Excellent video Jan :) I'm still amazed by how many folks I run into, that haven't gotten the whole noise situation straight yet. So often I see photos which are sharp, and really could be aesthetically pleasing, but the noise just kills them. I've been using DXO version 2 (sharpening turned off) and 90-95% of the time, that's all I need. Once in a while (usually due to a personal fail :) lol ) I might have to use Topaz as a final step to remove just a touch more noise, or add a tiny bit more selective sharpening. BTW, I'm still using DXO version 2, as I literally bought it for full price "2 weeks" before version 3 came out > and DXO would not give me ANY discount whatsoever for an upgrade to version 3. Urggg. I love the product, but I still kind of feel like that was poor business.... I might pay full price again for version 4, whenever it comes out, but just out of principle, I won't pay for version 3.
I was not happy with how Topaz handled feather detail. You can see the weirdness on the Topaz photo near the head at 3:00. PureRaw was too sharp causing artifacts (Halos) even with Lens Sharpness toggled off. DXO PhotoLab gave me the best results as it allowed me to tweak the settings.
I feel that Adobe at the moment will work only on very fast computers, on my computer I cannot use it ( takes a lot of time) while Topaz does a good job and is very fast. For me that is a huge advantage.
Hi Jan, do you have any sharpening applied when using 'Enhance" or have sharpening set to '0"......... I've been looking very closely at DXO pureraw.... It can do amazing things, but when i look closely, for example feather detail, it actually seems to invent detail....for example, straight or smoothly curved feathers can change shape.....quite interesting.
I’m using DXO PhotoLab 6, and only thing keeping me in LR is the AI masking when doing some portrait work. Otherwise PhotoLab is so much faster and user friendly, and includes amazing NR. I really hope they catch up with LR AI masking, then I could unsubscribe from Adobe.
I like the results from DXO PhotoLab and On1 NoNoise. Before Topaz switched to AI, it was better. I find that Topaz still tends to produce artifacts and have to mask them out.
It is! As I always say, I do t gain by not telling the truth or not sharing what’s best with you guys. I am more than happy to forgo some affiliate money if there’s a better and cheaper way out there and I will share that
Hi Jan, I started using DXO 1 after your reviews a few years ago. It was SLOW. I got DXO 2 and only used it a few times befor LR enhance came with updates. I compared a few ISO 12,800 images and thought Enhance was better and have not looked back. Nice review and tips.
HI, Jan. I have to agree. I was pleasantly surprised when Adobe came out with ‘Enhance’. I started using it, and have been impressed with the results. As a hobbyist, I didn’t have a clear idea as to how much sharpening was too much; so I greatly appreciate the guidance you’ve provided here on what to aim for so as to not overdo the enhancements. I also appreciate your suggestion to run Enhance twice and then layer the results to apply to the end product of the editing process. I also subscribe to the Adobe Bundle, so saving the extra money (I originally purchased DxO Pure Raw), helps me decide against the need to update to DxO Pure Raw 3. NOW; I’ll get off the fence and use the money I’m saving to ‘finally’ invest in your ProSets, lol. Thanks for the informative video. It really helps novice hobbyists like me, lol!
Great (as usual) video, Jan. Personally, I’m really enjoying the Denoise feature in LRC now that I have a computer that runs it in 8-15 seconds vs 10-20 minutes. Very happy with the results and not having to “leave” the program when editing.
I use Topaz and only shoot at ISO 12800 occasionally. I mostly use the Low Light mode on Topaz Denoise with nice results. The other modes are too aggressive.
Thanks so much for the video. One point to mention about DxO is that it also provides lens correction which can be a bonus but it does take them longer to develop profiles for newer lenses which can be an issue. I find their CA removal to work very well in fact better than LR. Cheers.
I have been Topaz subscriber for for many years and I do not use Topaz photo AI because as you said it produces artifacts but my word that I use is that it adds color noise even if you manually scale back. I have been sticking with old individual Topaz, Denise AI. I do use Lightroom denoise if ISO 25,600. It seems to do better than Topaz product at high ISO
Topaz Denoise is fine, but after they released AI v2, I stopped using it. The v2 of AI is far more better than previous versions, which were completely unusable. And yes, for each photo you have to be vary careful which model of denoise to use, or which model of sharpening to use to avoid those arthefacts. Anyway, I'm really happy with results, I dont denoise agressively, but sharpening in Topaz is far more better than Adobe, it really saves some of my shots.
I use DxO PL 7 and deepprime on every raw file because it's also a raw optimizer not only a denoizer and with a geforce 3060 gpu it takes 3 to 4 sec for my Nikon D700 files (12mpx)
I'm pretty disappointed with how ligbtroom's denoise ai handles images, and I just discovered the power of dxo pureraw and honestly it produces jaw-dropping results. (for my use-cases)
Totally agree. I've been fighting PAI for the last year and I'm about done with it. There is a thread on the Topaz community site trying to get them to restart development on Denoise instead of abandoning it. Seems like they want to create an editor instead of focusing on NR. Bad decision in my estimation.
@@msmith2016 I think it’s a very bad decision on their part to be honest. Denoise works better on every image I compare between the two. Photo AI creates some crazy artifacts.
@@sh1209macro Yes - run a photo through PAI then put the DNG in LR and turn the dehaze up a little bit and all those artifacts become clear as day. I was so blown away when I started running 50 and 100k ISO pics through Denoise. Kind of makes me sad to see where its went.
I thought I would skip the update to PureRAW 4 but I bought it anyway. To be honest, I'm glad I did. I see less artifacts, setting up the proper sharpening is kind of a pain but worth it in the end and on my PC it seems to be about 25% faster compared to PureRAW 3. So far I kept about 8000 shots this year which I processed with version 3. With roughly 6 seconds saved per image I would have saved 11 hours of processing time with version 4. That is pretty crazy. Saving time is worth it alone but you also have to consider that if your PC spends less time processing images you save money on electricity as well.
I came to the same conclusion with Adobe Noise Reduction compared to all the other NR software. I use ACR for my RAW edits, so the Adobe NR is super easy, and I don't need yet another piece of software. That's a really clever tip with the two-layered approach using Adobe Noise Reduction. Great video, keep them coming.
I have been using DXO PhotoLab Elite for many years. Better control over the settings, especially lens sharpness, than just PureRaw. I have an LRC subscription because it includes PS. I have not tried the latest Adobe NR (not yet..🤔). Thanks for your testing👍
I shoot at 12800 iso using a Nikon D850 at nighttime harness racing ( and D750 and D600 before that so going back 10 years ). Most prints are 15” or 20” wide. No one has ever mentioned noise in my pics. This is a crowd hysteria problem perpetuated by corporations.
Every software does differently every time, with every photo. Well, more of diffferent for different scenes. I had been looking for a software for years, and in the end, I just went for the simplest, easiet, bang for the bucks ON1 nonoise AI. Topaz is very good, but not better in every scene, also random result alt - the - time. So why invest in a limited software when you can go cheap. DXO was also just to pricey and big, and is also too random. I wish I had all in one package Topaz for the interface, DXO for the overall results, and on1 for the simpleness. Then I could choose the one software that stands out for each scenario and scene. They all do good for each scenario and file format.
I do not use Adobe products due to the over-complexity and cost. I use DxO Pure Raw 3 and it gives me great noise reduction results on my photos. I have tried The Topaz trial and have never been quite happy with the results.
