Noise Reduction Battle! - Lightroom vs Topaz vs DXO Pure RAW
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- The newest release of lightroom and ACR has some great new features... and everyone is talking about the new AI Denoise... in this video we compare it to the other major denoise products on the market and see which is best.
This video is best viewed in its highest quality on a large screen. It is very difficult to see noise in images on UA-cam at lower settings and screen sizes.
My "Leave it Better" hats that raise money to replant national forests can be found here --- www.nickpageph...
UPDATE: I made this video with the assumption that Photo AI was giving me the same results as Denoize AI... after several suggestions, I went in and compared the results with topaz Denoize AI and certainly got better results... Please forgive me! I think this retest brings Topaz Denoize AI closer to Lightroom in regards to Image quality and speed, and for the photoshop user, using it at the end of the workflow is still my #1 recommendation. For the Lightroom user, stick with the Lightroom Denoise, as it yields results on Par with the Topaz standalone plugin in my opinion!
I looked into Topaz Photo, but after some research opted for Topaz Denoise AI. It seems to be more up to date than the Photo version and I like the options to compare 4 different levels such as standard or severe with the added option of adjusting sliders for amounts. No artifacts seen as yet. Always appreciate your honest reviews/comparison videos.
Nick, yes! I'm seeing better results with Topaz Denoise AI than Photo AI as well. I feared it was just my poor eyesight. Thank you for confirming.
Thanks for the update... I agree. Topaz Photo AI might might have the edge (🤭) initially, as it seems to add some sharpening (via a detail slider) during noise reduction. LrC isolates its Denoise noise reduction actions from image sharpening. LrC's sharpening utilizes a separate slider and optional mask (as before). Both approaches seem to do the job.
We live in wonderful times.... eh? 🤗
Exactly what I was going to comment about. I too get much better results with denoise ai than photo ai. Thanks for the update!
Indeed especially for low light images, Topaz Denoise gives much better results. When working on TIFF files instead of RAW files you can also choose explicitly a low-light noise model which for me really helps with astro images.
Great comparison. When I was doing a lot more astro and deep space imaging- which is all about noise, it was very common to do noise reduction early on and usually mask it into the darker areas. The theory is to reduce noise early so when you boost brightness with curves ect, then you are boosting a clean image rather than boosting noise and then trying to get rid of heaps more noise at the end.
Excellent video Nick. I appreciate how Adobe is not always the first to market with the latest technology, but when they do, they do it right.
Nick, this is the first time I have watched one of your videos, and I am so impressed. I can't praise you enough for getting straight to the point and offering such practical tips. Thank you, too, for flagging the artifact problems with DXO and Topaz. I have encountered the same. Well done all around. I've subscribed to your channel.
Heartily agree. Nick really does do very credible and reproducible evaluations!
I've heard multiple people say that DxO DEEP Prime XD gives what they call "spidery" results on night-sky images. The more regular DxO DEEP Prime, w/o XD, will probably give better results (and be a little bit faster).
Agree, the XD version is very aggressive, I think the results for DXO would have been much better using Deep Prime. I did a comparison a couple of days ago and though Pure Raw 3 (Deep Prime only) was better looking than Topaz Denoise and the new LR version.
Agreed. DxO DeepPrimeXD for Fur/Feathers and other such finely detailed textures, and regular DeepPrime (sans XD) on everything else. This DXO PureRaw 3 combo Significantly beats Adobe's new Denoise AI feature.
Also agree. Also, you can't just choose the XD setting and then complain that it's too much and there's no way to set the amount of denoising.
Editing the 4/23/23 aurora show this week I did a deep dive with PureRaw 3 and LR denoise. DeepPrimeXD is unusable with night sky. Very annoying. DeepPrime does a pretty awesome job, arguably identical to LR denoise(which does a shockingly good job in its first iteration with night skies) but DXO has a slight advantage in the blacks/shadows of the foreground, and seemed to process faster than LR so I ended up going PureRAW 3 DeepPrime to process that whole timelapse.
