You will want to create some ‘preset’ recipes before you do batch processing of photos using Topaz Photo. For me, I have two main recipes; I use one recipe for raw-format shots straight from my camera, and another recipe for DNG-format shots like those I save after doing focus-stacking with my HeliconFocus. TopazPhoto will automatically apply noise reduction when it gets raw-format shots, but it won’t automatically do this when given DNG shots, even though they are technically still raw-format shots. Also keep in mind that you won’t get any automatic AI treatment for masking of shots when doing regular batch processing (non-Autopilot). This means that you probably should specify the mask (such as ‘All’) for any sharpening in your recipes. I have found that you will get settings applied twice to the first shot in the set of selected shots when you apply a recipe (preset). To avoid this, you can select all files except the first shot (using shift-mouse-click) or Ctrl-click for ranges of shots, followed by: Right-click→Apply→Preset→Saved-preset-name. The bottom of each photo thumbnail will turn black to indicate that it is in the set of selected shots. Save a Preset to use later Apply a preset to the selected shots After the preset has been applied to the set of selected shots, you can hover the mouse pointer over any shot thumbnail in the filmstrip and look at the pop-up to see what settings will get applied to it. Settings that will be applied to the selected shot Notice in the image above that the pop-up shows “RAW denoise…” in green. The green text indicates that this setting that you didn’t request will be applied. The setting(s) in white text will also be applied. If you see something that you don’t want (such as the same setting applied multiple times), you can select that image and then delete the unwanted filter by clicking the little ‘trashcan’ icon next to that filter in the filter list. The applied filters appear on the screen right-hand side beneath the “+ Select a filter”. If you happen to have a few shots in the set of photos that need some different filters than your selected preset applies, no problem. Just select the photo in question from the filmstrip and adjust the filters to apply to it. You can add or delete the filters for just that single shot. Different Sharpen filter and mask For example if you have one shot that has some subject motion blur, then you would select that shot, select the Sharpen filter, change the mask from “All” to “Subject”, and then change the “Standard” sharpening to “Motion blur”. If the whole frame was showing motion blur, then you would leave the mask set to ‘All’. Note that the pop-up over the photo thumbnail at the bottom of the screen will mention the type of sharpening, but it won’t indicate the type of mask being used. Just because you’re doing “batch processing”, that doesn’t mean that every single shot has to get treated the same! You can customize the shots that need it. When you’re happy with the settings for each shot, there are a couple of steps left to begin batch processing. First, click the “Select all” checkbox to ensure that every shot in the filmstrip is selected. Next, click the “Export * images” in the upper right-hand corner of the program. Verify file names show desired filters to apply in the Export dialog Be sure to review the file name of each shot that is going to get processed. If you see a repeated filter in the file name, then you should click “Cancel” and go back to that shot to delete the duplicate filter. Note that the file names are a bit generic, such as “sharpen” instead of which kind of sharpening filter. If the file names all indicate the desired filters and the appropriate file output format is set (DNG is shown above), then click “Save” to start the batch processing. You’ll get a continuous progress report while the shots are being processed. I’d recommend that you export the photos in DNG format, to retain the best quality. There are some filters that don’t allow you to save the results in DNG format; in that case, TIFF format is probably the best choice. After the processing is done, you can go back to import more images or else quit TopazPhoto. You’ll probably want to import the output files into another photo editor for further processing. When you have lots of images that need noise removal or sharpening, batch processing is the best way to go.

Topaz Photo 1.7.0 has introduced ‘Wonder v3.5’ for a 1-click answer to enhancing photos. This AI algorithm combines denoise, sharpen, upscale, and minor lighting adjustments. Wonder dialog The ‘Wonder 3.5’ algorithm can now be selected from a drop-down menu of all of the Wonder versions. You can upscale up to 4X or customize the size. There are 3 strength adjustments, and you can either process the image locally or in the cloud. The Wonder v3.5 will automatically apply some lighting adjustments, but it’s usually pretty subtle. Unlike other Topaz filters, you can’t select the mask to use for adjustments. All of the things that Wonder does can be accomplished individually, by manually selecting separate algorithms instead. Before (left side) and After (right side) Wonder v3.5 is slow. My computer has the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 GPU, which has 8704 cores in it. Most Topaz features finish in a few seconds. The Wonder algorithm typically takes about 3 minutes and sometimes over 10 minutes to complete! On average scenes, using the Medium strength enhancements and no upscaling, the results look just fine. There’s no way to know which kind of sharpening algorithm is being used, but it seems fairly conservative. If needed, you can do further enhancements after Wonder finishes, such as object removal. I give Topaz Photo raw photos, and it exports DNG output files (other formats can be selected). In this way, quality is maintained. Capture One was used for additional enhancements In the photo above, I took the DNG-format results from Topaz and did some more tonal and saturation adjustments inside Capture One. Topaz Photo can only do minimal lighting adjustments, so I always do extra editing in other programs. Siemens Star using Wonder with Medium enhancement, 2X upscale I tried photographing a Siemens Star from a long distance, where the camera sensor causes terrible aliasing and can’t sufficiently resolve the chart detail. The Wonder v3.5 didn’t do a very good job of enhancement and upscaling, when compared to using the separate Topaz upscaling ‘Standard MAX’ algorithm. Siemens Star using ‘Standard MAX’, 2X upscale A very high-contrast shot Processing a really high-contrast shot with the Wonder v3.5 Medium enhancement at 1X upscale, it did an unacceptable job on the sky and left it looking blotchy. This shot took 2 minutes and 20 seconds to finish, which is fairly typical for Wonder. Wonder v3.5, Medium (left) versus Standard sharpening (right) The Wonder v3.5 compared to the Topaz ‘Standard’ sharpening looked just about the same. Since I was able to have a ‘subject’ mask using the Standard sharpening, there’s none of the splotchy sky found in the ‘Wonder’ processing. The Wonder Medium 1X processing took 3m30s, whereas the ‘Standard’ sharpening took under 3 seconds! Wonder ‘High’ enhancement strength Trying out the ‘High’ enhancement algorithm, it took 10 minutes to finish. It still left a splotchy sky. Ugh. Topaz ‘Standard’ sharpening plus Capture One enhancements By exporting the shot from Topaz into Capture One, I was able to enhance the shadows/black/exposure to show what Topaz alone could not. I used my Nikon Z8 and the Nikkor Z 24-120mm f/4S at 120mm, 1/5000s f/7.1 ISO 200 for the shot. I really love using Topaz Photo, but I don’t love Wonder v3.5. It feels like it takes forever to complete its job, and I can get as-good or better results using the other Topaz sharpening and upscaling algorithms instead, in a fraction of the time.

