Topaz: Edit JPG to Raw Files

[Michael Erlewine]

This is interesting. A 30-day trial, afterward it is $79 for this program. I have tons of old JPG files from years ago that are in JPG and I would not use them, but some of them I wish I could. Here are two examples to consider. The first is the original JPG and the one with the word “edit” in the file name is the converted image converted to TIF  and 16-bit is the other. Judge for yourself. No, it’s not perfect, but it might save some files from many years ago. Your thoughts?

I am sure there are faults, but are there any good use of this. I have to run some tests, but I feel it would be useful.

Of course, here both are JPGs, but in Photoshop they are JPG and TIF and the TIF is twice as large.

https://topazlabs.com/jpeg-to-raw-ai?utm_source=Topaz+Updates&utm_campaign=3d07ab1be6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_23_04_28&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5e4dd8652a-3d07ab1be6-88405693&mc_cid=3d07ab1be6&mc_eid=f3703aa120

[Akira]

I don't detect any difference other than the color: the original JPEG looks slightly more saturated, which I would prefer in this particular case.

Do you see any difference between the original JPEG and the converted TIFF, say, at 100%?

[Michael Erlewine]

I don't detect any difference other than the color: the original JPEG looks slightly more saturated, which I would prefer in this particular case.

Do you see any difference between the original JPEG and the converted TIFF, say, at 100%?

I am imagining I do. For one, it is twice the size and 16-bits, which makes it easier to do anything with. I have not had the time to do a lot with it, but I will at some point. I can see the difference, but I am sure many here will just shake their heads. It's a free trial and stand-alone, so check it out.

[Ann]

I am fairly certain that I am seeing smoother gradations in the 16-bit version so I would almost certainly up-bit those JPGs if I was planning on doing further editing.

[Jack Dahlgren]

At work we have a demo where photos can get upres’d using AI techniques and it is pretty convincing. I think the sort of computational photography will play an interesting role in the future.

[charlie]

The jpg has more contrast but I don't quite get the purpose of this. Anytime you convert a jpg to a 16bit tif its going to be a much larger file. I just converted a 300kb jpg into a 13mb tif but that doesn't mean the tif is a superior file, nor does it mean the jpg shouldn't be used.

Why wouldn't you use your jpgs from years ago?

[Frank Fremerey]

By law of nature you cannot have more information about the scene in an upscaled versions than you have in the original file. A software can only add information by invention i.e. educated interpolation and plausible guessing.

Normal editing is intelligently throwing away excess information and adding effects like you do sharpen by creating halos with "unsharp mask".

In the end you are an artist making artistic decisions, thereby creating a picture using machines like Cameras and Conputers so every tool is allowed if it helps you better match your envisioned result.

[Seapy]

Frank, that is how I see it.

One of the big advances I have seen with software is that it can extract subtle and (normally) unseen detail and texture in an image and make an orderly enhancement to the image.

Shadows, clarity and de-mist, there are others like NIK detail extractor, which can be horrid but subtly applied to points can greatly improve the finished image.  What matter in this case is, is there enough hidden detail in an old JPEG to extract and enhance.  Without doubt the software is out there already, to enhance and extract detail and texture.

[Frank Fremerey]

Frank, that is how I see it.

One of the big advances I have seen with software is that it can extract subtle and (normally) unseen detail and texture in an image and make an orderly enhancement to the image.

Shadows, clarity and de-mist, there are others like NIK detail extractor, which can be horrid but subtly applied to points can greatly improve the finished image.  What matter in this case is, is there enough hidden detail in an old JPEG to extract and enhance.

What I guess is much more interesting is to open slide film to editing which was never intended for editing in the first place

[Ann]

Making big changes with Curves on 8-bit images can result in severe banding.
Increasing from 8 bits to 16 bits makes it possible to avoid that problem and results in much smoother gradations

Increasing the bit-depth in each pixel is totally different from increasing Resolution/dimensional size where you are asking the software to create and invent additional pixels around each original pixel.

[Seapy]

What I guess is much more interesting is to open slide film to editing which was never intended for editing in the first place

Absolutely, I have been digitising many of my fathers slides from the 1960's, I have started with the 'rejects' boxes and it's amazing how much recovery can be made even with badly under exposed images and very dark shadows, (over exposed isn't so easy...) the D800 and bracketing have extracted some amazing results, which can not be seen in the slide with the naked eye.  I am looking forward to getting into the 'keepers' where the exposures are much better.

[Akira]

I am imagining I do. For one, it is twice the size and 16-bits, which makes it easier to do anything with. I have not had the time to do a lot with it, but I will at some point. I can see the difference, but I am sure many here will just shake their heads. It's a free trial and stand-alone, so check it out.

I tried Topaz Studio to process NEFs from D750 a few month ago, but wasn't really able to get the tonality of the image I liked.  But I didn't know about the specialized JPEG editor.  I may want to try it whenever the necessity arises.  Thank you for the suggestion.

[Frank Fremerey]

Making big changes with Curves on 8-bit images can result in severe banding.
Increasing from 8 bits to 16 bits makes it possible to avoid that problem and results in much smoother gradations

Increasing the bit-depth in each pixel is totally different from increasing Resolution/dimensional size where you are asking the software to create and invent additional pixels around each original pixel.

The information does not get more, Ann. If you expand an 8 bit image to 16 bit, the information is interpolated.

8 Bit means your have 256 possible states. If you now expand the amount of possible states by doubling their amount 8 times, you get an uncertainty of 256 possible states in the target format. Quite possibly you will try to represent this uncertainty with a gauss curve in the interpolation algorithm to match or simply take the middle.

If you record the pixel with a 16 Bit capable device you measure which of these 256 states was meant and you have a bigger color depth while the color depth of the 8 Bit to 16 Bit conversion ist still 8 bit.

It is still a good idea to convert the JPEG to 16 Bit Tiff for editing, not because it is a more proper representation of the subject, but to avoid further losses in aggressive editing steps

[Ann]

A bunch of people tested the increase in bit-depth idea some years ago and we came to the conclusion that if you intended to do post-editing on JPGs, you definitely got smoother gradations  — especially in broad areas of smooth-tone — by changing up to 16-bits.

Test it for yourself, but I like to increase bit-depth before doing any heavy editing of existing 8-bit JPGs

Increasing resolution is a different matter entirely although the recent introduction of "Preserve Details 2.0 Upscale" has made it possible to print reasonably well to much larger sizes than one would expect.