The installer only installed the stand-alone version. Nothing was actually installed into PhotoLab. The license you paid for is what made the hidden embedded features in PhotoLab become visible and available.
Mark
1 Like
I think that they could add 3-5 of the NIK filters each year as part of the new version. They have the NIK code.
There are a few hundred Nik filters in all the various modules. At three to five filters per year, it would probably take over 50 years to include them all! Which three to five filters would you like them to start with, and how useful these three to five filters really be when separated from the rest of the Nik functionality?
In the meantime you would have a weird hybrid mix of features. DxO would not be able to remove those filters from the Nik collection while adding them to PhotoLab which means they would be in two places. There would be significant other design and workflow issues as well, but, I don’t think it’s worth breaking them all down at this point.
Mark
Hi,
because I’ve just updated my 3 single products to Photo AI and paid nothing 
just a link for How Well Does Topaz Labs’ New Photo AI Sharpen Blurry Photos? | Fstoppers with a short video by Anthony Morganti.
And another one here by Dave Kelly TOPAZ PHOTO AI (NEW UPDATE V1.0.2) Now With a PREFERENCE PANEL (A Welcome Addition)… - YouTube
I will test it with some old photos the next days.
best regards
Guenter
I already own Sharpen AI and while we have generally agreed here that DeepPRIME is the same or better than DeNoise AI, I will quite likely end up purchasing DeNoise AI.
Why? Well I’ve been playing with a trial of Photo AI and while it can do some useful stuff on a handful of my DSLR shots, it can do wonderful things with old scanned films that PhotoLab can do very little with.
This is why I use PixInsight and MLT (Multi Linear Scale transform tool) in linear mode and TGVdenoise in non-linear mode. Both will do a far better job of NR with astrophotography images than either Topaz or DXO Pure RAW 2. Of course, PIxInsight is not cheap (but it is exceptionally good, and great value for money too when you consider that it has no limits to the number of computers that you can run it on, and will run on freeBSD, GNU/Linux, Windows and MacOS).
I’d neve recommend using a DSLR/mirrorless camera for astrophotography. Dedicated astro cameras (ZWO is highly recommended) are a MUCH BETTER option - better bit rate, lower SNR, better electron well depth, better QE and a cooled sensor. Oh, and better IR sensitivity too. There’s no contest whatsoever.
I’d stick to DXO/Topaz for terrestrial images ONLY.
For me personally, I have both DXO Pure RAW2 and Topaz Denoise AI and I think DXO is better (less loss of fine detail). ymmv.
2 Likes
Interesting point that Topaz Denoise in your opinion looks better applied on TIFF than on RAW.
I have the latest version of Topaz Photo AI 3 and before the last upgrade (3.0.4) that I just have downloaded I have seen some strange artifacts in some cases. I also think.
The function Face Recovery I don´t like at all because it smears everything out and loses too much detail.
I also have found that with the RAW processed in Topaz I can´t really finish it without adjusting contrast and white balance often in Photolab afterwords together with highlights and shadows. Topaz seems to be improve step by step but still they have some more work to do.
In one case though I have found both the “Sharpen” and “Denoise” really good and it is together with my repro photographed Agfa color slides. Of some reason Photolabs sharpening tools doesn´t work at all with those images and the same goes for Deep Prime and just that makes it worth the money for me. It is simply fantastic for the color slide images compared to Photolab that is close to useless here compared to Topaz.
One thing I also have to say:
I think it is hard to understand that we who have Photolab 7 will have to wait one year and to the next version arrives in september/oktober before we can get access to Deep Prime XD2 (that has been awailable in PureRaw a long time already. I just got a new improved Topaz Photo AI 3 upgrade (3.03 to 3.04) and it is not even a month since I bought it. Even this software is sold with a perpetual licence.
I really prefer the subscription model of Capture One because they release new functions on the fly as soon as they are ready. This outdated “big bang” once in a year upgrade policy DXO has stuck to a long time I think is hazardous especially is it happens to be a big disappointment for many and doesn´t live up to the expectations.
Now we get the three in one Photo AI 3 so you don´t need to pick just one.
I see I´m not alone having seen the very good effects it has on old scanned or repro photographed film where Photolab is close to useless of some reason. I just don´t understand this because even Capture One is far better with this kind of pictures than Photolab.
“old scanned or repro photographed film”: are these raw files from a digital camera analyzed by DXO? Perhaps the answer is “no” and that explains completely why they aren’t processed by PL.
2 Likes
I think you’re right.
DxO excels at correcting sensor/lens “weaknesses”.
Not correcting problem like shooting old images.
This is why they are good for raw and target only raw. And this is a good point. If they stay the best and don’t cheat their users with their policies.
1 Like
I’m sure I’m right in this case. It’s written and explained many times on their web site. And it makes perfectly sense.
I’m sure you’re right too.
They can be photograped by a digital camera in RAW or scanned in TIFF for example. The problem with Photolab with the film grain and the textures that gives is that either Lens Correction or Unsharp mask works neither do Deep Prime or Deep Prime XD. Deep Prime just works for RAW and just RAW from digitally born images and nothing else.
Topaz Photo AI works for all types of files both when it comes to denoise and sharpening and that is a very strong selling point for it. Even the sharpening in Capture One works for these digitized old positive color slide films. There is a work around in Photolab for the sharpening using Fine Contrast - but that is a limited way to do it that can´t compete at all with what we can achieve with Topax today with these kind of files.
A lot of people have taken JPEG-files during periods of their digital days and for them Photolab have very little to offer.
That is why I have looked up a little bit and started to use Topaz Photo AI 3 inststed in order to address these issues. It is absolutely nothing strange about this at all. Even a carpenter needs to use different tools for different jobs. Photolab and Deep Prime do have its limitations like all tools and everything is not digitally born images if you are an old photographer like me that have taken pictures since 1963 - or more than 60 years.
It is not a case of being better at processing RAW than Topaz really. Sometimes Topaz makes it better with RAW-files than Deep Prime and sometimes not. It depends on the motifs. No clear winner to find so that limitations we find in Deep Prime doesn´t necessarily make it to the champion of RAW-denoise. It is more complicated than so.
I find the title of this old thread and a lot of the discussion a bit strange. Denoising seems the tail wagging the dog.
When I open a RAW file in DxO PL I am trying to find a pleasing starting point for subsequent editing. I’m looking for proper optical, tonal, and color adjustments, and yes, some denoising too if it’s an issue. Topaz PAI is at best a “beta” for RAW file optical, tonal, and color adjustments. Too kind, it’s rather poor. So much so that I’ve yet to find an initial RAW use case for Topaz PAI. Ditto in the case of RAW files from non-DxO supported cameras, where I find that Nitro does a far better job.
Please don’t misread me regarding Topaz PAI. I rather love this quirky, fiddly program and use it frequently on demosaiced image files of all types. Upscaling, sharpening, and denoising – terrific, sometimes miraculous, for these types of images. But not for RAW files – not yet anyway.
1 Like
It is explained on the web site and easy to understand: film grain is NOT noise. It looks like noise to our naked eyes, but it isn’t if you make a little processing. Thus, the algorithm designed to deal with true sensor noise just can’t handle it.
I have tried Topaz to remove blur on a JPG file and the result was very good. But, fortunately, I haven’t much blurred photos to justify to buy it.