100% Agree. I’ve been using the Topaz plugins for years and they are my “go to” in many situations. However, the Studio program only hinders my workflow in Photoshop. And, I won’t be leaving Photoshop. I hope Topaz can continue with their line of plugins.
3 Likes
Atrypixall, I’m glad you asked this question, as I was wondering what was going to happen with the individual plugins, as I noticed on the download page some of then now only download Studio. Studio does not fit into my Lightroom / Photoshop workflow, as I make adjustments between Denoise / Adjust / and one or two others. If going forward Topaz only offers Photoshop plugin functionality through Studio, then this is where we part ways. I always save copies of what I’ve downloaded, and have all the plugin installers I’ve bought, so as long as they continue to work with Photoshop I’ll keep using them.
One they stop though, I’ll be moving on to competitors products that don’t force one to use a container application just for plugin functionality.
2 Likes
It looks like the upper management suits at Topaz Lab have decided to develop Studio as a standalone container fit-all application to appeal to people who do not have the inclination to learn and use Photoshop. I hope I am wrong, but it appears that Topaz Lab is no longer interested in supporting the plugins that the Photoshop community of digital photographers and artists depend on for their work. I will also continue to use the Topaz legacy plugins as long as they work. After all, I am still using some of the plugins from Color Efex Pro 3.0 with Photoshop CS5.
2 Likes
Studio could be a good optional product- but abandoning the development and upgrading of stand alone plugins is a huge mistake. I understand Topaz’'s strategy but it is too narrowly focused on Studio. You don’t see any discussion on Photography websites about it as you do for OnOne and others- even DxO Optics is using Nik now, and in the Photography forums all you read is complaints about Studio. I’m not willing to update Simplify as I don’t have the time or patience to deal with potential problems with Studio.
And even if you like Studio- you have to have a lot of time to deal with the bugs of every release, beg for support to get it to work and then go through the laborious process all over again.
Most photographers are unwilling to go through Studio to access their plugins- I love my stand alone plugins- but for now forget Studio.
1 Like
I have to add the System Requirements for Topaz Studio puts it out of reach for many users- another Topaz misstep. Other photo software forums I participate in, like Corel PaintShop Pro, users complain Impressions in Studio ridiculously slow and Topaz support tells them to upgrade their video card- if on a laptop that’s not possible- and few laptops can meet Topaz’s hefty GPU memory requirements. Impressions standalone plugin will work fine though on most laptop Intel graphics, just not in Studio.
From a competitive standpoint, look at On1’s minimum requirement for GPU- OpenGL 3.3-compatible video card with 256 MB video RAM, 1280x720 resolution, yet Studio’s minimum GPU memory is 1GB.
https://www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/specs/
Do you consider Lightroom’s requirements “hefty”?
You’re also arguing over the need to have 1GB of VRAM or not. We say you do, because our software is more demanding due to a few different Adjustment types that NEED that memory to function without issue.
The bar we’re setting is just not that high, everyone. I’m sorry, but getting flustered over the GPU requirements makes no sense to me. Integrated GPUs ARE NOT ideal for graphics processing, and I won’t be convinced otherwise. I’ve listened to the arguments presented, and they consistently fail to account for the physical attributes of the graphics cards being discussed. It’s pretty obvious the willingness to ignore physics to account for displeasure is getting in the way of my message, which is unfortunate. Try our recommended cards, which aren’t that expensive, and you’ll have a better grasp of how the processing works with your hardware.
2 Likes
Yes, as you say Joe you “won’t be convinced otherwise”. The argument is that most laptops don’t have dedicated graphics cards- merely integrated onboard graphics with most having OpenGL 3.3, and must get their video memory from system RAM.
So you’ve lost most of the laptop market for Studio, though not for Topaz stand alone plugins which will work fine usually on integrated graphics.
Disagreement is not always pleasant, nor honest user feedback. There is more I could say about Studio which is critical, but there is no point.
I’ve been using integrated graphics with basically no issue. But I have clear and honest expectations of my hardware. I don’t push 6k or larger images through it. I am conservative, and that makes for a good experience.
Specifically to the argument that integrated graphics are a good graphics solution. There’s not an informed soul on the internet that will agree that integrated graphics are a good graphics solution.