Since the noise reduction and blur affects up date in light room I have been able to see the difference that blurred backgrounds can bring out the appearance of a sharper photograph of the bird or main feature. noise gives that smooth This can only be an optical illusion given I had not done any sharping. I have upped my iso and shutter speeds of course depth of field is import for a clear rendition.The main tip I have given my self is to pay attention to the setting fx iso shutter spend and aputure setting it’s so get caught up in the moment that a pervious change can go unnoticed and I missed the next shot.learn to trust your camera and work the setting accordingly. I have a question about the z 8 firmware 2 up grade. Strangely enough I found my z7’2 improved vastly with the last update grade. I have listened to the blogs regarding the z8 2 firmware . May be this sounds rude but I think when it comes to birding it’s not really a great assistance in auto focus as many have hailed it. In fact I have my foucs peekin 5:22 foucs ring . This is the only way I can get a chance at being sure of a hit not a blur. Is this just me being over fussy or as the z8 still got a lot of catching up to do? My glass is all z range or within a year old . I notice that some shoots are spot on others need editing as you so eloquently showed. I really appreciate your help as it’s hard to find trusted reporting. My technique is to shoot to find a back ground that add to the final image and where there is enough going on to stand a chance at finding an interesting photo. I know you sell your work so the agenda is to sell. I have spent since early January using the Nikon z 8 with the 180/600 z in truth I have learned some of its plus and minus points . Sharping can save the day as a last resort. Really helpful stuff on this channel so thanks I think a tip for foucs peeking may help
Wow Jan. Thanks so much and very timely for me personally as I've been shooting last 2 days with my new z8 and doing some grey squirrel shots at iso8000 and iso12800 and noise was really so bad that I got disheartened over it. I tried my normal Topaz denoise but it introduced some weird patches on his fur and a random weird patch on the background (and result was ok after i tweaked it, but not brilliant). I find this a lot with topaz and have to either reduce the effect (I always add a layer on before using topaz) or add some slight blur between the subject and background to try and blend it in slightly. And I have to make sure i check every part of my image to see if there are any weird bits that have appeared (topaz sharpen does the same weird patches some times as well). This was frustrating me greatly today - so much so it almost spoiled my new Z8, so this has really helped me. And I didn't even know ACR had this enhance function. Just tried it, it did a great job i have to say. Can I ask though (as I'm not familiar with DNG files at all), do you then edit and work on the dng file (as you would if it was a raw file) and save that once finished as, say a tif file for example, (asking as thought dng files weren't a good as raw... i may have that wrong) or would you add it as a layer on to your Raw image for example, flatten it and then work on raw image in photoshop before saving. Also out of interest do you normally denoise at the end of processing or before. I often do at the end, but using iso8000 and iso12800 I did NR first because the noise was so awful i felt i couldn't edit properly before i got rid of some of it. And will this be covered in your masterclass please as think I am going to have to buy that or your prosets (or even both) as i find I take too long on editing. Thanks
Thanks, Jan. Do you know when DXO Pure Raw will add the R5MII module to its software? My experience has been exactly the same. I'm really not a fan of Topaz. Luckily we can use Lightroom to denoise photos from the R5MII.
When DXO Pure Raw 3 came out, I compared it to Pure Raw 2 and found that it produced more artifacts and the results didn't look as good. I decided not to upgrade and have been happy with Pure Raw 2. It is possible that your critical comments about Pure Raw 3 would not apply to Pure Raw 2.
"free if you have an adobe subscription" don't you realize the absurdity of that phrase? 🤣 If I follow your logic my kitchen, bedroom, living room and bathroom are free because they were included with my house when I bought it, right?
Well, I view the Adobe subscription as essential to my workflow, so I have to have it and then I don’t have to pay extra. I suppose the term free is broadly interpreted here 😆
DXO allows batch processing - Does adobe allow similar and if for instance I do 20 Sony A1 files how long would that typically take? On DXO it is about 10-12mins for a batch of 20 images, if not faster.
Jan - How does this fit in with sharpening? I realise that Enhance only works on RAW images. Do you use Topaz sharpen following this for noise reduction? Thanks
I used DxO pure Raw, but since LR added the new NR, I switched to LR. Its IMO as good if not better and nicely integrated in my workflow. And saves me some money too 😉
I have Topaz and was not aware of Adobe enhance. Thanks for showing how to get it in Photoshop, which I have the subscription. I also got your presets with the masterclass, but don't know how to find them in Adobe.
Adobe Enhance is a good no-nosense denoiser but I don't like the linearity of the slider. Similar to the luminance NR slider, increasing it just smears the detail from your image while DxO and Topaz make some effort to preserve what it thinks as detail. I do personally like the edgy look of Lens Sharpness of PureRAW especially with the older DeepPRIME (similar to in-camera JPEGs) but find it amplifies too many artifacts in DeepPRIME XD. Topaz Photo AI is somewhat disappointing for NR (especially for TIFF files when RAW mode is disabled). What I normally do is denoise with DxO first before cleaning up with Topaz Denoise AI (mainly to get rid of noise from out-of-focus backgrounds). Low Light setting often gives the sharpest image and preserves the shadows better than the other settings.
Great comparison Jan. I've had excellent results with dark forest bird shots and general stock photography with The Adobe denoise free software. Camera is an old Canon 70D with a 400mm L f5.6 prime with no IS.
I would love to use ACR or Lightroom's nose reduction. But on my laptop it just takes too long to render; minutes vs seconds in Topaz AI. Plus Topaz allows tailoring of how much noise reduction you want, and it slightly sharpens the image besides.
Rather than to use the ACR denoise to DNG (not suitable for batch in terms of time), I use the Luminance slider in ACR for RAW images. I have greater control, and can use that setting for syncing a lot of images then exporting to JPG. To follow, Topaz Photo AI (without noise reduction) for sharpeningthe JPGSs with motion blur works best in my area of sports photography.
Thanks, Jan - great video!! I’m a bit slow understanding workflow sometimes. Currently, I open my RAW pics in LR (the cloud version), make adjustments (except for denoising) and then export TIFF files to Topaz Photo AI for denoising. I have three questions, please. First - is that a good workflow? Secondly, should I switch to Adobe Enhancer for the final denoising instead of Topaz? Third - if I do, where in Photoshop will I find Adobe Enhancer? Thanks so much for all your help - love your videos!!
The only downside to Adobe Enhance is the time it takes. Timed 20 images of different subjects and had an average time of 1min 30 secs. But the results are good particularly on feathers and hairy subjects. I have used all the others and DXO Pure Raw was the best prior to Adobe Enhance, but needed to lower sharpening particularly detail sharpening.
Thank you for your great comparisons. There are many controversial opinions around. It depends on your personal style, the display, and technical skills. We speak on a very high level of maybe 3 to 5% of differences in perfectionist's crafts. I run Adobe, Dxo and RawTherapee since inception, mainly as a landscape photographer. My humble opinion as of now: 1st is DxO Prime XD. But tends to oversharpen which cannot fully corrected by pp. The pictures loose style, they become clinical correct, loose "soul". 2nd Topaz standalone. For landscape, give the right natural look. 3rd Adobe enhance. Have mushy results. Like a boring commercial. Hence. Personal wf: Convert Raw with Topaz to DNG. Process in PS. In case fine tuning with RawTherapee. In general, we overvalue tools. One must better improve taking picture instead of fiddling with the last 5 % trying to enhance mediocre input. Just get out from the armchair monitor pixel peeping. Walk and take.
