Topaz: Edit JPG to Raw Files

[Patricia Sheley]

"could you elaborate?

Cheers,
Bart"

Yes, simply that a visual scan of your two versions should allow anyone who has worked with software along the lines of "content aware" applications to more easily recognize tangential areas, (as bark to shadow, edge to similar background, branch to non-related yet similar background tone) that illustrate that the AI part of the equation is not doing "recovery" (highlight, shadow, gamma etc) "better". It is the extraordinary possibility of knowledge existence points gathered, and then applied in a way to tangencies that create the result. I think that the size of the pool being drawn from to apply to small personal locations is being missed. In particular looking at that concrete edge, and imagining the way in which any software would handle the vagaries, as opposed to the result shown here in particular as in multiple points in your two images. Thanks

[digitaldog]

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!

You're missing the point and facts again.
You might end up with an 8-bit JPEG, other's not so much.
Start by educating yourself before posting.
http://digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf

[albytastic]

You're missing the point and facts again.
You might end up with an 8-bit JPEG, other's not so much.
Start by educating yourself before posting.
http://digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf

I don't need to - I can still produce good photos despite my total ignorance of anything!

Good JPEGs 

[digitaldog]

I don't need to - I can still produce good photos despite my total ignorance of anything!

Good JPEGs 

"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about". -Wayne Dyer

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes, simply that a visual scan of your two versions should allow anyone who has worked with software along the lines of "content aware" applications to more easily recognize tangential areas, (as bark to shadow, edge to similar background, branch to non-related yet similar background tone) that illustrate that the AI part of the equation is not doing "recovery" (highlight, shadow, gamma etc) "better". It is the extraordinary possibility of knowledge existence points gathered, and then applied in a way to tangencies that create the result. I think that the size of the pool being drawn from to apply to small personal locations is being missed. In particular looking at that concrete edge, and imagining the way in which any software would handle the vagaries, as opposed to the result shown here in particular as in multiple points in your two images. Thanks

Thank for explaining. There sure is room for improvement, but this is just their first published version of the JPEG to RAW A.I. models. IMHO, it looks promising.

It's similar to their other A.I. tool models, they have been improved several times already (today they again added 'A.I. Clear' models to that plugin). And since future upgrades are free, the value for money keeps improving alongside.

Cheers,
Bart

[faberryman]

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.

Well , at least you recognize that jpgs lack image quality, and have taken steps to improve them. That's a step in the right direction. Rather than futz with a jpg to raw program, I'll start with a raw to begin with. I don't think it is to much trouble to try to make my images look better than decent.

[albytastic]

"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about". -Wayne Dyer

Or possibly condemning a program out of hand without even trying it?

[digitaldog]

Or possibly condemning a program out of hand without even trying it?

Wrong, I'm condemning the LIE the software company is making. I've never condemned the results shown (I'll repeat again) or ever state it doesn't do something to improve what is apparently a turd of a JPEG that needs polishing.
The product isn't converting a JPEG to raw. That's a lie. It will continue to be a lie if I download and test the product or I don't. And again (because you seem to have reading comprehension issues making me repeat myself to your posts), I have no need to polish JPEG turds. My JPEGs are output ready FROM raw data.
I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it. Seems the former. 

[albytastic]

Wrong, I'm condemning the LIE the software company is making. I've never condemned the results shown (I'll repeat again) or ever state it doesn't do something to improve what is apparently a turd of a JPEG that needs polishing.
The product isn't converting a JPEG to raw. That's a lie. It will continue to be a lie if I download and test the product or I don't. And again (because you seem to have reading comprehension issues making me repeat myself to your posts), I have no need to polish JPEG turds. My JPEGs are output ready FROM raw data.
I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it. Seems the former. 

