So who determined this closeness? AI, Topaz, or you? As it goes to the new enlargement and improvement models, it becomes more and more artificial. I agree that it has never been a clear cut between the real and AI generated detail in Topaz products but I think in the present, particularly in the Wonder models, it progressed perhaps little too far. Clearly, it’s not a restoration, it’s a replacement of the detail present in the initial image documented by the lens + sensor. That’s why some photo contests do not accept images treated with Topaz and similar AI apps, very understandable.
I figured it out. Add multiple images, wait for autopilot to finish for the first, the select “autopilot for all”, the first one’s (initial image of a set) resolution is reduce not scaled up, unless you manually over-ride.
well… If for tone/contrast/brightness/noise etc, these are all acceptable. Same do we making documentary for research papers. But no removal or generation of new items permitted.
Still, outside of the stance of photo contests or documentary, I am gladly accepting removal (which obviously cannot be done without a replacement of the removed item with something generated). So, there is no clear cut, as I mentioned above… All about the mere, where we stop talking of a photograph (or part of it, like natural shape, detail, texture…) and instead admire and gasp at some artificially generated items, like pattern of seta on bug bodies or bird feathers. But again, this is indeed individual (and that’s why Topaz still calls their program “Photo” ;-))
can you send more details on this? I have tested a few RAW files and they give the normal RAW Denoise behavior and no sliders are at 1. Send screenshots and details on how you get to the issue and we can have a look and relay to the development team for a fix.
Ange.topazlabs
(ange.topazlabs@gmail.com)
Split this topic
211