There have been a plethora of videos about the new Denoise feature of LR/ACR, but none of them address the issues that you identified, Nick. This is the best of its kind - not a surprise, though. Thank you!
You will notice that most of those other videos, all had early access to the release as well... probably not a coincidence.
I actually disagree that noise removal is better post processing than at the starting, well at least for high ISO/very noisy images. The more manipulation you do on noisy images, the more that noise is amplified and I found the less effective the noise reduction is or more aggressive you have to apply post manipulations. I certainly found this with my aurora images. I tried processing them in Topaz DeNoise AI both on the initial RAW then adjusting the resultant dng and running images through DeNose AI post LR edditing. In all cases so far the former produced better results. I can see why the software companies suggest this too, as it's much better to edit a cleaner image than a noisy one. I know this perhaps won't be aplicable to all images, but it certainly has been a game changer for my high ISO noisy image workflow.
Really appreciate your taking the time to do this, Nick. I don't have those other softwares, so it great to see comparisons
My opinion is that LRC + PS Denoise,
is a first release,
I am sure that later updates will add options like Jpg / tiff / etc,
and maybe other features.
Haha your name instantly popped into my head when I saw the open multiple images as smart object layers option in the upgrade, they should definitely credit you for that one! Thanks as always for your thoughtful unbiased analysis, you are really a gem from the photography hobbyist with a limited budget who wants to vet options before spending on unnecessary products.
Really miss seeing your weekly posts on UA-cam. Always love your approach to teaching and mentoring. Your passion for the photographic pursuits was always inspiring and infectious. Hope to see more of your work sometime soon. As always, thanks for all of your efforts!
I appreciate that Paul thank you
Holy crap I just tried it out on one of my f/4 lenses, Astro images. It did an absolutely amazing job. The iso was set at 2500 and with a 36 on the slider it looks almost perfect. Just a hint of noise with extremely sharp details. I am so impressed it’s like real detail not fake sharpness. Good job adobe it’s exactly what I needed, I can’t afford any new lenses and love Astro photography. My world just got so much better!
This is the comparison I've been waiting for since I saw about the update to LRC. I was on the verge of buying Topaz.
Same here!
I was on the fence about getting some denoise software since I felt Lightroom was adequate enough with the OG slider for most of my photography.
However, I was leaning towards DXO. Both Topaz and DXO are amazing, but now that Lightroom has this same function, no more separate program for me! The money I save can go into paying for my Adobe subscription. Lol
Well, it depends on who is doing the review I have found. Dave Kelly, whom I highly respect and have been watching for forever in his comparison between Topaz Denoise AI and Lightroom's Denoise AI felt that Lightroom did a quite good job - not the qualification in my tone - but wasn't as good as DeNoise.
Probably because Topaz will give you greater personal and precise control - also see my comment here about running through an image twice with Topaz Denoise AI that Dave Kelly recommended - it works very well in my opinion to give an even greater improvement than one time through the program.
They have free trial downloads that would allow you to try and see what you think.
I’m a hobbyist so I should say from the start that ultimate image quality isn’t a must have for me. I use Capture One rather than Adobe LR, simply because of my Fuji Raw files which seem to render better in Capture One otherwise I’m sure I would have gone the LR route. I have the ON1 No Noise AI plug in which integrates well with Capture One but they’re not really there yet with the noise reduction, lots of artefacts and weird stuff going on. I was going to buy the DXO Pure Raw 3 plug-in but instead opted to buy DXO Photo Lab 6 which has Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD built in. I find this gives much more control over the amount of noise reduction and after sharpening applied compared to the Pure Raw 3 plug in, more on par with LR’s new NR, in case any one’s interested. I can then export the file as a DNG to Capture One if I feel the need. Thanks for your comparison, it seemed very balanced.