I tried out the Topaz Photo ‘upscale’ feature (like Gigapixel), and then compared it to my Nikon Z8 ‘pixel shift’ feature. The upscale option lets you use AI to increase the resolution of a photo, up to 6X. Camera manufacturers that offer similar pixel-shift capabilities on some of their models include Fuifilm, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Hasselblad. My Nikon Z8 pixel shift feature was configured for 32 shots. This pixel-shifted photo is 11,008 X 16,512 resolution, or 181MB. I configured Topaz Photo to upscale 2X, or 11,040 X 16,560 resolution. The original raw photo (the first in the 32-shot series for the pixel shift) has a resolution of 5,520 X 8,280 pixels. I used my Nikon Z8 with the Meike 85mm II SE f/1.8 lens at f/2.8, ISO 500, 1/80s. I was exactly 10 meters from the target. This distance guarantees that the target in the photo (a Siemens Star) will look really bad. The details in the target simply go beyond the capability of the Z8 sensor. I used NX Studio to combine the raw pixel-shifted shots into a single high-resolution photo, which is then in Nikon’s NEFX format. I converted the NEFX file into DNG format using Adobe DNG Converter. Locate the Topaz Photo ‘Upscale’ option As shown above, I opened up my raw-format shot in Topaz Photo version 1.6.1, and then selected “Upscale”. The program automatically ran the ‘RAW denoise’ filter as soon as I added the raw shot to Topaz. What’s shown above is an extreme crop from the original photo. This camera/lens combination is quite sharp, but the Siemens Star plot at this distance goes beyond what my 48MP camera sensor can handle. The ‘Upscale’ selected options I selected the ‘2X’ up-scaling option, and I let the Topaz artificial intelligence select the “High fidelity v2” algorithm, along with its choice for the denoise magnitude, deblur, and compression. There are 9 total up-scaling algorithm options to select from. Topaz Photo can output the up-scaled photo in DNG format, which can then be edited in almost any other editor. The original raw-format shot, zoomed to 400%. My original raw shot (the first in the 32-shot pixel-shift series) is shown above, zoomed in to 400 percent. The colors in the center of the Siemens Star chart photo are caused by aliasing of the camera sensor; the chart itself is pure black-and-white. The up-scaled Topaz ‘High fidelity v2’ result, zoomed to 200%. Since the photo was up-scaled by 2X, the photo needs to be zoomed by 200% to get the same size on the screen as the original photo zoomed by 400%. The photo definitely looks higher-resolution, but the chart center looks a bit weird. The whole photo has that ‘fake’ look about it. Topaz ‘Standard MAX’ algorithm at 200% For this chart shot, I like the ‘Standard MAX’ best of all of the various Topaz algorithms. It looks the least like AI. Topaz ‘Standard v1’ algorithm at 200% 32-shot pixel shift result, zoomed to 200% It’s pretty obvious that the 32-shot pixel-shifted result is vastly better than the Topaz results. It has true increased resolution, compared to the Topaz artificial intelligence guesses at how to increase the resolution. The aliasing has been completely overcome. If you need higher resolution than your camera natively provides, pixel-shift is the way to go (assuming your camera has that option). Most camera manufacturers offer pixel shift, but on a very limited number of models. If you have subject motion, then the advice reverses. Use Topaz in that case, because you only get a smeary mess when you try to combine the pixel-shifted shots. The Topaz resolution results are much better than the original raw shot for several of its algorithms; it just can’t compete with the pixel-shifted results.

The newer Nikon Z cameras offer a way to get high dynamic range shots using ‘HDR Overlay’. The HDR photo is actually made from a pair of shots that are taken in quick succession and then automatically combined in-camera. It’s also possible to save the pair of shots that are used to create the HDR photo, if desired. Even if you’re shooting in raw format, the final HDR shot is saved in jpeg format only. The pair of shots used to create the HDR photo, if you opt to save them, are saved in raw format when you shoot in raw format. Because there are two shots taken to create the HDR photo, this technique only works for static subjects and you’ll need to use a tripod. HDR Overlay, assigned to the ‘i’ menu It’s possible, of course, to use any camera to take a series of photos with different exposures and then combine them using an editor. The HDR Overlay technique, however, makes this really easy and nearly instant. Access HDR Overlay from the Photo Shooting menu HDR on/off, intensity, and optional saving of shot pair creating the file HDR mode On/Off, single HDR, or stay in HDR mode There are options to activate HDR mode and then remain in HDR mode (series) or else immediately exit HDR mode (single photo) after getting the shot. Assign HDR strength or let the camera choose (Auto) You might think that it would be optimal to let the camera decide on how strong to make the HDR shot, but I found the ‘Auto’ setting to be nearly useless. I almost always use the ‘High’ setting for the best effect, but your own taste may differ from mine. For combining the raw shot pair into an HDR shot using an editor, I usually prefer to select the ‘Extra high’ setting. I don’t think the camera-generated jpeg HDR shot using ‘Extra high’ looks very realistic. No HDR, HDR Auto, and HDR High (left to right) In the jpeg examples above, the left-hand shot shows how the light areas are blown out and shadows have very little detail. The ‘Auto’ HDR shot looks barely any different from using no HDR at all. The ‘High’ HDR shot has tamed the blown highlights and really brings out shadow detail, too. Jpeg HDR Extra high vs Capture One HDR DNG from raw shots (right) The in-camera jpeg HDR ‘Extra High’ setting tends to make that faky HDR look with distorted tones. Taking the same pair of raw-format shots and merging them into HDR using the Capture One editor, I was able to create a DNG-format shot that looks much more realistic. Note that the bright areas aren’t nearly as blown-out, while the shadow areas are more detailed, too. To get the best