It's difficult to judge the quality of any pictures on UA-cam. My use case is concerts where I have high ISO all the time, similar to wildlife photography. Background is not really an issue. My workflow is RAW -> PureRaw3 -> C1. I do have LrPs as well, but only use it together with the Negativ Lab Pro Plugin. Also, I have all the Topaz stuff. Never use it for noise reduction, as it lacks the batch processing available in DXOPureRaw3. Never tested Adobe Enhance either, as DXOPureRaw3 works just fine. There are several reasons, why I prefer C1 over Lr, so Adobe Enhance is not really of interest to me. Nevertheless, it's nice to hear about the results of the comparison you made. My conclusion is, that the results are not any better.
Hey Jen, long time no see! I wanted to add On1 Photo raw, it's working quite well . Depending on your camera, (Mine is Fuji xf) the results with different programs is also different! Adding to that programI still use Topaz , DxO, Topaz Ai , and the new LR denoise. Thanks for all your efforts, Great day, good photos and hugs, from Uruguay.
Jan, I was following your guidance and deleted my DNG files but I lost all my edits. The issue was that I started with noise reduction as my first step. Once you do that the edits are written in the dng and the catalog. If I had done the edits on the Canon RAW file and then used the enhance as the last step, all my changes would be written in the XMP file. Do you suggest complete all edits and then final step as noise reduction or am I missing some ting.
@@jan_wegener Thanks yes this is LR. Also sorry about my manners. I should have stated this earlier. I love your channel and very inspired by your work. Thanks for all the work you put in to creating these videos. Thanks for your quick response as well.
I think the Adobe offering is great. I tried Topaz on the cr3 files from my R6 and it was like being in the artifact suburb of banding city. This may have been because I was only using the software on images taken in extreme circumstances, but that’s when you want it, right? You’re not going to use it on ISO 100 images taken in really bright light. Unless you’re weird.
Thanks for sharing your opinion and point of view about Noise reduction, I use both Adobe and Topaz and often depending of The picture have to use both to compare, about banding on background, I have overcome issue some times using mask in LR and enabling a little of Lens blur new option and address background. I learned a lot in this small tutorial, thanks
I used Topaz's products religiously for a number of years and was very happy with the performance of Topaz Denoise especially. Since Adobe added its own Denoise however, I've pretty much stuck to just using that now. It's more about streamlining my workflow than anything else. I'd rather keep everything in the Raw domain and as I understand it Adobe denoise's at the RAW level rather than me having to export a converted TIFF file to Topaz. Sure, I can take my Raw file into Topaz's standalone app but I find the resulting .DNG has all sorts of colour issues. I am also not able to apply linear profiles after Topaz has created it's denoised DNG file. Even if Topaz didn't have these issues I still have to import the Topaz created DNG into Lightroom again. Now I just import my RAW, apply Adobe noise reduction and then apply my linear profile before further post processing. Just a few clicks and it's done. I'm also very impressed with the quality of Adobe's noise reduction, it does a great job 😊
I have all 3, although I have stuck with DxO PhotoLab 5 as the upgrades have limited value for me i.e DeepPrime XD banding/artefacts. My workflow involves editing in LrC then round-trip to PhotoLab to remove noise. On return my edits are automatically applied to the DNG file, although the exposure on my R3 files is ~1/3 stop brighter. I find the Lens Sharpening in PhotoLab worthwhile and it can be fully adjusted, unlike in PureRaw. I don’t much like Topaz Photo AI as it seems to give varied results compared to DeNoise AI. So far I have not done much with DeNoise in LrC as it’s a bit slow on my PC. Maybe time for a newer graphics card!
Jan you might be surprised at how well Topaz AI sharpen deals with noise up to about ISO 1600. I often find I don't need to use any other NR for these lower ISO shots, just run AI sharpen at low strength. If Adobe can add an AI sharpening to the enhance mode IMO there won't be any need for Topaz at all.
Interesting comparison. I tried a few high iso images(25,600) with Enhance and compared to Topaz which I am quite familiar with, and while Enhance gave quite a nice result, I found Topaz did a better job, but then I am familiar with that program and I don't have the banding and artifact issues(I tend to play around with settings before committing an image to it). I have used DXO in the past, I found it too slow for practical use with a lot of images.
So far Lr AI Denoise works on RAW only. For focus stacking or panorama merging, Lr AI Denoise will be not practical for large amounts of photos processing.
Thanks for taking the time to compare the various tools. I worked with all three, but stick to Adobe one, as is serves my files best at the moment and is covered with my subscription... Regarding double de-noise, you might also consider to do it all within LrC, de-noise first the overall file, then just mask in LrC the section you want to additionally de-noise, depending on the noise level, this might just do.
@@jan_wegener I get it, and most people watching the video will be subscribed too, but it makes more sense to me to just put it like it's something you're likely already paying for.
My findings as well. I find Topaz AI unusable because regardless of settings it over sharpens and just gives weird results compared to the Denoise stand alone product. DxO always returned a file half a stop underexposed. I get the most consistent, usable results from the LR Enhance feature. I still occasionally use Denoise when the Enhance results are a bit off. Excellent video.
Very interesting video and analysis! Agree with your comments on Topaz Denoise and banding, artefacts. Selective modification of 'subject' adds further to this. Haven't tried enhance but will do now!
Hi Jan loved the video, did my own test on 5 images of high iso fungi images (Canon R5) in all cases DXO came out the best although enhance was close in some cases I find DXO simpler to rum on hundreds of photos as well Thanks David
Dear Jan, I hope you are feeling well as you are looking a little bit sick. I look every video and I am always a bit jealous about you living in Austrailia, as I live in germany, where there aren t so many beuatiful birds
I find the Adobe offering to be too slow, even on a fully specced computer. With Topaz, I find it essential to use masking to get a good result - applying denoise to the whole image can result in problems. This also applies to Topaz Sharpen.
I haven’t tried Adobe enhance yet, I’ll have to give it a try. DXO seems to do a great job for me, but I’ve always found you can tell when a RAW file was denoised with topaz. They always look a little “off”. I do find it useful after I am completely done editing when I need a touch more denoise in the dark areas.
I use DxO pure RAW 2 and Adobe enhance. For me Adobe does a better job in noise reduction and produces a more natural looking image, while DxO noise reduction is decent for not too noisy images and also applies a little sharpening to the image that sometimes can result beneficial. However the most decisive aspect for me is the processing time. In my computer takes me about 5 minutes to process one file with the adobe software, while with DxO it just takes about one minute, so it really makes a difference when I have many photos to edit.
topaz for me, but i use it on the jpeg's outputted at the end rather than in the raw file Fast batch processing is what i need more than the final 1% of image quality PhotoAI's subject selection and auto-pilot is super handy
I think "posterization" is the term you're meaning when you say "banding and artifacts". I use Topaz and usually dial back the denoise strength a bit that it wants to set.
I added a GPU to my system and now my Adobe Photo Enhance is about 10 seconds. I have been very happy with the results and easy to use in my workflow. I have an older version of Topaz, but stopped using it when Adobe released theirs.
