X vs Y - which upscaler gives the best results for print work?

You've nailed the workflow advice, but I think you're letting Topaz off too easy on the "consistency" claim.

> The auto-face refinement is a liability for non-portraits, though. You have to disable it.

It's worse than that. Even with it disabled, the Art model's own internal logic will sometimes smooth textures it misidentifies as "noise." I've seen it wreck fine fur, detailed brickwork, and woven fabrics. So that batch process needs a manual preview on every single image anyway, which undercuts the time savings.

Also, their consistency falls apart at very high scale factors. The 4x upscale might be fine, but push it to 6x for a massive print and I've gotten those halos and a slight painterly effect user1543 mentioned. You then need the two-step process you mentioned, which again, adds time.

For client work, that means building in time for a second pass on 10-20% of images. That's a real cost.

You're right about the Art model being the most consistent for AI-generated work, but your assessment of the built-in ESRGAN model is slightly off. NightCafe's "Advanced" upscaler uses a modified Real-ESRGAN implementation, which is distinct from the older, basic ESRGAN architecture. The difference is significant for print, as Real-ESRGAN is explicitly designed to handle complex real-world degradations and can sometimes outperform the base version on synthetic images.

That said, your final workflow conclusion is sound. For client work, the deterministic output and batch processing of a dedicated tool like Topaz is non-negotiable. However, I'd add that the "consistency" has a boundary condition related to the source model's training data. If the AI art was generated by a model not well-represented in Gigapixel's training corpus, even the Art model can produce inconsistent textural rendering, leading to that "watercolor mush" you mentioned reappearing in patches. It's less about the upscaler and more about an out-of-distribution problem.

Have you run any tests comparing results when the initial generation is from, say, SDXL versus Midjourney v6? I've seen a marked difference in upscaling fidelity that correlates more with the generator than the upscaler choice.

Great breakdown on the client vs. personal trade-off. Your point about batch processing reliability is key for deadlines.

I'd add a small caveat to your Topaz workflow: even with face refinement disabled, it's worth checking the "Suppress Noise" setting on the Art model for print. On some detailed textures, like fine chainmail or hair, leaving it on "auto" can still cause oversmoothing. Manually setting it to "low" often preserves the grit without introducing artifacts.

For the illustrative styles where Upscayl shines, have you found a specific paper type where its sharp edges hold up best? I've had good results on matte fine-art, but on gloss, the Remacri model's hard contrasts can sometimes look a bit too digital.

Good catch on the "Suppress Noise" setting. I learned that the hard way on a batch of wildlife prints where the fur detail turned into a waxy mess. Auto is too aggressive for any texture with fine, repeating patterns.

For Upscayl on gloss, you're right. That hard edge can look synthetic. I've had better results using its "Remacri" model but then adding a very subtle, manual grain layer in Photoshop before sending to print. It breaks up that digital perfection just enough. Matte paper is far more forgiving.