For me Topaz has a few good core abilities but has been looking for ways to continue revenue growth which is proving very difficult as with most other software companies. We’re in an environment where editing has never been easier, there’s less and less real innovation because most photographers have more than enough tools to edit leaving us with increasing subscription models by companies that don’t know what else to do. My concern is are Adobe going to stop refining existing tools and put more and more behind additional pay walls.
In my expeience, Adobe has been the primary source of excellence and innovation in editing software. Only Captue One and DXO are in the same league, and I much prefer Adobe's tools and of course its DAM. It is the primary professional software for good reasons.
If Adobe acquired Topaz, they probably wanted the intellectual property, which they will of course market and charge for. But I would expect they will support and develop it better than Topaz has been able to do.
Why do people object to paying for something that other people worked and spent money to produce? Do any of us work for free? If they aren't paid, they won't be able to produce anything. And no one is forced to buy it.
I don’t see anyone in this thread saying Topaz should be free.
chiron wrote:
In my expeience, Adobe has been the primary source of excellence and innovation in editing software. Only Captue One and DXO are in the same league, and I much prefer Adobe's tools and of course its DAM. It is the primary professional software for good reasons.
If Adobe acquired Topaz, they probably wanted the intellectual property, which they will of course market and charge for. But I would expect they will support and develop it better than Topaz has been able to do.
Why do people object to paying for something that other people worked and spent money to produce? Do any of us work for free? If they aren't paid, they won't be able to produce anything. And no one is forced to buy it....Show more →
chiron wrote:
Why do people object to paying for something that other people worked and spent money to produce? Do any of us work for free? If they aren't paid, they won't be able to produce anything. And no one is forced to buy it.
Why do people assume that the payment plan is the only reason people don't like Abode?
There are plenty of other reasons.
chiron wrote:
In my expeience, Adobe has been the primary source of excellence and innovation in editing software. Only Captue One and DXO are in the same league, and I much prefer Adobe's tools and of course its DAM. It is the primary professional software for good reasons.
If Adobe acquired Topaz, they probably wanted the intellectual property, which they will of course market and charge for. But I would expect they will support and develop it better than Topaz has been able to do.
Why do people object to paying for something that other people worked and spent money to produce? Do any of us work for free? If they aren't paid, they won't be able to produce anything. And no one is forced to buy it....Show more →
I’m (sometimes temporarily reluctantly) in your camp regarding Adobe. I also agree strongly with your point about people objecting to paying for things that they find valuable. It is kind of bizarre. Essentially some people are saying, “I really love your valuable product and I rely on it because it is so valuable to me… but I think that I should not have to pay for it.”
The cost of the photography tools from Adobe is typically less than quite a few people spend per year on cameras and lenses, yet these tools essentially replace the entire physical darkroom that we used to use — or, alternatively, the labs we paid to process our film, make contact prints, and even final prints.
I have my little complaints about Adobe, too. But no company is utterly perfect, nor is any product without room for improvement. (My current concern is about Adobe trying to buckle and dime us for “AI credits.” We’ll see where that goes…)
I’m glad that there are competing products, and I could wish there were more — that is part of what keeps Adobe on its toes. (If anyone knows hte story of the Aperture app and the genesis of Lightroom, you know what i mean.)
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’m (sometimes temporarily reluctantly) in your camp regarding Adobe. I also agree strongly with your point about people objecting to paying for things that they find valuable. It is kind of bizarre. Essentially some people are saying, “I really love your valuable product and I rely on it because it is so valuable to me… but I think that I should not have to pay for it.”
The cost of the photography tools from Adobe is typically less than quite a few people spend per year on cameras and lenses, yet these tools essentially replace the entire physical darkroom that we used to use — or, alternatively, the labs we paid to process our film, make contact prints, and even final prints.
I have my little complaints about Adobe, too. But no company is utterly perfect, nor is any product without room for improvement. (My current concern is about Adobe trying to buckle and dime us for “AI credits.” We’ll see where that goes…)
I’m glad that there are competing products, and I could wish there were more — that is part of what keeps Adobe on its toes. (If anyone knows hte story of the Aperture app and the genesis of Lightroom, you know what i mean.)...Show more →
I’m not one to complain about the Adobe subscription at the moment, but subscriptions for add-ons like Topaz are a big no-no for me. One if a key tool, the other a nice to have. I dropped Topaz the moment they changed to a subscription model, while I’ve paid for my LR/PS subscription for years now.
Beagle64 wrote:
For me Topaz has a few good core abilities but has been looking for ways to continue revenue growth which is proving very difficult as with most other software companies. We’re in an environment where editing has never been easier, there’s less and less real innovation because most photographers have more than enough tools to edit leaving us with increasing subscription models by companies that don’t know what else to do. My concern is are Adobe going to stop refining existing tools and put more and more behind additional pay walls.
