On1 Photo Raw 2023 vs ACDSee and Topaz Photo AI combo 2023

[Stardog2]

Attached is a photo of a photo that I processed both in On1 Photo Raw and in ACDSee with sharpening and Denoise handled by Topaz Photo AI. I tried to duplicate the same overall luminance and color in both, and "sorta" tried to duplicate the cropping level. Shot with an Olympus EM10 and a kit lens. Sharpening and Denoise were allowed to use defaults. The image below is roughly enlarged to 300%. As to which version I prefer, it's a tough call. I prefer the color and lighting of the ACDSee version the best. And the Sharpening and Denoising leaves something to be desired in both, though at normal viewing sizes neither make all that much difference in sharpness or noise.

On the whole, I think I prefer the ACDSee/Topaz combo a tiny bit more. Primarily because of the colors though I admit to being MUCH more experienced with ACDSee. They seem more pleasing to me. And while the artifacts showing in the On1 version are pretty much irrelevant because of the extreme magnification, they do bother me a bit. Also, the denoising from On1 seems, "too smooth", there is a texture and 'feel' to the ACDSee/Topaz version. I think I like the less aggressive version over all of the Photo AI sharpen and denoise results.

BTW: I can't figure out why I have 2 copies of the full ON1 version.

Below On1 image

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Below ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2023 with Topaz Photo AI combo

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Stardog2]

I've been using the ACDSee/Topaz Photo AI combo for about 3 weeks now. And I have some observations.

• Photo AI is very slow in batch mode with my mid-tier 6-7 year old PC. It's slow enough that I think I will use just ACDSee tools in batch mode. ACDSee's ClearIQZ is still a pretty good enlarging tool, though all it does is enlarge without enhancement. I think it renders a very good 2X file and it enlarges within a second. Much faster than the 8-10 minutes per image with Photo AI. I think then, I will use Photo AI to enhance select photos that need it.
• This holds true for denoising and sharpening as well. ACDSee can do an OK manual job on denoising & sharpening presets VERY quickly on a huge number of batched photos, Then I can send individual photos to Photo AI that need extra help. It's good that I'm pretty good at manual denoising & sharpening. (useful skills for every photographer, I think)
• I'm finding that there is NO difference with image quality between converting my Olympus ORF raw files to dngs at the beginning of the workflow or at the end when I use Photo AI as a plug-in from the built in bit mapped editor.
• My ORF files are 14.8 megabytes compressed, and 91.8 MB uncompressed. The converted DNGs are also 91.8 MBs. ACDSee works on uncompressed files and doesn't take very much time in uncompressing and recompressing, And since I can't see ANY difference between the quality when Photo AI is used as a standalone app, and when used as an end-stage plug-in, I will continue to use it as a plug-in, and save the storage space required to store the ORFs and the 5MB completed jpg photos.
• I am very pleased with my purchase, and feel it was well worth the money I spent. The two products work very well together.