I found the same. For me a product like Topaz even turned down always added sharpness to the subject which seems to appeal to many wildlife photographers BUT I can always spot the "topaz look" when those photos are shared and to me gives a cut and pasted look. Adobe seems to have done a great job allowing us to be more in control and still use some NR.
Nice one Nick! I was hoping you'd do a video on this :)
Dxo Raw 3 for Fuji's RAF files compared to LR is a game changer. It's like I bought a new camera and the most expensive lens available. I bought the package deal with the Nik collection, and even though it is not listed, when you do that they throw in DxO Photo Lab for free.
Agree DXO for Fuji users as Lightroom demosaicing for xtrans files is so poor. I have the trial version and have been impressed with the detail …. Haven’t used it for noise reduction, more for getting the best detail
This is one reason I sold all my Fuji gear and moved to Sony
Did I see you check your wrist during the PureRaw processing as if you were wearing a watch? 😜 thanks for doing a great video and going through it all!
Watching your vids and thinking about my editing process I feel like I am working two tin cans with some string and your are on a Sat phone :)
Regardless I do appreciate this non endorsed information and always enjoy your perspective and insight into all aspects of Photography.
Excellent video - great to see a proper unbiased comparison of the features of each software. For me, the gains I'd get from Topaz aren't enough to justify the additional cost over Lightroom. Thanks for saving me a few dollars!!!!!
Hi Nick. Thanks for another informative video ! I get that you prefer to do the denoise at the end so that you can see how it affects the image as you have edited it. But my understanding (could well be incorrect!) is that the DxO algorithm uses the raw un-demosaiced data to better identify the noise, so they have to do that at the beginning of the workflow. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if that was a big deal you'd expect to see DxO knock the ball out of the park in the denoise shoot-out, which it doesn't. In my experience it does do a better job than Lr, and as a CaptureOne user I need a better denoise than is provided in the basic software, so for now I'm using DxO. But keeping an eye on the competition!!
Thanks for making this video. I know that as soon as I heard about the update, I was immediately interested in knowing how it compared to Topaz's offering.
It's a really great new feature this noise reduction in lightroom or camera raw. Thank you for taking thentime to compare all of this programs.
I really like the fact that Adobe added this feature finally... I was about to buy DXO 3 but now that we have this option I see absolutely no point in it anymore and i`m sure it will improve even more. Thanks for this comparison.
Thank you, Nick, for a very informative tutorial.
11:06 thats because the imported version will get the standard sharpening from LR - you need to turn the sharpening in LR down to zero for the other ones. But I also like the LR-Denoise the most!
Once again, I agree with you. I believe is because I use the same process for post processing. I do with the Topaz denoise in the end and only with a mask, for removing artifacts(halo) from edges, for example, or only for the sky, etc. The important thing is know what we are doing.
It is done like that is because the best place to perform denoise is at the step of demosaicing file (that's why you get DNG file as result, that is demosaiced image). So you apply just a little bit of NR with Adobe AI to have cleaner "meat" to work with, and then finish it off with your usual workflow later. That is the best of both worlds. And about your last point where you said that if you use Photoshop you can't do this in ACR - of course you can. LR and ACR use the same engine to demosaic and convert RAW data into pixels. If you don't have AI denoise under Enhance image feature in ACR, you need to update it to latest version.
Topaz is the market leader in that space and still by some margin in my opinion - particularly for wildlife.
Based on workflow I agree… Lightroom equals it in regards to IQ
Very interesting... I've been debating about getting DXO Pure Raw, but now I'm putting on the breaks. At this point in my photo editing, I think I can get at least 90% of what I need from my Topaz Denoise or Adobe. Options are always nice, but maybe when I'm in a better justifiable situation. I'm glad you pointed that out.
Thanks for the onformative and helpful video. I have the same style of workflow that you talk about. I was on the fence about noise software options. You saved me a load of time comparing them.
