I also have a comparison of DXO PureRAW3 & all 3 on my site. I also have all of the comparisons in high res that you can download. www.shainblumphoto.com/2023/07/09/noisereduction/
Great video. Minimum fluff, and excellent showing your process for comparison. I use Topaz Denoise AI, DxO PureRAW, and Lightroom Denoise. I often compare results and pick the one that works best and I find there is no obvious winner. It depends on the image. They all have their strengths and shortcomings. The only one that will work with Sony’s A7RV Uncompressed RAW M and Uncompressed RAW S formats is Topaz, by converting to TIFF from Lightroom. None of them support this RAW format directly. One of the things that I like about Topaz is the ability to mask areas. I often will create a solid mask and then mask out (75% 50%, 25% …) areas where I want less denoise processing. This is a good way to get rid of Denoise artifacts, and often provides best results for my landscape and wildlife images. I rarely use more than 30% with Adobe DeNoise because I find, in areas with low contrast and fine detail, the detail is just gone. The lack of control is Adobe’s downfall. Along the same lines, DxO PureRAW takes a lot of time because there is no preview and experimenting with versions of PureRAW, sharpening mode, and other RAW processing options requires full processing and export before comparing in Lightroom. Both PureRAW and Denoise AI change colors. PureRAW requires re-editing, if you’ve already edited your image in Lightroom. Copying edits from the original never work - masks don’t line up, colors are off, sharpening and contrast is too accentuated. I find DXO PureRAW increases luminance of bright areas more than Denoise AI, but I find more artifacts on high contrast edges with Denoise AI. I recently shot some birds and, in every case, Denoise AI was the winner, largely because of the masking adjustment. Adobe Denoise either did not do an adequate job denoising or mushed out the details too much (depending on the slider amount). Finally, don’t get me started with Topaz PhotoAI. While a noble undertaking, I find it will succeed in maybe 1 out of 50 cases. I might use it if I had the ability to mask, like Denoise AI, but the masks for Sharpening and Denoise are often the inverse of each other.
Great video. I've been using Topaz for a couple of years now and found it great, mainly for my wildlife shots, but I've certainly found that pushing it too far makes the image look plastic. I always shoot in raw but have found the Clear setting usually works best for me. I've tried the denoise in Lightroom but it takes forever, but this may just e because my laptop is a few years old now. After watching your video though, I'll certainly be trying it again.
DXO Pure Raw 3 Deep Prime XD is the ultimate tool to make photos awesome. I have images taken at 12000 ISO looking like ISO 200 after processing. However, it is heavy on the computer, heats up my very capable PC, takes a lot of time. So I generally use normal processing and after homing on to the best image, process that in XD mode. One image is the most I process at one time. Results are like nothing else. I don't know why but the image seems to shine. Love it
Super cool to see this :) I stopped using topaz a while ago as it was creating weird patches in my images. But the new Denoise in lightroom is so good 😱😱
Interesting comparisons. I have used both and seem to get different results with different photos. I have not yet been able to figure out whether one or the other works better with a given photo type.
Always good learning from you, Michael. While we don't have these programmes, we can see what needs adjusting to get good results on those we have. Lovely little doggie.
Another problem I have with Topaz that I don’t see often discussed is that when it sharpens an area (either with the sharpening app or post de-noise) that has a somewhat repetitive pattern (ie rocks on a cliff), it will often just turn that pattern into an exact repeating copy of the pattern ignoring subtle differences that are actually there in real life. This is super obvious to me even without “pixel peeping” because a lot of what makes natural landscapes look real (compare to AI or renderings) is that very similar patterns are actually slightly random if that makes sense. Cliff bands that initially appear to repeat in a pattern are actually slightly different from eachother in real life and your eyes see that as natural
Hi Michael. Great comparison video. I am surprised by the Lightroom results here. I noticed you were using Topaz Denoise and not Topaz Photo AI, I'dbe interested to see the results there. I mainly use for wildlife photography.
Also you have some incredible detail in the starts in that image, do you mind sharing what focal length u used and di you use a tracker for longer exposure?
I've never used Topaz so I can't speak to a comparison, but I've been using Lightroom Denoise a lot lately for shots of hummingbirds. I'm using a Nikon Z7ii at shutter speeds around 1/2000 to 1/2500/sec with a green tree leaf background which caused me to push the ISO up to 2000 or more, leading to a lot of noise. Lightroom Denoise has done an excellent job cleaning it all up. Good enough I haven't felt the need to try anything else. I also really like the fact that it's so easy to use. Just one button to click and that's it.
Nice to see the comparison. I have used Denoise many times and have been happy with it. Now the big question is how did you take a 30 sec exposure on the milky way without any start trails, Was it a tracker or a 12mm lens? Thanks
Back when Lightroom first added the denoise feature, I compared Topaz Denoise with DXO PureRaw with free trials. I have dozens of bird photography images on my HDD and processed the RAW files in both. DXO cleans up noise so much better than Topaz did. I was thinking of buying DXO just for noise removal, but Adobe updated LR to add a denoise feature the same week I was going to get DXO. Then I compared DXO with LR Denoise and it is on par with DXO, if not better. There must be something in Adobe's AI algorithm that is better at recovering detail. Unless another program comes out with a better solution, I'll stick with LR.
