[edom31]

Hello,

I did a trial for Topaz and really never got the flow...

My workflow is:
1. Shoot RAW
2. Post-process RAW in Capture One OR rarely in Luminar
3. Dump my variant (edits) as a 100% JPG for purposes of sharing/printing/forums....

Now - where would Topaz fit in all of this? Do I take my step 3 jpg and pass it to Topaz? (I cannot use Topaz as a plug-in with Capture One).

Do I modify my workflow and do my dump as a TIFF to then put in Topaz to then export as a JPG?

Thank you for any guidelines.

Ed

[pschlute]

3. Dump my variant (edits) as a 100% JPG for purposes of sharing/printing/forums....

Your edited image should be resized, then sharpened for the appropriate output purpose.....

If you are going to print it, then resize at the required ppi for your printer and sharpen accordingly (prints require more output sharpening than those images destined for the web)

If you are going to post online you should be downsizing your image to a suitable web-friendly resolution. Then sharpen.

Leaving your image at its native resolution is not the best approach for either scenario.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your definition of "100% JPG"

[dms]

If the image is looking good I would not bother. But likely a good approach (what the late Bruce Frazer suggested) is to moderately sharpen the Tif file, and then do final conversion, and change in resolution and sharpen again.

But the real difference that AI sharpen makes is getting rid of motion blur, and to some extent fixing focus. The motion blur aspect is probably what i use it for the most.

[pschlute]

But the real difference that AI sharpen makes is getting rid of motion blur, and to some extent fixing focus. The motion blur aspect is probably what i use it for the most.

Ah, I had not realised that. So Topaz AI is a tool to correct for missed focus/blurred image. In that case should not be part of a normal workflow unless needed.

[Mooncatt]

Sharpen AI is meant to fix problems, like missed focus and motion blur, and it's common to run a single image through it multiple times. You'll still want to consider output sharpening in your primary editor for final production.

My workflow use to go:
Shoot RAW
Edit RAW Therapee and export as TIFF
DeNoise, maintain TIFF
Sharpen AI if needed, maintain TIFF
Touchup/resize in GIMP, export jpeg.

Topaz recommends using their programs first so it has all the original data, but that was conflicting with RAW Therapee in a couple of ways, so I did that first instead. DeNoise had its RAW handling updated and that can now export a DNG for RT. Sharpen AI still has a problem exporting a DNG that RT can use, so it's still third in my workflow. I may play around with putting it first and see if everything plays nice, but it still works great as is.

I wouldn't use it on a jpeg unless you absolutely have to. At this point you're dealing with a compressed file, giving it less info to work from. It may work, but I prefer to retain as much data as possible until I'm ready to publish.

[dms]

Ah, I had not realised that. So Topaz AI is a tool to correct for missed focus/blurred image. In that case should not be part of a normal workflow unless needed.

I use it for regular sharpening, but it is of my theatre photography so regular means whichever works best (of the 3 choices) and that is usually motion blur.

[edom31]

thanks for all the answers...

I might not need this after all - I see that it will not "fix" something that was never there to begin with (for example using a poor lens - Topaz Ai is not going to make the image look like it was shot with something better - sharpness-wise)/

Your edited image should be resized, then sharpened for the appropriate output purpose.....If you are going to print it, then resize at the required ppi for your printer and sharpen accordingly (prints require more output sharpening than those images destined for the web)If you are going to post online you should be downsizing your image to a suitable web-friendly resolution. Then sharpen.Leaving your image at its native resolution is not the best approach for either scenario.Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your definition of "100% JPG"

Hmmm I do not think I add any sharpening on my output... I've never downsized for web - my normal JPG out of Capture One is 15-20MBs

[pschlute]

Hmmm I do not think I add any sharpening on my output... I've never downsized for web

You should be doing both.

Output sharpening is the last thing that should be done in any image editing workflow.

It is probably less important than it was, but downsizing for web has two advantages.....

1. image load times

2. You decide how your image will look rather than leave it to either forum software or other users graphics hardware to downsize your images for you.

You may post a 20 Megapixel image on the web, but no one can see it in its entirety.

[edom31]

You may post a 20 Megapixel image on the web, but no one can see it in its entirety.

thank you for the advise!