Thanks for commenting. The LightRoom DNG images were all sharpened to the same level as the original RAW files. Lightroom applies that sharpening automatically. As we all know the default values for sharpening upon import are 40, 1, 25 for Amount, Radius, Details respectively unless you have done something intentionally to alter those values. For the Bald Eagle, the sharpening was 50, 1, 25. I didn't make that clear in the video and I should have.
@@Luggruff See the pinned comment. The DNG's from LR denoise receive the same sharpening as the original RAW files, plus they are getting the RAW Details function from the Enhance function. So yes, they were sharpened.
I think why you don’t see the detail in the balled eagle picture in the Lightroom version is because LR does not apply any sharpening to the image during dnoise procedure while as third party applications a little bit of sharpening is applied to the image while d- noising.😊
In raw processing - actually done by Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) as plug-in - ACR loses loads of detail. With Denoise, ACR 15.3 now addresses that aspect, but not the detail one. Run your image through Topaz Gigapixel AI, upsample to (max) 32,000 pixels on the long image side, and be astonished. I use both and have no affiliations with either, nor do I benefit from them.
This was a very interesting video! Thank you! One part I kind of differed with your assessment is the sky in the second image. The mountain is clearly better in the DXO with detail to Lightroom in that image. However, the sky is blurred in Lightroom, and looks very messy to me in DXO. If I had to pick the sky, I would actually pick Lightroom, because it looks less messy. But for the mountain, I would pick DXO. Interesting. Very, very interesting.
Thanks, Keith. Really good comparison, exactly what I was looking for. I assume your screen resolution is very high, therefore it is a little difficult to see the fine details in the video. Perhaps just go to 200% instead of 100%, to make them more obvious? With the LR setting View -> Lock Zoom Position *ON* there won't be any "jump" when switching from one image to another. By the way: Beautiful images!
Hi Keith, when I got 12.3 I used images of a eurasion nuthatch taken in dark forest at ISO 3200. I only have DXO 2 to compare but looking at the feathering on the back the DXO processed image has a weird lumpy appearance on the back feathers and LrC AI denoise had more real looking feather detail. I will dig up a hawk picture and try the comparison again. Because of the convenience I started using LrC denoise with the pictures I brought back from Morocco. I will also try sharpening a little based on comments I read below. Thanks
The amount of artifacts created by DxO Pure Raw 3 has always been a concern for me. My tests of LR NR and sharpening before I run the NR is much better than DxO and without the artifacts.
This was one of the few videos I've watched on LR AI Denoise which I found useful and interesting. I've done my own comparisons with Topaz and DXO and concluded that Pureraw 3 was best for wildlife. One thing you didn't mention was the difference in file size between Pureraw and LR. LR produces much larger files! Pureraw does offer the option to change the amount of sharpening applied now and I find that the weakest version works well. For example, I took some images of a squirrel in our garden yesterday and Pureraw produced denoised and sharpened DNGs very quickly and with great results. Thanks for this Keith - I have just subscribed to your channel.
Thanks for your comment. Yes, the file sizes are pretty large, but I’ve never really worried about the physical size on disk. PureRaw creates a linear DNG which they describe on their website. I’m assuming, but don’t know for sure, that LR is producing a linear DNG as well.
Hi Keith. Thanks for the review. Nice to know the person doing a review. I've tried one image and felt the results were good, and the detail may actually have been a tad better in the NR image. Do you know, though, why the DNG file size is over 6x the size of the raw file? Miss your input on NPN.
Hi Allen: The DNG’s that come out of DXO PureRaw are linear DNG files. There is a description of that format on the DXO website. I’m assuming the DNG’s from LR are also linear DNG’s and that format is far larger on disk than RAW files from any of the camera companies. I don’t fully understand the details of how a linear DNG works. I’ve looked at file sizes from PureRaw and LR and consistently the LR DNG’s are larger. I’ve never been concerned about the physical file sizes, but it is interesting to see how large they can be. Thanks for the comment about NPN.
PureRaw sharpens as well as reduces noise, whereas LR only does NR. To compare properly you should increase the sharpening in the LR version to around 40-50.
