Photo AI 1.0.7 - is it just me, or are the results vastly improved?

Digital Nigel wrote:

Zeee wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

Zeee wrote:

Docno wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

logatom wrote:

Hi,

Great output from DxO, but obviously it's not coming from the RAW files you linked to. Would you please share the correct file, if possible?

Sorry for the incorrect link — this is the correct file:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sm5eqr025xs9bei/RX604368%20Temple%20of%20Saint%20Sava%2C%20Belgrade.ARW?dl=0

This is what I get. I processed the Raw in the standalone and noticed, with default settings, the output was about the same as what you got. Then I tried it using the Photoshop plugin. Interestingly, Photo AI defaulted to 'Strong' noise reduction, which I think is what was causing the result you got. I switched this to standard (light, or whatever the weaker version is), and I got a much better outcome. I then did a simple (auto) contrast/brighten. What do you think?

This is what I got with Photo AI opened from LrC as a plug-in and edited as RAW.

I've compared these two attempts with PL6 and my original PAI stand-alone:

Four-way comparison: Docno's version is soft and lacking in detail, Zeee's version is over-sharpened and full of ugly artefacts (look at the saints' faces). The three Photo AI versions can't even agree on colour.

Even with the help of PS and/or LR, Photo AI still can't produce the same quality as PL6 does alone, quickly and easily. There's less detail and/or more artefacts in all the Photo AI versions.

I'm seeing better detail in Photo AI

Look harder. It's missed some real detail, and created artefacts in other places. It's a real mess.

however I when it came back to LrC sharpening was at the default of 40. I added a little texture and exported at screen high. I most likely pushed it a little too much which likely added some artifacts. Easily controllable.

Well, it obviously wasn't in this case. As you've successfully shown, this complicated process has more things to get wrong. PL6 is easier, quicker, more fool-proof, and produces unmatched results.

Why don't you see if you can match the PL quality, using any other combination of tools you like?

And see if you can recover the full image width that PL did.

Of course PL is faster. It's right there and no transfer to another app is not required. What DXO does not offer is blur correction which is Topaz has done pretty outstanding job with.

Not in this image, as there is no blur to correct. In fact, the PL6 version is sharper than yours, without any artefacts. But, yes, if there's motion blur, Photo AI can certainly do a lot to fix it, and PL can't.

I realize there is no blur in this file. I was just saying Topaz offers it.

In images that have motion blur, I first process in PL, then export to Sharpen AI which is excellent. Similarly, on the rare occasions when I need to upscale, I always use Gigapixel, which now works very well (it didn't originally).

But the one thing I would never do is to process a raw in Photo AI or any Topaz app.

I can post a file on my other sites processed in either PL or Topaz and no one will know the difference unless I tell them. Rarely does anyone ask. The likes will won't make any difference either.