Did Adobe Just ANNIHILATE DXO & Topaz? | Which Program Is Actually The BEST?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- That was UNEXPECTED! Which Noise Reduction software actually gives you the best results? You may be surprised! Adobe changed the game with their new Ai Noise Reduction tool, but how good is it really? Will DXO Pure RAW 3 & Topaz DeNoise AI I prevail? I also tested out the new Ai Removal Tool!
__________________________________________
MASTERCLASS - Editing Your Bird Images To Perfection
👉 aviscapes.com/masterclass-edi...
____________________________________________
Check out our PROSETS here and save up to 30%!
👉 thebirdphotographyshow.com/pr...
_____________________________________________
MASTERCLASS & PERCHED BUNDLE - 25% off!
👉 aviscapes.com/perched-masterc...
_____________________________________________
How to Attract Amazing Birds Ebook & Video Perched
👉 aviscapes.com/video-and-ebook/
_____________________________________________
R7 RAW File Download & Set Up Guide
👉 thebirdphotographyshow.com
_____________________________________________
My Twitter
👉 / jan_wegener_
_____________________________________________
Instagram
👉 / jan_wegener_
_____________________________________________
Bird Photography Helpers:
DXO Pure RAW 3 Free trial:
tidd.ly/3HsjB6M
tidd.ly/3uOpwhl
Topaz DeNoise AI - topazlabs.com/ref/1347/?campa...
Topaz Gigapixel & More
www.topazlabs.com/downloads/r...
Flex Shooter Pro Head
👉 www.ballhead.eu/flexline-full...
This is the Equipment I recommend:
Canon EOS R5 amzn.to/2FV1Fpq
Canon EOS R6 amzn.to/3qOtEbQ
Nikon Z9 amzn.to/3GeMscb
Sony Alpha 1 amzn.to/2WsXKYZ
Canon RF 100-500 L IS amzn.to/3liEIx0
RF Extender 1.4x amzn.to/3bMD5nO
RF Extender 2x amzn.to/3cuMdwD
Sony FE 200-600 amzn.to/3faCMVj
Sony 1.4x TC amzn.to/2WsXMA5
RF 800 F11 amzn.to/3ldq6Pr
RF600 F11 amzn.to/3bIBrDJ
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV amzn.to/2ToffWf
Canon 600 L IS III (I have v. II) amzn.to/3dZM7wn
Canon EF 5.6/400 L amzn.to/2AJwbQk
Canon 1.4x TC III amzn.to/2T7vAhz
Canon 2x TC III amzn.to/3fPnYdr
Canon 600 EX - RT amzn.to/3czhDRf
Wimberley Head II amzn.to/3dOuqzI
Gitzo 5543LS (new version of my tripod) amzn.to/3dRfxg3
Gitzo GT2545T Travel Tripod amzn.to/3BSmhXJ
Wimberley Flash Bracket amzn.to/2LweMg5
Wimberley M-6 Extension Post amzn.to/2LxCvfQ
Better Beamer (check for compatibility) amzn.to/2AxbbfF
Flash Battery (Godox & Flashpoint is the same) amzn.to/3fNDWVD
Power Cord amzn.to/3cBJGzt
Y connector amzn.to/2X22zoT
Novoflex STA-SET amzn.to/2y5s1Bt
LensCoat LensHide amzn.to/3bAkoAo
LensCoat Lens Hoodie amzn.to/3fStHiI
Canon 2.8/70-200 II amzn.to/3cArBSB
Canon 4/24-70 amzn.to/2AwjeJE
Canon 4/16-35 L IS amzn.to/3fPqPDb
JBL Clip3 Speaker amzn.to/36225D5
Sandisk Extreme Pro CFexpress Card type B 512GB amzn.to/38FPKHg
Sandisk Extreme Pro amzn.to/2WXKt7n
Panasonic Eneloop Pro amzn.to/2X2SQ1q
Minox 8x43 amzn.to/2Z7YxxQ
Canon LP-E6N amzn.to/3byTSYg
Manfrotto Mini Ballhead amzn.to/3dR2pYm
FStop Gear Sukha Backpack amzn.to/2Q3e4fZ
Atomos Ninja V amzn.to/3GYFV5v
LINKS USED IN THE DESCRIPTION MAY OR MAY NOT BE AFFILIATE LINKS
By using the affiliate links I earn a small commission on your purchase, it does not cost you anything extra to use them. It helps me to create more content for you. Thank you for the support!
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Game changer?
0:46 18k Images!
1:23 51200 ISO MADNESS
3:13 Interesting Results
5:45 And The Winner is...
7:31 Unexpected Roll for Topaz
8:18 Great to see change
8:54 Food For Thought
9:18 New AI Remove Tool!
I like to point out that Topaz is putting all their efforts into the development of their latest program Photo Ai now. It has come along way now and I actually think it is starting to overtake most use-cases from their standalone programs. In Photo Ai it’s possible to control all three typical needs for Sharpening, Denoise and upsampling in one swoop. It has a very intelligent Auto function but can easily be fine-tuned, if needed. On top of that it provides with a very useful layer mask system within the same program. It works very well with unedited raw files and can export to DNG files for further editing, as well.
On the beta remove tool I found the best results to remove objects in sections.
The part intersecting the feathers would be one section. If it disturbs the feathers go over that area again (even though the object is gone) and it usually restores the feathers.