I've aded a pinned comment to address this common question. Hope it helps. There is a common misconception that LR is not applying any sharpness. LR applies the same sharpness values as the original RAW file had applied to it.
I agree with your assessment about loss of detail in Lightroom compared to DXO after de-noise. I've watched several other comparisons claiming that Lightroom was better and thought, "Are you seeing the same images I'm seeing? Do you have a terrible monitor? Because my monitor clearly shows DXO as superior to Lightroom in detail after de-noise, even when Lightroom has more sharpening added after de-noise.
As many other photographers who tested this show, DXO adds automatic sharpening, which is what you are seeing. Add some sharpening to the Lightroom Denoise and you get an overall better image as demonstrated here: ruclips.net/video/6ayXiiaqttM/видео.html
You are not comparing apples to apples. Lightroom only is doing Denoise. DXO PureRAW 3 is sharpening as well. Also, you must go to 100% on the slider with Lightroom Denoise, most likely to compare to the Deep Prime. You really need time with software to truly compare. I get the feeling this was done quickly or you would know about the sharpening difference.
Thanks for your comment. Always fun to read comments that disagree with an assessment. I am fully aware of the functions of DXO and the fact that it adds sharpness. I have compared adding sharpness and for me DXO still does a better job. As to the 100% value for the slider in LR... There is an example in the video showing that and it produces a result that is unacceptable (night image) and removes a lot of stars... Can't recover those this sharpening :-). Looking forward to seeing your video on the topic. PS. The eagle image from LR Denoise had sharpening applied at an amount of 50, Radius 1, Detail 25.
Pure Raw adds strange artifacts to star images. You can see them even in your video. Streaks and patchiness. Most AI noise reduction programs don’t know how to handle starfields. Pure Raw is adding details that aren’t real. I’ve found it unusable for astro images. It is also over sharpening to give the impression of more detail.
@@stanleyleary - Yes, I should have mentioned the sharpening values early in the video. My mistake. LR applies sharpening by default at values of 40, 1, 25 so those are carried forward unless you change the original RAW file before processing in LR Denoise. DXO sets the sharpening and NR values in LR to zero for the DNG that comes from it. I've already covered that in prior videos. The whole point of AI based software is to intelligently apply various amounts of NR and sharpening via the machine learning algorithms used to teach the software. As I noted in the video, each person gets to make the choice for their software and workflow. I simply shared my results and stand by them. I've already watched Julieanne's video so no need to assume I haven't. Still looking forward to your video on the topic.
It doesn't matter that LR doesn't do sharpening. What matters is how the output looks. It's not like you could add sharpness with another ai tool in LR, it doesn't have it, and the non-ai sharpening can't compare.
Thanks for this great hands-on analysis, Keith. Much appreciated! I was on the verge either to purchase Topaz Denoise or DxO Pure Raw. But as I mostly shoot lowlight and no delicate plumage as in your case (congrats for the great pic) I will call it a day and stay with LR AI Denoise. Kind regards from Switzerland, Peter
I've found that DXO PhotoLab is better then DXO PureRaw. With DXO PhotoLab it has the luminance slider. And I've pushed the lumunance slider to 55 some people will push it to 50 to remove a little more noise. I do weddings and there is a little noise still in the bokeh and I pushed it to 55 and the images are still sharp its just the noise in the bokeh gets removed.
Yes my experimenting with the new D noise in Lightroom is it just does not apply sharpening, DxO actually does apply sharpening and sometimes, if not much of the time too much, that's my only gripe with DxO
Keith, I just thought of something else. DXO 2 returns the full size picture even though I used it on cropped images and of course you have to redo the star rating as well as key words and then you have to crop the picture again. I find this process rather onerous and time consuming. Your night shots look really nice by the way.