Awesome video Nick! I think Topaz Photo is still a bit behind Denoise AI but it's been a while since I've done that comparison myself. I was impressed with Lr compared to Denoise in an Aurora pic of mine too. A touch more noise in Denoise compared to Lr, but didn't see artifacts like what you saw with Photo AI. Adobe even mentioned in their release notes (if I remember correctly) to run their Denoise first so from a workflow perspective, that makes a difference for all the reasons you mentioned. Maybe they'll address that in a future release.
It would be interesting to have you provide more use cases on this. I use Topaz Denoise vs 2.4.2 and love it for wildlife and sports photography. I can still control the level of noise reduction and sharpening, minimizing halo effects or over processing the image. Also Lightroom doesn't provide this level of adjustment to the noise and appears to have no adjustment for the sharpening (within this tool). Based on this video I wouldn't switch to Lightroom Denoise for these use cases in my workflow. Appreciate your unbiased assessment on these Denoise products. Keep rockin Nick!
I was already feeling like the video was getting too long otherwise I would have. For me personally I prefer the Denoise Function to only remove noise.. I have many ways I can sharpen details and add contrast, and would prefer them to be separate and more controllable. one of the things I always recommend is to try and sneak up on results through multiple steps (that can be undone, masked out or faded out) Rather than try to get there all in one step.. because if something in that step is over done.. you cant change one without the other.. or it has to be completely redone.... if that makes sense.
@@NickPage Totally makes sense. I've been watching your videos for a couple of years now so sounds familiar! I've utilized many of your techniques into my workflow and truly appreciate the knowledge you share. I don't always follow your exact methods but in the end I know I'm learning something and growing as a photographer. Being from WA myself I'm hoping one of these days to get to partake in one of your workshops. Thanks again. Have a great day.
Hi Nick, great video. I'm finding, on wildlife images at least, that leaving lens softness OFF in DXO PR3 gives a better result - adding the sharpening back in Lightroom. Where the new Lr just steals the edge is on the very finest details, which DXO tends to 'smudge' it.
Thanks again for the great video.
Thanks Nick, good run down. I was getting 10sec for a 50mp image with Adobe, but I have a chunky graphics card in a eGPU hooked up to my laptop.
Surface level comparison. If you don't like DXO sharpening, you can turn it off. Rather than improperly use it and complain about it. Each of these programs NR is better in some areas than the others, DXO excels at drone NR, while the new LR NR works best for higher res/larger sensors and Topaz if a good finishing product.
Agreed, I bought the dxo just for this video and should’ve been more familiar with before I filmed it…. Once again I failed.
you got some Gretsch stop sign badges there? Nice! my setup also. 3 racks on top and only 1 floor, but I have to bass drums. I love 3 racks
Wow...great comparison video. (I knew you'd like that update that smart objects could be opened as layers in PS!!)
Thank you for the video. Helpful to save me time when I end up having to do the same comparison for my self.
Excellent non-biased view with the best work flow.
Great video Nick - after seeing this and having just installed a trial version of DXO RAW III I tried my own tests and found that the outcome was variable. In some cases, low light and very high noise I found Adobe to work best. In better light but higher noise I found a mix but typically DXO came out ahead. It tends to suggest to me that if you can afford it then its not bad to have DXO and Topaz in your toolbox.
thanks Nick, great video as always. I did have a go at using LR to do denoise on a previously edited raw file i.e. last step. it estimated 3 minutes for 25%, though i didn't time it. it was an improvement on the manual NR
Thanks Nick, none of these let you do noise reduction selectively which is my preferred way, noise is more obvious in skies and soft backgrounds where I can apply it far more than detail areas. For high ISO images I now use ON1 NoNoise as it has sliders for the different types of noise and also crucially sharpen sliders as well, so I can tweak between denoise and sharpen for the best result. For my selective noise reduction I would use this programme concentrating on the main subject and then back in Lightroom select those skies and backgrounds for further treatment. Like the programmes you tested it often gets artefacts in out-of-focus areas and it really hates mist so you need to be selective in use.
