Comparing Noise Reduction for images (Raw)

[Hali]

I went to a macro-abstract (or was that an abstract-macro) workshop with my camera club today. The weather was poor and they were cutting the grass outside so we had to do everything inside and the light was pretty poor. Since I was shooting at high ISO I thought this was a good time to compare the big denoise contenders.
Methodology: The original Raw file was from a Canon R5 imported into LR with a Neutral Adobe Preset, Lens corrections applied, sharpening set to default. The ISO was 12800 1/250 sec f/5.0 (I was hand holding and even with the wonderful stability of the camera and the lens my left hand tremor requires some pretty good shutter speed to get crisp images.) I went to 100% in Lightroom and then ran the same image through 1. LR AI Denoise (new release) 2. DxO Pure Raw 3 3. Topaz Denoise - Raw 4. Topaz Denoise - Low light. 5. Nik Dfine 2. Here are the 5 with the originalplus the original

I think that DxO did the best job, although there is a slight color shift. The new LR/Camera Raw AI denoise was second best followed by Topaz Denoise for low light and finally Topaz Denoise Raw and the the Nik Define
. What are your thoughts?

 

[JustUs7]

I’ve downloaded a couple trial versions of the ones people swear by. I think I prefer a little noise and a more natural look. Whatever Canon does by default is fine by me. And now with the R6II I’ve got no complaints.

Topaz did this thing where it would remove all built in noise reduction before it applies their noise reduction. I was really impressed by the difference between the imported file and the denoise result. Then I went back the original file in DPP4 and noticed there really wasn’t much of a difference.

Heavy handed noise reduction still looks smeary to me. In images like the samples above. Smearing doesn’t matter because the colors are all blocks anyway. Throw in some hair or feathers and then judge.

 

[Tui]

I've only tried DXO Pure Raw and the new Camera Raw Denoise (Enhanced).
This is the original Raw file

• Join to view EXIF data.

These 2 below are the Raw file with shadows lifted

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

These 2 are ACR Denoise - some strange colour happening

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

These 2 below are DXO Pure Raw

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

This finished using DXO Pure Raw, still noisy but I don't mind it

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[MikeZ]

Regarding the DxO results - I use PhotoLab 6.5 which includes Pure Raw 3.3. When processing raw files, DxO automatically applies lens and camera "corrections" which may cause the color shift. Further, there is a slider that enhances/increases the color space (or so DxO claim). I've not used PureRaw as a separate tool, so I don't know if any of those PL6.5 features are included and may be the source of the shift.

 

[Hali]

Regarding the DxO results - I use PhotoLab 6.5 which includes Pure Raw 3.3. When processing raw files, DxO automatically applies lens and camera "corrections" which may cause the color shift. Further, there is a slider that enhances/increases the color space (or so DxO claim). I've not used PureRaw as a separate tool, so I don't know if any of those PL6.5 features are included and may be the source of the shift.

I sometimes use PhotoLab 6.5 as well and the noise reduction in pure raw 3.3 has more options than the stand alone pure raw 3. I think they don't want to give away everything with the stand alone. I'm guessing we will see it in pure raw 4 when they have something to add to their photolab 7 software.

 

[Tui]

Regarding the DxO results - I use PhotoLab 6.5 which includes Pure Raw 3.3. When processing raw files, DxO automatically applies lens and camera "corrections" which may cause the color shift. Further, there is a slider that enhances/increases the color space (or so DxO claim). I've not used PureRaw as a separate tool, so I don't know if any of those PL6.5 features are included and may be the source of the shift.

In the examples above the colour shift was only in the Denoise feature of Camera Raw, the DXO Pure Raw did not affect the colour. I got the Pure Raw in 2021 and haven’t upgraded since then so it’s probably the basic one, it doesn’t have many options like 3.3

 

[Focus101]

For lower ISO, 6,400 to 10,000, ACR denoise enhance did a pretty good job for me. DXO pure Raw 2 is my go to Denoise anyways. I read the Adobe Blog - Denoise demystified.
"As a rule of thumb, we wanted to deliver clean, usable results for a 20 megapixel full-frame camera at ISO 51200. That’s a high bar!". If this was created and tested for 20MP files, what kind of results should we be expecting for R5 45MP? That is more than twice the MP.

 

[cdgta]

I just want to comment on DxO to point out that the result you will get depends on which level you use (ie Prime, Deep Prime, DeepPrimeXD). Many people seem to find that DeepPrimeXD works best on certain images while Prime or DeepPrime are preferred on others so you may want to run your own tests to compare these too.