Great Review! Like the tip with "double enhance". What makes Topaz outstanding is to sharpen pictures with motion blur or slightly out of focus subjects, for everything else I prefer DXO or Enhance. Toller Bericht, danke Jan. Der Tipp Enhance doppelt laufen zu lassen und in PS zu kombinieren ist Gold wert! Ich nutze DXO PR3 und Enhance, dazu das alte Topaz Denaoise. Ein Vorteil von Topaz Photo AI sind eben die "Sonderfunktionen" wie das das Schärfen verwackelter oder "out of focus" Bilder. Das können die anderen beiden nicht. Grüße vom Bodensee Ralph
As a friend of mine shoots with Nikon . He has noticed a fault with the latest LR Update . It was given wrong lense data and he got in touch with them , They were unaware of the issue and thry told him to delete the update
I've been quite happy with Samsung's denoiser in the Galaxy Enhance-X app. It has similar results to Topaz where it removes grain from bokeh but generally keeps a good amount of detail (though it can sometimes desaturate a bit). Unfortunately it only works with and outputs JPEGs and is not adjustable. I find it a good final step to clean up the luminance noise before sharing my images though.
I forgot to mention unfortunately it downscales your images to 16MP if it was higher than that. I do use it sometimes to upscale images (it only lets you do this if your image is below 4MP, which many of my EOS R6 cropped images are).. Sadly the latest update to the app (which importantly fixes the resolution upscaler crashing on One UI 6.1) has poorer denoiser - it now works on DNG files, but in some situations it will pixelate and decrease the resolution of the source image.
Thanks Jan, great vid. Just to make sure I understand: Your process = Fully edit > denoise creates DNG > create final jpg > delete DNG? I’ve been struggling with what to do with all of the copies of images (raw, DNG, Jpg) so simply deleting the DNG makes complete sense to me if the RAW contains all the edits except the denoise.
Hello Jan, Thanks again for the educational video! I am a DXO and Lightroom user, I do the noise reduction with DXO, but after this video I will definitely try it with LR. I didn't think it was that good :-) Another small question, I always do the noise reduction last when editing, that's because I only do it for the photos that I want to post somewhere (500PX). Could it be that the settings of your presets are canceled when the DXO photo is back in LR? I would love to hear how and what, thanks in advance!
I always do the NR first and then work on the DNG. The only reason the profile may not show is the the of DNG DXO produces and how LR handles it, but normally, it should all still be like before. I assume when you use enhance nothing changes. You may have to manually select the right proset again on the duo dng?
I have the topaz lab collection, Denoise Giga, sharpener ai, and photo ai. I also have Adobe LR so I got that denoise. Photo AI combines all 3 topaz into one, but has fewer manual adjustments per use. Overall I prefer sharper AI, it has noise reduction and sharpening. most shot tends to be blurry or I shoot wide open and miss focus, sharper ai can't save everything, but it is better. It noise reduction is built in too.
Hey, Jan ... thanks for another really solid, informative video! For all of us who do NOT have or use any Adobe software, how / where do we get Adobe Enhance? I do not have Photoshop or Lightroom, and I do not want them. But I do want Enhance.
It’s somewhat ignored, but I’ve had good results with ON1 AI DeNoise. The program has controls for luminance and color noise, plus sliders for detail and sharpening. There’s also an option called Tack Sharp that’s supposed to deal with motion blur, but it’s finicky. The effect is easily tuned for the image, and I believe the results are much more realistic than Topaz, which I’ve found to be oversmoothed and plastic. Plus, the processing time is minimal when compared to some of the other programs. I think it’s a product worth checking out.
Jan, with your masterclass. Do you cover the new features in current Adobe products like Lightroom and photoshop? Very interested in taking your masterclass.
The current masterclass covers the workflow I have used for years and still use. I will make a class building upon the first one including all the new shiny tools soon
Thanks for the video...Interestingly on my Sony A1 files DXO pureraw is still massively better than either adobe and topaz.. The Adobe still leaves my files very noisy at a setting of 43, and when used higher, it loses far more detail for less noise reduction than DXO... I too use topaz as a final noise removal process in the editing process..
The fact that Enhance obliterates my lightroom filters when I use it is a deal killer for me. It is also excruciatingly slow. With my Sony A1 I get the best results using Topaz Photo AI.
I would love to know what ISO you consider useable at different levels of cropping, as it is well known that not all pictures are filling the frame when taken. There is no way I can shoot at ISO 25600 and clean up the image after, while still keeping any details, if I have to do a strong crop. Is there a way to calculate it? for instance if you can get away with ISO 25600 when you fill the frame, what about when you only fill 1/4 of the frame and still want to crop it to fill the frame, would it be ISO 12800 or ISO 6400 or something else?
Jan, as usual such a helpful tutorial. I edit all my images in Lightroom on my iPad Pro . It’s very frustrating that there is not one denoise software for iPads except the noise reduction in Lightroom. If you know of any software that can be used with iPad , please let me know… many thanks 😊
Great tip to open twice in Photoshop with different levels of de noise. I've been finding Photoshop gives better noise reduction than Topaz but Topaz preserves more details
Fab video - totally agree with the results. I stopped using Topaz and DXO totally and just adobe denoise now. Topaz has lot of artefacts and DXO is too slow - additionally it doesn't fit into the LR workflow well. Adobe wins hands down for me - fits well into the workflow. The main point now is that ISO setting has sort become less relevant in the camera with these Denoising software - as you stated early in the video - Shutter speed is what matters most in bird photography.
Anyone else struggling to see these "artifacts"?
Excellent video Jan :) I'm still amazed by how many folks I run into, that haven't gotten the whole noise situation straight yet. So often I see photos which are sharp, and really could be aesthetically pleasing, but the noise just kills them. I've been using DXO version 2 (sharpening turned off) and 90-95% of the time, that's all I need. Once in a while (usually due to a personal fail :) lol ) I might have to use Topaz as a final step to remove just a touch more noise, or add a tiny bit more selective sharpening.
BTW, I'm still using DXO version 2, as I literally bought it for full price "2 weeks" before version 3 came out > and DXO would not give me ANY discount whatsoever for an upgrade to version 3. Urggg. I love the product, but I still kind of feel like that was poor business.... I might pay full price again for version 4, whenever it comes out, but just out of principle, I won't pay for version 3.
I was not happy with how Topaz handled feather detail. You can see the weirdness on the Topaz photo near the head at 3:00. PureRaw was too sharp causing artifacts (Halos) even with Lens Sharpness toggled off. DXO PhotoLab gave me the best results as it allowed me to tweak the settings.
I've been having good results with ON1 NoNoise with 1600 ISO. And it's cheap. It's acceptable between 1600 and 3200, but really bad above 3200.
I feel that Adobe at the moment will work only on very fast computers, on my computer I cannot use it ( takes a lot of time) while Topaz does a good job and is very fast. For me that is a huge advantage.
I was able to replace my video card for about $300 and processing time drop to 20 seconds for 45mp.
You may have to buy the right power adapter. You may want to look at a new computer
Yes, like I said in the video, processing times on older machines will be an issue
Like I stated, Topaz does a good job and is fast, I do not feel that I miss something.@@jeffreyhill4705
Hi Jan, do you have any sharpening applied when using 'Enhance" or have sharpening set to '0"......... I've been looking very closely at DXO pureraw.... It can do amazing things, but when i look closely, for example feather detail, it actually seems to invent detail....for example, straight or smoothly curved feathers can change shape.....quite interesting.
I look at the DNG after and decide if it needs sharpening
I’m using DXO PhotoLab 6, and only thing keeping me in LR is the AI masking when doing some portrait work. Otherwise PhotoLab is so much faster and user friendly, and includes amazing NR. I really hope they catch up with LR AI masking, then I could unsubscribe from Adobe.
