Listening to the Voices in my Head

New and Improved?

Once again, I tried Topaz Labs. They have come out with "New and improved" versions of their AI software. I coughed up the money, and 'renewed' my yearly plan (not going to renew it again, for reasons that will follow.) But I was willing to give it another shot.

I loaded an Olympus ORF file into Topaz DeNoise. It did ok, but left the image kind of dull and flat. So, I closed that, and opened Topaz Sharpen AI, opened the same ORF file. It does have a rudimentary denoise function. But the finished results again were lacking.

To use the Topaz software, you need to open them in another program, adjust exposure, then use one Topaz plugin after another. And although you can get good results, the Sharpen AI takes a long time (6 minutes).   

On1 NoNoise 23: opened the same Olympus ORF file in NoNoise. Not only was I able to remove the noise, but I could also sharpen the image at the same time. And it was finished in about 30 seconds.  If I want to have even more editing, I could open file in On1PhotoRaw, get it all done in about a minute.

On1 for the win, again

Canon, you have some ‘splainin’ to do!

1: Yes, I have this camera.
2: Yes, I have noticed that it gets hot!
3: Although I have the know-how to do this, I don't have the equipment, nor would I void my warranty by doing this. (but if I had the means and equipment, I would!) 

Many (aka males) have 'explained' to me that the R5 is a STILLS camera. 
Really? Then Canon shouldn't be advertising it the way they do, regarding using it for video.

This is from their own sites (US, UK, AU):
  "Introducing 8K video: how the Canon EOS R5’s flagship filmmaking feature changes the game.  The Canon EOS R5 rigged for filming. Audience expectations are growing, with high-resolution video content in demand across all platforms from streaming services to commercials, and the EOS R5 is poised to deliver, making it a future-proof choice.”

So no, this overheating problem does NOT make it future-proof (planned obsolescence). And my techy-ness makes me just shake my head at how this overheating issue could have been avoided by some proper thermal paste, and a proper heat conducting plate.

The blithe mansplainers saying "People should get the Canon Cine cameras" does NOT negate this problem, especially in light of how Canon itself is advertising this very expensive piece of camera gear. 

Does the R5 take great photographs? Oh hell, yes. They're sharper, cleaner, and overall IQ is heads and tails above the 5DmkIV.

But this heating issue...  This isn't like the futz 'light leak' that could be caused by something no photographer would really do.

I wouldn't be surprised if there will be some sort of recall because of camera bodies warping, melting, or catching fire, when used to record video.

Or a EOS R5mkII? 

I've been doing some reading on photography forums

And it seems that with the exception of hard core professional photogs that use a lot of tools that come in Photoshop, the main reason people keep subscribing/renting it is because of Adobe Camera Raw, which Adobe makes sure will only work up to a certain version of Photoshop (ie 6.7 with CS5, 9.1 with CS6. IMO, Adobe *could* have but didn't make ACR usable with other versions, and not for the reasons they claimed.)

There are ways around getting stuck with renting Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom, and to keep using your older version of Photoshop.

1: Don't fall for the often misunderstood phrase "No Longer Supported" if you update your computer's OS.  All that means is you will have to make GOOGLE search your friend if you  have a problem using CS5 with Windows 10. Or ask a tech savvy friend. If that tech savvy friend says "Subscribe to Abobe" they aren't as tech savvy as they claim.

2:  Use the Adobe DNG converter. This will take your proprietary raw files and turn them into 'open source' digital negatives. I've done this  when I had CS5 and got new camera.  Guess what? Exact same result editing the DNG in CS5 as I got when I edited Canon's proprietary CR2 and Olympus' ORF file in CS6.

3: Find a different program to use as your camera raw editor. Yes, people keep chanting "Adobe is the industry standard", not realizing or caring that it was Adobe company itself that branded itself the industry standard.  There are many other camera raw editors you can use, and then 'punt' the resulting JPG into whatever 'old' version of Photoshop you have. I do suggest, do you due diligence when looking for raw editor.  There are many that are way over priced for what they do.  A few are so slow and clunky.

My PERSONAL experiences are thus so far, in no particular order:

1: CaptureOne - no denying it is a great photo editor, but for the average hobbyist, or learning photographer, it's way over loaded in features. It is also THE most expensive editing program out there.  Their 2020 version runs at $515.00 AUD for a single user license, or $35AUD to 'rent' it.

2: DxO Labs - Their latest version is fantastic. I have nothing negative to say about it. It has the best lens correction catalog, and if your particular camera/lens combo isn't on your hard drive, DxO will search and have it available for download if possible.  It has not only adjustment brushes/gradients, but it also incorporates the U-Point tech of Nik. DxO has solved issues with certain photos for me. Definitely not overpriced for everything you get. Currently, you can get it for $ 189, no subscription.