quality, I use the option to “Save individual pictures (RAW)”. I use the HDR jpeg shot that gets created in-camera as just quick feedback. In one of my favorite editors, Capture One, I select the pair of saved raw shots and then choose the feature “Merge to HDR”. I alter highlights, shadows, black level, white level, and exposure in the DNG-format merged HDR shot to get the lighting effect that I want. I can always equal or exceed the visual quality of the in-camera HDR jpeg shot using the Capture One editor, and the HDR result is DNG format instead of jpeg to boot. If you’re in a hurry, the jpeg HDR shots are totally usable. When you’ve got the time, it’s always best to combine the saved raw-format shots into an HDR shot using a good editor. Also note that editors such as Capture One are capable of auto-aligning the raw shots while merging them into HDR. This means that you can take the shots hand-held and not need to use a tripod. The in-camera jpeg HDR shot would be ruined without a steady camera, but the raw shots can still be combined without a problem in an editor. I keep the HDR Overlay assigned to my ‘i’ menu, so that I don’t have to go searching for it inside the menu system. The HDR Overlay feature makes it really quick and easy to get the shot pair needed to later generate quality HDR photos, and the auto-generated jpeg shot looks pretty good as well (if you use a tripod). Most subjects get handled just fine with combining a pair of exposures. It’s of course possible to just manually take multiple shots at different exposures (like 4 or 5) while using a tripod and combine them using an editor. Many Nikons also have an “Auto bracketing” feature, where you can select “AE” mode (auto-exposure), the number of shots to bracket, and the number of stops of exposure to change between each shot. This is a bit more tedious, and you won’t get any jpeg shot for feedback, either. With these techniques, it’s mandatory to use an editor to combine the shots. You’ll probably have to resort to methods like these for really extreme brightness ranges. Used Bracketing (5 shots, 2 stops between shots) and Capture One As shown above, with an extreme brightness range you’ll need more than two shots. The shot above combined 5 shots at -4EV, -2EV, 0EV, +2EV, +4EV beyond normal exposure. This allows the outdoors to get properly exposed along with the indoors. I merged the 5 shots using Capture One. Remember, the best-looking HDR shots don’t look like they’re HDR. They just look like normal.

Here’s a great use of the ‘pixel-shift’ feature, such as what’s available on my Nikon Z8 camera. Pixel shift is only advertised to create high-resolution shots, but here’s something that is just as useful. Camera manufacturers that offer pixel-shift capabilities on some of their models include Fuifilm, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Hasselblad. I tested making some shots at really, really, high ISO values. Normally, I don’t ever go there, because the quality is so terrible at extremely high ISOs. Sometimes, for instance shooting after dark, you would really like to be able to crank up the ISO to capture whatever tiny sliver of light that exists. The digital camera sensor gets moved by fractions of a pixel in each subsequent shot during pixel-shift shooting. Special software can then combine these pixel-shifted shots together to enhance both resolution and image noise. I did some testing using my Meike 85mm f/1.8 lens at f/2.8 on my Nikon Z8 camera. ISO 25,600 raw-format crop from Nikon Z8: looks terrible The shot above is an extreme crop from a shot taken 5.455 meters away. I shot from this distance to force some of the bars in the label to basically disappear, due to the high ISO and resulting image noise. ISO 25,600 pixel-shift shot using 32 photos: Amazing The same distance, without any re-focus, was used for my 32-shot pixel-shift shot shown above. There’s hardly any image noise, even without using my usual noise-removal software Topaz Photo. I combined the 32 shots using the Nikon NX Studio, which made an ‘NEFX’ format. The NEFX is short for “NEF-extended”. I converted the NEFX format shot into DNG using Adobe DNG Converter, which then allows me to process the shot further in almost any photo editor. This pixel-shifted photo is 11,008 X 16,512 resolution, or 181MB. Now I got greedy. What would happen at ISO 102,400?? ISO 102,400 raw-format from Nikon Z8: Awful A single raw-format shot from the 32-shot sequence at ISO 102,400 looks horrible, as expected. The text can’t be read, and the bar-code wouldn’t be able to be successfully scanned. ISO 102,400 pixel-shift shot using 32 photos Incredibly, the ISO 102,400 32-shot pixel-shifted photo looks pretty good. Again, this shot is un-retouched without any noise removal or sharpening applied. Pixel-shift photography costs quite a bit in terms of disk storage; a typical 32-shot NEFX shot by itself is 916 MB. After converting into DNG format, the size shrinks down to 683 MB. Huge. I generally delete the individual raw-format shots comprising the pixel-shift shot after creating my NEFX photo. After converting NEFX into DNG, I can then also delete the NEFX shot. ISO 102,400 at E.V. -3.4, 1/10s f/2.8 85mm lens The shot above was done in extremely low light, where your eyes could barely see anything. Grain is just plain terrible at this ISO. Pixel-shift 32 shots, ISO 102,400 at E.V. -3.4, 1/10s f/2.8 85mm lens The 32-shot pixel-shift at ISO 102,400 shown above just looks like a “normal” shot. You’d never know that it was shot basically in the dark. Also, this photo hasn’t had any editor processing to enhance sharpness or remove any image noise. Some noise removal and sharpening, ISO 102,400 with 32-shot pixel-shift I used Topaz Photo on the shot, and the results are shown above. I used ‘strong noise removal’ and ‘standard sharpening’. Aside from a few hot pixels (easy to rid with a healing brush), most people would be none the wiser about the extreme conditions under which this photo was taken. This kind of photography is definitely niche, but if you really, really need to shoot a (static) subject at a super-high ISO, here’s a technique that’s unbeatable. It isn’t some subtle enhancement; it’s night-and-day different.