My experience is that each program has its pros and cons and one single program doesn't work with all images. In some of my tests, DXO was better, in others LR did a better job (in some DXO simply reduced noise so much that detail was pretty much lost, whereas with Adobe it was able to retain it -- in that particular test of the same image, I had to decrease DXO quite a bit, and left Adobe at its default 50%. While in that test, it did help DXO a bit, I felt that Adobe did a slightly better job). In another image, DXO was slightly better, as Adobe created what I would call "plastic" looking bricks when I wanted some detail in the bricks, but DXO was able to denoise this fine , although I did lose some detail in other areas). So think of plugins and apps like "paintbrushes" to a painter. There isn't one single paint brush that does everything, and they likely will use different brushes for different pieces or different parts of a single piece. The advantage LR's DeNoise has is it's already included, and for being "free" so to speak, not too bad. Denoising in general is sometimes a tricky tasks because you have to slightly blur the image to get rid of the noise (or reduce it) but then try to retain as much detail as possible. I would say for on-screen use, at viewing distances (not 50% or 100%) the differences are probably not all that much, and if you asked someone which was denoised by which, they might not be able to tell (other than some denoising may have occured). Second, unless you routinely go around showing people your before and after shots, people may not know if a few stars are missing (you will, but the end user/viewer may not).
DXO adds way too many artifacts in the night time shots in between stars IMO. I'd rather have a bit of grain and sharpening added to the LR result at 50%. To each their own.
DXO is the best noise reduction hands down. But they don't support built in lens profiles and I don't like that. Sometimes I second shoot weddings and I change my Olympus cameras from 4:3 to 3:2 ratio. With DXO there is a little extra in the image and I don't like that. Sometimes internet is wacky and you can't download a lens profile. Sometimes you are shooting video and you want the same lens profile you used in video. Its fine that DXO has lens profiles but they should still support built in lens profiles.
A better way to compare DxO PureRaw 3 to Lightroom is to sharpen the Lightroom version to taste as DxO also applies sharpening in varying degrees to the picture whereas Lightroom is only denoising. What would be more interesting is to compare the DxO version to the developing versions of Topaz AI and then compare. Now all this is moot if you do not enlarge the image. The two unenlarged images will be hard to tell the differences as they are both very good.
Thanks for your comment. Note the pinned comment. There seems to be a common misconception that LR Denoise is only applying NR and no sharpening. The same sharpening settings that were in the original raw file are applied to the DNG out from LR DeNoise. The values for the bald eagle are listed in the pinned comment.
Hm. LR's effort at AI-powered noise reduction, announced amid considerable fanfare, could use some refinement, it would seem. Let's be fair, it's a start. Where DxO's DeepPrimeXD tends to overdo things a bit, creating unwanted artefacts in out-of-focus backgrounds, LR's allegedly AI-powered NR seems to obliterate way too much detail.
There does not seem to be much, if any, sharpening in the LR Denoise. I think they missed an opportunity to combine denoise and sharpening. Even if the Denoise did not by default include sharpening, they could have put a sharpening slider in the Enhance window.
DXO does a really good job, but the workflow is more complicated. LR has a really, really good new noise reduction, but because it's not included in the function, no sharpening. So you should decide individually which program you use or try out. What you didn't mention is, however, and this only with constellations and DXO in the highest level DeepPRIME XD, strange lines in the night sky. If you use the stage without XD the result is better. How is your experience? Grüße Udo
The biggest criticism of pureraw I see over and over again is that it (over) sharpens while processing noise reduction, and there's no control for the amount. So its understandable why Adobe has done things this way.
When I pushed the value beyond 50, then more and more softening of the image happened. The example I shared at a value of 100 wiped out nearly all of the detail. As noted in my examples and conclusion, my biggest concern was the loss of fine detail. I did work with various values and chose not to push it beyond 50 for the examples shared here. Certainly each image should be evaluated to come up with the optimal value.
Yes, all of the LR denoise images had sharpening applied. The values that were in the original RAW file are applied to the DNG created by LR Denoise. The fact that LR also uses Raw Details when you use Denoise (you can’t turn it off) also is designed to show more fine details and crisp edges according to Adobe. Sure, you can add more sharpening either globally or via targeted masked areas, but the point of AI is to have the software learn what should and should not be sharpened or should or should not be noise reduced.
Funny how other videos praise the LR version over topaz and pure raw. So many different adjustments/variables affect the results of the progress. Take these videos with a grain of salt.
I find this to be a flawed test. You never tested Lightroom at less than 50% and never manually adjusted the detail which DXO does automatically. Plus you never compared end results with the original so we could compare the detail . DXO will often oversharpen when compared to the original file.
