Topaz: Edit JPG to Raw Files

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Thanks, Bart.

[digitaldog]

If this is all that the product does and turns the result into a dng for editing purposes, it can certainly be a very beneficial product. Another benefit would be to convert the jpg back to capture space in linear gamma which would improve wb adjustments and other editing.

Ah, can it fix badly processed WB in the JPEG converted? I asked along time ago, no answer or examples as converting (using) raw data could easily provide.
Lightroom and ACR do all processing in a linear gamma and of course can convert a JPEG into a DNG (which is simply placing the JPEG into a DNG; nothing magical). Not sure how that's beneficial and it's nothing new by a long shot.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hmmm... if Topaz’ AI is so automagical, why don’t they come up with a superior raw converter in the first place?

Actually, their Raw converter is free, as a part of their free Studio application (a standalone application, and at the same time a Plugin). While not as good as Capture One's Raw conversion engine, it ain't bad either. One just drags a Raw file onto the Studio application desktop to convert.

I shoot jpeg only by accident, a temporary lack of sanity, or with a phone. Should I now convert my gazillion raw files into jpegs in order to benefit from the AI magic?

Wouldn't that be something . But no, since your Raws do not suffer from lossy compression artifacts like JPEGs do, you can skip the JPEG part of the workflow and optionally have a look at the Topaz 'A.I. Clear' plugin for Studio. While your quality images probably won't benefit as much as lesser quality source files, who knows they could benefit from a blended A.I. Clear layer...

And when someone else's Raw file get corrupted (would never happen to ourselves, would it) one might be able to salvage the embedded JPEG thumbnail.

When you produce large format output, I most certainly recommend having a look at 'Topaz GigaPixel A.I.', a standalone application that can upscale your original output to 6x larger linear dimensions (with a max of about 50000 pixels) while adding resolution. That would work especially well on your Architectural series of images. Because it adds resolution (fine detail will be smaller than 6 pixels on a 6x upscale), it can even be useful to upscale 6x and downscale 1/6th back to your original output size.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Ah, can it fix badly processed WB in the JPEG converted? I asked along time ago, no answer or examples as converting (using) raw data could easily provide.
Lightroom and ACR do all processing in a linear gamma and of course can convert a JPEG into a DNG (which is simply placing the JPEG into a DNG; nothing magical). Not sure how that's beneficial and it's nothing new by a long shot.

Andrew, does LR remove the JPEG compression artifacts when reading a JPEG?
Topaz JPEG to RAW A.I. does.

You can try that with a JPEG saved with a low quality setting. The blocking artifacts are removed, and replaced with somewhat plausible detail, pretty well.

Of course, you and I would never (deliberately) produce such low quality setting JPEGs, but you may be surprised about the number of people who do. Also, those of us who are involved with postprocessing/restoration of other people's images, may appreciate the potential that this application offers. It can even be used to improve some stock photography, and there's a lot of that going around in the industry.

Cheers,
Bart

[Patricia Sheley]

"replacement" by trained AI with AI gathered information (done with greater efficiency than mere humans or software are concurrently able). Thank you for those two images Bart. It should help to clarify the difference between editing and enhancing with gathering and applying of relevant data from a rapidly increasing pool of relevant data.

[32BT]

Ah, can it fix badly processed WB in the JPEG converted? I asked along time ago, no answer or examples as converting (using) raw data could easily provide.
Lightroom and ACR do all processing in a linear gamma and of course can convert a JPEG into a DNG (which is simply placing the JPEG into a DNG; nothing magical). Not sure how that's beneficial and it's nothing new by a long shot.

I don't know if the product can do it. I'm no expert at the product. I doubt it, and I do know that AI, especially in a general sense, isn't very well suited to do so. AI is very appropriate and useful for reducing/removing jpg artifacts. That benefit should be easy to demonstrate if they did manage to design and teach a proper AI design.

I could also see that for any specific capture device, one could create some reverse for the contrast curve and colorspaces, and perhaps some local contrast reversal. If you could get the imagedata back in linear capture space, it would be useful, but I doubt any sw can do that. (A plain vanilla colorconversion to some linear reference space is not what I mean here.)

[digitaldog]

Andrew, does LR remove the JPEG compression artifacts when reading a JPEG?
Topaz JPEG to RAW A.I. does.

Terrific, what's that got to do with the price of cheese? I'm simply providing facts from a comment and asking for clarification of that comment and no, you didn't clarify it. LR and ACR convert JPEG to DNG as mentioned. LR and ACR process the data in a linear encoding as mentioned. Did I or 32BT state LR/ACR and the Topaz product produce the same results? No, we didn't. So your question is moot IMHO.
The question might might be able to answer but so far have not is can Topaz take a JPEG with utterly wrong WB and fix that as if it were raw data? The other thing you've yet to provide is an ounce of proof the Topaz product converts JPEGs into raw as they state or convert my TIFF back into raw, as you say is possible. Is any of that possible? Have you actually tried any of the above? Should I hold my breath waiting for results of such testing in a product we are told converts JPEG to raw? 

[digitaldog]

I don't know if the product can do it. I'm no expert at the product. I doubt it, and I do know that AI, especially in a general sense, isn't very well suited to do so.

Thanks. I doubt it too and it would be kind of interesting if anyone here, who actually believes the product converts JPEG into raw or provides the same level of corrections, as Topaz claims, could answer if this is true or not. But digressions about what it does to a JPEG after processing in terms of artifacts appears to be the only useful capability.
It (Topaz) can actually recover lost highlights or increase Dynamic Range AS promised below?

[digitaldog]

Of course, you and I would never (deliberately) produce such low quality setting JPEGs, but you may be surprised about the number of people who do.