Image resolution is generally considered to be unaffected by the ISO being used. This assumption has always left me feeling slightly uncomfortable. I have always used ‘normal’ ISO ranges when evaluating lens resolution (typically between 100 and 400), because it doesn’t make sense to do an analysis outside of typical shooting conditions. I have had a suspicion that extremely high ISO’s would eventually cause a plunge in measured resolution, and what follows are some typical results from those tests. Spoiler: I didn’t get what I expected to get. I’m not referring to lens resolution in my tests, because resolution measurements are a combination of camera sensor characteristics, the lens, lighting, and (possibly?) the ISO in use. Years ago, I had done some tests with resolution-versus-ISO, but I stopped at ISO 6400, since my camera at that time had severely degraded image quality even at ISO 3200. Through that modest ISO range, there wasn’t much of a change in measured resolution. Modern sensors are really, really good, and when I use Topaz Photo AI for noise reduction I get impeccable results at high ISO’s. I did the following tests using my Nikon Z8 with the Meike 85mm f/1.8 lens, shooting at f/2.8. I use the MTFMapper program to measure the resolution, and my resolution target is 42”X57”, or 107cm X 145cm. I used a wired shutter release, and my mirrorless camera doesn’t suffer from mirror or shutter vibrations to affect sharpness even at low shutter speeds. I also keep IBIS active, which works well even on a tripod. After I focused the lens on the resolution target, I took each (raw) photo after only adjusting the ISO value, and never re-focused. For the measurements, I used the unedited raw shots. Resolution target, ISO 400 (left) and ISO 51200 (right) Sample shots of the annotated resolution target are shown above after processing in the MTFMapper program. These are two shots out of the 11 shots taken, ranging from ISO 100 through 51200. The little trapezoids in the target get measured on all 4 sides, with the MTF50 measurement overlaid on the edge, displayed in “line pairs per millimeter” units. Resolution plots, ISO 400 (left) and ISO 51200 (right) Resolution plots were made for each shot. You would think that the plots would look more similar than they do, since the focus wasn’t changed in any of the shots. I had expected to see a plunge in the resolution at the extreme ISO 51200 shot, but that isn’t what happened. I did a series of tests, where I refocused before each series, and each time I got similar measurement results and trends to what is shown above. Zoom in on same target location, ISO 400 (left) and ISO 51200 (right) The left side shows ISO 400 measurements at the same location in the target as the right side, which was shot at ISO 51200. The ISO 400 shot got an MTF50 measurement of 74.6 lp/mm on the same edge that got a measurement of 85.9 lp/mm in the ISO 51200 shot. The ISO 51200 shot looks darker, but theoretically that should reduce contrast/resolution instead of increasing it. So much for my theory that the measured resolution would plunge at extremely high ISO’s! The high ISO shots start getting pretty noisy, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem in regards to measured resolution. For this lens, the sagittal (wheel spoke) direction is much sharper than the meridional direction when you get away from the lens center. At this point, I need to mention the “Nyquist Limit”, which limits the camera sensor resolution according to the pixel density. For my Nikon Z8/Z9 sensors, this limit is (8280pixels / 35.9mm)/2 or 115.5 lp/mm. Another factor, called the “Kell Factor”, takes into account the space between the light-sensitive portions of the pixels. This Kell factor is 0.7, so the practical sensor resolution is (115.5 * 0.7) or 80.85 lp/mm. Any resolution measurements higher than 80.85 lp/mm are considered unreliable for this sensor. Web sites that quote resolution measurements beyond 80.85 lp/mm for a lens measured using a camera sensor equivalent to the Nikon Z8/Z9 should be considered suspect. Peak MTF50 measurement at each ISO I noted the highest MTF50 measurement in each shot of the target, and plotted the result. There was a clear pattern of increased resolution as ISO was increased, which is exactly opposite of what I would have expected. At lower ISO’s, the resolution change is actually pretty minimal as the ISO changes. As ISO increases, the resolution seems to climb at an accelerating pace instead of falling off of a cliff. Now, it’s time to step back and do a reality check. Programs that measure resolution do so by looking at the number of pixels on the sensor required to go from the target white background to the targets’ fully-black edge. But is that really the best measure of resolution? Seimens Star, ISO 51200 (left) ISO 400 (right) I took some shots at 7.7 meters away with my 85mm lens at f/2.8 with ISO 51,200 and ISO 400. What’s shown above is the cropped portion of the photos with the Seimens Star target. This is what ‘real’ resolution looks like. Indeed, you’d have to conclude that high ISO in actual fact does ruin resolution. Current resolution-measuring software (like Imatest and MTFMapper) don’t know how to evaluate closely-spaced lines to estimate resolution, and instead depend upon measuring the pixel distance between light and dark on an edge. This ISO test shows that the edge contrast-measuring technique for determining resolution can fail spectacularly when considering high ISO. Web sites rarely specify the ISO they use when measuring lens resolution, but it looks like there’s yet another way to manipulate the results. Shooting with jpeg instead of raw format is probably the biggest fraud to artificially create better lens resolution measurements, but using a really high ISO is evidently another way. ISO 51,200 after using Topaz Photo Just for fun, I tried using Topaz Photo on the ISO 51,200 shot shown above. Still hopeless. ISO 500 versus ISO 102400, 100% crop at 15 meters For an even more extreme example, I shot a label with barcodes on it, as shown above, from 15 meters. This is an un-sharpened photo with the pixels shown at 100% magnification. You can still read the ISO 500 text and see the bars, but the ISO 102400 shot is pure garbage. Pretty outrageous that resolution-measuring software is actually happier with the 102400 shot. At extreme ISOs, the image contrast can get quite high. This high contrast is what fools the resolution software into concluding that the resolution is high, when it’s obvious that the resolution is actually terrible. If you want the best resolution, definitely stick with low ISO (even if the resolution-measurement software doesn’t think you should).