This only confirms what i've been thinking for a while... Lightroom's denoies kicks a**! and I'm one of the lucky ones where it takes around 9 seconds to process - I know a lot of people have grumbled about how slow it is. Your pup is very expressive.... 🤣🤣
I find it interesting that some image processing variations through the denoising process look like they enhance certain aspects of the noise pattern while removing others. Or how can one explain these "little worms" in some places in the video behind the stars? Does anyone have any ideas?
@@MichaelShainblum Sure. At 120 seconds you change the noise reduction from 0 to 100 percent back and forth. Here you can see it relatively clearly: The background noise seems to have an embedded pattern that makes the stars look like worms after noise reduction. Unfortunately, I can't put it any better than that. Do you know what I mean? I wonder if high resolution cameras have a typical noise pattern and I think it is clearly visible on the d850 for example, even at ISO 100 with a good exposure. Would you confirm this?
Hello Michael, I did the test to share with photographer friends, between the Lr and the DxO PR3 when it came out, with a high iso sunrise photo and I came to the conclusion that the Lr works very well. With a 500x zoom I couldn't see much of a difference but the Lr image was nicer. I only noticed that on darker images DxO made the image a little lighter. I started using only the LR. Good job as always, regards.
Great video. I haven't used Lightroom's denoise much yet as I'm accustomed to using Topaz. I'm definitely going to give Lightroom more effort! I'm interested to see how you edited that redwood file and brought back all of the color.
It’s worth playing around with both and seeing what works! It also depends on the files. I had some folks tell me Fuji files work much better in DxO then LR Denoise. The redwood shot was actually quite a simple little edit. Just raised the shadows and blacks in there. I will do a full edit of that one for a new landscape vlog though soon. :)
I shoot live music events in often questionable lighting, so I have to push up the ISO, often to 6400. Lightroom's 1 click Denoise works beautifully and is much faster than twiddling with Topaz for every pic. LrC's denoise also produces superior results, as you have also shown.
I use Denoise as a filter in Photoshop. That way I can mask and adjust opacity. It's part of my PS workflow. I suppose though I should give LR Denoise a try. It will change my workflow but you aren't the only one who is impressed with the LR results. Thanks for the video.
Great video. I am liking LR Denoise a bit more than Topaz but in some images I can get Topaz to do the better noise reduction, hard to decide for me which will always work. Have you looked into Topaz Photo AI?
For astro, have you tried using stacking with Starry Landscape Stacker? It's does a great job canceling noise and realigning the star trails. Also gets rid of airplane/satellite trails.
I love Starry landscape stacker. It’s fantastic, but definitely a different category of tools. Because it requires a multi stacked sequence to do the reduction. For Astro I feel as though stacking still works better then these tools. But the gap is closing in.
The LR is really incredible and truly a game changer for me. I can now shoot low light seascapes at 1600 ISO on my Z7 knowing the denoise will clean up the noise
Hi Michael. Does photoshop have a similar tool. I predominantly use capture one as it worked best with my fuji files, and I often pull those images into photoshop to add a few things. Just curious if I can do this also while in there.
I use DxO PhotoLab 6 on my images. Always wonder why Panasonic does not provide a free copy of the software with the Lumix MFT cameras (G9). Some rather good-sized prints can be made with that combo.
@@MichaelShainblum At this point, everyone is using crazy capable software for their images. If I was a prof. photographer like you, it might matter, but I love the lite kit I can get for MFT. I have a set of Leica lenses that go from 8mm-200mm F2.8-4.0. I also have the 2x extender. So light and fun to use.
I absolutely love what Adobe has done with the LR Denoise feature. Prior to the big update, it seems Adobe almost forgotten about their denoise function and left it for 3rd parties to handle it but now their Denoise function is one of - if not the best out there. But you're right, the limitation of being only able to process RAW files can be a major achilles heel. I'm also stuck in a place where if I should apply the Denoise first and then post process or post process first and then be limited to just Topaz.
Hi Michael, I would suggest you using Topaz Photo AI and comparing it with Lightroom's denoise feature. I've compared (in my humble amateur's level) the DXO Pure Raw against Camera Raw's denoise and I prefer this one. The only con (for me) is that you have to process each file separately which can be quite time consuming...Greetings from northern Spain
Hey there! I actually started out using photo AI for this video. But the results were quite a bit worse then Denoise AI unfortunately. You can take a look at the comparison on my site in the pinned comment. I used the Raw process in Photo AI. I do really love the convenience of Photo AI for sharpening and enhancing the resolution though. Maybe different results with a non-milky way shot. But yeah for this one it didn’t work as well I as I would have hoped.
Hi Michael, I love your videos and the way you present them! I have tried Lightroom Denoise but it does not act like you show it in your video in that it says it will take 8 minutes, as an example, and the progress bar just sits there. I cannot wait that long for the process.. I am using my GPU but that seems to be causing a crash so I deselected the GPU and I get the same 8 minutes. I am on a PC. How long is it taking for your Lr to process the noise? Thanks, Tom
I’ve had the same issues with Topaz Denoise in the past - losing a lot of details and having some « compression » issues. LR is doing a really good job also with difficult situation - its ability to detect details is astounding.