Thanks so much for sharing another wonderful video like always, I really enjoy to see you on the field and taking awesome pictures 🐦👍🤗
So my 2 cents (about all its worth lol), DXO Pure Raw is more about the camera profile and getting the colors, sharpening, and noise right for the camera and lens manufacturer that LR is not getting right.
AND DXO and Topaz Denoise are sharpening along with denoting the image and LR is not. SO in LR you have to denoise AND sharpen and then you will get closer results.
Great video as always Jan.
you can turn shparneing off in DXO (I do). I have found that DXO is creating sharpening halos, at least recently. I never noticed this until pure RAW3 came out and the paranoid person in me sometimes suspect that DXO pushed silent updates to version 2 to semi cripple it to encourage updates to version 3...
I started using Photoshop in 1995, along with Photostyler, which later disappeared. Version 2.5. I must have upgraded countless times, CS2, CS4, CS5, I stopped at CS6. I haven't succumbed to monthly payments though if Adobe adds enough features I may have to, I just have to make do with what I have.
Great review
Thank you so much
I guess I'll have to try out Dxo, as the LR denoise tool creates an artificial looking photos, when applied to bright light-reflecting sunbirds
Holy smokes, Jan. Thanks for the heads-up. Just returned from shooting a K-8 science fair for our school's website. I shot some nice pics at ISO 20,000 on the R6 and of course
they were very grainy, but after running them through the new AI NR in Camera Raw they look fantastic - honestly I'm stunned and delighted. I have to shoot lots of photos of active kids indoors and I can't express what this will mean. Oh, my.
Awesome!
Adobe has at last tried to catch up with the other software programs regarding noise removal. Can only be used on RAW files at the moment but I understand this will be expanded to cover other file types. It can only get better with time and updates. I'm liking it so far.
I agree that Adobe's Denoise is not quite there yet, the new competition might keep DxO on their feet. It would have been interesting to compare the high ISO files using DxO DeepPrime XD. It looked as if you used Deep Prime only.
Great job, Jan. Thanks
Nice to see your healthy face is back - good video again - cheers from Boulder CO
I wonder if the first image would have benefitted from a lower setting in Photoshop given the DxO version has some noise still visible. I have found them almost indistinguishable with maybe an edge to Photoshop on fine detail on the periphery of the subject.
My big issue with the Adobe version is speed. I’m running a 3+ year old laptop and when I bought it the spec was close to top of range. Now it won’t even run people masking in LRC. The denoise tool is soooo slow. DxO isn’t fast but it is a good 20% faster than Adobe on a 16000 ISO file.
Yes, DXO is much faster even on my M1Max MacBook. Probably 6-7 sec and Adobe is close to 20
I'll sacrifice speed if it gets rid rid of the artefacts that plague Topaz.
@@r2hildur Fortunately, far less than Topaz.
An additional comment regarding controlling the amount of noise reduction using DxO: this is totally controllable if you use DxO Photolab Elite. Granted, it's a more expensive license but as a Photolab user I find myself fine-tuning the amount of noise reduction a lot to get it just right so it is very valuable to have control.
Exactly, you can right click the file in elite and choose 4 levels of reduction and control to some degree the sharpening and produce DNG or Jpeg or both and chose a folder or subfolder...
Thank you this info iit is spot on and this is where I am …..at CrossRoads where to go with my post processing.… you rock & so does Glen!!!
Thank you!
I use DXO Photolab 5 and Deep Prime within the software does a good enough job for me.
I am frequently going to PSD files I processed years ago to submit them for a current submission and for them it is easiest to just use Topaz in Photoshop than to re-edit the RAW image. Likewise, Topaz works better with old film slides I re-scanned using my Z9, but often leaves one quarter of the image unprocessed on one side for some reason. The Adobe DeNoise only works with certain camera color filters, so not all brands of cameras are supported yet.
Jan, great video, have you done any videos on topaz gigapixel and topaz sharpen AI?
Not on sharpen. I showed a bit of Gigapixel in a recent early bird video. But nothing super specific
The AI remove tool is also available in Lightroom as part of the heal tool now, but I can't find the same functionality in Lightroom Classic. Copying and pasting mask settings in Lightroom also now auto reprocesses subject masking.
Topaz is super annoying to use and often crashes for me. I haven't found a good way to incorporate the DXO processing into my workflow. I wish there was a way to import and process through classic and then auto-transfer favorite (5-star) images to Lightroom mobile.
Merci Jan pour la vidéo.
Thanks for the informative video as always. I'm a topaz user, but just tried adobe denoise in lightroom on a 36mp image shot at 8,000 ISO, honestly the result was really good, the detail retained was better than topaz. The only downside is how slow it is, but I'm sure adobe will make improvements over time. I still like topaz sharpen, so not sure I'm ready to ditch it yet, but it's great to have another tool in the kit.
Does anybody have an idea when this feature might come out of Beta into Production?
I recently purchased topaz denoise so I will continue with it however I will try the adobe feature in lightroom. I own and still use PS CS6 lol but on my work machine I have access to CC. Funny you mentioned that removal tool because I tried it recently on some bird photos and I agree that its a hit or miss at times.
I use DXO PhotoLab Elite (the full program that PureRaw is based on). This gives me better control of the Noise and Lens Sharpness settings. There is a new setting called "Noise Model" which enables even more detail - not recommended for humans. The results on my 2018 Panasonic G9 are stellar - like having a new Sensor!! The detail out of my D850 is shocking!! Highly recommended for those not married to Lightroom!!
As someone currently in the process of "choosing a bride" between Adobe, DXO and Capture One, I find your input quite helpful.
