Lightroom latest update. New DeNoise AI

[KEN_A]

Has anyone else tried the new DeNoise AI in LR yet? I've had a quick try and it seems to do quite a good job. Dosn't have the adjustments as in Topaz, ON1 or DXO but does a much better job than normal noise reduction in LR. Only works on RAW images though and saves results as a new DNG image. There are also some enhancements in masking which I've not tried.

 

[GaryM]

I've tried it a couple of times in the past few days. It does do a reasonably good job. I've always just sharpened the object a bit and then inverted the image and then done Field Blur to take out all of the noise in the background without taking details off the object. Denoise still seems to lose some detail in the main object. So I am on the fence, which is really common for me on any new changes in lightroom and photoshop. I have no other noise programs so it probably has potential for me when I actually learn how to use it properly.

 

[Bucolic Old Sir Henry]

Discussion and examples in this thread. I like it!

 

[Only RF]

Aside from the link to that thread I've watched several videos about it. The beauty of this the simplicity. No high, low light, normal, etc choices and then adjusting the slider. ISO 400 or 12,800 you just adjust to taste. No need for masks because it does such a good job across the board. Adobe may add masks one day but at this point I really don't see the need.

Also it does not sharpen or anything else like the 3rd party apps do. You do that back in LrC and I have noticed you can push Texture, Sharpening and Detail much further so you now can really get the most out of those.

Simple is good.

 

[PhotoJim58]

Has anyone else tried the new DeNoise AI in LR yet? I've had a quick try and it seems to do quite a good job. Dosn't have the adjustments as in Topaz, ON1 or DXO but does a much better job than normal noise reduction in LR. Only works on RAW images though and saves results as a new DNG image. There are also some enhancements in masking which I've not tried.

I also did a quick try with good results.

 

[AKVet]

I was getting ready to purchase either Topaz or DXO when LR released this update. I also had good results. So, for now, I think I will hold off on Topaz or DXO.

 

[Only RF]

I was getting ready to purchase either Topaz or DXO when LR released this update. I also had good results. So, for now, I think I will hold off on Topaz or DXO.

DXO no longer exists on my OS and a few of the Topaz apps mysteriously disappeared as well. I only really need AI Sharpen now for de-bluring which I don't use often. Should we start bugging Adobe for Sharpen AI or give them a break for a while? I vote we give them a break.

 

[Only RF]

Just had a thought. To save some money now Nikon can go back to CCD sensors

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I'd just started using DxO Pure Raw 3 and think it's easily the best of the bunch. That said, I was able to achieve something very close with Lr. I'd love to do some more testing on some more severe noise examples but only have 2 days left on my Pure Raw trial and may not get to it. That said, here's what I'm seeing from both...

DxO Pure Raw 3: (invoked within Lightroom)
Pros:

• Great noise reduction without a lot of artifacts
• Great sharpening/detail enhancement only on the things I want enhanced
• Lightning fast on my MacBook M2

Cons

• Outside of picking the model there's no parameters you can set to boost/reduce effect
• It does not allow you to create the DNG file in the same directory as the Raw file by default (you can specify the same folder but you'd need to do that for every file you work on with every import)
• It does not recognize and apply the camera profile, it defaults to Adobe Color (which I hate)
• It does not recognize any crop you may have done on the original Raw file so you have to reapply if you've done this first
• You cannot turn off the option to create a new Collection in Lr for the new DNG files so if you don't want them you have to clean them up manually

Lightroom Noise Reduction AI:

Pros:

• Parameters allow (require) you to determine level of noise reduction (this is also a con if you are in a hurry and want to do a batch of photos all with different needs/settings)
• Creates the DNG file in the same directory with the option to stack it with the Raw file.
• It retains the camera profile from the Raw file
• It retains the crop from the Raw file

Cons:

• Takes twice as long to apply vs. PR3
• The "Enhance" option does very little to sharpen the photo (I expect this will change in the future)
• All sharpening is manual using the older sliders. With this I can get close, but you have to balance (go back and forth between) the following to match DxO:
  • Sharpening is applied universally with only limitation via the masking slider
  • You can get around this using the subject masking tool but it does not allow you to mask

I guess what I'm saying is that both do a good job, but can require more work because of what they don't do, or don't do yet. For me, DxO's shortcomings are far less time consuming to overcome than Lightroom's, but those come at a price. So the choice for me would be dependent on how much time I want to devote to post, and with DxO I have more time to actually work the image, and I shoot a lot of images. But if time isn't a factor for you, I'm thinking you can get away with just using Lightroom knowing that the cons may go away once they add a sharpen AI module.

 

[Only RF]

Nice write up. I've also never liked how DXO creates the subfolder and creates its own collections. I spent a few hours deleting all of it from the last several years. I'm happy with how LrC places it with the original. I don't use stack but in the preferences/settings I have it set to stack with the original. I prefer side by side.