Why would they? They have others trying to take their business, including Canva. I suspect Topaz will be fully integrated, but with extra charges for Cloud AI processing. I just want DXO to be able to survive because they’re better for my uses.
EB-1 wrote:
Topaz was able to denoise TIFFs. I'm not sure who else does that. I'm not happy with the Abode NR.
Denoise AI 3.7.2 is the best available to me from within Photoshop (CS6! ) but I use DxO whenever I can. It's visibly better than Topaz on RAW files, but if you need something for TIFFS, Topaz FTW. I have read that On1 also does TIFFS but past experience does not make me eager to try it.
FWIW, neither Topaz nor Adobe (nor the co-mingling of the two) will be receiving any more $ from me going forward. I obviously bailed on Adobe long ago and Topaz finally added the last straw a couple of years ago.
Topaz screwed up by abandoning their core programs instead of improving them, and then replacing them with an all-in-one Al program with lesser controls. The automated AI version never worked as well.
EB-1 wrote:
Topaz screwed up by abandoning their core programs instead of improving them, and then replacing them with an all-in-one Al program with lesser controls. The automated AI version never worked as well.
EBH
I bought their denoise, sharpening and upscale apps before they combined them to one single app. I use their denoise app a lot but rarely use their sharpening and upscale apps. Will be interesting to see how Adobe will integrate topaz technology into Lightroom and photoshop. Will they increase the overall monthly subscription fee for having topaz technology in their apps regardless you use it or not, or will they charge extra fee if one wants to use the topaz features? I heard about the credit point thingy but never looked into it to understand how it works.
Fstoppers has a pretty good take on this: https://fstoppers.com/originals/adobe-buying-one-last-good-things-photo-editing-903215 (sorry if it's already been posted)
I haven't read it all yet but so far it's a bit more charitable toward Topaz than I am. Its development of NeuroStream technology may be a real breakthrough though and could be the main prize Adobe is after—whether to use or kill it remains to be seen.
Douglas L wrote:
I bought their denoise, sharpening and upscale apps before they combined them to one single app. I use their denoise app a lot but rarely use their sharpening and upscale apps. Will be interesting to see how Adobe will integrate topaz technology into Lightroom and photoshop. Will they increase the overall monthly subscription fee for having topaz technology in their apps regardless you use it or not, or will they charge extra fee if one wants to use the topaz features? I heard about the credit point thingy but never looked into it to understand how it works.
I did the same thing except for upscale. I use both DN and Sharpen as plugins with Photoshop. So far, they do not affect the AI credits. I did use Upscale in Photoshop yesterday, and it hit me for 5 points each on the two photos I used it on.
BillinTexas wrote:
I did the same thing except for upscale. I use both DN and Sharpen as plugins with Photoshop. So far, they do not affect the AI credits. I did use Upscale in Photoshop yesterday, and it hit me for 5 points each on the two photos I used it on.
I only use the Topaz plugins with Lightroom so I have no idea about the points in PS. Interesting.
It will be interesting to come back to this thread in two or three years to see what actually happened vs any and all speculation so far. While I don't have positive thoughts on this merger I'd love to be proven wrong.
EB-1 wrote:
Topaz screwed up by abandoning their core programs instead of improving them, and then replacing them with an all-in-one Al program with lesser controls. The automated AI version never worked as well.
EBH
On the nose. The exact moment of death of the Topaz suite was with the development and release of Topaz Photo AI. All of the up-to-then-good development of Sharpen and Denoise simply stopped and we were left with utter slop and less control over the output of the program.
I haven't used Topaz products for years, despite posting how-tos and deep dive comparisons here on FM during the time I've used them. They've been dead and irrelevant for nearly 3 years now!
If you're still using the LR/PS plugins, you're unfortunately living in the deep past and should consider a move to a modern solution.
EB-1 wrote:
What is the modern solution for denoising TIFFs?
EBH
I can denoise my Hasselblad files in Phocus before exporting as a TIFF with better results than Topaz.
I can denoise my Nikon files in NX Studio before exporting as a TIFF with better results than Topaz.
That said, I almost never work with TIFFs at the beginning of my PP because that workflow is largely pointless for me, so it's never been an issue or held me back. I can denoise my RAW files in LR/PS with their AI Denoise checkbox far better than any Topaz product has ever provided.
People like to insist on weird workflows that make their lives harder for reasons unknown.
EB-1 wrote:
What is the modern solution for denoising TIFFs?
EBH
What are the circumstances in which you are using TIFFS rather than importing raw files straight to LR or PS?
I ask because I virtually never use the TIFF format. I can only think of a tiny handful of times that I’ve used it in the past couple of decades… and, IIRC, those were to export a finished file to send to someone else.
) but I use DxO whenever I can. It's visibly better than Topaz on RAW files, but if you need something for TIFFS, Topaz FTW. I have read that On1 also does TIFFS but past experience does not make me eager to try it.