 

[Only RF]

I have nothing to compare since I dumped all my 3rd party apps last week but I can show what I'm getting . I'm not too concerned if DXO or even Topaz are better products because Adobe Denoise is good enough for me. I've waited for many years for this and I know it is just going to get better. For the first release I'm pretty impressed.

ISO 40,000 from our trip to Japan. 1st file is the original. The 2nd file is after Denoise with the slider at the default of 50. I'm sure impressed with the detail on the door handles. 3rd file. The sky still had a little noise so I opened masking, masked it and reduced texture, sharpening and noise. 4th is the final.

 

[Only RF]

The doors might look a tad plasticky and since I can fix the sky I did another run with the Denoise slider at 35. This left a little noise which I'm OK with. It's all about personal preference. Maybe somewhere between 35 and 50. I know some you tube presenters liked about 43.

 

[Only RF]

DXO makes a fine product and Phil said the that Photo AI has basically caught. I agree. I got it from day one, downloaded all the updates and was going to decide this fall which direction to take. That plan is done with now. I'm not sure how much more pixel peeping is going to make that much difference for me. It may for others.

 

[cdgta]

DXO makes a fine product and Phil said the that Photo AI has basically caught. I agree. I got it from day one, downloaded all the updates and was going to decide this fall which direction to take. That plan is done with now. I'm not sure how much more pixel peeping is going to make that much difference for me. It may for others.

Unless one is working for clients, it is just about personal preference. No two people perceive images the same. As photographers we can get too focussed on 'pixel peeping' for sure. The reality is that one's friends and family are not spending time viewing images at 100% to see if they are 'perfect'...and if they are who cares? It is only yourself you need to please.

 

[Focus101]

I don't mind a little noise. In fact most of prints don't show the noise as much compare to the computer screen. In some ways, I think it adds a little character to the prints, especially when it is low light shots or heavy shadow areas.

 

[Only RF]

I don't mind a little noise. In fact most of prints don't show the noise as much compare to the computer screen. In some ways, I think it adds a little character to the prints, especially when it is low light shots or heavy shadow areas.

You should have some noise in prints to prevent posterization and some does not bother me for web viewing either. My only purpose for current PP is not for which company does a better job. It is to verify which on will do the job that is good enough for me. Not to mention the few hundred dollars I'll be saving every year.

 

[CrashPC_cz]

I have tried Topaz tools, Adobe, C1, DPP and DXO, and while I found that on certain occasions each system can do something best, I had to stay with Adobe LR as a best mix of all. Topaz failed me quite big time, and I do not find the outcomes as very good or usable, full of artifacts. DXO adds some false detail here and there, but can look better on first sight. The brushes and sliders tools are very uncomfortable to use. And so little medioker, but stilll good LR won me over. I still can get usable ISO 25600 image from my M6 II using LR, for 4k Vewing (up to 10x15). Also more effort could be made, more light could be brought, better gear could be used, to get further ahead, than nitpicking about minor SW difference.

Anyways, I did not manage to participate/see any friendly denoise challenge, where people posted their efforts of reference images, and sincerely concluded anything. The issue often is that the tester just doesn't have the knowledge or skill to handle the particular SW the best way, getting subpar outcome and then judging poor results. I have tired few times, in most polite ways, yet got zero fair comparisons to rely on.

Can we do that?

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I used Topaz DeNoise AI for a couple years and loved it. I tried installing a trial of PureRaw 2 on my old MacBook Pro and couldn't get it to work so I stayed happy. After upgrading in February I installed the latest PureRaw 3 trial and was blown away. I thought I'd be put off by not being able to move some sliders to set things the way I wanted, but when I saw the results I never felt the need to. Biggest drawback for me was that at the time I couldn't put the images in the same directory (since fixed), it would not carry over image rating metadata from Lightroom (since fixed), and it would not retain the applied camera profile and instead defaulted to (the horrible, over contrasty) Adobe Color (not fixed). But the results were worth the extra effort and I bought it.

So, of course, Adobe introduced theirs 2 weeks later. I did some comparisons and it's actually very good as a noise reduction tool and I like the ability to control how much. What it doesn't buy me is the AI sharpening I get with PR3 and Denoise AI. It also takes about twice as long for me to process a single raw file compared to PR3 (I'm on an M2 MacBook Pro). Yes, I can manually sharpen my subject and get almost the exact same results, but nhow we're talking several minutes to do what PR3 gives me in seconds. Is that worth the price of admission? Not for a couple images. But I shoot a lot of wildlife in sketchy light, so we're talking thousands of images a year. Even if it's only 3 minutes more per image that's 2 days a year sharpening when I don't have to. Well worth it.