One thing to try is Topaz Photo AI as opposed to DeNoise. I've tested it a bunch as well. DeNoise is being phased out and they aren't really updating it any more and in the most recent update PhotoAI finally surpassed DeNoise for noise reduction, when they added V2 models to the noise reduction. Topaz Sharpen AI is still better than PhotoAI for fixing sharpness but that is the next thing they are working on supposedly. Only thing that stinks about PhotoAI is the $200 price tag considering most of us landscape photographers won't use the upsizing and would rather pay $80 for just DeNoise.
I also have Photo AI, I got it in a sale last year for like $140. Its such a fantastic program to use, especially when trying to upscale, sharpen and denoise all at once. To be honest though in my RAW tests I found the Denoise model in Photo AI was a bit to heavy-handed compared to the dedicated program the lower settings. At least on that first Milky Way example shot.
Have you looked at DxO PureRAW 3 (without any of its optional corrections)? For me (Canon R5), Milky Way is handled better than does Lightroom Denoise.
It still did quite a good job though. All very comparable and leagues better then manual noise reduction. I think it’s pretty crazy many options we have now as photographers.
I've done a few head-to-head comparisons and have also found that the LR denoise generally does a better job than Topaz. Like you, I think the upscale and enhanced functions in Topaz are awesome.
DxO 3 is quite good, I didnt include it in the video. But I did include it in my blog post (pinned comment). In my tests I found Lightroom Denoise to edge it out. I think it was a bit better then Topaz in the Redwood example and a bit worse in the Milky Way example. You can also download my high res jpegs on my site to take a look and compare on your own screen. :)
I've been a big fan of Topaz DeNoise for a couple of years. I found it better than LRC's DeNoise when it first debuted but it does seem to be getting much better. My workflow for T DeNoise is to do some very minimal edits in LRC first - like white balance and then some light shadows / highlights / contrast but try to stay away from Clarity and Dehaze for now. Then I run the image through Topaz. The Low Light model works best for me on most images even if it was a full daylight shot. I think it's less heavy handed than other models. I'll try the auto function first but most always dial down the denoising and set sharpening to about half of the denoise setting. Can always further sharpen in LRC or Sharpen AI as needed. Recover details set low to about 5. Then back in LRC I will do the heavier editing, clarity, dehaze, masks, etc. Everyone has their own way, and there's always more than one way to do things, but that works well for me.
I did the same thing when it first came out. I think it was the day after they released it, tried it on one image and got really weird artifacting. So I wrote off Lightroom Denoise, I have been using Topaz mainly for the last few years. About a week ago I tried LR Denoise again for some noisy files I was working on for a vlog and realized it got way better. I do think the biggest upside of Topaz is the versatility. I love that you can apply noise reduction onto files other then RAW. So if I do an edit in Photoshop, realize my edits actually created some unwanted noise, Topaz does a great job removing it. I will usually run Topaz on the flat TIFF and then layer that on the original file at some % opacity, depending on the severity.
I see I'm not the only one with landscape denoize issues with Topaz. In addition, the newer Topaz Photo AI seems to be worse than the stand-alone denoise. Their Photo AI turned my RAW Fall Adirondack landscapes to mud. Foliage that had pretty good detail looked like it was applied with a sponge. Wood grain on boat docks turned into plastic and lost detail. Printed signs that were just soft focus, were rendered unreadable. By playing around for a few minutes I was able to get back the detail but colors in some areas were removed. I really like the lightroom denoise and have started using it in place of the Topaz product. As for 3rd party alternatives to Topaz, I found that just loading my same RAW image into the DxO 6.7.0 product produces outstanding results using their default settings. My image was sharp and colors popped and I didn't have to touch one slider or setting. When comparing Topaz to ON1, Luminar Neo, and NIK, I've had really good results. While the Topaz product was my go-to for years, They seem to be slipping, and I have put them at the back of the pack.
I've been really happy with Lightroom Denoise so far, it works quite well for noisy daylight scenes with good texture in the image like vegetation or hair. However, sometimes it creates really blotchy areas where you had few features to begin with. This is unfortunately a common problem with AI Denoising and the reason why I often go back to manual denoise. Also, in your night sky example it created very fine streaks between stars which give the stars a really unnatural look, I hope Adobe will improve on this in the future. Regarding Topaz Denoise, I would always recommend using some amount of "Color Noise Reduction" in Topaz because it doesn't really remove any details, but gets rid of the colored blotches you got in your results. "Recover Original Detail" is essentially a way to blend the original image back in, similar to what Lightroom calls the "Denoise Amount", but in reverse. This also helps to reduce blotchiness.