If you export a raw-format photo (e.g. Nikon NEF and also Adobe DNG) into Topaz Photo AI for editing, it will often ruin the red colors. Ironically, opening up the same raw-format shot from inside Topaz Photo AI works without any problems. This color-shift problem only happens with my Nikon Z8 and Z9 cameras, using either raw with lossless compression or raw with the HighEfficiency formats. Using raw format on, for instance, my Nikon D500 camera, the colors are fine. This problem doesn’t seem to be the fault of the photo editor you use, but with Topaz itself. I recreated the same issue using both Capture One and Lightroom. When I tried On One Photo 2023, however, the problem wasn’t there! Others have reported color shift problems to Topaz regarding the Nikon Z8, but the problem hasn’t been resolved, at least through version 1.6.1 of Topaz. A raw-format loaded directly into Topaz Photo AI looks like you expect The red/orange feather colors look just exactly like they should when a raw photo is directly loaded into Topaz Photo AI. Topaz Photo AI ‘Open’ dialog to edit a photograph The dialog shown above demonstrates browsing for a photo to open directly inside Topaz Photo AI. You could also just drag a raw file onto the Topaz desktop icon to run Topaz Photo AI with the desired shot. The raw-format photo inside Capture One looks just fine Using “Edit With”| Process with Topaz Photo (Studio) Using the dialog to send the NEF file into Topaz after converting into the DNG-format is shown above. Disaster! The red/orange colors are ruined inside Topaz Photo AI As shown above, the DNG-format file sent into Topaz Photo AI is ruined. The colors are wrong. The view above is now inside Topaz Photo AI. Using “Edit With”| Process with Topaz Photo (Studio) as TIFF Instead of choosing DNG format, tell Capture One to convert the raw photo into 16-bit TIFF format before sending it to Topaz Photo AI. Colors look correct when sending a TIFF file to Topaz from Capture One As shown above, using a non-raw format photo such as TIFF will yield correct colors inside Topaz. You can then export the edited file from Topaz, retaining the TIFF format. DNG file sent into Topaz via Lightroom: ruined colors again From inside Lightroom, using the command: File | Plug-in Extras | Process with Topaz Photo (Studio) You end up with the exact same color problem as seen when using Capture One with raw-format shots. The same ruined colors happen when Topaz opens up the raw-format DNG file that was sent from Lightroom. Using TIFF, the problem goes away. I have seen this same problem in every version of Topaz Photo Studio (latest version 4.0.4) and Topaz Photo AI (version 1.6.1). The simplest fix to this issue is to merely drag your raw-format shot(s) into Topaz or use the “File Open” dialog from inside Topaz and perform any desired editing/exporting there before opening the edited file in another photo editor for further processing. This procedure lets you keep using raw format (via the exported DNG) in subsequent editors. If you don’t mind using TIFF, then that format has no color-ruining issues while using Topaz.

Are you missing a little drama in your life? Sometime when you’re bored, here’s something you can do for entertainment. Creative Picture Controls are available for the Nikon Z cameras, even shooting in raw format. This feature can only be understood with examples. Nikon presently offers 20 options here; some are extremely subtle and some are absolutely wild. I personally prefer the wilder options, since other photo editors can easily emulate the more subtle ones. Before you try this stuff with whatever photo editor you like, a word of caution. The versions that I am using for Lightroom and Capture One don’t support these controls. Zoner Photo Studio does support them, but not when selecting the ‘Raw’ editing tab (use ‘Editor’ tab). Nikon’s free NX Studio does support this, so you can experiment without having to incur any cost. The Binary picture control To access these options, you start by going into the PHOTO SHOOTING MENU | Set Picture Control | scroll down to Creative Picture Control. These are the options (numbered 1 through 20): 1 Dream, 2 Morning, 3 Pop, 4 Sunday, 5 Somber, 6 Dramatic, 7 Silence, 8 Bleached, 9 Melancholic, 10 Pure, 11 Denim, 12 Toy, 13 Sepia, 14 Blue, 15 Red, 16 Pink, 17 Charcoal, 18 Graphite, 19 Binary, and 20 Carbon. The 19 Binary control, for instance, looks exactly like Kodak Kodalith film. I think they stopped selling Kodalith somewhere during Aristotle’s time. The 13 Sepia closely resembles old black-and-white photos that were stained using the sepia toner, but with a little twist of added color. I actually used to do this when I had a darkroom. 19 Binary picture control: like old Kodak Kodalith film 13 Sepia. Sort of like old sepia-toned black-and-white 17 Charcoal, more conventional black-and-white 6 Dramatic 5 Somber 20 Carbon 8 Bleached These controls can really make some blah scenes look pretty cool. They’re kind of like eating licorice instead of your vegetables; once in a while you should try skipping the proper adult thing to do. If you’re worried about potentially ruining a shot by choosing one of these speciality color schemes, not to worry. In NX Studio, for instance, all you have to do is change the “Picture Control” value from the “Recorded Value”, which is something like “([CV16]PINK) into something more suitable like “[NL]Neutral” or “[SD]Standard”. That’s the beauty of shooting in raw format. If you’re still uncomfortable about shooting with these unusual picture control color schemes, then you can always do the job totally inside the editor, instead. In NX Studio, you can take your raw photo that was shot in maybe ‘Neutral’, and just select Picture Control | Creative Picture Control | [08] Bleached to perform the picture drama after the fact. What about other Nikon cameras (non-Z mount)? Using NX Studio, you can go to the Picture Control and select Latest Picture Control and then scroll down to Creative Picture Control and finally select from the same set of 20 picture controls! 3 Pop