Anything less than 50% simply provides less noise reduction. If you read the pinned comment, LightRoom applies the same sharpening to the Denoise DNG as the original RAW file had. It also applies RAW Details from the Enhance panel. I shared the sharpening settings for the eagle image. LR Denoise does not appear to do any AI based sharpening, which I’m guessing Adobe will address at some point in the future. Easy to sit back and say it’s a flawed test. I’ll look forward to seeing your detailed, flawless review.
Keith, sorry but this is a very unfair review as you are not comparing apples to apples. Dxo adds sharpening to the image, so why did you not compare with Lightroom after adding some sharpening to the Lightroom image as that would then be a fair comparison. Also maybe try Lightroom noise reduction at higher setting like 75. So please if your going to do a comparison, make it a fair and compare like-for-like
Thanks for your comment, but please read the pinned comment on this exact topic. LR adds sharpening by default after the Denoise processing using the same settings that were in the original RAW file. It also uses "Raw Details" from the Enhance panel. The eagle was sharpened to 50, 1 25. LR does not add any AI based sharpening and that is an issue Adobe will need to address, but it does apply sharpening. So we'll have to disagree on whether this was a fair comparison. I have no stake in DXO or any other software so if you're happy with LR Denoise, good for you.
@@wafflefreetech7062 As noted they don't apply any AI based sharpening, but all you have to do is process one image, then go to develop with the DNG and look at the detail section. It will have the same sharpening settings as the original RAW file.
Thanks for commenting. The LightRoom DNG images were all sharpened to the same level as the original RAW files. Lightroom applies that sharpening automatically. As we all know the default values for sharpening upon import are 40, 1, 25 for Amount, Radius, Details respectively unless you have done something intentionally to alter those values. For the Bald Eagle, the sharpening was 50, 1, 25. I didn't make that clear in the video and I should have.
Did you modify the masking of the sharpening in LR though?
@@Luggruff See the pinned comment. The DNG's from LR denoise receive the same sharpening as the original RAW files, plus they are getting the RAW Details function from the Enhance function. So yes, they were sharpened.
I think why you don’t see the detail in the balled eagle picture in the Lightroom version is because LR does not apply any sharpening to the image during dnoise procedure while as third party applications a little bit of sharpening is applied to the image while d- noising.😊
In raw processing - actually done by Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) as plug-in - ACR loses loads of detail. With Denoise, ACR 15.3 now addresses that aspect, but not the detail one. Run your image through Topaz Gigapixel AI, upsample to (max) 32,000 pixels on the long image side, and be astonished. I use both and have no affiliations with either, nor do I benefit from them.
Thank you sos very much for this fantastic review. It answered a lot of questions that I had concerning noise reduction with these two programs
This was a very interesting video! Thank you! One part I kind of differed with your assessment is the sky in the second image. The mountain is clearly better in the DXO with detail to Lightroom in that image. However, the sky is blurred in Lightroom, and looks very messy to me in DXO. If I had to pick the sky, I would actually pick Lightroom, because it looks less messy. But for the mountain, I would pick DXO. Interesting. Very, very interesting.
Thanks, Keith. Really good comparison, exactly what I was looking for. I assume your screen resolution is very high, therefore it is a little difficult to see the fine details in the video. Perhaps just go to 200% instead of 100%, to make them more obvious? With the LR setting View -> Lock Zoom Position *ON* there won't be any "jump" when switching from one image to another. By the way: Beautiful images!
Hi Keith, when I got 12.3 I used images of a eurasion nuthatch taken in dark forest at ISO 3200. I only have DXO 2 to compare but looking at the feathering on the back the DXO processed image has a weird lumpy appearance on the back feathers and LrC AI denoise had more real looking feather detail. I will dig up a hawk picture and try the comparison again. Because of the convenience I started using LrC denoise with the pictures I brought back from Morocco. I will also try sharpening a little based on comments I read below. Thanks
The amount of artifacts created by DxO Pure Raw 3 has always been a concern for me. My tests of LR NR and sharpening before I run the NR is much better than DxO and without the artifacts.