Hey Jan, what mode of topaz do you use? Low light is the only one worth it for us. And it does amazing job.
Btw. Adobe is annoying atm with creation of new DNG file. If they bring it as a filter to Photoshop, for me the gsme will be over, and I will skip topaz/dxo.
I too use Topaz as a cleaner for my TIFF files, good to see I'm not the only one!
I think that’s it’s ideal place in the workflow
The Adobe PS Beta remove tool is light years ahead of the spot heal tool but as you mentioned, it still struggles with highly detailed areas. Still using Topaz at the end of editing as well. Adobe might eventually replace it but as you mentioned, it works extremely well in a masked layer. Not ready to ditch Topaz just yet but perhaps once it's time to renew that annual subscription of upgrades, I may take another look at comparing it with the current Adobe noise reduction tool.
Given Adobe's new Denoise tool, is it worth upgrading my DxO PureRAW 2 to the new version 3? I still use both, depending on what I'm working on.
Like you I am glad Adobe is adding these improved tools and masking capabilities. For the time being DxO Raw 3 will still be part of my workflow, but let’s see what the future will bring. QQQ Jan have you consider doing a master-class on video editing using Final Cut Pro?
I only use Davinci Resolve. :)
Do you have a video on organizing or going through your photos for finding the keepers quickly? I'm so use to coming home with a crazy amount of images and realizing, "Oh yeah, I gotta go through all of those." Any tips for those daunting tasks?
Hi Jan, I was really looking forward to this comparison of denoise methods!
But before reaction on the topic, I really love those Bourke's Parrot images of yours!! Didn't know the species, but it's the most beautiful parrot I've ever seen, wow 😍. And in order to get the right spelling, I googled to wiki .. and (as a huge testament to your statement they only appear in dim lighting conditions) those wiki images are really awful!! Sharing one of your images would give that page a huuuge upgrade 😛
Back to the denoise tools, I also limit my usage of Topaz for a finishing touch if needed.
Regarding the other 2, as you know I'm on the other side of the fence, doing my editing mainly using DxO Photolab. I just wish DxO adds some object(bird) selection AI which I'm really lacking to imitate the Photoshop part of your workflow.
From my point of view the cost of DxO (also when adding PureRaw to Adobe) is clearly smaller than getting a 600/4 (or the upcoming and probably even more expensive 200-500/4 TC !!) in order to avoid the ISO values I'd need with "my poor" 100-500 ;-)
ps: Giving up Topaz is also giving up Gigapixel, and Sharpen AI which I am not willing to do at this time. And in regards to PureRaw3, I prefer the workflow using DxO PL6 (same NR plus camera profiles).You can make a preset in PL6 that emulates PureRaw3 and also includes camera profiles, lens profiles, smart lighting, and a wide gamut color space.
Thanks for sharing!
Lightroom has super resolution (same thing as gigapixel). You're not giving up much...
I will still use Gigapixel for sure. Is the best by far in upsizing
Why would you have to give up Gigapixel and Sharpen AI? I'm asking since they're all sold separately. Smart lighting sounds good but can you process pictures in bulk with that preset to edit them in Lightroom later on?
@@Peyre Because i bought the package. Yes I can get them separately. I never bulk process photos.
at the end of the day - do we want to take pictures or have them gererated for us from what we supply as a starting point .... mixed feelings from me ...
I've tried the Adobe AI noise reduction in Lightroom a few times. On my laptop that has 32 GB of RAM, one file takes at least 45 minutes to render, as opposed to 30 seconds or less in Topaz Photo AI. I don't get it. I'm currently away from home and haven't been able to test Adobe on my desktop with 80 GB of RAM. But 45-50 minutes is unacceptable. Is it faster in ACR?
*[EDIT: Rendering is indeed much faster in ACR, -about one minute. But I must open the RAW file directly into Photoshop rather than importing it as a smart object from LR. The denoise doesn't work on smart objects. Then, when I save the edit, I have to find and open the new DNG file to do additional editing in PS. I would have to totally change my workflow to use Adobe AI DeNoise since I do my basic editing in Lightroom, then import the file into PS for more complicated editing like dodging, burning, object removal, and luminosity masking. For me, it's too much faff right now.]*
Using Topaz at the end rather than de-noising the RAW file at the beginning fits my own workflow better, and I'm happy with the end-of-line noise cleaning and sharpening that Topaz provides. I don't add sharpening because the noise reduction process adds enough sharpening by itself.
I also like to useTopaz photo AI, especially when a bit more cropping is needed
I‘m glad I didn‘t update DxO to the latest version. I‘m quite happy with the Adobe results and prefer to have the intermediate files in the source directory. I only denoise images I‘m going to process in Photoshop and delete the dng files afterwards otherwise you end up with 3 copies in different formats.
Canon DPP4 mixed with DXO IS AMAZING
Does anyone know whether the LR denoise feature can be used with masks?
With standard noise reduction in LR, I often use the masks to reduce noise in the background - where it's typically more intrusive - whilst leaving the subject untouched, in order to preserve detail. I've found that solution works well, especially with fur and feather detail in relatively close-up wildlife shots.
Not at this stage, but you could use it with layers and masks in photoshop
@@jan_wegener Thanks Jan
Jan, even i comparrd Adobe Denoise with DXO pure raw in quality of image. Pure raw just an amazing one in keeping the details. However Denoise is doing the decent job in reducing the noise. Regarding removal tool, i believe it just facilitate for quick process of removing the object unlike what we used to do with earlier process like invoking content aware fill ect. Other tools compliment with new tool to do the better job.