I have tried out many features of the Topaz Photo version 1.6.0. Overall, it works very well. I have found, however, a few problems with it. The version 1.6.0 of Topaz Photo seems to have fixed the “Dust & Scratch” version 2 feature, and seems to do a really good job. Prior to this version, the program would leave some strange blotches in the picture. Don’t try this feature unless you have a really, really fast GPU, however, because it will take forever to complete. Dust and Scratch: before (left) and after (right) As shown above, all of the little spots of dust on the bird were automatically removed without having to guide the program in any way. ‘Remove v2’ fails after ‘Spot Heal’ I found a severe bug while using the combination of the “Spot Heal”, followed by the “Remove v2” feature, where the “enhanced” view will cause the enhanced image to be completely black. You can only see the image by clicking the little ‘eye’ icon to go back to the “Show Original” view. ‘Remove v2’ when not using ‘Spot Heal’ works well In the example above, I got rid of a distracting leaf in front of the bird using ‘Remove v2’. It worked very well in making the leaf disappear like magic; artificial intelligence is really remarkable. Red colors get shifted to orange with Nikon Z8 and Z9 raw format I still have the problem when sending a DNG-format into Topaz from another editor, where the bright red/orange colors get ruined. Using Topaz stand-alone with raw images doesn’t have this problem. Sending the image as 16-bit TIFF instead of DNG also works. This color-shift problem only happens with my Nikon Z8 and Z9 cameras, using either raw with lossless compression or raw with the ‘High Efficiency’ formats. Others have reported color shift problems to Topaz regarding the Nikon Z8, but the problem hasn’t been solved. DeNoise ‘Strong’, ISO 8000 The denoise feature is still world-class. In this Nikon Z8 example, I had to send the raw photo converted into 16-bit TIFF format from Capture One into Topaz for editing in order to retain correct colors. I could have directly used my Nikon Z8 NEF raw format if I just used the Topaz Photo stand-alone instead. Sharpen ‘Standard’ Sharpening is excellent, too. Be aware that Topaz will probably automatically place a mask on what it considers the subject and only sharpen that. You can always alter the mask, or tell it to sharpen everything. There are many types of sharpening that you can select, including an option to counteract image motion smear. ‘Spot Heal’ is simple The built-in intelligence in ‘Spot Heal’ works well; it figures out how to blend using AI. Just don’t combine this feature with ‘Remove v2’! Adjust lighting (and color) There are 3 versions available for lighting (plus color) adjustment, which includes automatic adjustment and sliders to customize it to taste. There’s also a separate control called ‘Balance color’ to adjust the color temperature, along with masking options. Be aware that using ‘Adjust lighting’ or ‘Balance color’ will then prohibit you from exporting the edited photo as DNG. Before and after Topaz I had to do a two-pass edit in Topaz to avoid the ‘Dust/Scratch/Remove v2’ bug. I also had to use TIFF editing instead of DNG to avoid the red-shift bug. High ISO shot after Topaz denoise and sharpening Enough features to be a one-stop editor? There are enough image manipulation options in Topaz Photo that some people might just use this program for all of their editing. Summary I’m willing to tolerate the shortcomings in Topaz Photo to get the fantastic end results. I’m hopeful that a future version can fix up these bugs. I will still combine use of this program with other editors, such as Lightroom and Capture One. I still need other features such as vignette control, cropping, distortion correction and image rotation.

Lenses usually behave very differently in resolving details that are in the sagittal versus meridional direction. Why is this? A target designed to separate sagittal and meridional measurements The sagittal direction is like the spokes of a wheel, pointing at the lens center (optical axis). Meridional direction is tangent to circles around the lens center. Test charts for checking resolution are available from the same site that provides the MTFMapper program, written by Frans van den Bergh. The test charts have been designed to separate out the sagittal and meridional measurements. Many of the charts also include the round ‘fiducials’ shown above, which help the program identify things like rotational errors for chart alignment issues. The name ‘sagittal’ comes from Latin, and it means “as the arrow flies”, and is meant to indicate an arrow shot from the optical axis toward a subject. That’s also why the zodiac sign of Sagittarius is the archer... The name ‘meridional’ is the same as ‘tangential’, referring to the meridional plane. MTF50 plot separating out sagittal and meridional measurements The pair of plots above show the measurements from a resolution target separated into meridional and sagittal. It’s obvious that the sagittal measurements are better than the meridional measurements throughout the photo. Typical MTF50 resolution measurements (lp/mm) In the image above, MTF50 resolution measurements are overlaid on the resolution target. The black trapezoid edges that are nearly vertical above are in the meridional direction, while the near-horizontal edges are sagittal (pointing toward the center of focus). Notice how all of the meridional measurements shown are much lower than the sagittal measurements. The lens optics are fairly weak in the meridional direction. This is very typical of camera lenses; very few lenses are equally adept at resolution in both directions. So, why are lenses sensitive to the direction of edges (light rays)? One of the main culprits in lenses is called ‘oblique astigmatism’, which causes the sagittal and meridional rays to focus at slightly different distances when off-axis from the lens center. Decentering or tilting of lens elements during assembly can exaggerate sagittal/meridional differences. Even a very tiny slop in manufacturing tolerances can yield assembly variation causing astigmatism, and the problem worsens the further you get from the lens axis. Designers favor making lenses that have better sagittal than meridional resolution, since they usually have to choose. Visually, lenses appear sharper with good sagittal resolution compared to equivalent meridional resolution. Light rays in the meridional direction cross many more lens element boundaries at steep angles, compared to sagittal light rays. Lenses with coma also affect meridional light rays more than sagittal. Meridional light rays are refracted more steeply, and this causes the image to get focused closer to the lens. Sagittal light rays pass through the lens at a flatter angle, and therefore focus further from the lens. Designers try to account for this effect, but the inevitable slight astigmatism in lenses usually causes the meridional rays to focus less well than the sagittal rays. All of these effects are just generalizations, and there are cases where lens designs actually cause meridional rays to focus better than sagittal rays. Designers are constantly faced with a very complicated balancing act. What to do? Not unsurprisingly, the resolution in both directions will get improved by stopping down the lens, and usually the meridional direction will improve slightly faster than the sagittal direction. Web sites that evaluate lens resolution almost never mention the differences between the meridional and sagittal resolution, or even discuss that such a thing exists. The best they will do is show the MTF ‘contrast’ plots, which are usually just a theoretical line plot of sagittal and meridional contrast. I think it’s important that the measurements are segregated from each other to better understand how a lens really performs. A single “edge resolution” measurement, for instance, is almost meaningless.