This was one of the few videos I've watched on LR AI Denoise which I found useful and interesting. I've done my own comparisons with Topaz and DXO and concluded that Pureraw 3 was best for wildlife. One thing you didn't mention was the difference in file size between Pureraw and LR. LR produces much larger files! Pureraw does offer the option to change the amount of sharpening applied now and I find that the weakest version works well. For example, I took some images of a squirrel in our garden yesterday and Pureraw produced denoised and sharpened DNGs very quickly and with great results. Thanks for this Keith - I have just subscribed to your channel.
Thanks for your comment. Yes, the file sizes are pretty large, but I’ve never really worried about the physical size on disk. PureRaw creates a linear DNG which they describe on their website. I’m assuming, but don’t know for sure, that LR is producing a linear DNG as well.
Hi Keith. Thanks for the review. Nice to know the person doing a review. I've tried one image and felt the results were good, and the detail may actually have been a tad better in the NR image. Do you know, though, why the DNG file size is over 6x the size of the raw file? Miss your input on NPN.
Hi Allen: The DNG’s that come out of DXO PureRaw are linear DNG files. There is a description of that format on the DXO website. I’m assuming the DNG’s from LR are also linear DNG’s and that format is far larger on disk than RAW files from any of the camera companies. I don’t fully understand the details of how a linear DNG works. I’ve looked at file sizes from PureRaw and LR and consistently the LR DNG’s are larger. I’ve never been concerned about the physical file sizes, but it is interesting to see how large they can be. Thanks for the comment about NPN.
@@NatPhoto56 xxxxxx
PureRaw sharpens as well as reduces noise, whereas LR only does NR. To compare properly you should increase the sharpening in the LR version to around 40-50.
I've aded a pinned comment to address this common question. Hope it helps. There is a common misconception that LR is not applying any sharpness. LR applies the same sharpness values as the original RAW file had applied to it.
I agree with your assessment about loss of detail in Lightroom compared to DXO after de-noise. I've watched several other comparisons claiming that Lightroom was better and thought, "Are you seeing the same images I'm seeing? Do you have a terrible monitor? Because my monitor clearly shows DXO as superior to Lightroom in detail after de-noise, even when Lightroom has more sharpening added after de-noise.
As many other photographers who tested this show, DXO adds automatic sharpening, which is what you are seeing. Add some sharpening to the Lightroom Denoise and you get an overall better image as demonstrated here: ruclips.net/video/6ayXiiaqttM/видео.html
You are not comparing apples to apples. Lightroom only is doing Denoise. DXO PureRAW 3 is sharpening as well. Also, you must go to 100% on the slider with Lightroom Denoise, most likely to compare to the Deep Prime. You really need time with software to truly compare. I get the feeling this was done quickly or you would know about the sharpening difference.
Thanks for your comment. Always fun to read comments that disagree with an assessment. I am fully aware of the functions of DXO and the fact that it adds sharpness. I have compared adding sharpness and for me DXO still does a better job. As to the 100% value for the slider in LR... There is an example in the video showing that and it produces a result that is unacceptable (night image) and removes a lot of stars... Can't recover those this sharpening :-). Looking forward to seeing your video on the topic. PS. The eagle image from LR Denoise had sharpening applied at an amount of 50, Radius 1, Detail 25.
Pure Raw adds strange artifacts to star images. You can see them even in your video. Streaks and patchiness. Most AI noise reduction programs don’t know how to handle starfields. Pure Raw is adding details that aren’t real. I’ve found it unusable for astro images. It is also over sharpening to give the impression of more detail.
@@stanleyleary - Yes, I should have mentioned the sharpening values early in the video. My mistake. LR applies sharpening by default at values of 40, 1, 25 so those are carried forward unless you change the original RAW file before processing in LR Denoise. DXO sets the sharpening and NR values in LR to zero for the DNG that comes from it. I've already covered that in prior videos. The whole point of AI based software is to intelligently apply various amounts of NR and sharpening via the machine learning algorithms used to teach the software. As I noted in the video, each person gets to make the choice for their software and workflow. I simply shared my results and stand by them. I've already watched Julieanne's video so no need to assume I haven't. Still looking forward to your video on the topic.
It doesn't matter that LR doesn't do sharpening. What matters is how the output looks. It's not like you could add sharpness with another ai tool in LR, it doesn't have it, and the non-ai sharpening can't compare.