Agreed
I don't know if you've watched it but Jesús Ramirez has a great vid out on how to use the "remove tool".
What about the ON1 NoNoise AI 2023? I had very good results with the older version about the noise, but it creates an ugly color. I think Luminar have AI denoising too
For those that use LR the new built in NR is probably the way to go, I use CaptureOne so DXO PureRaw3 is the program I use.
Thanks for sharing!
Jan, regarding your master class. Can you tell me if it focuses on bird photography i.e. editing our bird photographs to get the best results?
That’s what it does 😀
Hello Jan,
Thanks again for this superb video. One question; am I able to use the AI driven noise reduction tool in the IOS IPAD Lightroom app? Also; are you presets available for IOS IPAD too?
Thanks,
Sherome
I think you may need to connect to a computer to install the Prosets, but as long as you can install profiles in that LR version, the PROSETS will work.
I am not sure whether the NR tool is available on the app
Love the prosets, vibrant max contrast alone has saved me ages
Glad to hear my friend! How do they work on the AI images? :D I feel responsible for your Ai adventures hahaha
@@jan_wegener lol I haven't tried that yet....yet. And you totally are. Did you see my Snowy Owlabear? hah. I have actual magazines contacting me for stories.
@@VinceMaidens How could I ever unsee that? :D
A bit off topic but do you guys keep both the raw file and the dng or drop the raw file after conversion?
I get rid of the DNG files, since I can always recreate them
Is it that Adobe Denoise AI preserves less detail or doesn't add sharpening as the other 3rd party denoise programs do? I would be interested in seeing comparisons of Adobe Denoise AI with sharpening added, then compared to the other denoise software.
The sample I showed had the standard Adobe sharpening added. Strength 40
Does the PhotoLab has the same denoise as Pureraw?
Yes, but you can influence it a bit more
Thanks...
Which model did you use in Topaz Denoise? There are 4 options and depending on the photo, one model can work much better than another. I am running an older computer and Topaz is quite a bit faster than the Enhance in Adobe.
I think it was low light, but I tried them all to get the best result
I'll be honest I had a couple of high ISO R5 images of pine martens and despite opening in DXO and then processing through Topaz, they were not useable. However, now without leaving LR I have useable images. Amazing.
Awesome!
Awesome that you kept the originals to be able to try something else later ! :) I've done this with a few images, but I'm sure I've dumped images that could be useable today, but were not with the camera gear and software I used at the time.
Thanks for your comparisons! Since you used Photoshop, the denoise feature should be the same in the new Lightroom version right? Because then you could easily denoise several pictures and go have a coffee in the meantime. Also if i might ask: Why aren't you using the Optical Corrections in DxO PureRAW?
Because those contain processing that completely botches the image quality... DxO has some very buggy lens profiles - like all macro lens profiles are completely baloney and the image quality gets annihilated because these profiles are created at infinity focusing where macro lenses have completely different properties than at macro distances. It also applies much too much sharpening way too early in any workflow.
Yes, it's the same in LR. I don't use the profiles cause they do things to the images I don't like and sharpen too much
The image processed by DXO have strange colors if I use the Camera Match profiles. The colors change a lot compared to unprocessed images. So I would go Lightroom’s AI denoise for better integration and same color
Yes, it seems to struggle at times with the newly created dng files
Adobe masking denoise for application in specific parts of a photo is something that will be worth waiting for.
yes that would be good. You can do it already if you run the image a couple times and use layers in PS
@@jan_wegener I should have been more specific to this dream being about LR 🙂
I started to use Adobe Denoise AI last week >> WOW WOW WOW
I'm really amazed by the new abilities of Lightroom. I did indeed put some images in a "long term waiting queue" long ago for this very day which I hoped (foresaw?) would be coming, especially some shot with older cameras, to give them this "kiss of life" they really needed. And I do especially like the fact, that you can influence the results. You could even create two or more versions with different percentages of denoising and work them together in several layers in Photoshop.
Ah, and by the way, the new masking tools of Lightroom are also quite helpful sometimes!
Yes, lots of opportunities to work on older noisy images. That's why I never delete too harshly
I am still finding DxO 3 to have a slight edge over everything else I’ve tried. My workflow hasn’t changed because of the cluttered mess using Lightroom Ai creates after I perform DeNoise in the program an improvement to their file filtering could help. I love that PureRAW makes that separate folder which allows me to keep them separate. That alone is worth the $140! Haha But, I’ll use Lightroom Ai to denoise images that PureRAW didn’t do well at and then I’ll take advantage of Adobe allowing us to use a slider to adjust the strength. DxO can sometimes make people look REALLY bad.
Simply stack the images - then you don't get a mess but a very convenient way of having both the denoised image and the original at hand...
I also tried the Adobe Denoise AI tool. I like the results, but running it over 400+ files took about an hour on a decent machine. It could due to some bottleneck of my PC, because I am running images on a HDD. I don't think it maxed out the read and write bandwidth. I have 64 GB DDR4 RAM and the job used 40+GB, and it crashed close to the end. I think one photo was not processed. So I think the feature is still early but look very promising. I can also tell the GPU was working harder than CPU, which means a good graphic card would be important. I have an early copy of 3080, so again not top of the line but decent.
had adobe released their update just bit earlier...I would have saved 200$ (topaz suite) !
now, I hope they're going to up their game in their upcoming updates
At this point you still need a fast computer to run the new Lightroom denoise feature. On my traveling laptop it takes a full 13 minutes for Lightroom to process a single image, versus something like 50 seconds for Topaz.