Gosh Nick, when I use Topaz AI, I love the fact that there is so much variability through the combined de-noise and the sharpening, you have sliders and softness/hardness choices. I still prefer to use Topaz. And just to say - I love watching your videos, you're just a well informed brother on the other side of the screen, thanks!
DxO say that their AI de-noise process is "before" the de-mosaicing process. I think that also applies to how Adobe is doing it, and that _might_ explain why you have to do it as a first process in Lightroom. However, DxO Photolab Elite lets you add the Deep Prime AI de-noising when exporting the image, so it is obviously possible to do it as a final step.
I have used DxO Photolab 4 Elite (which includes their Deep Prime AI noise reduction) and never seen those sharpening halos that you see. I think these may be introduced with the lens softness correction option you seem to add. In DxO Photolab it is also possible to control the level of noise reduction, apparently unlike in Pure RAW.
Anyway, I am looking forward to testing out the AI noise reduction in Adobe ACR versus the one I used so far (DxO Deep Prime).
Great video Nick thanks for your thoughts they are genuine and respected and give the viewer a true perspective from a real and continuous user of these plugins. Cheers!
Another fantastic video. Thanks for doing such a real-world kind of comparison of the three. Well, four, really, as my experience is the same as others have mentioned. On critical tasks, Topaz Denoise AI often outperforms Topaz Photo AI. Maybe it is because one has more control over the process?
Excellent, systematic comparisons Nick 👌
Thanks for this Nick - great video. I used LR Denoise for the first time today on some wildlife shots and was very impressed. I did encounter the problem you mention regarding PS. Here's hoping Adobe will fix that.
Very well explained. Thank you for clarifying the smart object business. I was wondering about that.
superb video nick and a great comparison
It does look like there is some Lightroom halos along with the Topaz on the rocks on my screen.
Thank you for addressing the question I had on someone else's video. I like to use Topaz as a filter on a layer as you demonstrated. I hope Adobe takes notice and makes this available as a filter on a PS layer like we can with Topaz. Thank you so much for this review. I and I'm sure many others appreciate you!!! I hope Adobe is listening.
One thing I have noticed is that Adobe engineers listen to requests... I will do my best to put a bug in their ear so we can use this denoise feature on Stamped layers and smart object layers!
@@NickPage Thanks Nick!!! I do love your wildlife photos as much as I love your landscape. I also love your pics of your pup 🙂
Thank you for putting this together
Informative. Maybe that will be implemented in an update in a few months. One advantage for us poor lightroom users is that it’s one less program I need to buy.
Nick, have you ever noticed that topaz seniors changes the color temp or you image after processing. In some setting I get alone of green or cyan added. Just wondering if you’ve noticed a similar thing.
Great video!!
Very straight forward video. Thanks a lot. One could denoise in LR at the end, bring it in as a layer and stamp it in through a luminosity mask. But I totally agree that it should work on a smart object. Denoise at the beginning vs. the end of the editing process can be a hot topic I guess. But I will give it a shot. Makes sense what you say. And I was wondering about the topaz app vs standalone/plugin as well.. Thought that the standalone would give more control and better result. Hence your update!
Great comparisons Nick. Maybe the lesson from these examples is that Adobe effectively separates the noise reduction from sharpening whereas we turn over more control when we use either of Topaz or DXO. I don’t have DXO, I use Topaz Denoise AI, mostly for birds and wildlife. Up until this Adobe update I was very pleased with Topaz, still am. But my own comparisons on ISO 10000 shots of Brewers blackbird show LR Denoise looked better than Topaz.
And it’s only going to get better with updates, the big advantage of Adobes subscription approach, including your bugbear of application to smart objects.
Cheers, Nick. Best review of the new feature of the many, many I’ve seen so far.
Great non biased video! Hopefully Adobe watches this and makes some changes.
Interesting comparison, thanks Nick. Hopefully Adobe will find a work around to make it work on adjustment layers as well as RAW ones. Baby steps I guess. 😊
I believe Adobe said their eventual goal is to have Denoise AI be much more flexible
My luck. Adobe adds Denoise less than a month after I bought Topaz. Bought the full package so will still be using Sharpen AI and Gigapixel.