Thanks for this great hands-on analysis, Keith. Much appreciated! I was on the verge either to purchase Topaz Denoise or DxO Pure Raw. But as I mostly shoot lowlight and no delicate plumage as in your case (congrats for the great pic) I will call it a day and stay with LR AI Denoise. Kind regards from Switzerland, Peter
I've found that DXO PhotoLab is better then DXO PureRaw. With DXO PhotoLab it has the luminance slider. And I've pushed the lumunance slider to 55 some people will push it to 50 to remove a little more noise. I do weddings and there is a little noise still in the bokeh and I pushed it to 55 and the images are still sharp its just the noise in the bokeh gets removed.
Yes my experimenting with the new D noise in Lightroom is it just does not apply sharpening, DxO actually does apply sharpening and sometimes, if not much of the time too much, that's my only gripe with DxO
Keith, I just thought of something else. DXO 2 returns the full size picture even though I used it on cropped images and of course you have to redo the star rating as well as key words and then you have to crop the picture again. I find this process rather onerous and time consuming. Your night shots look really nice by the way.
This video that I published shows how to resolve that problem very easily. ruclips.net/video/yt_-lPysYWM/видео.html
@@NatPhoto56 Thanks Keith, I watched it and it will help a lot.
Well done
My experience is that each program has its pros and cons and one single program doesn't work with all images. In some of my tests, DXO was better, in others LR did a better job (in some DXO simply reduced noise so much that detail was pretty much lost, whereas with Adobe it was able to retain it -- in that particular test of the same image, I had to decrease DXO quite a bit, and left Adobe at its default 50%. While in that test, it did help DXO a bit, I felt that Adobe did a slightly better job). In another image, DXO was slightly better, as Adobe created what I would call "plastic" looking bricks when I wanted some detail in the bricks, but DXO was able to denoise this fine , although I did lose some detail in other areas). So think of plugins and apps like "paintbrushes" to a painter. There isn't one single paint brush that does everything, and they likely will use different brushes for different pieces or different parts of a single piece. The advantage LR's DeNoise has is it's already included, and for being "free" so to speak, not too bad. Denoising in general is sometimes a tricky tasks because you have to slightly blur the image to get rid of the noise (or reduce it) but then try to retain as much detail as possible. I would say for on-screen use, at viewing distances (not 50% or 100%) the differences are probably not all that much, and if you asked someone which was denoised by which, they might not be able to tell (other than some denoising may have occured). Second, unless you routinely go around showing people your before and after shots, people may not know if a few stars are missing (you will, but the end user/viewer may not).
How do the files compare when printed out a say 1 meter on the long edge and viewed from 1 metre?
I don't know the answer as I've not printed any files that used the latest LR Denoise
it's obvious that DXO is adding a lot of sharpening, you can see in the mountain picture how it adds a lot of artifacts.
DXO adds way too many artifacts in the night time shots in between stars IMO. I'd rather have a bit of grain and sharpening added to the LR result at 50%. To each their own.
DXO is the best noise reduction hands down. But they don't support built in lens profiles and I don't like that. Sometimes I second shoot weddings and I change my Olympus cameras from 4:3 to 3:2 ratio. With DXO there is a little extra in the image and I don't like that. Sometimes internet is wacky and you can't download a lens profile. Sometimes you are shooting video and you want the same lens profile you used in video.
Its fine that DXO has lens profiles but they should still support built in lens profiles.
If course it has less detail. Pureraw adds more. You can do the same in lightroom
A better way to compare DxO PureRaw 3 to Lightroom is to sharpen the Lightroom version to taste as DxO also applies sharpening in varying degrees to the picture whereas Lightroom is only denoising. What would be more interesting is to compare the DxO version to the developing versions of Topaz AI and then compare. Now all this is moot if you do not enlarge the image. The two unenlarged images will be hard to tell the differences as they are both very good.
Thanks for your comment. Note the pinned comment. There seems to be a common misconception that LR Denoise is only applying NR and no sharpening. The same sharpening settings that were in the original raw file are applied to the DNG out from LR DeNoise. The values for the bald eagle are listed in the pinned comment.
