIF file). Do a lot of people use Photo AI without post-processing software as a front-end?
I sent a RAW file (a Sony ARW) from Lightroom to PAI using the Topaz plugin. I got BACK a TIF. In the past, when I SENT a RAW file, I got BACK a DNG file that retained all the adjustments made in Lightroom. Is there a preference I need to set or change that’s different than 2.3.2 or 2.4.X?
Even if I export the image from Lightroom and send a DNG, it appears Photo AI is creating a tiff, but it DOESN’T get imported back into Lightroom.
What do I need to change to get Photo AI to return Lightroom a DNG when it gets send a RAW (ARW) or DNG? I have the preference for Se Adobe DNG SDK for export - ENABLED… I’m going to have to go back to 2.3.2 until I can get 3.0 to return a DNG and import it back into Lightroom.
3 Likes
Agreed.
I send images to TPAI from LrC via plug-in-extras. I too discovered that now the output is TIFF, which I’m not happy with. I really wish they put this info in the update log. Also I really don’t know why controls to adjust brightness and color balance are needed in TAPI when sending the image in LrC.
Anyway here is the “story” concerning TIFF file being the output
1 Like
I too have this issue. In addition, in 2.4.2 I would have a definite magenta color cast added to my image if used as a plug-in. Now with the tiff implementation, none of my edits to the base RAW file come through to the tiff file that is returned. Even when synced to the original RAW edit thru LRc, it doesn’t come out the same. Also, all the profile options disappear.
Come on Topaz. Your customers deserve better.
Using PhotoAI as plugin to Lightroom. My Fuji RAF files is returned to Lightroom as Tiff files, not as DNG. Please give me the option to have DNG as in the previous version.
I understand the idea that to make changes to lighting and such Topaz wants to use TIFFs, but I SUSPECT there are a LOT of us who come at Topaz from other post-processing tools and don’t need those tools as much as we need our workflow not to be completely derailed. I"m not sure about other tools, but if you’re using Lightroom, it’s handling all the organization and image management, so doing PAI as a standalone is a huge step backward, and again, very disruptive to workflow.
C’mon guys, if Lightroom can do color and luminance adjustments on a DNG, PAI should be able to.
I’d be happy with a preference I can set to tell PAI if it gets a RAW (DNG) to keep it that way 'cause the current version isn’t going to work. And 2.4.2 is not impressive, so I’ll be going back to 2.3.2. Among other things in 2.4.X, the subject selection is dreadful. It’s kludgy and has massive lag, so it’s really hard to manage selections. And just generally, the UI isn’t great.
For me at least, it would be convenient to be able to brighten dark RAW images while in PAI (they’ll already be exposure corrected before being sent, but PAI doesn’t retain that information and if the image was originally dark, it’s dark in PAI). I’d brighten the image in PAI, do my adjustments, then reset the brightening 'cause once the DNG image gets back to Lightroom I want it to use the color and luminance adjustments I originally made, NOT whatever brightening I did in PAI. BUT, if the tradeoff to do that is getting stuck with a TIFF file as output, NO.
Back to 2.3.2 'til this gets fixed.
5 Likes