I have read some really glowing reviews of the Rokinon (Samyang) AF 85mm f/1.4 lens. They made it sound like it was better than my Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-S G lens in every respect. I respectfully disagree with most of what I have read. I only have a single copy of this lens, but I would regard it as pretty disappointing. Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 on Nikon Z8 (with FTZ II adapter) Rokinon AF 85mm f/1.4 with AF/MF switch Rokinon AF 85mm f/1.4 with bayonet hood You buy an f/1.4 lens for its bright aperture and narrow focus depth. In the testing that follows, you’ll see that at f/1.4 it has terrible resolution, noticeable lateral chromatic aberration, red/green longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA), and huge spherical aberration. The lens looks nice, it feels solid, and the focus is smooth. It just doesn’t perform where it counts. By f/5.6, the lens is fine; unfortunately, this isn’t why somebody buys an f/1.4 lens. Specifications 9 elements in 7 groups, with 1 aspherical element 77mm filter thread 0.9 meter minimum focus 480 grams Dual Linear Sonic Motor focus Metal construction Weather sealed 9 rounded aperture blades, with minimum aperture f/16 Rokinon 85mm at f/1.4 on Nikon Z8 If you’re not very concerned about being sharp at f/1.4, then this lens could work for you. Backgrounds melt away just fine. Note that there is some color fringing around the out-of-focus edges of the neutral gray vase. Eye at f/1.4 (left), f/2.0 and f/2.8 (right) at 200% magnification Eye at f/4.0 (left) and f/5.6 (right) at 200% magnification Eye with sharpening at f/1.4 (left) and f/5.6 (right) Even with sharpening (I used Topaz Photo Studio), you can’t get sharp shots at f/1.4. If you like the wide-open effect, however, then this lens might work for you. Resolution Measurements This lens has some very unusual sharpness results. The location of maximum sharpness does some traveling around when the aperture is changed. Wide open, the lens looks like it has tilt to it, but smaller apertures make it go away. I consider a lens to look sharp at an MTF50 of about 30 lp/mm. This lens has some sharp aspects starting at f/2.0, but the edges are mostly dismal. MTF contrast f/1.4 actual measurement versus Rokinon claims The measured contrast results aren’t even close to the ‘theoretical’ predictions. I have included the 50 lp/mm measurements, besides the traditional 10 lp/mm and 30 lp/mm. f/1.4 MTF50 Results. Maximum is 29.0 lp/mm Sharpest results are at the bottom edge, in the sagittal direction. Very unusual. Not really sharp anywhere. f/2.0 MTF50 Results. Maximum is 36.1 lp/mm Sharpest results are still at the bottom edge, in the sagittal direction. Only a sliver of acceptable sharpness in the lens midsection. f/2.8 MTF50 Results. Maximum is 54.9 lp/mm f/4.0 MTF50 Results. Maximum is 55.3 lp/mm Now, the sharpest location has shifted to the top of the lens. This is the lens sharpest aperture. Still dismal results on the edges. f/5.6 MTF50 Results. Maximum is 54.3 lp/mm The sharpest zone is finally moving toward the lens center. The meridional direction is finally starting to sharpen. Edges are starting to become acceptable. f/8.0 MTF50 Results. Maximum is 52.4 lp/mm f/11.0 MTF50 Results. Maximum is 46.7 lp/mm f/16.0 MTF50 Results. Maximum is 37.9 lp/mm Field curvature 85mm f/1.4 field curvature It looks like there’s just slight field curvature.The red/green hue is indicative of the lens longitudinal chromatic aberration, with purple/red in the front and green behind the focused subject. Londitudinal Chromatic Aberration (LoCA) LoCA is noticeable: purple/red in front, green behind f/1.4 Longitudinal chromatic aberration is definitely there at f/1.4, but not terrible. Lateral Chromatic Aberration (CA) Lateral Chromatic Aberration (CA) will be noticed at f/1.4 9 lens elements in 7 groups, courtesy of Rokinon Bokeh Cat’s eye out-of-focus lights, not objectionable, f/1.4 Out-of-focus highlights are brighter around the edges, but not too severe. They seem slightly asymmetric, too. Vignetting and Distortion f/1.4 fairly heavy vignetting, but minimal distortion Spherical Aberration Spherical aberration causes focus shift I drew arrows showing how the center of focus changes as the lens gets stopped down. The lens was focused at f/1.4, and then subsequent shots were taken while only changing the aperture. Focus keeps moving away from the camera, caused by spherical aberration. This effect is very common for fast lenses. It shows how you need to focus at the shooting aperture to nail correct focus. f/5.6 looks sharp and vignetting has disappeared Summary This lens was a big disappointment, primarily due to its poor resolution. The edges of the frame are particularly bad until f/8. It’s always possible that I got the proverbial ‘bad copy’. I’m definitely not going to get another one just to see if that’s true. Needless to say, I got rid of this lens; I felt too guilty to actually sell it, so gave it away.

I tested this lens on a Nikon Z8 and Z9 camera with the Z mount, but the same optics are available for E, Z, L, and RF camera mounts. This is a full-frame lens with manual focus. This lens is only 0.23 stops slower than the fast f/0.95 lenses, such as the Nikkor 58mm f/0.95 Noct Z-mount and Leica 50mm Noctilux-M f/0.95 lenses. That Leica lens is selling for over $14,000 U.S.! This all-metal lens weighs just 632 grams, is 70mm diameter, and 84mm long. It’s a little larger than typical 50mm lenses. For comparison, the Nikkor 58mm f/0.95 Noct lens weighs 2000 grams, 153mm long, 102mm diameter, and it’s also manual focus without any built-in anti-vibration. Also note that the Noct costs about 26X more than this lens. There aren’t any electronics in this lens, so your camera has to be configured with “Non-CPU Lens Data” in the Setup menu. This will allow the camera IBIS system to correctly handle anti-vibration, and to know the lens maximum aperture. Unfortunately, the file EXIF data won’t record the aperture in use. Camera IBIS systems are good enough that in-lens vibration reduction features aren’t really much of a priority anymore. With really fast lenses like this one at f/1.05, I’d recommend that you shoot in ‘continuous’ mode when hand-holding and the focused subject is near the camera. The focus plane gets razor thin, and missed focus is really common. This way, you can just delete the missed-focus shots after the fact. For critical focus, it’s highly recommended that you configure your camera to use focus-peaking at “low sensitivity”, which is also the most accurate. I also programmed my camera “fn2” button for “Zoom on/off” at 100%. This way, I can toggle between normal magnification and high magnification for critical focus at the touch of a button. The Z9 and Z8 let you go all the way up to 200% zoom, if desired. Even at 100% zoom, the