I like the results from DXO PhotoLab and On1 NoNoise. Before Topaz switched to AI, it was better. I find that Topaz still tends to produce artifacts and have to mask them out.
Jan's only allegiance is to image quality 🤭
It is! As I always say, I do t gain by not telling the truth or not sharing what’s best with you guys. I am more than happy to forgo some affiliate money if there’s a better and cheaper way out there and I will share that
Hi Jan, I started using DXO 1 after your reviews a few years ago. It was SLOW. I got DXO 2 and only used it a few times befor LR enhance came with updates. I compared a few ISO 12,800 images and thought Enhance was better and have not looked back. Nice review and tips.
HI, Jan. I have to agree. I was pleasantly surprised when Adobe came out with ‘Enhance’. I started using it, and have been impressed with the results. As a hobbyist, I didn’t have a clear idea as to how much sharpening was too much; so I greatly appreciate the guidance you’ve provided here on what to aim for so as to not overdo the enhancements. I also appreciate your suggestion to run Enhance twice and then layer the results to apply to the end product of the editing process. I also subscribe to the Adobe Bundle, so saving the extra money (I originally purchased DxO Pure Raw), helps me decide against the need to update to DxO Pure Raw 3. NOW; I’ll get off the fence and use the money I’m saving to ‘finally’ invest in your ProSets, lol. Thanks for the informative video. It really helps novice hobbyists like me, lol!
Great (as usual) video, Jan. Personally, I’m really enjoying the Denoise feature in LRC now that I have a computer that runs it in 8-15 seconds vs 10-20 minutes. Very happy with the results and not having to “leave” the program when editing.
10-20 min is certainly slow 😂
Great video Jan! I added DXO pure raw 3 to my workflow earlier this summer and it has not disappointed me at all.
Great to hear!
Can you remove noise as a batch action with DXO?
@@conan2566 yes you are able to remove noise with multiple images, just remember to tick all of the ones you want to process
I'll stick with Topaz Photo AI and Capture One. For ACR/ LR you need something like your Prosets. Without it the colors are still bad.
Agreed, it has gotten better, but still underwhelming on a lot of images
I use Topaz and only shoot at ISO 12800 occasionally. I mostly use the Low Light mode on Topaz Denoise with nice results. The other modes are too aggressive.
Thanks so much for the video. One point to mention about DxO is that it also provides lens correction which can be a bonus but it does take them longer to develop profiles for newer lenses which can be an issue. I find their CA removal to work very well in fact better than LR. Cheers.
I have been Topaz subscriber for for many years and I do not use Topaz photo AI because as you said it produces artifacts but my word that I use is that it adds color noise even if you manually scale back. I have been sticking with old individual Topaz, Denise AI. I do use Lightroom denoise if ISO 25,600. It seems to do better than Topaz product at high ISO
Topaz Denoise is fine, but after they released AI v2, I stopped using it. The v2 of AI is far more better than previous versions, which were completely unusable. And yes, for each photo you have to be vary careful which model of denoise to use, or which model of sharpening to use to avoid those arthefacts. Anyway, I'm really happy with results, I dont denoise agressively, but sharpening in Topaz is far more better than Adobe, it really saves some of my shots.
I use DxO PL 7 and deepprime on every raw file because it's also a raw optimizer not only a denoizer and with a geforce 3060 gpu it takes 3 to 4 sec for my Nikon D700 files (12mpx)
I'm pretty disappointed with how ligbtroom's denoise ai handles images, and I just discovered the power of dxo pureraw and honestly it produces jaw-dropping results. (for my use-cases)
I agree with all your points, and in my opinion, Topaz photo AI is a train wreck! The older Denoise program is far superior to photo AI.
Totally agree. I've been fighting PAI for the last year and I'm about done with it. There is a thread on the Topaz community site trying to get them to restart development on Denoise instead of abandoning it. Seems like they want to create an editor instead of focusing on NR. Bad decision in my estimation.
@@msmith2016 I think it’s a very bad decision on their part to be honest. Denoise works better on every image I compare between the two. Photo AI creates some crazy artifacts.
@@sh1209macro Yes - run a photo through PAI then put the DNG in LR and turn the dehaze up a little bit and all those artifacts become clear as day. I was so blown away when I started running 50 and 100k ISO pics through Denoise. Kind of makes me sad to see where its went.
I thought I would skip the update to PureRAW 4 but I bought it anyway.
To be honest, I'm glad I did. I see less artifacts, setting up the proper sharpening is kind of a pain but worth it in the end and on my PC it seems to be about 25% faster compared to PureRAW 3.
So far I kept about 8000 shots this year which I processed with version 3. With roughly 6 seconds saved per image I would have saved 11 hours of processing time with version 4. That is pretty crazy.
Saving time is worth it alone but you also have to consider that if your PC spends less time processing images you save money on electricity as well.
I came to the same conclusion with Adobe Noise Reduction compared to all the other NR software. I use ACR for my RAW edits, so the Adobe NR is super easy, and I don't need yet another piece of software. That's a really clever tip with the two-layered approach using Adobe Noise Reduction. Great video, keep them coming.
Hi Jan,
At what point in processing should you use Adobe Enhance - beginning or end?
Beginning in the raw file
Free??? Yeah if you have an Adpbe subscription. Talk about Clickbait.
I have been using DXO PhotoLab Elite for many years. Better control over the settings, especially lens sharpness, than just PureRaw. I have an LRC subscription because it includes PS. I have not tried the latest Adobe NR (not yet..🤔). Thanks for your testing👍
Thanks for sharing, worth giving it a try at least to compare
I shoot at 12800 iso using a Nikon D850 at nighttime harness racing ( and D750 and D600 before that so going back 10 years ). Most prints are 15” or 20” wide. No one has ever mentioned noise in my pics. This is a crowd hysteria problem perpetuated by corporations.
Every software does differently every time, with every photo. Well, more of diffferent for different scenes. I had been looking for a software for years, and in the end, I just went for the simplest, easiet, bang for the bucks ON1 nonoise AI. Topaz is very good, but not better in every scene, also random result alt - the - time. So why invest in a limited software when you can go cheap. DXO was also just to pricey and big, and is also too random. I wish I had all in one package Topaz for the interface, DXO for the overall results, and on1 for the simpleness. Then I could choose the one software that stands out for each scenario and scene. They all do good for each scenario and file format.
I do not use Adobe products due to the over-complexity and cost. I use DxO Pure Raw 3 and it gives me great noise reduction results on my photos. I have tried The Topaz trial and have never been quite happy with the results.