Yes computers will need be more and more powerful going forward. On mine it takes around 20 sec for Adobe
Do you have a link to your Photo Shop Master Class, please?
Here you go:
aviscapes.com/masterclass-editing/
I use DxO Photolab, mostly for the denoise feature. The advantage is that it's the same AI PureRAW noise removal, but you can use a slider to set the amount of noise to remove. It's nice to see that Adobe is competitive in the result, and I'm sure it will only get better with time. My issue with Adobe is that the AI NR is super slow and buggy. So whereas my computer takes 20 seconds to apply DxO denoising for a 50MP picture from my R5, Photoshop is literally saying it will take 147 minutes to apply denoising on ONE image. That needs to be fixed.
Very odd, have you activated GPU support in PS?
@@jan_wegener That's a good suggestion. I haven't checked, and to be fair, that was with my work-managed laptop which does have underwhelming specs. DxO & Topaz both work well on that computer, but as you mention, maybe it's a GPU optimization thing.
I just went back and tried Adobe on my home PC. Although it did crash the first time, the second time around it only took a few seconds to process. The end result was actually slightly better than DxO.
I would be sooo happy if this worked and while I see the Denise button in Lightroom CC when I try it, it says my photo format is not compatible with this feature. I used Canon .cr3 format. Any tricks to make this work ?
That’s very odd. It should definitely work with that. Is it all updated to the latest version?
@@jan_wegener yes ! I updated it to get the den lose button. Do I need to update anything else ? It’s odd because it shows the button (greyed out for jpg and heic), and the preview but after some time of transacting the result says that this photo format is not compatible.
@@annetteherz6253 maybe try it in camera raw (just right click enhance on the opened photo) and see if it works there. Then we’d know it’s some sort of LR issue
What camera are you using the files from
@@jan_wegener Thanks so much for replying. I wonder if this is because I shoot in Canon Raw (.cr extension) !!! I will try full raw - files will be bigger but if the denoise works, hey that be awesome !!! Will let you know !
@@jan_wegener Indeed it was me using Canon's compressed raw formet. When i turn it to full raw this denoise works fine. Better than fine actually :) - awesome ! And I only learned about it thanks to your/this video so THANK YOU very uch ! (well, i also only have the R7 thanks to you and DUade's videos so thanks for that too !! )
I have the Topaz and with the new Denoise in Adobe. I prefer Adobe over Topaz and here is why. Topaz automatically makes the photos darker post Denoise whereas Adobe evenly denoise and enhances the detail with compromising the details. Adobe also maintains greater details and file quality than Topaz.
With my z9 I was getting quite a bit of noise at 6400 iso. I was told about dxo 2 last year when on a photo shoot in Iceland because I was complaining about z9 noise. I really liked it and now I’m trying dxo 3. Wow. But I didn’t know about this adobe one in acr. How do you use it? I do not use lr. I only use acr and ps 2023. Thank you for showing me the difference. I owned all three of topaz labs ai programs. I never liked denoise ai.
Just update to camera raw 15.3 and right click enhance on your photo
Yessss! So excited for this!
Edit: I agree with you about AI, it provides amazing capabilities, but can’t be used as a replacement for knowledge/skills/practice. I’ve been incorporating it into my work {graphic design, thumbnails etc} for faster workflow.
Thanks for sharing :)
I agree although I’d add perhaps that the knowledge/skills/practice change with time as well. A few years ago I would hesitate to shoot at iso above 2000 but now comfortably shoot at 6400 iso knowing that programs such as DXO will handle that amount of noise easily. But would still hesitate to shoot at 51200 🙊
@@SouthAfricanWanderer It was more out of desperation & curiosity, then expecting to get an actual photo. I still won't edit this shot, but it would be fine for many use cases.
@@jan_wegener yeah I didn’t mean that in any bad way, just showing us that sometimes we have to be brave and take the shot instead of perhaps calling it a day too early.
@@jan_wegener you’re welcome! I’m currently shooting a lot of low low light images with my 90D 10-18 4.5-5.6 and RP with the 24-105 F4L so I do appreciate being able to shoot at high ISO on older sensors until I can afford to upgrade:)
The difference between the two is straight forward. One company allows you to rent their software at an extortionate price and can up that when they feel like it. And the deeper you go with them, the more they can take advantage of you. And the other, you purchase outright and own. Updating when you want to.
Like buying a house and renting a house. If you can afford to buy, you do. Unless you take photos for a living Abode is just a very expensive, unnecesary tool. There are plenty of options elsewhere. DxO Photolab is a stunning bit of software that you can own and all the money I save by not renting, goes towards my trips away.
I also have an older computer and speed is a problem with Adobe. I use Topaz which takes about 1-2 minutes to process while Adobe took 22 minutes to process a similar image…the result was pretty impressive however
It seems like for a lot of these tasks very good GPUs are needed.
22min is nuts
I am loving the Adobe one. I prefer 45% to 50%. I found it much quicker than DXO Pure Raw3 ( when processing individual images in Lightroom). But I found that DXO preserved slightly more detail. I think I will use Adobe most of the time. And DXO when a specific tricky image needs it.
Interesting, in ACR at least it's much slower. But I am comparing it to the software, not the plug in.
I agree, Adobe is pretty good, but DXO will get you the most in the case you need it
That's interesting, DxO PureRAW (v2) is still noticeably faster for me. But I'll likely lean on Adobe more going forward, I like to simplify my workflow as much as possible. Adobe really got this right, especially for this feature's debut.