But they convert to DNG - a RAW file

"DNG is also considered to be a RAW image file. It is Adobe’s proprietary image standard that was created to store image data in a generic, highly-compatible format, unlike RAW files that have specific formats based on manufacturer and camera type. Although DNG was invented by Adobe and is supported in all Adobe applications, there are other camera manufacturers such as Leica, Hasselblad and Pentax that adopted this standard and use it in their cameras as their native and supported RAW file format."

https://expertphotography.com/dng-file-vs-raw-file/

[digitaldog]

But they convert to DNG - a RAW file

"DNG is also considered to be a RAW image file. It is Adobe’s proprietary image standard that was created to store image data in a generic, highly-compatible format, unlike RAW files that have specific formats based on manufacturer and camera type. Although DNG was invented by Adobe and is supported in all Adobe applications, there are other camera manufacturers such as Leica, Hasselblad and Pentax that adopted this standard and use it in their cameras as their native and supported RAW file format."

https://expertphotography.com/dng-file-vs-raw-file/

You're confused again. DNG may equal raw, DNG may not equal raw. You've been told over and over again, and provided outside references that DNG is a container for image and metadata. You refuse to accept that a JPEG placed INTO a DNG is still a JPEG and NOT raw data.
A camera may indeed write raw data into a DNG. That data IS raw.
A proprietary raw can be converted to DNG, that sensor data is raw (and again, all that is converted is simply metadata).
A JPEG or TIFF can be converted to a DNG. That absolutely doesn't make that raw data.
I'd provide the actual DNG spec that talks of this but I suspect it would over your head as you simply cannot accept or understand the multiple outside references I've already provided to you that clearly state what happens when you convert a JPEG to DNG. What it absolutely does NOT do is make that JPEG raw data. If you believe that, you're stuck in an unreality bubble.


Can you read? Let's try this again:

You've been tricked by misunderstanding and assumptions about DNG. DNG may equal raw. DNG may not equal raw. As for JPEG to DNG, read, learn:


http://asktimgrey.com/2015/09/01/jpeg-to-dng/
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1049709
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2189544
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/968134
https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/73475/how-to-convert-jpeg-to-raw-in-photoshop-or-similar
https://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/threads/jpg-to-dng.35456/

[Ray Harrison]

I think it's quite clear that this application does not produce a raw file or honestly, anything like one (and I have tried it). It's really a JPEG image enhancer that is attempting to "fill in the gaps" by using machine learning and subsequent A.I. predictions instead of more "bog standard" image processing techniques. Success in machine learning comes from choosing the right features and the right model for your training set, and it depends on the quality of the training set as well. And how often you retrain it and tweak the model. At the end of the day though, they're still filling in the gaps. Whether that gap filling is from A.I., "standard" image processing techniques, or indeed, the tooth fairy. It may be that over time, the model gets better at filling in the gaps for a given set of use cases, it's hard to say. Working in machine learning and AI myself (admittedly not in the imaging space), I can say that applying it is definitely not always a straight upward trajectory of improvement to life and the universe and we should always remember that at most, ML/AI is simply a tool and it is not magic.

This has certainly been an interesting discussion. I always learn a lot from Andrew, Mark and Bart, despite their obvious differences on this subject. I've certainly appreciated that Bart has done comparisons that show for his use cases, those gaps are filled with what he needs to accomplish his goals. The OP and others have seen some value in it. The ever enthusiastic albytastic thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread and produces apparently pleasing images. It may be that for those who have large selections of JPEG-only images, old slides or scans (like OP), it adds value. That's great.

I have used any number of tools over the years, including from Topaz. They do decent stuff there. I obviously have nothing against AI. But at the end of the day, I only shoot raw, even in my phone, and can't think of any reason to use this product, though I did try it on one or two tough images to see what it could do. Obviously contrived since I had the original raws as well. I didn't care much for what it did. And the images were better processed from raw simply using C1 at the end of the day. The result from the topaz tool required much more work to get it even slightly close to where I wanted it.  It seems over-priced and over-hyped and quite honestly, I am really bothered by the name too. To go back to Bart's omelette analogy (in this or another thread, I forget), I'd rather start with the highest quality eggs and cook it the way I'd like it to begin with rather than having to reconstitute egg powder and cook it again. Obviously, if I was really hungry and egg powder was all I had...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And another example with different subject matter. Same procedure as before;
JPEG -> JPEG toRAW A.I. -> DNG -> Capture One-> TIFF ->JPEG.