focus-peaking still works at f/1.05. The focus ring rotates about 135 degrees, which is a little tough to fine-tune focus when zoomed in at 100%. There’s no weather sealing, so stay out of the rain. And never, ever photograph those festivals where they throw colored powder at each other. Brightin Star 50mm f/1.05 with 15-blade aperture on Nikon Z8 Who makes lenses with 15 aperture blades? Even the Nikkor 58mm Noct lens only has 11 blades. You’ll need to look at the aperture scale on the top of the lens to set the aperture. The aperture ring is continuous (no clicks) and only stops down as far as f/11. The lens uses 58mm filters. You don’t get a lens hood included with this lens, but you can buy cheap screw-on hoods. I got a screw-on lens hood that has 82mm threads on its front end that accepts my 82mm filters and 82mm lens caps. I always keep the lens hood on while shooting. Lens aperture has no-click and range of f/1.05 through f/11.0 The lens focus scale shown above lets you focus down to 0.557 meters, where the lens front is 0.443 meters from the subject (which I measured). Both the focus ring (toward the lens rear) and the aperture ring (near the lens front) are pure metal with a black anodized coating. It takes a little getting used to the no-click aperture, although most of the time I leave the aperture parked at f/1.05. You need to look at the lens top to set the aperture. Spherical Aberration Most high-speed lenses suffer from spherical aberration. This effect causes focus to shift as you change the lens aperture. This Brightin Star has a very slight spherical aberration, and focus shifts away from the camera as you stop down. Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration (LoCA) LoCA at f/1.04 (top) versus f/2.8 (bottom) This lens has moderate LoCA when the lens aperture is wide-open, and it almost disappears by the time you stop down to f/2.8. The bright neutral subject fringes are reddish in front of the focused subject and greenish behind the focused subject. Lateral Chromatic Aberration The worst lateral chromatic aberration (CA) this lens exhibits is at f/1.05, where it has about a 5 micron shift. This is minor, but visible. You can correct for this in photo editors. Lens Elements Lens elements, via Brightin Star web site The lens has 10 elements in 8 groups. If that sounds complicated, the Nikkor 58mm f/0.95 Noct Z lens has 17 elements in 10 groups! Distortion There’s a very, very slight barrel distortion. I have never bothered to correct for it when editing, because it’s ignorable. Infrared This lens can be used for infrared, although it starts showing central flare when stopped down. At wide apertures, it’s just fine. The central light spot starts appearing at f/4 (using 850nm IR) depending upon your subject. At shorter infrared wavelengths, you should see fewer problems. I like shooting with very long IR wavelengths, including 850nm. 850nm infrared at f/1.05 850nm infrared at f/5.6 doesn’t have any central hot spot. Some subjects start to show a hot spot by f/5.6, but most don’t. MTF Contrast Plot Brightin Star claimed MTF versus my measured MTF The upper plot, from the Brightin Star website, shows their theoretical MTF contrast (at 10,20,30 lp/mm). I measured the MTF contrast at f/1.05 myself, at 10,30, and 50 lp/mm which I show in the lower plot. Reality is a tough mistress. Cat’s Eye Out-of-focus lights show typical cat’s eye. f/1.05 I really like the bokeh from this lens. It’s very easy on the eyes. Field Curvature Field curvature: none Photoshop "Find Edges" feature Flat lawn grass shot at f/1.05 was processed in Photoshop. This is a very effective way to visualize if the plane of focus stays flat or not. This lens shows no noticeable field curvature. Sharpness versus aperture f /1.05 edge-to-edge sharpness The small subjects above were shot at about 1 meter, including the left and right frame edges to observe loss of acuity on the frame edges. This lens did pretty well across the frame. Note how shallow the plane of focus is. Central sharpness crop at f/1.05, f/1.4, f/2.0 (top-to-bottom) Just looking up close at the middle bird in these crops. Central sharpness crop at f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6 (top-to-bottom) Even wide-open, this lens is acceptably sharp. It just keeps getting sharper as you stop down. Even the small fibers are resolved at f/1.05. Contrast takes a jump going from f/1.05 to f/1.4. Brightin Star 50mm f/1.05 1/200s ISO 140 Crop from the shot above The whiskers of this bunny are sharp, even though I shot it at f/1.05. Super skinny depth of focus. Bokeh Brightin Star 50mm f/1.05 1/500s ISO 64 The background melts away quite nicely. Resolution Tests f/1.05 MTF50 lp/mm peak values: Mid 35.4, Edge 35.0, Corner 26.1 There is a small amount of barrel distortion, which is easily corrected in an editor if it bothers you. The resolution chart photo shows what the vignetting at f/1.05 looks like. Again, this moderate vignetting can be easily corrected with an editor. I have always maintained that lenses start looking sharp at about 30 lp/mm, so this lens passes that criteria even at f/1.05. Corners are still slightly blurry, though. f/1.4 MTF50 lp/mm peak values: Mid 38.0, Edge 39.6, Corner 23.5 f/2.0 MTF50 lp/mm peak values: Mid 41.4, Edge 45.5, Corner 33.1 Starting at f/2.0, the corners are now acceptable. f/2.8 MTF50 lp/mm peak values: Mid 63.2, Edge 55.9, Corner 54.7 f/4.0 MTF50 lp/mm peak values: Mid 68.8, Edge 67.7, Corner 66.1 This is the sharpest aperture in general, but f/5.6 is about the same. f/5.6 MTF50 lp/mm peak values: Mid 68.2, Edge 68.1, Corner 64.9 f/8.0 MTF50 lp/mm peak values: Mid 63.1, Edge 61.8, Corner 61.2 Sample shots 50mm f/1.05 1/125s ISO 8000 50mm f/1.05 1/80s ISO 8000 A very rare 1936 Chrysler Imperial Airflow Sedan. These were actually designed with the help of a wind tunnel. Shot in very dim lighting. 50mm f/2.8 1/25s ISO 8000 Those 15 aperture blades make really nice subtle spikes on lights (with 30 spikes). No coma observed; just some bunnies doing lawn maintenance. 50mm f/1.05 0.5s ISO 8000, extremely dim lighting Summary I really enjoy shooting with this lens. Manual focus isn’t that much of a hardship when using focus-peaking combined with my camera’s zoom-toggle function button assignment. It’s liberating to be able to shoot in the dimmest of conditions. The corners of the images aren’t sharp wide-open, but that’s rarely a problem. Given the price of this lens, the optical performance is really remarkable. I’m not claiming that this lens is on the same level as the $8,000 Nikkor 58mm f/0.95 Noct or the $14,000 Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux-M, but you could probably get this lens along with a used car to drive it around in for the same price. I have no idea about the manufacturing quality control that Brightin Star has, but this particular lens is a keeper.