@@csc-photo Hi Craig I've only used DxO PureRaw (V3) and only from within Lightroom itself. The actual DXO processing takes similar time to the new Adobe (also within Lightroom). But once DXO is done, it takes almost a minute, maybe more, to write the file and auto-import it back into LR. The Adobe action takes about one second to do that step. Thus using DXO as "stand alone" for batches would be much quicker than DXO within LR.
Dxo is sharpening very aggressively giving the illusion of greater detail.
With Adobe as the newest addition to this trio, we can expect it to improve substantially over time, as did Topaz and DxO. I suspect Adobe has decided that the market is shrinking sufficiently that they have to take action to lock in as many users as possible with as wide a range of capability as possible. Adding new, fully automated capability (rather than just another filter or slider) is the new direction for all developers.
Adobe has been losing market position. People have been buying software instead of renting it.
7:18 Isn't that because DXO uses the CPU, and Lightroom the GPU? so depending on the hardware it chan change around.
I am not sure about this att all though.
You can choose in the settings what to use. Photoshop should be able to utilise both.
A lot to say today. LOL. Do your presets work with things other than birds. I absolutely hate Adobe colors on both my OM-1 and R5 with African animals (it's one of the reasons I use PL6). How will your presets work with things like Giraffes and Rhinos?
Since they're changing the colours, I would expect to work quite well, too. We just tested them on birds, nothing specific about birds to them, tho.
There is one player not mentioned here: Capture One. A similar conclusion. I am back with Adobe LRc, and from now on I will save the expense on Capture One. Long story, and noise reduction and a real time feedback is only one component of it. Adobe did it again. I still remember the times of Noise Ninja and Neat Image, which were virtually made vanished by the back than comparable noise reduction in LR 6.
I expect that Adobe includes the tool also in Photoshop. I do very little in Lightroom, but may do raise shadow locally afterwards and there’s where noise comes along. On the other hand, Topaz sharpen is really good, and Gigapixel is way better than the superresolution in the enhance tool. So although I like the new noise tool.., no, not leaving Topaz yet.
I used it in PS in this video. Just right clicking ACR
You mentioned that for DXO Pure Raw it's a yearly fee, but on their website it states lifetime license?
Well, you get the version you buy for life, but the next version will cost money again. And only the new versions will support the latest camera models.
It has advantages, that's why I use it, but it's definitely. a lot more costly now.
@@jan_wegener worth noting for those who need to upgrade. I agree about the cost issues; 115GBP is a lot for a plugin, and I feel it's out of reach of most amateur photographers.
@@jan_wegener DxO send regular updates. I am still receiving them for PL5. You pay a one time only fee and if I want to upgrade to PL6 I can, or not. As far as Adobe is concerned, you have a rental agreement and they know that they could double your rent and people would still rent it because people are generally lazy. They can't be bothered to learn a new workflow, even if the results were better. Many people will still swear the sun is black. You only have to look at the chaos in the US to see how many people can disappear down a rabbit hole.
So I think I got PL5 in a black friday sale for about £89 single fee - how much does Photoshop+Lightroom cost per month? Unless you are going to earn good money from your photos or your pockets are deep and you don't care that Adobe are fleecing you, there is only one choise really.
By the way. You said "And only the new versions will support the latest camera models. " - that is not true. I have PL5, update for the new Canon cameras came through a couple of weeks ago.
@@doghouseriley4732 Hmm, then DxO support is even better than what I reacted earlier .. guess it depends how similar new bodies are to already earlier supported models. Fuji X was introduced in one version and they didn't get added to earlier versions. Nice to hear new Canons are added over a year a release of PL!
I have tried the Adobe one and unfortunately, it crashes my graphics card just about every time! Same with DXO XD mode, it doesn't crash the graphics card, but it produces a blacked out DNG. I guess these programs have surpassed my computer's abilities. For now, I will stick with DXO deep prime or lower and then topaz as a cleanup tool. Thanks for the review!
You should have a look if there are newer drivers available for your graphics card. The AI tools rely heavily on the GPU because it can perform tensor maths which are the core of any machine learning algorithms...
DXO 4 dropped! I’d be super mad if I paid for DXO 3 & was forced to shell out a new upgrade less than 11months later. Should have been an update but they decided to money GRab!!!!
Jan: Curious why you are still using DeepPRIME (vs DeepPRIME XD) in DXO PureRAW 3?
I feel like Xd does too much in many cases
@@jan_wegener But it's adjustable, no?
Jan you mentioned that DXO was faster but for me LR DN is faster. I bought DXO RAW 3, 7 days before LR added DN, so in my opinion wasted my money just bad timing. What would be nice if LR with DN was in the masking so one could do background at a high denoising then the subject at a lesser level if needed. As for LR DN you found at higher ISO's DXO had more detail but I have in LR with DN then masked my subject add some detailing then I can get close to DXO. Usually I am in masking to edit different areas anyway so this extra step is not an issue.
i've tested Adobe and DXO and i can said that I prefer Adobe's result. But I have an old hardware an it took like 9 minutes to Denoise a 24 megapixel photo. DXO just take 4 minutes for the same photo and the exported file was smaller (Original CR2 32MB / DXO's DNG 80MB / Adobe's DNG 105MB). For now i keep using DXO.
Sorry to say that that is pretty slow for 24mp. DxO works really fast compared to others and if that is important to you, then it's a great decision.
i also perceived dxo superior. But the difference is not that big.
so basically how far down the road to AI images are we prepared to go ... for some - all the way for other nota ta all ...