Lightroom is fantastic on screen and for small prints. However I found that at 1.5 x 1m a print of mine looked far better with no noise reduction. Noise reduction at that size killed the detail. Settings were much the same as your redwood scene. iso500 from a heli in a dark valley. What it did prove was the NR is amazing for prints to s size and what modern cameras are capable of is incredible. It was an A7rv file so the high resolution isn't favourable for noise like a 20-30mp body would be
It's not even a competition between Topaz and Lightroom at this stage. I was equally shocked when I first tried it, it's like my camera just gained two stops of Noise Performance
One of the main issues I have with the Topaz products is that you end up spending more time trying to compare the various retouch models and tweaking the trade offs to get great results. Topaz is not always good at speeding a workflow or successfully improving a file. I find that often the Topaz “improvements” end up degrading the image in other ways.
It appears that Topaz Labs has dropped Denoise as a wtand-alone product. The ONLY photo product they currently sell is Photo AI, which contains all the functionality of their previous trio of apps, Gigapixel, Denoise, and Sharpen.
Ah interesting, I do use Topaz photo AI for sharpening and upscaling images. I actually tested Topaz Photo AI in this comparison for this exact RAW file when I did all these tests, but it unfortunately preformed worse then my tests in Topaz Denoise, so I used Denoise instead as the algorithm did a better job.
@@MichaelShainblum I haven’t used Topaz photo AI direct, but I have used the LrC topaz Denoise plugins for before or after LR camera raw processing and compared those to LR Denoise. In your opinion does the Topaz plugin replicate what you would get if just using Topaz photo AI? I thought the replacement of topaz Denoise and sharpen with Photo AI was a retrograde step, it removed some user control
I use both, in fact for upscaling and sharpening I mainly just use Photo Ai. But here is why I used Denoise instead of Photo Ai for this test. www.shainblumphoto.com/2023/07/09/noisereduction/#jp-carousel-5778
@@MichaelShainblum it is very popular for any type of astro. You also have a 30 days free trial. Russell made quite a big impact with all of his plugins for astro in the last few years. But if one is not interested mostly in astro, topaz or lightroom are also a great pick, but the problem with topaz is that it adds or removes date where it shouldnt, which could be a problem for deep space images
Hi Michael, your work is exemplary and I was interested in your experience. Strangely, it’s opposite mine in many ways. First, my max m1plus chip hates the Lr Denoise and it works incredibly slowly. Second, I agree about most modules in Topaz, but the standard option has been mostly spot on every time. Not true for the Raw or low light options. There is a tendency to over sharpen, but that is also true of Sharpen AI from Topaz. Note: I am running LR as classic, and not the online version. I’m going to have to try LR Denoise again.
Hmm I downloaded NoiseXterminator and used some of the different options for this Milky Way shot, both with the RAW and Edited file. Unfortunately, the results were a bit underwhelming in my case. Maybe this is a tool better used for deep space, stacks and sky-only shots?
topaz denoise went from industry leading to artifact-producing. also denoise should not be used for raw files, pureraw is way better here. then again, for 99.99% lightroom denoise ai is enough
In my tests DXO unfortunately did not preform as well as Lightroom Denoise. You can check the pinned comment with a link to my comparison to see how DXO handled these files.
I also have a comparison of DXO PureRAW3 & all 3 on my site. I also have all of the comparisons in high res that you can download. www.shainblumphoto.com/2023/07/09/noisereduction/
Thanks a bunch for taking the time to make this video Michael
Interesting comparison video. I’m just watching to learn so far. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Great video. Minimum fluff, and excellent showing your process for comparison. I use Topaz Denoise AI, DxO PureRAW, and Lightroom Denoise. I often compare results and pick the one that works best and I find there is no obvious winner. It depends on the image. They all have their strengths and shortcomings. The only one that will work with Sony’s A7RV Uncompressed RAW M and Uncompressed RAW S formats is Topaz, by converting to TIFF from Lightroom. None of them support this RAW format directly. One of the things that I like about Topaz is the ability to mask areas. I often will create a solid mask and then mask out (75% 50%, 25% …) areas where I want less denoise processing. This is a good way to get rid of Denoise artifacts, and often provides best results for my landscape and wildlife images. I rarely use more than 30% with Adobe DeNoise because I find, in areas with low contrast and fine detail, the detail is just gone. The lack of control is Adobe’s downfall. Along the same lines, DxO PureRAW takes a lot of time because there is no preview and experimenting with versions of PureRAW, sharpening mode, and other RAW processing options requires full processing and export before comparing in Lightroom. Both PureRAW and Denoise AI change colors. PureRAW requires re-editing, if you’ve already edited your image in Lightroom. Copying edits from the original never work - masks don’t line up, colors are off, sharpening and contrast is too accentuated. I find DXO PureRAW increases luminance of bright areas more than Denoise AI, but I find more artifacts on high contrast edges with Denoise AI. I recently shot some birds and, in every case, Denoise AI was the winner, largely because of the masking adjustment. Adobe Denoise either did not do an adequate job denoising or mushed out the details too much (depending on the slider amount). Finally, don’t get me started with Topaz PhotoAI. While a noble undertaking, I find it will succeed in maybe 1 out of 50 cases. I might use it if I had the ability to mask, like Denoise AI, but the masks for Sharpening and Denoise are often the inverse of each other.
Minimum fluff? Did you not see what he was holding?!?! A total lil fluffball!