DXO works differently as it opens as a RAW so it does not recognize LrC adjustments. On that note we have been chatting about this. They are saying to not make any adjustments before sending it to Denoise. I created a preset to take everything to zero before using it. A few times I forgot and thought it didn't make much difference. As long as you avoid multiple edits and masking. However I watched a video last night that showed it does make a difference. If you leave sharpening at the default of 40 and there is noise, it is sharpened. That winds up going to Denoise. The presenter showed the difference. So I will be following my new workflow. Apply Pre ADN (Adobe DeNoise) preset and once back in LrC use my Post ADN preset that puts everything back to my preferred settings which is more that just sharpening. I can't see cropping or selecting a colour profile ahead of time being an issue.

Some conversions about the lack of sharpening in Adobe Denoise. After several days of messing around I prefer that there is no sharpening. I hope Adobe leaves it that way. One simple slider that only does one job, removes noise. As I've stated before back in LrC I can push Texture, Sharpening and Detail much further than could before. I can tweak as many times as I like. If sharpening is done in Denoise you are committed to your choices. Also I used to try and get rid of artefacts, now I'm trying go to find them.

Maybe Adobe will add Sharpen AI some day included in the Denoise module. Not sure if you would be able to use it in combination. I'd only need it as a de-blurring tool.

Currently Denoise is not the fastest one out there. 45 seconds on my system but PureRaw 3 using XD took that long too. PureRaw 2 was about 24 seconds.

 

[Only RF]

A test. One file opened in Denoise at default sharpening of 40 and another without. Slider on 1 which got rid of colour noise. Opinions?

 

[kopper]

I'd just started using DxO Pure Raw 3 and think it's easily the best of the bunch. That said, I was able to achieve something very close with Lr. I'd love to do some more testing on some more severe noise examples but only have 2 days left on my Pure Raw trial and may not get to it. That said, here's what I'm seeing from both...

DxO Pure Raw 3: (invoked within Lightroom)
Pros:

• Great noise reduction without a lot of artifacts
• Great sharpening/detail enhancement only on the things I want enhanced
• Lightning fast on my MacBook M2

Cons

• Outside of picking the model there's no parameters you can set to boost/reduce effect
• It does not allow you to create the DNG file in the same directory as the Raw file by default (you can specify the same folder but you'd need to do that for every file you work on with every import)
• It does not recognize and apply the camera profile, it defaults to Adobe Color (which I hate)
• It does not recognize any crop you may have done on the original Raw file so you have to reapply if you've done this first
• You cannot turn off the option to create a new Collection in Lr for the new DNG files so if you don't want them you have to clean them up manually

Lightroom Noise Reduction AI:

Pros:

• Parameters allow (require) you to determine level of noise reduction (this is also a con if you are in a hurry and want to do a batch of photos all with different needs/settings)
• Creates the DNG file in the same directory with the option to stack it with the Raw file.
• It retains the camera profile from the Raw file
• It retains the crop from the Raw file

Cons:

• Takes twice as long to apply vs. PR3
• The "Enhance" option does very little to sharpen the photo (I expect this will change in the future)
• All sharpening is manual using the older sliders. With this I can get close, but you have to balance (go back and forth between) the following to match DxO:
  • Sharpening is applied universally with only limitation via the masking slider
  • You can get around this using the subject masking tool but it does not allow you to mask

I guess what I'm saying is that both do a good job, but can require more work because of what they don't do, or don't do yet. For me, DxO's shortcomings are far less time consuming to overcome than Lightroom's, but those come at a price. So the choice for me would be dependent on how much time I want to devote to post, and with DxO I have more time to actually work the image, and I shoot a lot of images. But if time isn't a factor for you, I'm thinking you can get away with just using Lightroom knowing that the cons may go away once they add a sharpen AI module.

Lightroom Denoise creates a DNG file that is more than three times the size of the original RAW file. I've found it does a very decent job with the noise, but IMO the huge size of the output files out-weigh it's usefulness.
I agree with you about Pure Raw 3. I also use Topaz Sharpen AI, but its noise reduction isn't nearly as effective after ISO 1000 (Canon R5) and it tends to create artifacts so you have to double and triple check everything.
IF Adobe can do something about their Denoise output file sizes, I would use it more.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Lightroom Denoise creates a DNG file that is more than three times the size of the original RAW file. I've found it does a very decent job with the noise, but IMO the huge size of the output files out-weigh it's usefulness.

I haven't looked in the settings, but I'm guessing it embeds the entire Raw file in the DNG. There should be an option to embed the entire Raw file or not, just as there is in the normal DNG conversion. Might be in the Lr preferences. Haven't had time to check.

 

[kopper]

I haven't looked in the settings, but I'm guessing it embeds the entire Raw file in the DNG. There should be an option to embed the entire Raw file or not, just as there is in the normal DNG conversion. Might be in the Lr preferences. Haven't had time to check.

Thnx! I was suspecting that too, however there are no options for Denoise in the LR settings/preferences that I can find.
Also read the Adobe help page (from the Denoise window) and it doesn't mention anything about other settings that would affect output file size.
If you find anything, please advise!

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Thnx! I was suspecting that too, however there are no options for Denoise in the LR settings/preferences that I can find.
Also read the Adobe help page (from the Denoise window) and it doesn't mention anything about other settings that would affect output file size.
If you find anything, please advise!

Yeah, I've tried changing the DNG creation in the file handling so that it doesn't embed the Raw file but that only seems to make a difference when the DNG is created on import.