My post-shoot workflow has become the following:

1. Import images and use Photo Mechanic to identify keepers and toss the rest (this is less necessary now with the faster MacBook, but for large shoots it save the generation of Lr previews).
2. Import what's left Folder in step 1 into Lightroom and build previews.
3. Flag images for processing.
4. Select flagged images and run through PureRaw 3
5. When finished, select all images (they are combined in a Collection), go into the Develop module, change the current image profile to Camera Standard (from Adobe Color), and then sync only that with all other images.
6. (Working now on individual images) Crop and perform basic light adjustment as needed and open in Photoshop
7. <Normal processing> Levels adjustment, flatten/merge up, Camera Raw Filter, dodge & burn as necessary, flatten/merge up, Topaz Denoise AI
8. Save, duplicate and resize image for export

For those who might as, why Camera Raw in Photoshop? It's because I can apply it in a layer in one or more passes and using layer masks to achieve a more precise result. It also allows me to process a sequence of similar images more precisely. I can open them all in Photoshop, get them looking the same after Levels adjustments, and then apply a set of Camera Raw edits to one of them. If I like it I can then go to each of the others and simply hit Shift-Cmd-F to apply the last filter and the exact same edit will be applied. Sure is faster then saving the edit before I leave Camera Raw and then opening each and finding the preset to reapply. I do a lot of bird in flight stuff and it can save me hours on a shoot.

Topaz Denoise AI at the end is as much for final sharpening as it is to remove any weirdness that may have been the result of the post-CR3 edits.

 

[Only RF]

I've watched quite a few videos on and there is a pretty common theme. Some like DXO or Topaz or ON1 better and others like Adobe. What they say is if you have other 3rd party apps you may as well keep them and use the one that works best for you. If you don't have 3rd party apps don't waste your money on them. Of course if someone requires faster speeds then you need to do what you need to do.

I know Adobe will make it faster so as an amateur I can wait it out. I had PureRaw 2, Topaz Photo AI, DeNoise and Gigapixel. All removed off my OS now except Topaz Sharpen AI which I don't use often. I was never a big on upscaling. I only got Giga to get a deal on Photo AI. For me it was like a big weight lifted off my shoulders. No more trying to decide what to use and this fall (next March for PureRaw) I won't be deciding which one to renew.

 

[Photofarmer]

i take mostly lightning photos

A mate up the road has LR DXO and DPP ran some pics through them to me i couldnt really see alot of difference. His comment for this specific type of photography DXO has significant edge but LR the all rounder. Could see differences when fully expanded only.

 

[Only RF]

i take mostly lightning photos

A mate up the road has LR DXO and DPP ran some pics through them to me i couldnt really see alot of difference. His comment for this specific type of photography DXO has significant edge but LR the all rounder. Could see differences when fully expanded only.

That is likely either DXO PL6 or PureRaw 3 which both offer DeepPrime "XD". XD is new and stands for extra detail.

DPP does a very good job until you push it. This is a ISO 16000 file with DPP at the default settings still shows noise and starts to get mushy. Going higher makes it worse. It's also all about exposure. If I had bumped it up a bit DPP would have less noise to deal with. It's not a bad exposure but that is what AI is all about these days.

 

[RedCobra]

I recently did some comparisons on the same photo with DxO PL6 (Deep Prime XD), Topaz PhotoAI, Topaz Denoise AI, and the LR Denoise AI.
Picture was of a furry Black and Red GSD. Close enough to see individual hairs. All shot with my OM-1 M43 which is nosier than my R5s. Shot at 12,500 ISO. Same .ORF RAW file for all programs. 150mm f/2.8, 1/2500.

DxO was the winner hands down. Less noise, greater detail in the fur, and definitely better color (used the OM-1 color profiles on DxO and LR.) Both Topaz items generated TIFFs, while both LR and DxO generated DNGs.

Reason for this was to see if I could get the same clean files with my OM-1 as with my R5 as I bought the OM-1 and 300mm f/4 (600mm FF equiv) for roughly a third the price of the RF 600 f/4 alone. ($4800 for the Oly kit vs $13000 for the RF)