Great update. I used DXO 2 but then went to Topaz A!. Topaz A! has all 3 functions in (noise, sharpen, uprex) the single software. A one stop shop. Did you test Topaz AI?
No, only denoise. I don't need the other two in my base workflow
@@jan_wegener when do you apply sharpening? and what type?
@@ScottRitchie-bw9ls Only during the RAW conversion and if I print
In my eyes, the differences are too small to worry about. However, I probably won't be renewing my Topaz software when it expires. A big reason is that Topaz has stopped updating DeNoise, Sharpen and Gigapixel and is only updating Photo AI now. The software from all companies has transformed the industry!
Topaz keeps assuring me that Photo AI will soon have all of the capabilities of the three stand-alone products. It sucks they stopped upgrading the standalone products. They are still individually better than Photo AI
Oh I already gave up on dxo, I tried their one month trial and while the results were ok, I had a terrible experience, I couldn't do batch because the soft would either crash 30 mins into the process or give me mostly black images with some artefacts for some reason.
I contacted their support and they said I need to update my drivers. Except they were already up to date, I even updated later to the new one but no change.
I had sometimes 5 mins wait for a photo with the r5 just to get a black image.. What a waste of time.
The new LR denoise though, while still not perfect is so much better for me and seem to work also faster than dxo.
So I'm sticking to that from now on and hopefully we'll see improvements going forward
As for the AI removal tool in betashop I use it all the time now, it's fantastic.
Sure on feathers and such it's not there yet, but for commercial photos were you need to remove reflections of the camera in mirrors and such, it saves me hours upon hours, life changing really.
Hell it manages to do sometimes things in 3 secs better than I can in 30 mins since I don't have things to clone or stamp from and it somehow guessed perfectly what should be replaced.
I can say in 2023 it's the first time I feel like my Adobe subscription is finally worth the money.
Great video Jan, glad to see you back on the field!
Yes, it's great to see Adobe stepping up their game!
When I shot and edited a lot of real estate, this would've been very handy for sure!
Sounds like your graphics card wasn't up to it. But that will be the same for Adobe, any AI manipulation will need a half decent graphics card and all the PC's resources aimed at the task in hand. One thing that people forget to do is prioritise this type of work above all others, otherwise the PC's resources are split.
@@doghouseriley4732 well I never had issue with any other tools/softwares. I even use adobe firefly and stable diffusion on my 2080oc and it runs perfectly. I mean it's not the most up to date workstation but it should be more than enough to run dxo. Also while it worked every so often, there is no reason for some random photos to turn black like it does on a regular basis. not when you want to sell your product for that kind of price imo
When I started the new Ai it told me that it would take 16min to process...
No they didn't annihilate Topaz (at least not IMO). There is room for both applications....personally I prefer the outcome I get with Topaz over LR at this time. That being said it is nice to have another solution to see your results with allowing you to pick the better one.
The way I view it is that Adobe's AI noise reduction is "no nonsense", it doesn't attempt to sharpen the subject if it is slightly out of focus or blur out the bokeh which Topaz often does. DxO struggles with separating subject from bokeh and with "lens sharpness" turned off it appears a bit more natural but soft for my liking, but it also does better with removing chroma noise and preserving certain colours (for example the irises of the birds).
One big problem DxO has is how it handles rolling shutter artifacts. There is this jagged or aliasing artifact that sometimes occurs on feather tips when using an electronic shutter - Adobe AI and Topaz Denoise low light setting both seem to reduce this artifact while DxO makes it worse.
I must admit I have been using a lot of enhance lately, because it's so much easier to just right click
@@jan_wegener I use it mainly for the Sharpen and resize modules, but I find Topaz Enhance denoise module to be worse than their Denoise AI standalone.
I am finding there is no one right answer. Some images are better with DXO, some with Topaz, and some with Adobe, and it really matters how you use the three options. I find Topaz DeNoise options, used with masking to be essential in some cases, often leading to the best results. I find Adobe excellent, but I rarely go over 30 on the slider, otherwise I lose too much detail, depending on the type of image. A small amount of noise is OK with me, as long as it is consistent, not blotchy. I find I can eliminate a lot of it using the sharpness edge mask. I Also find Adobe to alter colors the least, and I like that it processes the RAW file, adding the edits afterwards. DXO is best in situations where there is detail in out of focus areas you want to keep, but I don’t like using it because there is not preview and few controls. I find turning off sharpening is important with DXO, and I really don’t like the way it alters colors. In summary, which application works best depends on the image characteristics and how plan to resolve noise.
Yes a combo of all the programs will yield the best results
Its interesting that your results are very different than mine and than several other photographers. All of the noise reduction tools have their weaknesses, but all are improving all the time. There's no reason to continually try to claim a winner and jump ship every other week. I shake my head every time I see one of these videos with the click-bait title and then after watching the video the final consensus is much less dramatic and not at all what the hyperbolic title claims.
Photographers are just going to have to try these options on their own work and decide for themselves what works best for them. Sure, that's not very interesting, and it doesn't generate 'likes and subscribes' ...but that's the reality of the situation.
I'm glad I learned how to use Photoshop, 30+ years ago so I don't have to depend on what I call "idiot tools." Sometimes automasking and background removal work ok, but in my experience, they almost always leave artifacts that I can easily see. Clone stamping and brush tools--when used with skill and experience--always result in a better image without artifacts.