Great video. I've been using Topaz for a couple of years now and found it great, mainly for my wildlife shots, but I've certainly found that pushing it too far makes the image look plastic. I always shoot in raw but have found the Clear setting usually works best for me. I've tried the denoise in Lightroom but it takes forever, but this may just e because my laptop is a few years old now. After watching your video though, I'll certainly be trying it again.
seeing that Lr preforms better, makes you wanna to for Topaz ?
DXO Pure Raw 3 Deep Prime XD is the ultimate tool to make photos awesome.
I have images taken at 12000 ISO looking like ISO 200 after processing. However, it is heavy on the computer, heats up my very capable PC, takes a lot of time.
So I generally use normal processing and after homing on to the best image, process that in XD mode.
One image is the most I process at one time.
Results are like nothing else. I don't know why but the image seems to shine. Love it
Super cool to see this :)
I stopped using topaz a while ago as it was creating weird patches in my images. But the new Denoise in lightroom is so good 😱😱
Interesting comparisons. I have used both and seem to get different results with different photos. I have not yet been able to figure out whether one or the other works better with a given photo type.
Always good learning from you, Michael. While we don't have these programmes, we can see what needs adjusting to get good results on those we have. Lovely little doggie.
Another problem I have with Topaz that I don’t see often discussed is that when it sharpens an area (either with the sharpening app or post de-noise) that has a somewhat repetitive pattern (ie rocks on a cliff), it will often just turn that pattern into an exact repeating copy of the pattern ignoring subtle differences that are actually there in real life. This is super obvious to me even without “pixel peeping” because a lot of what makes natural landscapes look real (compare to AI or renderings) is that very similar patterns are actually slightly random if that makes sense. Cliff bands that initially appear to repeat in a pattern are actually slightly different from eachother in real life and your eyes see that as natural
Hi Michael. Great comparison video. I am surprised by the Lightroom results here. I noticed you were using Topaz Denoise and not Topaz Photo AI, I'dbe interested to see the results there. I mainly use for wildlife photography.
Thanks for the time and effort! I just did my own comparison using Topaz and Lightroom. Impressed on how good lightroom denoise is!
Interesting Michael! I’ve always wondered what the difference was between the two.
And your pup pup is adorable!! 💗
Also you have some incredible detail in the starts in that image, do you mind sharing what focal length u used and di you use a tracker for longer exposure?
I've never used Topaz so I can't speak to a comparison, but I've been using Lightroom Denoise a lot lately for shots of hummingbirds. I'm using a Nikon Z7ii at shutter speeds around 1/2000 to 1/2500/sec with a green tree leaf background which caused me to push the ISO up to 2000 or more, leading to a lot of noise. Lightroom Denoise has done an excellent job cleaning it all up. Good enough I haven't felt the need to try anything else. I also really like the fact that it's so easy to use. Just one button to click and that's it.
Very interesting, thanks for the comparisons!
Thanks for watching! :)
Nice to see the comparison. I have used Denoise many times and have been happy with it. Now the big question is how did you take a 30 sec exposure on the milky way without any start trails, Was it a tracker or a 12mm lens? Thanks
Back when Lightroom first added the denoise feature, I compared Topaz Denoise with DXO PureRaw with free trials. I have dozens of bird photography images on my HDD and processed the RAW files in both. DXO cleans up noise so much better than Topaz did.
I was thinking of buying DXO just for noise removal, but Adobe updated LR to add a denoise feature the same week I was going to get DXO.
Then I compared DXO with LR Denoise and it is on par with DXO, if not better. There must be something in Adobe's AI algorithm that is better at recovering detail.
Unless another program comes out with a better solution, I'll stick with LR.
This only confirms what i've been thinking for a while... Lightroom's denoies kicks a**! and I'm one of the lucky ones where it takes around 9 seconds to process - I know a lot of people have grumbled about how slow it is.
Your pup is very expressive.... 🤣🤣
I find it interesting that some image processing variations through the denoising process look like they enhance certain aspects of the noise pattern while removing others. Or how can one explain these "little worms" in some places in the video behind the stars? Does anyone have any ideas?
can you time stamp the "little worms" spot. I am curious to see.
@@MichaelShainblum Sure. At 120 seconds you change the noise reduction from 0 to 100 percent back and forth. Here you can see it relatively clearly: The background noise seems to have an embedded pattern that makes the stars look like worms after noise reduction. Unfortunately, I can't put it any better than that. Do you know what I mean?
I wonder if high resolution cameras have a typical noise pattern and I think it is clearly visible on the d850 for example, even at ISO 100 with a good exposure. Would you confirm this?
Hello Michael, I did the test to share with photographer friends, between the Lr and the DxO PR3 when it came out, with a high iso sunrise photo and I came to the conclusion that the Lr works very well. With a 500x zoom I couldn't see much of a difference but the Lr image was nicer. I only noticed that on darker images DxO made the image a little lighter. I started using only the LR. Good job as always, regards.
Thanks! Yeah that was also my conclusion after some DXO test.
I've been wondering about this. The Lightroom denoise is great and I have never used Topaz. Now I dont feel any need to. Thanks!