Thanks for the great comparison. This is very helpful stuff!
I'm with you on de-noising at the end; that's what I do with Topaz. I wasn't aware you really have to do it in the beginning for Lightroom. I'll have to play around with the new LR to see what works best for me.
There's something wrong with PrimeXD and nightscape images. When I did my video, I had to use normal Prime because of those "spider-webs". Glad to see our opinions align overall though
Yeah those lines spiderwebs are a deal breaker for night images.. but I didn't test with the normal prime thinking that XD would always be a better result... but to be honest this was my first go around with DXO
Not just with nightscapes. Try it on portraits too and you'd see these weird artifacts all over the person's face.
Yup, seen that too with the PrimeXD setting on highlights in my concert images. DeepPrime is still amazing for high ISO images though.
Are you referring to the circular banding sometimes seen in high iso images in Lightroom? If you turn off lens corrections (vignetting and distortion), it gets rid of it.
@@NickPage Yeah DxO was my go-to after some testing last year for consistency/quality. I'm actually surprised they launched PrimeXD with the results for nightscape images.
Topaz De is the beast. No comparison for flexibility AND adaptation to different images. The adaptation is key. There are times when different files take different noise models and tweaks.
Thank you Nick very nice comparison and useful.
The best video I have seen on LR Denoise. I have been having problems with LR running on my computer for a year or so, don't know what is wrong. LR Denoise won't run on my system at this time. I have found Topaz Photo AI works best with a TIFF instead of a RAW file but as you mention, Denoise can be better. Someday I hope to have a new computer so LR works better for me.
Great video I bought my topaz d noise just few days before adobe introduced d noise in LR. ❤
To my taste and personnal try-n-error I really think that Adobe had made a really good job here !
Thanks for this video Nick, always so informative. Is it just me or did it look like each plugin handled color differently in side-by-side mode?
Nice one Nick. Really appreciate you doing that comparison.
1: I didn’t know there was an update in Lightroom 🤪
2: you just saved me downloading the other two programs 😄👌
I am well and hope you are also mate 🍺
Really great! Can you do a sharpening comparison next pls 😁😁😁😘😘😘
I have been using DXO PhotoLab Elite for many years. I have never gotten a result that poor when using DXO. Photolab Elite is more adjustable than PureRaw. Regardless, DXO has essentially given my Panasonic G9 and Nikon D850 full Sensor upgrades - very happy!!
I have a funny feeling that in the near future, we will be able to remove noise on a Tiff file?
I agree about your first comment: all the noise is about denoise.... My *other* favorite feature is curves on selections!
Also - I noticed that when you opened up Photo AI it said you had 5 updates waiting - Topaz makes tremendous strides in a myriad of areas with each of its updates, which occur on a weekly basis, so it is possible that on that score too you were not being totally fair, though I KNOW you were trying your best to be, to Topaz's product.
And no, I don't work for them! LOL I just really like their programs and would hate to try to do without them!
Aside from these mentions, I liked your review, sincerity and the comparisons - except re Photo AI.
Interesting comparison.I f you want to apply the LR/CameraRAW noise reduction locally, you can always create a virtual copy in LR for the NR and blend the result with rest of you image. It's the same as trying to do it with the Camera RAW filter IMO.
Agreed, but if you want to make minor tweaks to either layer... you have to back out and go all the way back to lightroom. not ideal, but doable
How do you blend the results with the rest of the image? In lightroom?
@@MusicFedno in PS
@@jpmissdeNice do you have a tutorial maybe?
I took two identical photos inside of a very dark church. Both using an EOS R, f8, on a tripod. One image was at ISO 100 and the other at ISO 8000. The results were comparable when setting LR Denoise to 80 and adding equal amounts of sharpening to both. Using settings up to about 85 results in minimal loss of detail.