Since the noise reduction and blur affects up date in light room I have been able to see the difference that blurred backgrounds can bring out the appearance of a sharper photograph of the bird or main feature. noise gives that smooth This can only be an optical illusion given I had not done any sharping. I have upped my iso and shutter speeds of course depth of field is import for a clear rendition.The main tip I have given my self is to pay attention to the setting fx iso shutter spend and aputure setting it’s so get caught up in the moment that a pervious change can go unnoticed and I missed the next shot.learn to trust your camera and work the setting accordingly. I have a question about the z 8 firmware 2 up grade. Strangely enough I found my z7’2 improved vastly with the last update grade. I have listened to the blogs regarding the z8 2 firmware . May be this sounds rude but I think when it comes to birding it’s not really a great assistance in auto focus as many have hailed it. In fact I have my foucs peekin 5:22 foucs ring . This is the only way I can get a chance at being sure of a hit not a blur. Is this just me being over fussy or as the z8 still got a lot of catching up to do? My glass is all z range or within a year old . I notice that some shoots are spot on others need editing as you so eloquently showed. I really appreciate your help as it’s hard to find trusted reporting. My technique is to shoot to find a back ground that add to the final image and where there is enough going on to stand a chance at finding an interesting photo. I know you sell your work so the agenda is to sell. I have spent since early January using the Nikon z 8 with the 180/600 z in truth I have learned some of its plus and minus points . Sharping can save the day as a last resort. Really helpful stuff on this channel so thanks I think a tip for foucs peeking may help
Wow Jan. Thanks so much and very timely for me personally as I've been shooting last 2 days with my new z8 and doing some grey squirrel shots at iso8000 and iso12800 and noise was really so bad that I got disheartened over it. I tried my normal Topaz denoise but it introduced some weird patches on his fur and a random weird patch on the background (and result was ok after i tweaked it, but not brilliant). I find this a lot with topaz and have to either reduce the effect (I always add a layer on before using topaz) or add some slight blur between the subject and background to try and blend it in slightly. And I have to make sure i check every part of my image to see if there are any weird bits that have appeared (topaz sharpen does the same weird patches some times as well). This was frustrating me greatly today - so much so it almost spoiled my new Z8, so this has really helped me. And I didn't even know ACR had this enhance function. Just tried it, it did a great job i have to say.
Can I ask though (as I'm not familiar with DNG files at all), do you then edit and work on the dng file (as you would if it was a raw file) and save that once finished as, say a tif file for example, (asking as thought dng files weren't a good as raw... i may have that wrong) or would you add it as a layer on to your Raw image for example, flatten it and then work on raw image in photoshop before saving. Also out of interest do you normally denoise at the end of processing or before. I often do at the end, but using iso8000 and iso12800 I did NR first because the noise was so awful i felt i couldn't edit properly before i got rid of some of it. And will this be covered in your masterclass please as think I am going to have to buy that or your prosets (or even both) as i find I take too long on editing. Thanks
I gave up using the adobe enhance, it was painfully slow 3minutes = compaired to topaz 30sec or so
Topaz is bad at many types of photos, it creates mush in black areas... DXO and Lightroom is currently the best as per my tests.
It's fascinating how these noise reduction tools perform differently on various images and cameras.
Thanks, Jan. Do you know when DXO Pure Raw will add the R5MII module to its software? My experience has been exactly the same. I'm really not a fan of Topaz. Luckily we can use Lightroom to denoise photos from the R5MII.
Probably some time in September
When DXO Pure Raw 3 came out, I compared it to Pure Raw 2 and found that it produced more artifacts and the results didn't look as good. I decided not to upgrade and have been happy with Pure Raw 2. It is possible that your critical comments about Pure Raw 3 would not apply to Pure Raw 2.
Depends on which mode is used on PR3
"free if you have an adobe subscription" don't you realize the absurdity of that phrase? 🤣 If I follow your logic my kitchen, bedroom, living room and bathroom are free because they were included with my house when I bought it, right?
Well, I view the Adobe subscription as essential to my workflow, so I have to have it and then I don’t have to pay extra. I suppose the term free is broadly interpreted here 😆
DXO allows batch processing - Does adobe allow similar and if for instance I do 20 Sony A1 files how long would that typically take? On DXO it is about 10-12mins for a batch of 20 images, if not faster.
Yes, you can batch process many files in Adobe. The most I have done I think is 90
@@jan_wegener I will have to look up how to do it, thanks.
Jan - How does this fit in with sharpening? I realise that Enhance only works on RAW images. Do you use Topaz sharpen following this for noise reduction? Thanks
You can sharpen the dng files if need be in ACR and LR
Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but Adobe enhance takes about 8-10 minutes per image.
probably not you, but your computer hardware
I used DxO pure Raw, but since LR added the new NR, I switched to LR. Its IMO as good if not better and nicely integrated in my workflow. And saves me some money too 😉
I have Topaz and was not aware of Adobe enhance. Thanks for showing how to get it in Photoshop, which I have the subscription. I also got your presets with the masterclass, but don't know how to find them in Adobe.
They come with a installation guides and installation videos, check those out :)
Adobe Enhance is a good no-nosense denoiser but I don't like the linearity of the slider. Similar to the luminance NR slider, increasing it just smears the detail from your image while DxO and Topaz make some effort to preserve what it thinks as detail. I do personally like the edgy look of Lens Sharpness of PureRAW especially with the older DeepPRIME (similar to in-camera JPEGs) but find it amplifies too many artifacts in DeepPRIME XD. Topaz Photo AI is somewhat disappointing for NR (especially for TIFF files when RAW mode is disabled). What I normally do is denoise with DxO first before cleaning up with Topaz Denoise AI (mainly to get rid of noise from out-of-focus backgrounds). Low Light setting often gives the sharpest image and preserves the shadows better than the other settings.
Pls review canon rf 200. 800 6.3 . 9 lenes
Great comparison Jan. I've had excellent results with dark forest bird shots and general stock photography with The Adobe denoise free software. Camera is an old Canon 70D with a 400mm L f5.6 prime with no IS.
I would love to use ACR or Lightroom's nose reduction. But on my laptop it just takes too long to render; minutes vs seconds in Topaz AI. Plus Topaz allows tailoring of how much noise reduction you want, and it slightly sharpens the image besides.
Rather than to use the ACR denoise to DNG (not suitable for batch in terms of time), I use the Luminance slider in ACR for RAW images. I have greater control, and can use that setting for syncing a lot of images then exporting to JPG. To follow, Topaz Photo AI (without noise reduction) for sharpeningthe JPGSs with motion blur works best in my area of sports photography.
Thanks, Jan - great video!! I’m a bit slow understanding workflow sometimes. Currently, I open my RAW pics in LR (the cloud version), make adjustments (except for denoising) and then export TIFF files to Topaz Photo AI for denoising. I have three questions, please. First - is that a good workflow? Secondly, should I switch to Adobe Enhancer for the final denoising instead of Topaz? Third - if I do, where in Photoshop will I find Adobe Enhancer? Thanks so much for all your help - love your videos!!
The only downside to Adobe Enhance is the time it takes. Timed 20 images of different subjects and had an average time of 1min 30 secs. But the results are good particularly on feathers and hairy subjects. I have used all the others and DXO Pure Raw was the best prior to Adobe Enhance, but needed to lower sharpening particularly detail sharpening.
Yes that’s a very long time. Must not run well on your computer unfortunately
Getting a new computer in near future.
Thank you for your great comparisons. There are many controversial opinions around. It depends on your personal style, the display, and technical skills. We speak on a very high level of maybe 3 to 5% of differences in perfectionist's crafts. I run Adobe, Dxo and RawTherapee since inception, mainly as a landscape photographer. My humble opinion as of now: 1st is DxO Prime XD. But tends to oversharpen which cannot fully corrected by pp. The pictures loose style, they become clinical correct, loose "soul". 2nd Topaz standalone. For landscape, give the right natural look. 3rd Adobe enhance. Have mushy results. Like a boring commercial. Hence. Personal wf: Convert Raw with Topaz to DNG. Process in PS. In case fine tuning with RawTherapee. In general, we overvalue tools. One must better improve taking picture instead of fiddling with the last 5 % trying to enhance mediocre input. Just get out from the armchair monitor pixel peeping. Walk and take.
