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

Zeee wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

Docno 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.

Except you’ve zoomed in more on my version which invalidates the comparison. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you can’t compare image detail at different zoom factors

I didn't zoom in more: your upload was up-sized (why?). All four examples are compared full-size as uploaded.

But the result would be the same even if you hadn't up-sized it: there simply is less detail in the Photo AI results. Zeee tried to compensate by sharpening it, but that added ugly artefacts, not detail.

I wasn't trying to compensate. I just wanted to see if that mush was it. I normally do not apply sharpening in in LrC after doing so in Topaz do I normally export at screen high. I put little effort into it. This just showed me I can do better than what you posted.

I posted the output of stand-alone TPAI, to show what it looked like (people had been claiming that it was a good tool for developing raw files). You wouldn't get anything very different from TPAI.

So you used LR to improve the image, and anyone using TPAI would similarly need to use some sort of photo editor to do all the many things TPAI doesn't do. They can certainly improve the lighting, contrast, colours, levels, etc. They shouldn't need to do any sharpening, given that TPAI includes what is supposedly top quality AI-based sharpening.

But none of those photo editors, however good, can restore the detail that TPAI lost. Over-sharpening in LR as you did might make the image look sharp at first glance, but just adds artefacts, not detail. It's impossible for LR (or PS, AP, PSE, PSP) to replace what TPAI missed.