Great video. I haven't used Lightroom's denoise much yet as I'm accustomed to using Topaz. I'm definitely going to give Lightroom more effort! I'm interested to see how you edited that redwood file and brought back all of the color.
It’s worth playing around with both and seeing what works! It also depends on the files. I had some folks tell me Fuji files work much better in DxO then LR Denoise. The redwood shot was actually quite a simple little edit. Just raised the shadows and blacks in there. I will do a full edit of that one for a new landscape vlog though soon. :)
I shoot live music events in often questionable lighting, so I have to push up the ISO, often to 6400. Lightroom's 1 click Denoise works beautifully and is much faster than twiddling with Topaz for every pic. LrC's denoise also produces superior results, as you have also shown.
Thank you for the comparison, Michael! I was thinking of trying Topaz, but this just changed my mind .. I will stick with lightroom and photoshop! :)
I use Denoise as a filter in Photoshop. That way I can mask and adjust opacity. It's part of my PS workflow. I suppose though I should give LR Denoise a try. It will change my workflow but you aren't the only one who is impressed with the LR results. Thanks for the video.
Thats a great way of using it! Give LR Denoise a go and see how it compares.
Thank you so much .🙏🏻🌹
Thanks for this. This confirms I no longer have to spend more outside the LrC subscription. More savings for future gear lol
Great video. I am liking LR Denoise a bit more than Topaz but in some images I can get Topaz to do the better noise reduction, hard to decide for me which will always work. Have you looked into Topaz Photo AI?
Great vlog...just curious...is ACR's noise reduction the same as Lightroom's?
I believe it’s the same algorithm:)
For astro, have you tried using stacking with Starry Landscape Stacker? It's does a great job canceling noise and realigning the star trails. Also gets rid of airplane/satellite trails.
I love Starry landscape stacker. It’s fantastic, but definitely a different category of tools. Because it requires a multi stacked sequence to do the reduction. For Astro I feel as though stacking still works better then these tools. But the gap is closing in.
Perhaps running Topaz DN + Sharpen AI would get more equal to LR?
The LR is really incredible and truly a game changer for me. I can now shoot low light seascapes at 1600 ISO on my Z7 knowing the denoise will clean up the noise
Hi Michael. Does photoshop have a similar tool. I predominantly use capture one as it worked best with my fuji files, and I often pull those images into photoshop to add a few things. Just curious if I can do this also while in there.
I use DxO PhotoLab 6 on my images. Always wonder why Panasonic does not provide a free copy of the software with the Lumix MFT cameras (G9). Some rather good-sized prints can be made with that combo.
Interesting I haven’t used that before. I am guessing DxO PureRaw is included in that?
@@MichaelShainblum Yes, with the elite version.
@@MichaelShainblum At this point, everyone is using crazy capable software for their images. If I was a prof. photographer like you, it might matter, but I love the lite kit I can get for MFT. I have a set of Leica lenses that go from 8mm-200mm F2.8-4.0. I also have the 2x extender. So light and fun to use.
I absolutely love what Adobe has done with the LR Denoise feature. Prior to the big update, it seems Adobe almost forgotten about their denoise function and left it for 3rd parties to handle it but now their Denoise function is one of - if not the best out there. But you're right, the limitation of being only able to process RAW files can be a major achilles heel. I'm also stuck in a place where if I should apply the Denoise first and then post process or post process first and then be limited to just Topaz.
A fantastic comparison, i have been super happy with the lightroom denoise but i have used topaz in the past too. I think ill stick to lightroom 😊
I also tried Denoise some months ago and couldn't understand, why this software is so hyped 🤔
Hi Michael, I would suggest you using Topaz Photo AI and comparing it with Lightroom's denoise feature. I've compared (in my humble amateur's level) the DXO Pure Raw against Camera Raw's denoise and I prefer this one. The only con (for me) is that you have to process each file separately which can be quite time consuming...Greetings from northern Spain
Hey there! I actually started out using photo AI for this video. But the results were quite a bit worse then Denoise AI unfortunately. You can take a look at the comparison on my site in the pinned comment. I used the Raw process in Photo AI. I do really love the convenience of Photo AI for sharpening and enhancing the resolution though. Maybe different results with a non-milky way shot. But yeah for this one it didn’t work as well I as I would have hoped.
Hi Michael, I love your videos and the way you present them! I have tried Lightroom Denoise but it does not act like you show it in your video in that it says it will take 8 minutes, as an example, and the progress bar just sits there. I cannot wait that long for the process.. I am using my GPU but that seems to be causing a crash so I deselected the GPU and I get the same 8 minutes. I am on a PC. How long is it taking for your Lr to process the noise? Thanks, Tom
I’ve had the same issues with Topaz Denoise in the past - losing a lot of details and having some « compression » issues. LR is doing a really good job also with difficult situation - its ability to detect details is astounding.
One thing to try is Topaz Photo AI as opposed to DeNoise. I've tested it a bunch as well. DeNoise is being phased out and they aren't really updating it any more and in the most recent update PhotoAI finally surpassed DeNoise for noise reduction, when they added V2 models to the noise reduction. Topaz Sharpen AI is still better than PhotoAI for fixing sharpness but that is the next thing they are working on supposedly. Only thing that stinks about PhotoAI is the $200 price tag considering most of us landscape photographers won't use the upsizing and would rather pay $80 for just DeNoise.