You're right about one thing, lazy people who depend on "AI" and downloadable preset packs to do the work for them end up with weak cookie cutter looking photos. They also learn nothing about how to become a better photographer and never grow.
The answer for me is, no. It is quite puzzling that Adobe has update the denoise facility but not he sharpen tool. For me, DxOPureRAW2/3 is a one click solution. So far, experimenting with Adobe once the noise process is complete I still need to run the file through TopazSharpener which kinda defeats the purpose, imho.
Basically did the same comparison with 6400 ISO with Adobe and DXO and still believe DXO is doing the better job. I don't have Topaz denoise and therefore could not compare but see why people are raving about it when comparing Topaz to Adobe
Yes, DXO is still ahead a bit.
I just stumped up for DXO 10 days before I found out about Adobe,😭😭😭😭😭Adobe is much slower on my comp and the batch processing is better on DXO so I think I should only be,😭😭
You still made the right call. Although if you but on black friday you'll get 50% off. Better to buy your software outright than rent it from Adobe.
I am a bit surprised you are comparing topaz denoise as it is not as good as topaz photo AI though like you it is still very good for final clean up. Also topaz products also work on files other than raw files. I use DXO photolab elite 6 and XD prime and prefer the colours I get from DXO. While LR denoise is very good it only works on raw files and I dont consider it as good as DXO or topaz photo AI but it is getting there. I also use affinity photo and sometimes prefer it's inpainting brush as can be more accurate than content aware removal in Adobe.
Topaz bakes in the clipped highlights, you cannot dodge and burn to recover feather detail.
Inexcusable.
Jan, you have the wrong workflow for new Adobe NR. You click each item to process only as you are editing them, it is processed in the background via the queue and the images are stacked, saving space on your filmstrip and maintaining the rating system.
whereas DxO creates another processing folder making images frustrating to find (both processed and unprocessed raws now have the same star rating but appear in seperate folders), and you cannot multitask as you cannot create a queue of more photos to process if a batch is already running (that is dumb).
Takeaway is: you have to think the way the software needs you to think!
That’s why I only run it on it’s on layer in PS so I can remove those areas
DxO PL6 is far ahead, tested it with different high-noised images
Yes, DXO is still ahead, that's my conclusion too. But many people will likely jump ship due to price
@@jan_wegener See my secret tip as reaction to 'The Secret Dragon' .. when your timing is right, DxO is extremely cheap for the value it provides ;-)
Great photographs, and it's a relief to see DXO is still ahead of Adobe! I disagree with your opinion, I'd rather support a single-time purchase like dxo Photolab elite than pay for Adobe's anti-consumer subscription model. You buy once and you own it forever. What you fail to realise/discuss in your video is that people aren't going to be buying a new copy of DXO every year. Deepprime xd noise reduction is good enough now that it will absolutely be fine to not upgrade for a couple of years, if not use the software indefinitely. If you own it for two years, the software is already better value than lightroom. Meanwhile you have to pay at least £120+ a year to rent Adobe software. It's a rip off.
Do older versions of DXO Photolab support the new camera models? Cause Pure Raw doesn't.
You are correct with what you are saying unless you upgrade the gear or need the test features.
I could've made to more clear
@@jan_wegener As far as I'm aware, they do. Even if they didn't that's a fair argument, but most people aren't going to be system-hopping on the regular. That's a concern only for niche professionals, i.e. brand ambassadors and people like you who review new models. So you may have a bit of a skewed perspective on things. Most people replace their camera body what, every 3-6 years?
@@jan_wegener Yes they do. Photolab does
@@doghouseriley4732 I'd say the gear support from DxO is a bit more subtle: within the first year after release, new body support comes for free. But you don't get updates for new bodies after the year of regular updates. But lens profiles are still added forever.
A secret tip for Photolab users: the new release appears in October, a month later for Black Friday they the best conditions for an upgrade (valid for the previous 2 version). Last black Friday I could have upgraded Photolab 4 to 6 for just 80 euro's (for 3 seats which I share with my wife and our birding buddy). With those conditions I'm easily tempted to upgrade every release ;-)
I have been quite disappointed to Topaz DeNoise and Shapren AI. I prefer ON1 No Noise and DXO PhotoLab for noise reduction over Topaz. I have not played with the new noise reduction in LR. Topaz Sharpen use to be way better before they went to AI. Also it creates some noticeable and horrible artifacts much too often.
DXO still looks superior!
I already had invested in Topaz Denoise AI and DXO Pure RAW2. Will I get future versions? No. I think Adobe has put the kiss of death on both DXO and Topaz and both companies will be defunct with 2-3 years tops. They filled a niche area because of Adobe's lack of interest and that is the only reason why they became popular.
It is definitely one possible outcome
I think Adobe mainly feels threatened by dxo photolab becoming popular
@@jan_wegener sadly, competition is good. If there's no competition anymore, Adobe will make these additional accessories and remove them from the main software and charge for them imho...
@@jan_wegener DXO performs very well in terms of NR. I never had a problem with DXO's sharpening until they released version 3, and now suddenly I am noticiing version 2 leaving sharpening halos...I have now turned sharpening off. I don't believe the halos were there before, but are new features.
@@jan_wegener PS I did get around to purchasing both your masterclass and presets (haven't installed or used the presets yet). The masterclass has helped, but I am still very much lacking in confdence when it comes to masking in Photoshop. As some criticism, the masterclass doesn't cover NR and the VERY much needed sharpening techniques imho. The latter is especially important imho.
It would be good to see an addendum covering both of these points.