I unfortunately do not recall the exact source (somewhere on the WWW) of the crop (otherwise I'd have added a link to that).

Cheers,
Bart

[billbane]

Mr. Rodney,

You are endlessly repetitive, abusive, and uninformative. Please explain upon what authority you tell a contributor to "do his homework" before commenting? If you are King here, as you seem to think as you sit on your perch and preach, I will shortly move to a new realm.

Despite numerous excellent contributions by Bart and others showing what J2R really is and how it helps with images now and how it might help even more in the future, you consistently fail to do "your homework" about his remarks. So, the fact that you admonish someone else about not doing their homework is astonishing.

Unwillingness to do one's homework is one possibility. The other possibility is that your mind has become so inelastic that you are not able to even comprehend the possibility that a math exits that is not the equivalent of an inversion of the (aka your math) math that converts from Raw to Jpeg, and can bring with it some of the advantages of Raw over jpeg.

Please feel free to feel negatively about j2R and about all the silly people that have jpegs that they cherish and wish to improve.

However, I will repeat my request that you cease and desist with your repeated personal attacks and with comments with zero new information or perspectives. It was easy to hear you the first time.

My view is that you are inhibiting others -- say "fresh blood" newbies with software backgrounds -- from contributing insights on this new product, which I at least would like to see encouraged.

Bill Bane

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I only shoot raw, even in my phone...

Once I got an iPhone XS Max, I realized I prefer their computational jpeg to the raw I can process in Lightroom mobile.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Mr. Rodney,

You are endlessly repetitive, abusive, and uninformative. Please explain upon what authority you tell a contributor to "do his homework" before commenting? If you are King here, as you seem to think...

I can perhaps agree that Andrew can be repetitive and abusive at times, but uninformative!? Have you actually research Andrew's authority? In the realm of this forum, and certainly beyond, Andrew is the authority, widely accepted as such by me and many, many others. Compared with Albert's 5th-grader knowledge and logic, there is no contest.

[Ray Harrison]

Once I got an iPhone XS Max, I realized I prefer their computational jpeg to the raw I can process in Lightroom mobile.

They are definitely doing some great stuff. I'm getting my XS Max next month. I'll check it out!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And another example with different subject matter...

Bart, what is the purpose with this latest example? It shows a bit more sharpening applied, and a bit shadows opening, both of which can be achieved easily by any program today. I do not see any improvements in recovering highlights, however. They are still blown.

[albytastic]

Quote Gary, " 72nd decade"

WOW!!!!! You've seen some things!

I've seen more!

[digitaldog]

Mr. Rodney,

You are endlessly repetitive, abusive, and uninformative. Please explain upon what authority you tell a contributor to "do his homework" before commenting? If you are King here, as you seem to think as you sit on your perch and preach, I will shortly move to a new realm.

Good idea.

[billbane]

Slobodan,

I accept your premise that Andrew was a bright light in his past, and that you and others learned from him. He deserves appreciation and respect for that.

Further, I accept that his knowledge is useful today, but this has not been there to be seen on this matter, which was the point of my remark. What has he said other than that the output of j2R is not equivalent to Raw, and in how many angry posts has he said no more than this?

And, you, seemingly like him, think others who you know little about are weak in logic, and that is quite an assumption. Anyway, good logic stands on its own, and Andrew has failed miserably there.

In the past I have visited this and other post processing threads occasionally, and I have seen the very useful knowledge available here, as represented by Bart, you, and a few others whose names are not as memorable as yours. It is clearly present and valuable.

So, I hope that the old vets will continue to contribute but surely it should not be the hope that this blog be the exclusive domain of the old dogs? Andrew's behavior is antagonistic to this blog's sustenance and vibrancy and I felt it worth complaining about. Your acknowledgement that he is endless repetitive and abusive is quite stark, fwiw. Do you have no concerns that this is not harmful to useful contributions to this blog over time?

BTW, I am an old dog myself, and recognize the old Silicon Valley saying that "Perspective is worth 20 IQ points."

Bill