Comparing Noise Reduction for images (Raw)

[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)