I think the heat of this discussion could be dialed down if the notion of returning processed data (JPEG) to an *unprocessed state (Raw) were abandoned, and instead we focused on whether or not the Topaz software actually increases the quality (at least tonally but maybe spatially as well) of the source JPGs. Like Bart says, you can't unbreak an egg…but some methods of attempting this may get you closer than others, and the amount of "closer" may have actual value. Taking shots at hype is easy. But does the Topaz process do any good? That's the question I'd be interested in.
-Dave-
*Relatively unprocessed, that is.
Thank you. You have clearly stated the question I'd like to have answered, too.
Before I get the standard comments...
1. The name is misleading, but the name has nothing to do with how it actually performs. If your objection is based solely on how it's being marketed, then you have nothing new to add. You aren't addressing the question.
2. I agree starting with a raw file is preferred to trying to clean up a JPEG.
There are circumstances where it is impossible to get an original raw file. Some devices do not supply a raw file, or the original photographer may not have chosen that option. If you are fortunate enough to never encounter that problem, then this application is not for you. You don't even need to know that it exists, and the answer to Dave's question has no value to you.
It may be possible to duplicate the action of this application using Photoshop or other image editing software. This has not been established as far as I know. However, even if it is possible, does this application make it easier or faster to obtain the same results. If it does, then it may still have value for certain users. Though not those who don't ever have to "polish turds."
TG Frerichs