![]() Gigapixel AI offers a more complex interface with a wider selection of controls. The tool also offers a direct Lightroom plugin, allowing for seamless integration into existing workflows. It includes an Autopilot mode, which uses AI to detect the required enhancements and apply optimal settings. Photo AI offers a user-friendly interface with intuitive controls. The two products work very well together.Layout of Topaz Photo AI 3. I am very pleased with my purchase, and feel it was well worth the money I spent.ACDSee works on uncompressed files and doesn't take very much time in uncompressing and recompressing, And since I can't see ANY difference between the quality when Photo AI is used as a standalone app, and when used as an end-stage plug-in, I will continue to use it as a plug-in, and save the storage space required to store the ORFs and the 5MB completed jpg photos. My ORF files are 14.8 megabytes compressed, and 91.8 MB uncompressed.I'm finding that there is NO difference with image quality between converting my Olympus ORF raw files to dngs at the beginning of the workflow or at the end when I use Photo AI as a plug-in from the built in bit mapped editor.(useful skills for every photographer, I think) It's good that I'm pretty good at manual denoising & sharpening. ACDSee can do an OK manual job on denoising & sharpening presets VERY quickly on a huge number of batched photos, Then I can send individual photos to Photo AI that need extra help. This holds true for denoising and sharpening as well. ![]() I think then, I will use Photo AI to enhance select photos that need it. Much faster than the 8-10 minutes per image with Photo AI. I think it renders a very good 2X file and it enlarges within a second. ACDSee's ClearIQZ is still a pretty good enlarging tool, though all it does is enlarge without enhancement. It's slow enough that I think I will use just ACDSee tools in batch mode. Photo AI is very slow in batch mode with my mid-tier 6-7 year old PC.I've been using the ACDSee/Topaz Photo AI combo for about 3 weeks now. I think I like the less aggressive version over all of the Photo AI sharpen and denoise results.īTW: I can't figure out why I have 2 copies of the full ON1 version. Also, the denoising from On1 seems, "too smooth", there is a texture and 'feel' to the ACDSee/Topaz version. And while the artifacts showing in the On1 version are pretty much irrelevant because of the extreme magnification, they do bother me a bit. Primarily because of the colors though I admit to being MUCH more experienced with ACDSee. On the whole, I think I prefer the ACDSee/Topaz combo a tiny bit more. And the Sharpening and Denoising leaves something to be desired in both, though at normal viewing sizes neither make all that much difference in sharpness or noise. I prefer the color and lighting of the ACDSee version the best. As to which version I prefer, it's a tough call. The image below is roughly enlarged to 300%. ![]() Sharpening and Denoise were allowed to use defaults. Shot with an Olympus EM10 and a kit lens. ![]() I tried to duplicate the same overall luminance and color in both, and "sorta" tried to duplicate the cropping level. Attached is a photo of a photo that I processed both in On1 Photo Raw and in ACDSee with sharpening and Denoise handled by Topaz Photo AI.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |