Topaz problem

[digitaldog]

You're not the only one today upset with the company:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/topaz-labs-studio.5514607/
It's a shame they have such good engineering and such 'crooks' in marketing and apparently from the above, subpar tech support.

[faberryman]

Topaz has now offered to refund me all the money I spent on their products so that's something I guess.
But still doesn't make up for the fact that I now have no product that comes anywhere near what this program could do.
I tried de-noise but that doesn't support batch processing which JPEG to RAW did.
So as far as I'm concerned a  brilliant program totally ruined by crooks trying to squeeze the last penny out of their customers.
So I am still more than pi***d off especially since I also spent £140.00 ($160+) to upgrade the GPU on one of my Z800s to run their programs.

Why not just shoot RAW? Then you wouldn't need the program and your end results would be better.

[albytastic]

Why not just shoot RAW? Then you wouldn't need the program and your end results would be better.

Because I wasn't looking to create RAW files from a JPEG, I bought the program because it could do things which RAW couldn't - namely reduce noise and restore lost details all in one go and without having to fiddle with sliders.
And I could also batch process hundreds of photos at once, something which Topaz claims that De-Noise cannot yet do!
And yes, I could use a NR program, and try sharpening the pics, but JPEG to RAW still produced much better results with much less trouble.
So I find it inconceivable that they could deliberately destroy this program, and I also wonder how long before they start to carve up their other programs in order to make a few more bucks at the expense of their loyal customers?
And I certainly would never trust them again or purchase any other programs from them.

[leuallen]

I tried de-noise but that doesn't support batch processing which JPEG to RAW did.

If you have PS you can batch process Denoise. I batched Denoise AI last night and it worked well. You need Russel Browns Image Processor installed on your PC (google). Then you need to create a simple action and you are all set.

Also Topaz Studio supports batch processing but I did not have much luck with that.


Larry

[digitaldog]

Because I wasn't looking to create RAW files from a JPEG, I bought the program because it could do things which RAW couldn't - namely reduce noise and restore lost details all in one go and without having to fiddle with sliders.

Wll, first you can't create raw files from a JPEG. No more than you can create flour (or eggs, or butter or sugar) from a baked cake. 2nd, it can't do thinks which raw can't.

As for detail and data and DR, you can't create what doesn't exist. Ideally you want to stick with the raw data. The JPEG engine that processes the raw 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! 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]

Wll, first you can't create raw files from a JPEG. No more than you can create flour (or eggs, or butter or sugar) from a baked cake. 2nd, it can't do thinks which raw can't.

As for detail and data and DR, you can't create what doesn't exist. Ideally you want to stick with the raw data. The JPEG engine that processes the raw 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! 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!

As I have already stated many times I couldn't care less what the program called itself because it did exactly what I wanted!

And regardless of what you think I found it incredibly useful! 

[digitaldog]

As I have already stated many times I couldn't care less what the program called itself because it did exactly what I wanted!

You clearly stated (not them): Because I wasn't looking to create RAW files from a JPEG....
Good, because you can't. Enough said.
As to the rest, I'm simply pointing out what you said also doesn't wash: I bought the program because it could do things which RAW couldn't.
This question makes a heck of a lot of sense if (when) you think about it:

Why not just shoot RAW? Then you wouldn't need the program and your end results would be better.
 

[albytastic]

You're not the only one today upset with the company:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/topaz-labs-studio.5514607/
It's a shame they have such good engineering and such 'crooks' in marketing and apparently from the above, subpar tech support.

Well they were double quick in replying to my emails AND my refunds are now in my PayPal account so financially I haven't lost out.

Mind you that may have had something to do with my language and threats to go to the FTC over their business practices!

But I have still installed an NVidia 1050Ti 4GB GPU on one of my Z800s to run these programs.

And I've had to put a warning notice on my Flickr site about their programs, since I praised it so highly!

All In all a complete debacle for Topaz - and totally unnecessary to garnish such bad publicity from what used to be such a great program!

[albytastic]

You clearly stated (not them): Because I wasn't looking to create RAW files from a JPEG....
Good, because you can't. Enough said.
As to the rest, I'm simply pointing out what you said also doesn't wash: I bought the program because it could do things which RAW couldn't.
This question makes a heck of a lot of sense if (when) you think about it:

Why not just shoot RAW? Then you wouldn't need the program and your end results would be better.
 