Yes! They still need to learn a fact of image processing: GIGO:Garbage In Garbage Out.
I'm rarely surprised by the number of people who produce garbage quality images. But they usually reside on the DPR forums instead of LuLa forums. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

"replacement" by trained AI with AI gathered information (done with greater efficiency than mere humans or software are concurrently able). Thank you for those two images Bart. It should help to clarify the difference between editing and enhancing with gathering and applying of relevant data from a rapidly increasing pool of relevant data.

Hi Patrica,

Indeed, replacing image detail has the potential to improve image quality more than modifying/editing alone could achieve.

I'm not sure what your attached version of my JPEG crop is supposed to show, could you elaborate?

Cheers,
Bart

[albytastic]

Thanks. I doubt it too and it would be kind of interesting if anyone here, who actually believes the product converts JPEG into raw or provides the same level of corrections, as Topaz claims, could answer if this is true or not. But digressions about what it does to a JPEG after processing in terms of artifacts appears to be the only useful capability.
It (Topaz) can actually recover lost highlights or increase Dynamic Range AS promised below?

It also reduces noise far better than any I have seen so it doesn't do just one thing, it recovers detail (as already shown), it reduces noise (as shown on my flicker site) and it sharpens and does all this without having to bother with sliders and all the other paraphernalia of other products.

Just one thing, why don't you actually try the product - it is after all free for 30 days?

[digitaldog]

It also reduces noise far better than any I have seen so it doesn't do just one thing, it recovers detail (as already shown), it reduces noise (as shown on my flicker site) and it sharpens and does all this without having to bother with sliders and all the other paraphernalia of other products.

Just one thing, why don't you actually try the product - it is after all free for 30 days?

I told you (and other's) why.
I didn't ask about NR or sharpening, but what I did ask about has again been ignored.

[faberryman]

Just one thing, why don't you actually try the product - it is after all free for 30 days?

I have no JPGs and therefore have no interest in the product. Unless you are shooting with a phone, why wouldn't you shoot raw?

[albytastic]

I have no JPGs and therefore have no interest in the product. Unless you are shooting with a phone, why wouldn't you shoot raw?

I do sometimes but it's far easier to shoot JPEGs especially since I have thousands of photos going back about 15 years.

And virtually all the photos I end up with - in JPEG - are just as good as those I could shoot in RAW - and without all the fuss associated with RAW.

And after all as I have already said, whatever the arguments associated with RAW or JPEG all the billions of photographs on all the web pages in all the world are, guess what?

That's right JPEG!

[faberryman]

And virtually all the photos I end up with - in JPEG - are just as good as those I could shoot in RAW - and without all the fuss associated with RAW.

If all the jpgs you shoot are just as good as raw, why are you using a jpg to raw converter? And isn't using a jpg to raw converter just the "fuss" that you seek to avoid when shooting raw?

[digitaldog]

If all the jpgs you shoot are just as good as raw, why are you using a jpg to raw converter?

Excellent question.
Just as good? That too needs some proof of concept. Again:

The JPEG engine that processes the raw in cameras massively clips and compresses highlights. We often don't when editing the raw. This compression can clump midtones as much as 1 stop while compressing shadow details! People incorrectly state that raw has more highlight data but the fact is, the DR captured is an attribute of the capture system; it's all there in the raw but maybe not in a camera proceed JPEG.
A raw capture that's 10 or 11 stops of dynamic range can be compressed to 7 stops from this JPEG processing which is a significant amount of data and tonal loss! Loss that Topaz can't recover. So when we hear people state that a raw has more DR than a JPEG, it's due to the poor rendering or handling of the data to create that JPEG. The rendering of this data and the reduction of dynamic range is from the JPEG engine that isn't handling the DR data that does exists as well as we can from the raw! Another reason to capture and render the raw data, assuming you care about how the image is rendered!

[albytastic]

If all the jpgs you shoot are just as good as raw, why are you using a jpg to raw converter? And isn't using a jpg to raw converter just the "fuss" that you seek to avoid when shooting raw?

I didn't say all my RAWs were good, and all RAWs need work - I'm sure you know that, including converting to a usable file type, sharpening, NR etc.

So do JPEGs - what this program does is allow me to batch process a lot at once in the same way that my usual NR allows me to batch process them.

But it does a far, far better job all in one go.

So in one go it reduces the noise, recovers details and sharpens where necessary - without fuss.

[albytastic]

Excellent question.
Just as good? That too needs some proof of concept. Again:

The JPEG engine that processes the raw in cameras massively clips and compresses highlights. We often don't when editing the raw. This compression can clump midtones as much as 1 stop while compressing shadow details! People incorrectly state that raw has more highlight data but the fact is, the DR captured is an attribute of the capture system; it's all there in the raw but maybe not in a camera proceed JPEG.
A raw capture that's 10 or 11 stops of dynamic range can be compressed to 7 stops from this JPEG processing which is a significant amount of data and tonal loss! Loss that Topaz can't recover. So when we hear people state that a raw has more DR than a JPEG, it's due to the poor rendering or handling of the data to create that JPEG. The rendering of this data and the reduction of dynamic range is from the JPEG engine that isn't handling the DR data that does exists as well as we can from the raw! Another reason to capture and render the raw data, assuming you care about how the image is rendered!

Actually I don't!

I couldn't care less how it's rendered or anything else really.

All I try to achieve is a decent looking photo without too much trouble.

And this program and also AI Gigapixel help me achieve that.

[digitaldog]

Actually I don't!

You don't get the same quality and options between the two kinds of data; correct!
That you may not care is a different story.

[albytastic]

You don't get the same quality and options between the two kinds of data; correct!
That you may not care is a different story.

And at the end of the day after all that manipulation of 16 bits or 14 bits what you are all left with is - an 8bit JPEG as the final result!

Exactly what I start with!