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

ProDude wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Ernie Misner wrote:

Amazing and good to hear. Did you open your raw file directly in Photo AI, or?

Yes indeed I did take a ORF file right into the program. It does a nice job

I'm finding that, for raws, Photo AI falls a long way short of PhotoLab 6 with DeepPRIME XD. See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66596422

Of course, Photo AI has the advantage with JPEGs.

Well not really. But then it depends on how much you hate digital noise. I personally prefer to ban it altogether and not compromise the detail. Yes DXO does a admirable job in this area. Better than anyone else out there, BUT perhaps in one manner not as well as Topaz. I can manipulate a 12,800ISO image with Topaz and end up with a finely detailed image, NO color noise nor ANY grain.

But no detail, either. Photo AI's heavy-handed NR loses all the detail.

If I try it on DXO it gets rid of most of the grain, but in many cases leaves some. Its a personal choice. limit it, moderate it or BAN it. I prefer the later. To each their own. From my recent testing I must say Topaz is getting VERY close to an essentially perfect software package with the Photo AI. Perhaps another couple updates and they can be there.

You get less detail with Photo AI than DeepPRIME XD, plus the Topaz raw processor is very poor (and isn't improving). For best noise-free results process raws in PhotoLab, then apply a final polish in Photo AI.

ProDude wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Ernie Misner wrote:

Amazing and good to hear. Did you open your raw file directly in Photo AI, or?

Yes indeed I did take a ORF file right into the program. It does a nice job

I'm finding that, for raws, Photo AI falls a long way short of PhotoLab 6 with DeepPRIME XD. See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66596422

Of course, Photo AI has the advantage with JPEGs.

Well not really. But then it depends on how much you hate digital noise. I personally prefer to ban it altogether and not compromise the detail. Yes DXO does a admirable job in this area. Better than anyone else out there, BUT perhaps in one manner not as well as Topaz. I can manipulate a 12,800ISO image with Topaz and end up with a finely detailed image, NO color noise nor ANY grain.

But no detail, either. Photo AI's heavy-handed NR loses all the detail.

If I try it on DXO it gets rid of most of the grain, but in many cases leaves some. Its a personal choice. limit it, moderate it or BAN it. I prefer the later. To each their own. From my recent testing I must say Topaz is getting VERY close to an essentially perfect software package with the Photo AI. Perhaps another couple updates and they can be there.

You get less detail with Photo AI than DeepPRIME XD, plus the Topaz raw processor is very poor (and isn't improving). For best noise-free results process raws in PhotoLab, then apply a final polish in Photo AI.

The results you're getting don't mirror mine. Perhaps there are some tweaks needed in Photo AI. All I know is that I'm NOT losing detail as you are.

How do you know you're not losing detail?  Are you getting the same level of detail as you get from DeepPRIME XD?  Perhaps share one of your raw files so we can see?  [I'll happily share this one.]

As for needing tweaks in Photo AI, isn't the whole point if it that it doesn't need such tweaks.

ProDude wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Ernie Misner wrote:

Amazing and good to hear. Did you open your raw file directly in Photo AI, or?

Yes indeed I did take a ORF file right into the program. It does a nice job

I'm finding that, for raws, Photo AI falls a long way short of PhotoLab 6 with DeepPRIME XD. See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66596422

Of course, Photo AI has the advantage with JPEGs.

Well not really. But then it depends on how much you hate digital noise. I personally prefer to ban it altogether and not compromise the detail. Yes DXO does a admirable job in this area. Better than anyone else out there, BUT perhaps in one manner not as well as Topaz. I can manipulate a 12,800ISO image with Topaz and end up with a finely detailed image, NO color noise nor ANY grain.

But no detail, either. Photo AI's heavy-handed NR loses all the detail.

If I try it on DXO it gets rid of most of the grain, but in many cases leaves some. Its a personal choice. limit it, moderate it or BAN it. I prefer the later. To each their own. From my recent testing I must say Topaz is getting VERY close to an essentially perfect software package with the Photo AI. Perhaps another couple updates and they can be there.

You get less detail with Photo AI than DeepPRIME XD, plus the Topaz raw processor is very poor (and isn't improving). For best noise-free results process raws in PhotoLab, then apply a final polish in Photo AI.

The results you're getting don't mirror mine. Perhaps there are some tweaks needed in Photo AI. All I know is that I'm NOT losing detail as you are.

Here's the raw file I used:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x6w3pilsbd03c0j/RX604367%20Temple%20of%20Saint%20Sava%2C%20Belgrade.ARW?dl=0

This is what I got from it using Photo AI:

Produced from raw using Photo AI

Can you tweak Photo AI to produce a better result?  Can you make it equal what I got from PhotoLab 6?  Maybe you can help me get better results from Photo AI? That would be welcome for me and any other users of it.

I already own Photo AI, but am still evaluating PL6. Maybe you can save me from needing to buy it, if Photo AI can produce equally good results?

Produced from the same raw using PhotoLab 6 with DeepPRIME XD and built-in VP4.

The PL6 image is much wider, much more detailed, sharper, and just as noise-free.

Thanks for the comparisons, and really great results with PL6.

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?

I thought I had shared the correct file — I will check again when I get a chance.  Why do you think it's not?

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?

I thought I had shared the correct file — I will check again when I get a chance. Why do you think it's not?

Update: yes, you're quite right, I'll update the file in an hour or two when I can get on my PC.

In the meantime, these are the images I produced from this other raw file:

This is what I got from PL6 with VP4 built-in:

PhotoLab 6, using DeepPRIME XD and the VP4 ReShape tool to deal with corner vignetting

And this is what I got from Photo AI, again from the same raw image:

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

ProDude wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Ernie Misner wrote:

Amazing and good to hear. Did you open your raw file directly in Photo AI, or?