I also have Photo AI, I got it in a sale last year for like $140. Its such a fantastic program to use, especially when trying to upscale, sharpen and denoise all at once. To be honest though in my RAW tests I found the Denoise model in Photo AI was a bit to heavy-handed compared to the dedicated program the lower settings. At least on that first Milky Way example shot.
I want to have good luck with Denoise AI but it’s been meh for me so far.
I wonder how it compares to Luminars Noiseless AI
Have you looked at DxO PureRAW 3 (without any of its optional corrections)? For me (Canon R5), Milky Way is handled better than does Lightroom Denoise.
I have a comparison of DXO in the mix on my vlog as well. Unfortunately I did not get the same results that you did. But it still did a great job.
@@MichaelShainblum Just to check, did you disable all optional DxO effects?
@@DanDillyeah just a simple raw to dng conversation. No added effects or features.
It still did quite a good job though. All very comparable and leagues better then manual noise reduction. I think it’s pretty crazy many options we have now as photographers.
Thanks very much for all of the comparisons. Doing them is a lot of work!
I've done a few head-to-head comparisons and have also found that the LR denoise generally does a better job than Topaz. Like you, I think the upscale and enhanced functions in Topaz are awesome.
I often use Topaz denoise after using Lightroom denoise. Sometimes it is weird sometimes it is awesome.
Noiseception 😮
Roughly how long would you expect it to take Lightroom to denoise an image? i just did one shot at ISO 1100 and it took over 4 minutes on my laptop.
It depends on the GPU I think. 4 mins is pretty damn long. On my 2022 MBP it takes about 5-10 seconds on average. Hopefully adobe addresses this.
@@MichaelShainblum thanks Michael. Hopefully I can get it sorted and speed things up!
Determining factor for me is the subscripion cost for Lightroom ( or Adobe products). I got the whole Topaz Suite for $119 vs Lighroom at $119 a year.
Makes sense, what are you using then as an actual RAW photo editor, Luminar or Cap One?
Do you use Lightroom to sharpen images as well as the denoise feature?
Yeah I do a bit of sharpening as well in LR. I will also use Topaz for sharpening certain areas, depending on the image.
thoughts on "DxO PureRAW" compared to these two?
DxO 3 is quite good, I didnt include it in the video. But I did include it in my blog post (pinned comment). In my tests I found Lightroom Denoise to edge it out. I think it was a bit better then Topaz in the Redwood example and a bit worse in the Milky Way example. You can also download my high res jpegs on my site to take a look and compare on your own screen. :)
@@MichaelShainblum thank you, LR is looking pretty solid compared to the other two. PureRaw is nice if you want to be more hands off I suppose.
Is Topaz Labs the same as Topaz Photo AI ?
I've been a big fan of Topaz DeNoise for a couple of years. I found it better than LRC's DeNoise when it first debuted but it does seem to be getting much better. My workflow for T DeNoise is to do some very minimal edits in LRC first - like white balance and then some light shadows / highlights / contrast but try to stay away from Clarity and Dehaze for now. Then I run the image through Topaz. The Low Light model works best for me on most images even if it was a full daylight shot. I think it's less heavy handed than other models. I'll try the auto function first but most always dial down the denoising and set sharpening to about half of the denoise setting. Can always further sharpen in LRC or Sharpen AI as needed. Recover details set low to about 5. Then back in LRC I will do the heavier editing, clarity, dehaze, masks, etc. Everyone has their own way, and there's always more than one way to do things, but that works well for me.
I did the same thing when it first came out. I think it was the day after they released it, tried it on one image and got really weird artifacting. So I wrote off Lightroom Denoise, I have been using Topaz mainly for the last few years. About a week ago I tried LR Denoise again for some noisy files I was working on for a vlog and realized it got way better.
I do think the biggest upside of Topaz is the versatility. I love that you can apply noise reduction onto files other then RAW. So if I do an edit in Photoshop, realize my edits actually created some unwanted noise, Topaz does a great job removing it. I will usually run Topaz on the flat TIFF and then layer that on the original file at some % opacity, depending on the severity.
Gonna need the dogs opinion on any new Photoshop updates.
Generative fill maybe? 🤔 😂
I see I'm not the only one with landscape denoize issues with Topaz. In addition, the newer Topaz Photo AI seems to be worse than the stand-alone denoise. Their Photo AI turned my RAW Fall Adirondack landscapes to mud. Foliage that had pretty good detail looked like it was applied with a sponge. Wood grain on boat docks turned into plastic and lost detail. Printed signs that were just soft focus, were rendered unreadable. By playing around for a few minutes I was able to get back the detail but colors in some areas were removed. I really like the lightroom denoise and have started using it in place of the Topaz product.
As for 3rd party alternatives to Topaz, I found that just loading my same RAW image into the DxO 6.7.0 product produces outstanding results using their default settings. My image was sharp and colors popped and I didn't have to touch one slider or setting. When comparing Topaz to ON1, Luminar Neo, and NIK, I've had really good results. While the Topaz product was my go-to for years, They seem to be slipping, and I have put them at the back of the pack.