Sorry you don't seem to understand - if I shoot RAW and just miss focus does it magically fix it - NO!
If I shoot RAW and have a lot of noise does it magically fix it - NO!

But one pass through J2R and they were fixed !

So please stop bleating on as if RAW is a magic elixir which fixes all problems - it isn't and it doesn't!

[digitaldog]

Sorry you don't seem to understand - if I shoot RAW and just miss focus does it magically fix it - NO!
If I shoot RAW and have a lot of noise does it magically fix it - NO!

But one pass through J2R and they were fixed !

So please stop bleating on as if RAW is a magic elixir which fixes all problems - it isn't and it doesn't!

If/when you optimally expose for raw, you will greatly reduced noise and have far more DR and a lot more to work with than any JPEG! But if you prefer polishing truds; it's your images; go for it.

[rasworth]

Andrew,

You might enjoy reading this webpage on "trud" meanings:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trud

Richard Southworth

[digitaldog]

Andrew,

You might enjoy reading this webpage on "trud" meanings:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trud

Richard Southworth

Let me correct myself  :
But if you prefer polishing turds; it's your images; go for it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/turd

[albytastic]

If you have PS you can batch process Denoise. I batched Denoise AI last night and it worked well. You need Russel Browns Image Processor installed on your PC (google). Then you need to create a simple action and you are all set.

Also Topaz Studio supports batch processing but I did not have much luck with that.


Larry

There are loads of scripts on his site - which one do I actually need?

[Garnick]

Andrew,

You might enjoy reading this webpage on "trud" meanings:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trud

Richard Southworth

Very interesting Richard.  But here's another one that probably only Cannucks would appreciate, perhaps.  In the Apple Dictionary there seems to be no actual definition of the word Trud.  It does however show the word / name - Trudeau.  As in Justin, as in Pierre, as in Prime Minister and as in "Problems" - Apparently    By the way I spell the word "Colour" I suspect that most of you folks who dare read some of my posts would assume that I am also a Cannuck, and you would be quite correct.  I will admit that back in the "Flower Power" days I was a fan of Pierre and followed him on a couple of occasions while working as the photographer for a local newspaper.  However, even though I voted Liberal as usual in the last national election I'm afraid the gleam has since left the name Trudeau, as in Justin. 

OK, enough and probably much more information than required.

To you fine folks south of the 49th - Good Luck !!!!! 

And to ALL - Happy Easter

Gary     

[faberryman]

There are loads of scripts on his site - which one do I actually need?

You don't need any of them. You've gotten your refunds and are not longer using Topaz products. Right?

[albytastic]

You don't need any of them. You've gotten your refunds and are not longer using Topaz products. Right?

I still have a free trial of de-noise which is why I asked.

[faberryman]

I still have a free trial of de-noise which is why I asked.

And I certainly would never trust them again or purchase any other programs from them.

[leuallen]

There are loads of scripts on his site - which one do I actually need?

I think I steered you wrong on the Image Processor. You do not need Russell Browns app. I used in PS File->Scripts->Image Processor. It is built into PS. I used Browns program some years ago and thought that is what I used. I actually used Image Processor that was built into PS.

The action used is very simple. Make a new layer, call Denoise AI, do what you need in Denoise AI and then close.

I had not done this in years and I figured it out pretty quickly. Worked great. A very useful technique. If you have any questions, ask.

Larry

[Terry_Kennedy]

Topaz has now offered to refund me all the money I spent on their products so that's something I guess.

So as far as I'm concerned a  brilliant program totally ruined by crooks trying to squeeze the last penny out of their customers.

They (at least used to) have all of their prior versions in an Amazon S3 bucket. If you know the version that worked best for you, ask them to find out the correct direct download link for you.

[albytastic]

They (at least used to) have all of their prior versions in an Amazon S3 bucket. If you know the version that worked best for you, ask them to find out the correct direct download link for you.

There are no download links - all you get now is an online installer which downloads the latest one - which is now a $100 rip off!