Yes indeed I did take a ORF file right into the program. It does a nice job

I'm finding that, for raws, Photo AI falls a long way short of PhotoLab 6 with DeepPRIME XD. See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66596422

Of course, Photo AI has the advantage with JPEGs.

Well not really. But then it depends on how much you hate digital noise. I personally prefer to ban it altogether and not compromise the detail. Yes DXO does a admirable job in this area. Better than anyone else out there, BUT perhaps in one manner not as well as Topaz. I can manipulate a 12,800ISO image with Topaz and end up with a finely detailed image, NO color noise nor ANY grain. If I try it on DXO it gets rid of most of the grain, but in many cases leaves some. Its a personal choice. limit it, moderate it or BAN it. I prefer the later. To each their own. From my recent testing I must say Topaz is getting VERY close to an essentially perfect software package with the Photo AI. Perhaps another couple updates and they can be there.

I see you're an OM-1 user, so I thought I'd try out both products on an ISO12800 OM-1 test image, downloaded from DPR:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0739659306/om-system-om-1-sample-gallery/7005553614

This is what Photo AI 1.0.8 and PhotoLab 6.0.1 produced:

Photo AI 1.0.8

PhotoLab 6.0.1

Which do you think produced the most "finely detailed image, NO color noise nor ANY grain" image?

Photo AI vs PhotoLab 6 on an ISO12800 image — which has less noise? Which has clearer detail?

And here's a screen capture of FastStone comparing the Photo AI, PL6 and OOC JPEG versions

Photo AI 1.0.8 (left), PhotoLab 6.0.1 (centre), OOC JPEG (tight)

and another:

Photo AI, PL6, OOC JPEG

Do you agree with these results, or do you think there are some 'tweaks' that I should have used with Photo AI to improve these poor results?

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

I don't thinks so , from my test I see PAI cannot distinguish texture/ true details and noise so even with Strengh=1 it's removing a lot of texture/true details and I don't thing anything can recover what disappeared .

This picture is fantastic for such a test and I completly agree with Digital Nigel on the verdict

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.

CrisL 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 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.

I don't thinks so , from my test I see PAI cannot distinguish texture/ true details and noise so even with Strengh=1 it's removing a lot of texture/true details and I don't thing anything can recover what disappeared .

Looking at the glass dome I see better detail. However we are at the never ending point of pixel peeping and even if PL is better I don't care. It is not washed out as shown in earlier posts and it is doing what I need it to do. Photo AI actually surprised me with this comparison. I keep reading about how bad it is compared to the 3 stand alone apps. They do have more refinement options which is important.

This picture is fantastic for such a test and I completly agree with Digital Nigel on the verdict

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.

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.

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.

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.

Zeee wrote:

CrisL 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 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.

I don't thinks so , from my test I see PAI cannot distinguish texture/ true details and noise so even with Strengh=1 it's removing a lot of texture/true details and I don't thing anything can recover what disappeared .

Looking at the glass dome I see better detail.

Artefacts are not detail. Look at the saints' faces to see some really ugly artefacts in your version. That just doesn't happen with PhotoLab.

However we are at the never ending point of pixel peeping and even if PL is better I don't care.

I certainly do. PL does a much better job, more quickly, in a single product, with less effort, and with no danger of artefacts. You may think none of those matters, but I disagree. You can be a masochist if you like, but I'm lazy: I like being able to get the best results, effortlessly.

It is not washed out as shown in earlier posts

That's because of the work you did in LR. Photo AI alone does a poor job with a raw image. But it can be a useful, simple way of enhancing a noisy, soft, but well-exposed JPEG.

and it is doing what I need it to do. Photo AI actually surprised me with this comparison. I keep reading about how bad it is compared to the 3 stand alone apps.

In one respect it's better than DeNoise AI. At least it makes an attempt to correct lens distortion in raw files, which DeNoise AI doesn't.

They do have more refinement options which is important.

Yes, though Photo AI is gaining more options in its frequent releases.

Digital Nigel wrote:

Zeee wrote:

CrisL 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 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.

I don't thinks so , from my test I see PAI cannot distinguish texture/ true details and noise so even with Strengh=1 it's removing a lot of texture/true details and I don't thing anything can recover what disappeared .

Looking at the glass dome I see better detail.

Artefacts are not detail. Look at the saints' faces to see some really ugly artefacts in your version. That just doesn't happen with PhotoLab.

I have a 5K screen and I do not see any artefacts in the dome, just more contrast. Yes I agree some of faces are a little rougher but I was very aggressive in sharpening. I just wanted to see what it could do. All I know is it does not look like mush compared to previous posts. That was significant difference.

However we are at the never ending point of pixel peeping and even if PL is better I don't care.

I certainly do. PL does a much better job, more quickly, in a single product, with less effort, and with no danger of artefacts. You may think none of those matters, but I disagree. You can be a masochist if you like, but I'm lazy: I like being able to get the best results, effortlessly.

It is not washed out as shown in earlier posts

That's because of the work you did in LR. Photo AI alone does a poor job with a raw image. But it can be a useful, simple way of enhancing a noisy, soft, but well-exposed JPEG.

and it is doing what I need it to do. Photo AI actually surprised me with this comparison. I keep reading about how bad it is compared to the 3 stand alone apps.

In one respect it's better than DeNoise AI. At least it makes an attempt to correct lens distortion in raw files, which DeNoise AI doesn't.

They do have more refinement options which is important.

Yes, though Photo AI is gaining more options in its frequent releases.