Look - we get it. You don’t like having to use hardware built for graphics processing. We want you to. There will be disagreements here. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work - just that it’s not as fast as it could be. Saying we “lost” the market is pretty drastic and doesn’t accurately describe our customer reaction to Topaz Studio. I’ve used Topaz Studio on Intel HD Graphics 4000, Intel HD Graphics 520, Intel Iris Pro 6100, and an AMD R9 290 4GB. Every single time that I’ve used it, I’ve taken into consideration which piece of hardware I was using. Sure, the HD 4000 struggled with Impression, but that’s expected. The R9 290 handled Impression with complete grace. Again, to be expected.
The real problem here is that we’re not setting realistic expectations for our processing requirements, which is clearly upsetting some of you. It’s not likely that our demanding Adjustment types will get any less demanding, but we’ll continue to add optimizations and improvements where we find them possible.
These use CPU processing, something we are moving away from.
I would much rather hear informed criticism about the way the software works, than complaints that it’s too demanding for the average user. We’ll disagree on that point, but you may find we agree on other points you might bring. Why not try to make it a better product, so that when your hardware (inevitably) fails, and you’re forced to purchase a new machine (likely with dedicated graphics, as will be the norm in short order), you can return to a more mature and effective editing tool that we’ve been working on the whole time? Let’s make the software better!
1 Like
I’m going to jump in here. I been on other threads on this forum and I’m reading other threads in an attempt to get a better understanding.
The way I see it is that Topaz is now abandoning the ‘average’ user. Joe, you can argue all you like. The simple fact is that many many users aren’t ‘yet’ on computers capable of running Impressions within Studio. That may/will change as computers are replaced. But in the meantime Topaz users will look elsewhere. Will they come back? That’s the question Topaz needs to answer for themselves.
In my case you ignored the fact that I said I was using a laptop and told me to upgrade my GPU/card. As you should know that’s not possible with most laptops. I travel for my work. I need to use a laptop.
Topaz has made a marketing choice that will simply not please many users.
regards
3 Likes
We’ve long understood we won’t make everyone happy. When we acquiesce to requests from low end hardware users, high end enthusiasts bemoan us appeasing people that don’t care as much as they do about their software/hardware setups.
It’s a balance. We’ll set our requirements, and as long as you follow the Recommendations, you’ll do just fine.
2 Likes
Sorry Joe but my ‘low end hardware’ is just fine for every other piece of software I use. You don’t seem to get the fact that Topaz is the one marching to a different tune.
Besides, as I’ve pointed out before, I have sold/licensed over 5,000,000 images in 47 countries. Had magazine covers, catalogues, federal government products, multi national corporations etc etc. I hardly see my self as an ‘average’ user.
I just wonder if your opinion is really that of Topaz’s or if you even understand who the average user is? Or is a ‘high end enthusiast’ a priority over commercial users?
regards
Yea - it is. Because your CPU processes things in those other applications. We get it - GPU processing is different. We think that’s perfectly fine, and I suggest you follow the guidance we provide for GPU hardware, when using our software.
Have you tried to run any OpenGL-primary software, other than ours? If so, how does your machine perform? So far, you’ve made comparisons to other software that just isn’t the same, which is skewing your perspective considerably. I highly recommend giving any semi-demanding video game (Rocket League) a try on your machine, and your GPU will highlight, all on its own, how weak it is at rendering primarily in the GPU. Sure, you’ll say our software isn’t a video game, which is fair. However, video games render exclusively through your GPU, and it’s the only fair comparison to make. CPU processing ≠ GPU processing. Your continued comparisons to CPU-based-processing tools are part of the block in our discussion.
I’ll restate this, for clarity:
Joe I and others understand the technical requirements re GPU. That’s not our issue. The issue is that Topaz has decided to make this move at the expense of many many users. It’s Topaz’s business. That’s fine. But ‘we’, the users, are being left behind simply for the sake of placating a small percentage of users who can afford to have high end hardware.
Some years back I gave evidence at a Federal Senate inquiry. I argued for the ‘average user’ in that inquiry. Unfortunately the ‘nerd’ end of town won the day. Now that program is extinct. Simply because the ‘nerds’ are running the show.
regards
It’s pretty clear we’re going to amicably disagree on what the future holds, and that’s ok. I still use Topaz Studio on my own laptop with Intel Iris Pro 6100 Graphics (2015 MacBook Pro, low end i5 CPU, macOS 10.13/Windows 10 Bootcamp setup), and it works quite well for me. For what it’s worth, the Iris 6100 exceeds our recommendation of the HD Graphics 530 (mobile)/540(desktop) GPU, listed for Intel, and my experience has been great, apart from the issues that everyone faces regardless of hardware, like bugs or crashes that we cause.