Hm. LR's effort at AI-powered noise reduction, announced amid considerable fanfare, could use some refinement, it would seem. Let's be fair, it's a start. Where DxO's DeepPrimeXD tends to overdo things a bit, creating unwanted artefacts in out-of-focus backgrounds, LR's allegedly AI-powered NR seems to obliterate way too much detail.
There does not seem to be much, if any, sharpening in the LR Denoise. I think they missed an opportunity to combine denoise and sharpening. Even if the Denoise did not by default include sharpening, they could have put a sharpening slider in the Enhance window.
Will this be added to Lightroom mobile
It is already there at the same time as the release for LightRoom Classic.
DXO does a really good job, but the workflow is more complicated. LR has a really, really good new noise reduction, but because it's not included in the function, no sharpening. So you should decide individually which program you use or try out. What you didn't mention is, however, and this only with constellations and DXO in the highest level DeepPRIME XD, strange lines in the night sky. If you use the stage without XD the result is better. How is your experience? Grüße Udo
The biggest criticism of pureraw I see over and over again is that it (over) sharpens while processing noise reduction, and there's no control for the amount. So its understandable why Adobe has done things this way.
I disable pure raw sharpening because I never liked it. The results are remarkable and now freely shoot birds at 6400 when needed.
Why don’t you do more than 50% in Lightroom.
When I pushed the value beyond 50, then more and more softening of the image happened. The example I shared at a value of 100 wiped out nearly all of the detail. As noted in my examples and conclusion, my biggest concern was the loss of fine detail. I did work with various values and chose not to push it beyond 50 for the examples shared here. Certainly each image should be evaluated to come up with the optimal value.
@@NatPhoto56 did you try sharpening with the de noise?
Yes, all of the LR denoise images had sharpening applied. The values that were in the original RAW file are applied to the DNG created by LR Denoise. The fact that LR also uses Raw Details when you use Denoise (you can’t turn it off) also is designed to show more fine details and crisp edges according to Adobe. Sure, you can add more sharpening either globally or via targeted masked areas, but the point of AI is to have the software learn what should and should not be sharpened or should or should not be noise reduced.
Funny how other videos praise the LR version over topaz and pure raw.
So many different adjustments/variables affect the results of the progress.
Take these videos with a grain of salt.
Thanks for this deep dive. I agree that DXO is better, but probably better than I can see 75% of the time.
I find this to be a flawed test. You never tested Lightroom at less than 50% and never manually adjusted the detail which DXO does automatically. Plus you never compared end results with the original so we could compare the detail . DXO will often oversharpen when compared to the original file.
Anything less than 50% simply provides less noise reduction. If you read the pinned comment, LightRoom applies the same sharpening to the Denoise DNG as the original RAW file had. It also applies RAW Details from the Enhance panel. I shared the sharpening settings for the eagle image. LR Denoise does not appear to do any AI based sharpening, which I’m guessing Adobe will address at some point in the future. Easy to sit back and say it’s a flawed test. I’ll look forward to seeing your detailed, flawless review.
Wow that mean pure raw is better
Keith, sorry but this is a very unfair review as you are not comparing apples to apples. Dxo adds sharpening to the image, so why did you not compare with Lightroom after adding some sharpening to the Lightroom image as that would then be a fair comparison. Also maybe try Lightroom noise reduction at higher setting like 75. So please if your going to do a comparison, make it a fair and compare like-for-like
Thanks for your comment, but please read the pinned comment on this exact topic. LR adds sharpening by default after the Denoise processing using the same settings that were in the original RAW file. It also uses "Raw Details" from the Enhance panel. The eagle was sharpened to 50, 1 25. LR does not add any AI based sharpening and that is an issue Adobe will need to address, but it does apply sharpening. So we'll have to disagree on whether this was a fair comparison. I have no stake in DXO or any other software so if you're happy with LR Denoise, good for you.
@@NatPhoto56 by default I do not believe adobe adds any sharpening at all, so we will definitely have to agree to disagree on this one.
@@wafflefreetech7062 As noted they don't apply any AI based sharpening, but all you have to do is process one image, then go to develop with the DNG and look at the detail section. It will have the same sharpening settings as the original RAW file.
Dxo is better