It's difficult to judge the quality of any pictures on UA-cam. My use case is concerts where I have high ISO all the time, similar to wildlife photography. Background is not really an issue. My workflow is RAW -> PureRaw3 -> C1. I do have LrPs as well, but only use it together with the Negativ Lab Pro Plugin. Also, I have all the Topaz stuff. Never use it for noise reduction, as it lacks the batch processing available in DXOPureRaw3. Never tested Adobe Enhance either, as DXOPureRaw3 works just fine. There are several reasons, why I prefer C1 over Lr, so Adobe Enhance is not really of interest to me. Nevertheless, it's nice to hear about the results of the comparison you made. My conclusion is, that the results are not any better.
Hey Jen, long time no see! I wanted to add On1 Photo raw, it's working quite well . Depending on your camera, (Mine is Fuji xf) the results with different programs is also different! Adding to that programI still use Topaz , DxO, Topaz Ai , and the new LR denoise. Thanks for all your efforts, Great day, good photos and hugs, from Uruguay.
Jan, I was following your guidance and deleted my DNG files but I lost all my edits. The issue was that I started with noise reduction as my first step. Once you do that the edits are written in the dng and the catalog. If I had done the edits on the Canon RAW file and then used the enhance as the last step, all my changes would be written in the XMP file.
Do you suggest complete all edits and then final step as noise reduction or am I missing some ting.
is this in LR. Deleting files is fine when using Photoshop and ACR, in Lightroom you can't if you make the edits on that file
@@jan_wegener Thanks yes this is LR. Also sorry about my manners. I should have stated this earlier. I love your channel and very inspired by your work. Thanks for all the work you put in to creating these videos. Thanks for your quick response as well.
I think the Adobe offering is great. I tried Topaz on the cr3 files from my R6 and it was like being in the artifact suburb of banding city. This may have been because I was only using the software on images taken in extreme circumstances, but that’s when you want it, right? You’re not going to use it on ISO 100 images taken in really bright light. Unless you’re weird.
Thanks for sharing your opinion and point of view about Noise reduction, I use both Adobe and Topaz and often depending of
The picture have to use both to compare, about banding on background, I have overcome issue some times using mask in LR and enabling a little of Lens blur new option and address background. I learned a lot in this small tutorial, thanks
Thanks again Jan; FYI I shoot Pentax K3III Jpegs with a 150-450 or 560 and Use Photoscape - x pro and Topaz AI
I used Topaz's products religiously for a number of years and was very happy with the performance of Topaz Denoise especially. Since Adobe added its own Denoise however, I've pretty much stuck to just using that now. It's more about streamlining my workflow than anything else. I'd rather keep everything in the Raw domain and as I understand it Adobe denoise's at the RAW level rather than me having to export a converted TIFF file to Topaz. Sure, I can take my Raw file into Topaz's standalone app but I find the resulting .DNG has all sorts of colour issues. I am also not able to apply linear profiles after Topaz has created it's denoised DNG file. Even if Topaz didn't have these issues I still have to import the Topaz created DNG into Lightroom again. Now I just import my RAW, apply Adobe noise reduction and then apply my linear profile before further post processing. Just a few clicks and it's done. I'm also very impressed with the quality of Adobe's noise reduction, it does a great job 😊
I have all 3, although I have stuck with DxO PhotoLab 5 as the upgrades have limited value for me i.e DeepPrime XD banding/artefacts. My workflow involves editing in LrC then round-trip to PhotoLab to remove noise. On return my edits are automatically applied to the DNG file, although the exposure on my R3 files is ~1/3 stop brighter. I find the Lens Sharpening in PhotoLab worthwhile and it can be fully adjusted, unlike in PureRaw. I don’t much like Topaz Photo AI as it seems to give varied results compared to DeNoise AI. So far I have not done much with DeNoise in LrC as it’s a bit slow on my PC. Maybe time for a newer graphics card!
Jan you might be surprised at how well Topaz AI sharpen deals with noise up to about ISO 1600. I often find I don't need to use any other NR for these lower ISO shots, just run AI sharpen at low strength. If Adobe can add an AI sharpening to the enhance mode IMO there won't be any need for Topaz at all.
Interesting comparison. I tried a few high iso images(25,600) with Enhance and compared to Topaz which I am quite familiar with, and while Enhance gave quite a nice result, I found Topaz did a better job, but then I am familiar with that program and I don't have the banding and artifact issues(I tend to play around with settings before committing an image to it). I have used DXO in the past, I found it too slow for practical use with a lot of images.
So far Lr AI Denoise works on RAW only. For focus stacking or panorama merging, Lr AI Denoise will be not practical for large amounts of photos processing.
Thanks for taking the time to compare the various tools. I worked with all three, but stick to Adobe one, as is serves my files best at the moment and is covered with my subscription... Regarding double de-noise, you might also consider to do it all within LrC, de-noise first the overall file, then just mask in LrC the section you want to additionally de-noise, depending on the noise level, this might just do.
"Essentially free (if you already pay a subscription) unlike the other ones for which you'll have to pay a subscription" is a weird concept
It’s based on the notion that you will need I have PS and LR anyhow pretty much
@@jan_wegener I get it, and most people watching the video will be subscribed too, but it makes more sense to me to just put it like it's something you're likely already paying for.
My findings as well. I find Topaz AI unusable because regardless of settings it over sharpens and just gives weird results compared to the Denoise stand alone product. DxO always returned a file half a stop underexposed. I get the most consistent, usable results from the LR Enhance feature. I still occasionally use Denoise when the Enhance results are a bit off. Excellent video.
Very interesting video and analysis! Agree with your comments on Topaz Denoise and banding, artefacts. Selective modification of 'subject' adds further to this. Haven't tried enhance but will do now!
Adobe Enhance is the plug in in Lightroom ?
It’s part of camera raw in Ps and LR
Hi Jan loved the video, did my own test on 5 images of high iso fungi images (Canon R5) in all cases DXO came out the best although enhance was close in some cases
I find DXO simpler to rum on hundreds of photos as well Thanks David
Dear Jan, I hope you are feeling well as you are looking a little bit sick. I look every video and I am always a bit jealous about you living in Austrailia, as I live in germany, where there aren t so many beuatiful birds
I find the Adobe offering to be too slow, even on a fully specced computer. With Topaz, I find it essential to use masking to get a good result - applying denoise to the whole image can result in problems. This also applies to Topaz Sharpen.
I haven’t tried Adobe enhance yet, I’ll have to give it a try. DXO seems to do a great job for me, but I’ve always found you can tell when a RAW file was denoised with topaz. They always look a little “off”. I do find it useful after I am completely done editing when I need a touch more denoise in the dark areas.
I use DxO pure RAW 2 and Adobe enhance. For me Adobe does a better job in noise reduction and produces a more natural looking image, while DxO noise reduction is decent for not too noisy images and also applies a little sharpening to the image that sometimes can result beneficial.
However the most decisive aspect for me is the processing time. In my computer takes me about 5 minutes to process one file with the adobe software, while with DxO it just takes about one minute, so it really makes a difference when I have many photos to edit.
I wonder how Adobe Enhance noise reduction results compare with the Lightroom noise reduction function under the detail tab?
topaz for me, but i use it on the jpeg's outputted at the end rather than in the raw file
Fast batch processing is what i need more than the final 1% of image quality
PhotoAI's subject selection and auto-pilot is super handy
I use dxo pure raw 3. And I really happy with it. But I am gonna try Adobe
I think "posterization" is the term you're meaning when you say "banding and artifacts". I use Topaz and usually dial back the denoise strength a bit that it wants to set.