I've been really happy with Lightroom Denoise so far, it works quite well for noisy daylight scenes with good texture in the image like vegetation or hair.
However, sometimes it creates really blotchy areas where you had few features to begin with. This is unfortunately a common problem with AI Denoising and the reason why I often go back to manual denoise. Also, in your night sky example it created very fine streaks between stars which give the stars a really unnatural look, I hope Adobe will improve on this in the future.
Regarding Topaz Denoise, I would always recommend using some amount of "Color Noise Reduction" in Topaz because it doesn't really remove any details, but gets rid of the colored blotches you got in your results. "Recover Original Detail" is essentially a way to blend the original image back in, similar to what Lightroom calls the "Denoise Amount", but in reverse. This also helps to reduce blotchiness.
In Lightroom on a raw image should you use denoise before editing or after editing?
In Lightroom you can click the button anytime as long as you are still working on the raw.
Cool little Shih Tzu 👍😀
😎
Lightroom is fantastic on screen and for small prints. However I found that at 1.5 x 1m a print of mine looked far better with no noise reduction. Noise reduction at that size killed the detail. Settings were much the same as your redwood scene. iso500 from a heli in a dark valley.
What it did prove was the NR is amazing for prints to s size and what modern cameras are capable of is incredible.
It was an A7rv file so the high resolution isn't favourable for noise like a 20-30mp body would be
It's not even a competition between Topaz and Lightroom at this stage. I was equally shocked when I first tried it, it's like my camera just gained two stops of Noise Performance
I did my own comparison using a milky way shot with high ISO. I definitely liked the Lightroom Denoise better than Topaz.
One of the main issues I have with the Topaz products is that you end up spending more time trying to compare the various retouch models and tweaking the trade offs to get great results.
Topaz is not always good at speeding a workflow or successfully improving a file. I find that often the Topaz “improvements” end up degrading the image in other ways.
It appears that Topaz Labs has dropped Denoise as a wtand-alone product. The ONLY photo product they currently sell is Photo AI, which contains all the functionality of their previous trio of apps, Gigapixel, Denoise, and Sharpen.
Ah interesting, I do use Topaz photo AI for sharpening and upscaling images.
I actually tested Topaz Photo AI in this comparison for this exact RAW file when I did all these tests, but it unfortunately preformed worse then my tests in Topaz Denoise, so I used Denoise instead as the algorithm did a better job.
@@MichaelShainblum I haven’t used Topaz photo AI direct, but I have used the LrC topaz Denoise plugins for before or after
LR camera raw processing and compared those to LR Denoise. In your opinion does the Topaz plugin replicate what you would get if just using Topaz photo AI? I thought the replacement of topaz Denoise and sharpen with Photo AI was a retrograde step, it removed some user control
Anyone else's laptop struggle to run lightrooms denoise...tried it once ..was.taking over 10 minutes
Only problem with LR DN is that it takes a long freakin time to process. Topaz processes so much faster.
Why still using Topaz Denoise instead of Topaz Photo Ai?
I use both, in fact for upscaling and sharpening I mainly just use Photo Ai. But here is why I used Denoise instead of Photo Ai for this test. www.shainblumphoto.com/2023/07/09/noisereduction/#jp-carousel-5778
I demand more screentime of him... then I will subscribe... Hahahaha
For astro the best one is NoiseXterminator
I searched the program but it seems like that is more for deep space? Would it work for wide angle shots or landscape?
@@MichaelShainblum it is very popular for any type of astro. You also have a 30 days free trial. Russell made quite a big impact with all of his plugins for astro in the last few years. But if one is not interested mostly in astro, topaz or lightroom are also a great pick, but the problem with topaz is that it adds or removes date where it shouldnt, which could be a problem for deep space images
@@matej.mlakarsounds good, I will take a look and report back!
Hi Michael, your work is exemplary and I was interested in your experience. Strangely, it’s opposite mine in many ways. First, my max m1plus chip hates the Lr Denoise and it works incredibly slowly. Second, I agree about most modules in Topaz, but the standard option has been mostly spot on every time. Not true for the Raw or low light options. There is a tendency to over sharpen, but that is also true of Sharpen AI from Topaz. Note: I am running LR as classic, and not the online version.
I’m going to have to try LR Denoise again.
Hmm I downloaded NoiseXterminator and used some of the different options for this Milky Way shot, both with the RAW and Edited file. Unfortunately, the results were a bit underwhelming in my case. Maybe this is a tool better used for deep space, stacks and sky-only shots?
It appears Topaz washes out greens and blues.
topaz denoise went from industry leading to artifact-producing. also denoise should not be used for raw files, pureraw is way better here. then again, for 99.99% lightroom denoise ai is enough
In my tests DXO unfortunately did not preform as well as Lightroom Denoise. You can check the pinned comment with a link to my comparison to see how DXO handled these files.
I stopped taking him seriously at "he want's to be in the video".
That’s ok, I stopped taking you seriously when I saw your avatar.
@@MichaelShainblum Sounds fair!