The thing is, your laptop/desktop won’t work forever. You will eventually be forced to upgrade your hardware, if not by your desire to use our products at a higher rate of speed, then by simple entropy.
I decided to take an “average user” tour of buying a laptop. Here’s what I did:
- Went to bestbuy.com
- Selected the Laptops section
- In the price sorting options, I went for the category with the most models, presumably where the “average” consumer ends up. This was the $250-500 price category.
- I selected the first laptop in the list, which was the Dell Inspiron I3566-3636BLK-PUS, and was priced at $329.99. I’d say this is well within the price range of an “average” consumer, which I’m going to assume doesn’t want to spend more than $400-500 on a machine. Here’s the link, for your review: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-inspiron-15-6-touch-screen-laptop-intel-core-i3-8gb-memory-1tb-hard-drive-black/5835852.p?skuId=5835852
Now that we have a potential machine to buy, being an average consumer, let’s see what $350 will get us:
- CPU: Intel Core i3 7100U (7th gen) @2.4 GHz
- RAM: 8GB DDR4-2133 MHz
- Storage: 1TB HDD
- Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 620
Alright, the GPU is the HD Graphics 620. Here’s how the HD 620 stacks up against the HD 530:
The HD 530 is 8% faster - so it’s basically even. This is the performance level that our Recommended level sets, to provide realistic expectations. It looks like the “average consumer” can and should absolutely be able to reach decent processing speeds, if their computer died today, and they had to get another one without dropping $1000 for a MacBook Pro that has the same specs as mine.
Your argument that Recommended hardware levels are out of reach for the average user is eroding, the more I look into it. I am actually quite impressed that I can get that kind of hardware under $400. The first laptop I ever purchased for myself was right at $380, and was the Samsung NP305V5A-A0CUS, and netted me these specs back in 2012, 5 years ago:
- CPU: AMD A6-3410MX (4-core) @2.3GHz
- RAM: 6GB DDR3 1600MHz
- Storage: 640GB HDD
- Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 6520G Graphics (no dedicated VRAM, unsupported)
So, 5 years ago, you would have been correct. This price point could have easily yielded a machine I could not use with Topaz Studio. Today, that isn’t true.
2 Likes
JoeFrederic,
I have read this discussion with great interest. I was also looking for others’ experience with Studio as opposed to the standalone plug-ins. I tried Studio from Photoshop and don’t have a problem with the concept, but opening it takes forever compared to the plug-ins. So, I went back to the plug-ins. Also Studio doesn’t have DeNoise. I emailed to ask when it will be added. I received no answer. All this being said, I find your attitude and responses to these users highly offensive. Even Adobe isn’t this rude. Lightroom has gone out of its way to accommodate the “average” user. I would suggest to anyone reading this to download the Nik collection that DxO just bought and will be developing. Download it now (if you still can) and you’ll get a break on future upgrades of their plug-ins. I am extremely disappointed with Topaz’s attitude and condescension. Maybe you want to give us “average” folk coupons for hardware upgrades. A reminder–average means majority and you’re going to lose that with this attitude and corporate philosophy. Good luck–you’ve got lots of competition. Watch out for DxO–people love those Nik plug-ins.
2 Likes
Is there something you need help with? Also, DeNoise will be added in 2018, but we can’t mention release dates, as that is not possible.
From here, it just looks like you’re trying to turn people away from our products, which is unfortunate. If you need assistance, I’d be more than happy to provide it.
I don’t need your help. At the time I sent my email all I asked for was the status of DeNoise. In regard to turning people away from your product, after reading many discussions on this forum, I think you’re doing a pretty good job of that yourselves.
2 Likes
Alright, have a nice day!
A $400.00 Laptop it will not do for graphics. You need close to $1000.00 for a laptop for graphics.
Unless you want to process pictures and wait for a 30 sec+ per any changes to them…
1 Like
Unless someone is looking for a quick fix for a smart phone image, I’d have to agree with you. I don’t think anyone who dabbles seriously into computer graphics would disagree. My rule of thumb has always been to get the best and most powerful computer I can afford…and if I can’t afford what I think I’ll need, I’ll wait to upgrade until I can. Fortunately, I haven’t been in the position where I’ve lost the use of one completely…there has always been an earlier one to fall back on in case of repair or replacement. Because they always have good specs, even an old one usually performs better than a new entry level one would.
1 Like