I don't use any of these, I use Affinity Photo. I will one day take a photo with very high ISO and see how it handles it though.
I added a GPU to my system and now my Adobe Photo Enhance is about 10 seconds. I have been very happy with the results and easy to use in my workflow. I have an older version of Topaz, but stopped using it when Adobe released theirs.
Great Review! Like the tip with "double enhance". What makes Topaz outstanding is to sharpen pictures with motion blur or slightly out of focus subjects, for everything else I prefer DXO or Enhance.
Toller Bericht, danke Jan. Der Tipp Enhance doppelt laufen zu lassen und in PS zu kombinieren ist Gold wert! Ich nutze DXO PR3 und Enhance, dazu das alte Topaz Denaoise.
Ein Vorteil von Topaz Photo AI sind eben die "Sonderfunktionen" wie das das Schärfen verwackelter oder "out of focus" Bilder. Das können die anderen beiden nicht. Grüße vom Bodensee Ralph
As a friend of mine shoots with Nikon . He has noticed a fault with the latest LR Update . It was given wrong lense data and he got in touch with them , They were unaware of the issue and thry told him to delete the update
strange, can you annually select the right one?
@@jan_wegener The issue stems with the latest he downloaded , 13.0.1 he having to manually correct any C/A on images
I know it's not Camera related . But there is a UA-camr being sued for given a bad review .
What was he reviewing? Must have been a pretty harsh review
@@jan_wegener A Guitar .
My first thought was that adobe was the only solution, but i use photo ai on scanned and older jpg files
I've been quite happy with Samsung's denoiser in the Galaxy Enhance-X app. It has similar results to Topaz where it removes grain from bokeh but generally keeps a good amount of detail (though it can sometimes desaturate a bit). Unfortunately it only works with and outputs JPEGs and is not adjustable. I find it a good final step to clean up the luminance noise before sharing my images though.
I forgot to mention unfortunately it downscales your images to 16MP if it was higher than that. I do use it sometimes to upscale images (it only lets you do this if your image is below 4MP, which many of my EOS R6 cropped images are)..
Sadly the latest update to the app (which importantly fixes the resolution upscaler crashing on One UI 6.1) has poorer denoiser - it now works on DNG files, but in some situations it will pixelate and decrease the resolution of the source image.
Thanks Jan, great vid. Just to make sure I understand: Your process = Fully edit > denoise creates DNG > create final jpg > delete DNG? I’ve been struggling with what to do with all of the copies of images (raw, DNG, Jpg) so simply deleting the DNG makes complete sense to me if the RAW contains all the edits except the denoise.
I use Adobe enhance first ing he raw file then edit and then delete
Hello Jan,
Thanks again for the educational video!
I am a DXO and Lightroom user, I do the noise reduction with DXO, but after this video I will definitely try it with LR. I didn't think it was that good :-)
Another small question, I always do the noise reduction last when editing, that's because I only do it for the photos that I want to post somewhere (500PX). Could it be that the settings of your presets are canceled when the DXO photo is back in LR?
I would love to hear how and what, thanks in advance!
I always do the NR first and then work on the DNG. The only reason the profile may not show is the the of DNG DXO produces and how LR handles it, but normally, it should all still be like before.
I assume when you use enhance nothing changes.
You may have to manually select the right proset again on the duo dng?
I have the topaz lab collection, Denoise Giga, sharpener ai, and photo ai. I also have Adobe LR so I got that denoise. Photo AI combines all 3 topaz into one, but has fewer manual adjustments per use. Overall I prefer sharper AI, it has noise reduction and sharpening. most shot tends to be blurry or I shoot wide open and miss focus, sharper ai can't save everything, but it is better. It noise reduction is built in too.
Thanks for sharing
Hey, Jan ... thanks for another really solid, informative video! For all of us who do NOT have or use any Adobe software, how / where do we get Adobe Enhance? I do not have Photoshop or Lightroom, and I do not want them. But I do want Enhance.
You can't, it's directly integrated to Camera Raw
It’s somewhat ignored, but I’ve had good results with ON1 AI DeNoise. The program has controls for luminance and color noise, plus sliders for detail and sharpening. There’s also an option called Tack Sharp that’s supposed to deal with motion blur, but it’s finicky.
The effect is easily tuned for the image, and I believe the results are much more realistic than Topaz, which I’ve found to be oversmoothed and plastic. Plus, the processing time is minimal when compared to some of the other programs.
I think it’s a product worth checking out.
I had better results with this than Topaz, but DXO is still my preferred choice. It seems to work best with Pentax RAW files
Jan, with your masterclass. Do you cover the new features in current Adobe products like Lightroom and photoshop? Very interested in taking your masterclass.
The current masterclass covers the workflow I have used for years and still use. I will make a class building upon the first one including all the new shiny tools soon
Thanks for the video...Interestingly on my Sony A1 files DXO pureraw is still massively better than either adobe and topaz.. The Adobe still leaves my files very noisy at a setting of 43, and when used higher, it loses far more detail for less noise reduction than DXO... I too use topaz as a final noise removal process in the editing process..
Interesting! My trick towards the end of the video will help you to have noise free backgrounds with enhance, too
The fact that Enhance obliterates my lightroom filters when I use it is a deal killer for me. It is also excruciatingly slow. With my Sony A1 I get the best results using Topaz Photo AI.
Does that happen when you run enhance first and then add filters to the dng?
I would love to know what ISO you consider useable at different levels of cropping, as it is well known that not all pictures are filling the frame when taken. There is no way I can shoot at ISO 25600 and clean up the image after, while still keeping any details, if I have to do a strong crop. Is there a way to calculate it? for instance if you can get away with ISO 25600 when you fill the frame, what about when you only fill 1/4 of the frame and still want to crop it to fill the frame, would it be ISO 12800 or ISO 6400 or something else?
The head shot in this video of the Logrunner female was quite a big crop, but cleaned up fine.
Thank you for the continued inspiration and educational videos. Keep showing us more great bird photos from the Outback.
Will do!
Jan, as usual such a helpful tutorial. I edit all my images in Lightroom on my iPad Pro . It’s very frustrating that there is not one denoise software for iPads except the noise reduction in Lightroom. If you know of any software that can be used with iPad , please let me know… many thanks 😊
I suppose the problem is that they all create a new file which may not be as easy to do on an iPad?
My pick would be Lightroom enhance also and it's only a matter of time before Adobe adds AI Sharpen, Thanks for the video;)
That would be interesting!
In comparison to Adobe DXO produces better contrast by the looks of it.
Dxo spits out the slightly more ready file maybe, but you could tweak the files differently and not all the same like I did for comparisons purposes
Great tip to open twice in Photoshop with different levels of de noise. I've been finding Photoshop gives better noise reduction than Topaz but Topaz preserves more details
Fab video - totally agree with the results. I stopped using Topaz and DXO totally and just adobe denoise now. Topaz has lot of artefacts and DXO is too slow - additionally it doesn't fit into the LR workflow well. Adobe wins hands down for me - fits well into the workflow. The main point now is that ISO setting has sort become less relevant in the camera with these Denoising software - as you stated early in the video - Shutter speed is what matters most in bird photography.
Well said
I use Topaz a lot for upsizing images, for reasons specific to what I do. It works well for that. Not sure if the others do that.
Yes gigapixel works very well
Thanks so much for sharing another wonderful video like always 🐦🤗
So nice of you
Another great video and fantastic tips to us! Thank you a lot!