3:On1PhotoRaw - Camera raw editor on steroids is how I described it to a friend. Not only do you get everything that is in the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw, it comes with tools found in Photoshop, too.  You can use On1 as a standalone editor, not just as RAW editor, or as a plug in for Photoshop (caveat being if you can open the raw image in Photoshop). Pricing varies to $99 to buy it, or an extra $50 to subscribe to On1Plus. On1Plus isn't software, it's priority support, webinars, workshops, and other goodies thrown into the mix. It does have a few shortfalls (they removed Focal Point (creating a focus region bokeh effect), which is what keeps me running Windows 7 on another hdd (dual boot system) because I have their older software on that computer, which does have Focal Point.

4: Exposure X5 (the software previously known as Alienskin Exposure) - This is a great all-in-one camera raw editor.  And if it  had come out with this prior to my deciding to use On1, it would have given On1 a run for my money.  It has many of the same tools, features and functions as On1, but it also has some that are no longer available in On1 (creating a focal point/region focus). I've also found it less of a system resource hog than On1. I have been getting reacquainted with how to use Exposure.  Yeah, it's that good.  Pricing varies (I suggest if you can, get the bundle. Well worth the $149)

There are others, Affinity (great software for it's pricing). I've imported finished JPGs into Affinity to use some of the features and tools they have, that none of the others do.

Skylum Luminar, Windows version: earlier versions work better than their latest release.  If you have 2018, stick with it. I swear it was as if they released buggy beta versions on the general public. I typically use it only as a plug in for Photoshop because of this.

So, there it is. And remember, this is just my opinion and experiences. Depending on your computer, your experiences may be different.

Ok, but some will have no need to bother.

Skylum has come out with Luminar Flex, which as far as I can tell, is Luminar 3 but without the system crashing 'cataloging' feature.

It claims to support Lightroom (classic) and Photoshop, but the plugin didn't install in Photoshop CS6, even though there was nothing about what VERSION of Photoshop as in it had to be "Creative Cloud" (aka Rent me Forever)  As I have typed before, I have an older version of CC on my computer, and it just sits there for issues like this. I installed Luminar Flex, then went into Programs\Common Files\Adobe\PhotoshopCC\ and copied it over to the Photoshop CS6 (and CS5)directory, and it works without a problem.

Skylum claimed it was a freebie for those who purchased that disaterous Luminar 3, but I had to use one of my Luminar 3 license activations to use it (I will be emailing them regarding that).  As for Flex's functionality, it's much better than Luminar 3. As I am old school, and make my own catalogs of photos, and events, the cataloging feature was of no use to me, so having Flex as a straight up plugin works much better for my work flow.  I still use On1PhotoRaw for developing and the majority of the 'heavy lifting', but sometimes, I have to add a little something from other photo processing programs that On1 lacks.  (Sorry, On1, you know I'm a big fan, but even well known On1 photographers use Lightroom for other tweaks).

If your system can handle Luminar 3 (mine is no slouch, but even with this beast, Luminar 3 would grind things to a glacial crawl) there's no real need for Flex.  But for me, personally, Flex is a much better fit than Luminar 3 in my Photoshop workflow.

Back in the day I didn't have a RAW processor

Nor did I know how to use it, I shot all my photos as high res JPGs.  Now, everyone knows that now there are raw editors, and I alos know how to use them now, but what to do with the old JPGs?  Are they to be relegated to the "Meh" category?

Enter Topaz Labs to the rescue with Topaz JPEG to RAW AI.  Now this doesn't just convert the image to a DNG, but carefully, with what AI they use, convert it into a RAW editable image.  I chose one image, applied the same edits, with the exception of lens corrections which is not available in JPG editing.

Here is the jpg, edited with camera raw.

 

Here’s the same one, but pre-processed with Topaz JPEG to RAW AI:

 

The difference in the full sized images are amazing.   Now, I have a lot more work to get done, going through older images, that I liked, but just could not get them edited the way they should be.

Luminar 3

Proof that the previous version is more versatile for me. Now I know so many people whined about Luminar having no Digital Asset Management, but that was never an issue with me.  I would always make folders on the day, by category etc etc. 

Don't get me wrong, Luminar 3 is a powerful editing tool, but I find it's layout, slow and clunky. The DAM slows the program down to a crawl.  I guess you could point where your images are to an empty directory so there’s no gallery to build, navigate to the photos you want to edit,  THEN do your edits.  I'd rather know where my raw file is, and open it that way, than wait to slog through Luminar 3, or wait 5 minutes for it to be re-indexing the gallery! 

However,  using Luminar 3 as a plugin in either Photoshop or Lightroom is a a lot quicker than trying to use Luminar 3 FROM Luminar three, but it seems to take an unduly long time for the splash screen to go away.

I haven't seen any real difference between Luminar 2018 and Luminar 3 when being used as a plugin, so if you're happy with Luminar 2018, stay with it, because the cobbled together DAM built into Luminar 3 is more a pain in ass, than as asset.