The larger the image, the better any AI noise reduction will work. This is because AI works by finding patterns across the entire photo. Patterns are easier to find with a larger sample. Any pattern that extends across the entire photo is most likely noise.
You do have a way to dial in the amount of noise reduction in PureRAW. Select a setting other than DeepPRIME XD.
LR Denoise does not appear to apply any sharpening. Therefore, comparing with DXO with lens softness or Topaz AI is not an apples to apples comparison.
All fair observations… I bought DXO just for this video and did not have as much time with it as the other plug-ins. I assumed that XD was the same only a higher quality but slower result, but I was wrong.
Great comparison, Nick! Have to assume Camera Raw will get the new tool soon.
Camera Raw and Lightroom got the feature added at the same time.
The denoise is the first step in your workflow, because if you do it at the last, the characteristics of the noise will change making more difficult to remove, I don't agree with you to make the denoising the last step where after retouching you will make the denoise even worse.
I did some test with very noisy images (astro shot from Nikon Z7) and ISO 6400 from Canon M6mkII with Camera RAW (in Lightroom and PS) vs DXO Pureraw 3.1, if you use Pureraw XD in heavy noisy images, the result is not better, but much better compared with Camera RAW at 70 in noise reduction doing pixel peeping at 300% with smudged details and noise remaining in Camera RAW. Regarding halos, I choose images with borders like yours and there was no halos with Pureraw.
The images I've got from DXO were much cleaner and with good amount of sharpen not creating artifacts or other issues in the images, maybe I was lucky with the images I tested, if you plan to print you will still apply much harder sharpen. I like DXO Pureraw but I don't like their Photolab where it does weird stuff with the RAW images, specially with the color.
About the speed with very noisy images, DXO XD 15sec and Camera RAW 18sec, with DXO non XD is even faster near to 12seconds. (RTX 3060ti)
Something very important you didn't mention is Camera RAW becomes really unstable after using denoising, the same issue found Blake from F64 but you didn't mention anything regarding it when PS or LT become unusable after the first denoising.
For now and in my experiencie DXO is the king of denoise with the downside that it should be more configurable, I'm not able to change a folder for example. I expected much better from a company like Adobe that released a very bugged stuff instead to release something more usable with at least some testing in their QA department that looks like non existent.
Great video Nick! Very informative
A very helpful video thanks Nick.
I was just about to say I thought you made a mistake by using Photo AI, which is pretty good but, usually I find only "close but no cigar", which is why I rarely use it on anything that I consider critical that I want to be the best of the best I can produce.
I was going to suggest you do what you did, and use Topaz DeNoise which I find gives me much better fine-tuning control and better results.
In fact, I have also found, based on a suggestion from way back when by Dave Kelly that putting an image through Topaz Denoise AI can make a marked improvement in the quality of it - without introducing artifacts.
I follow the same - use the separate programs - almost always as stand-alone programs - not as plug ins - on any image - starting with Denoise, the Sharpen AI and finally, if I am going to upscale something seriously - then I would use Gigapixel.
Photo AI is a quick, one-stop shopping experience but not yet ready - in my opinion for Prime Time.
As someone had mentioned, Photo AI doesn't seem to always work as well as DeNoise does, and when applied to the RAW file itself, it seems both DeNoise and Photo AI are a bit too aggressive. Personally I've had better results after making my initial LR edits to open in Photoshop where I'll run either plugin.
That is typically how I use it as well.. on as stamped layer at the end of a workflow.. but in an effort to keep it apples to apples I stayed in lightroom applying it to the RAW file
Great video, I'm a relatively new user of both Topaz AI and DXO Mark, and have only tested Lightroom Denoise. I shoot a lot of sports and the clients wants lots of pictures , so the amount of pics often numbers between 2-300 . Obviously this is time consuming so I tried batch editing with topaz and found that it was not ideal both with regards to performance and output. Crashes often, limited amount of images in one batch. Also, as noted, the default settings are quite aggressive, even when dialing back the AI defaults. I have tried DXO Prime on a couple of shoots and found the results quite nice, certainly not as good as you can get by editing individually in Topaz, but it is way less prone to create artifacts, distort faces and reduce sharpness (Topaz default). It takes about an hour to go through 250 images. So to me I Topaz and DxO have different use cases. It's going to be interesting to see how Lightroom Denoise performs along this spectrum.
Nick, great video review of new Lightroom & Camera Raw noise reduction feature. You mention that you like to do noise reduction near the end of your post-processing and using PS for your other edits prior negates the ability to use this feature. I like to roundtrip back to LR after doing my PS work since I prefer the easier and comparable printing capabilities of LR. Couldn't you just use this denoise feature AFTER doing yr PS edits by roundtripping back to LR prior to say printing or other output?
I was surprised how good the new LrC denoise is, though I prefer the Topaz denoise AI app rather than their photo AI version, simply because of the range of control and adjustment.
this is the kinda video you should upload in 4k
Great comparison very helpful, thank you.👍
After 10 years Adobe still has not done much for Fuji users. That's their choice, but DXO Pure Raw 3 used with Fuji's 40 mp sensor makes it really hard to justify the size, weight and cost penalties of full frame. 🙂
I think it is a mistake to not remove noise first on the process. All the editing you do enhances all the noise. Making it harder to remove that in at the end of the process. I do agree that sharpening should be done last in the process. That is my biggest beef with DxO. I would love to decouple the sharpening from the de-noise.
I agree that "some" should be done in the beginning.. but I don't like the idea of aggressive anything being done at the beginning of the workflow unless it can easily be undone via a smart object layer.
I recall hearing in another review that Adobe plans to evolve the denoise function so one can apply it to more than just a raw image. That would imply that the issue you have with its place in your workflow may be resolved. One can hope anyway….
that is a surprising amount of time for denoising! Dang, make some coffee. The LR denoising looks great compared to DXO & Topaz. Great new feature!
I agree.. I think for landscape images... Lightroom looks best. I just wish it could be done to stamped layers and smart object layers
@@NickPage it can be just import the Enhanced NR file as a layer to the image you are working on. Mask where you want less noise.
@@GrainyByNature agreed a person would have to create a virtual copy and import it at the same time as the non-reduced image.
You know you can add in an enhanced NR file as a layer on the photoshop image you are working on. Then mask in the areas you want noise reduction. It could be turned on as a smart object also. That alone eliminates Topaz and DXO.
Great video Nick.
Thank your for your work. Well done!
Is there a difference to see beween the results of Topaz Sharpen AI / Denoise AI and Topaz Photo AI?
(Maybe I missed something in your video.)
Can't remember if I commented on this video or not, but in my findings it seems that DXO does a slightly better job overall. I mean Denoise AI is nice if you don't want to spend the money to buy an extra program or plug-in to do the job, and Adobe's denoising is pretty good, but I Felt that on some high-ISO images with a lot of details (textures) I lost some, whereas with DXO I retained a bit more, but DXO for example, costs $70 for the plug-in (PureRAW) or more if you buy Photolab and run it as a plug-in to LR. Topaz I haven't used for some time now. Ran into some issues in older versions where it wouldn't read RAW files correctly and not sure if this got resolved yet or not, but I have settled on DXO PureRAW (which is part of PHotolab basically). I did hear that their latest PR release (as of this writing, Version 3) is very good. But again, it's $70 you have to spend, versus "free" with Adobe. I will say that in my tests, for the texture retention between Adobe and DXO, most differences were visible only at 50% or higher (although if you were denoising a night sky with stars, it may be more obvious as some stars may go missing in some cases -- get removed by the denoising alogirthm).
Excellent review. Thank you.
I can't say for Topaz or DXO, but LRC NR does not recognize "smart previews". If you store your images off line on a hard drive, it must be connected to the computer for de-noise to work.