A small presentation of my experimenting with Topaz DeNoise AI in yesterdays poor light.

[footman]

I got my Sony 1.4 extender yesterday so I thought I'd have a go yesterday afternoon in the garden. The light was poor anyway and failing fast but I was keen to use it.
The shot was on a Sony A9, Sony 200-600 with a Sony 1.4x teleconverter, shot at an approximate distance of 5 metres. The shot was exported from DXO PL3 as a 16bit Tiff with DXO standard minimal processing applied but without any noise reduction applied and nothing like any exposure or colour settings applied.
The camera settings for the image are 1/800th, f9.0, ISO12,800, 840mm.

Not particularly well exposed!

uncropped original without any noise reduction applied

cropped image without any NR applied.

Image with standard Topaz Denoise automatic setting applied

Image with Low Light Topaz DeNoise automatic setting applied

Image with Clear Topaz DeNoise automatic setting applied

Any comments on the Topaz automatic NR as shown here most welcome.

 

[Pietrach]

holy... this thing is amazing! I would be interested to see comparison of standard Topaz against standard DXO / LR / Capture One

 

[jpgreenwood]

When I’ve used Denoize in the past, it’s almost posterised the shot and I lose detail and definition in the feathers. I must be doing something wrong as yours are perfect.

 

[footman]

holy... this thing is amazing! I would be interested to see comparison of standard Topaz against standard DXO / LR / Capture One

DXO PL3 NR is not as good, the Deep Prime NR will also only process raw files while Topaz will process jpegs as well

When I’ve used Denoize in the past, it’s almost posterised the shot and I lose detail and definition in the feathers. I must be doing something wrong as yours are perfect.

I think I've read something similar about previous versions of Topaz but this version is excellent.

 

[GeordieStew]

Wish I'd bought it when it was $60 and then 15% off.

 

[footman]

Wish I'd bought it when it was $60 and then 15% off.

It's about £58 now, almost £20 more than I paid a couple of weeks ago. To say it's revolutionised my attitude to photography in poor light is not overstated.

 

[Cuchulainn]

I had some of the Topaz plugins a good while ago and gave up on them because they dumped all the EXIF info when moving the files from LR to the plugin. After promising to fix the bug on support forums for about 2 years, I gave up on them. Is this finally fixed?

 

[Lemaildetom]

Do you use this topaz on jpg or on raw images?

 

[footman]

I had some of the Topaz plugins a good while ago and gave up on them because they dumped all the EXIF info when moving the files from LR to the plugin. After promising to fix the bug on support forums for about 2 years, I gave up on them. Is this finally fixed?

When I export a file processed in Topaz Denoise to Flickr for instance I can see the exif there.
If you click on this image it will take you to the Flickr image and you can see the exif there:
European nuthatch, Sitta europaea by mack100, on Flickr

Do you use this topaz on jpg or on raw images?

I've only used it on raw files until now.

 

[Lemaildetom]

Gosh, I've just downloaded. Install 30 days trial. Tried it on 3 recent jpg image and very impressed! Nearly too good to be true.

Add a quick look to import 2 raw files too and it looks good. But not yet found how I could play between LR and this. Is there a LR preset or a way i can apply this on the raw and then carry on editing the raw in LR?

 

[Lemaildetom]

 

[Lemaildetom]

 

[footman]

Gosh, I've just downloaded. Install 30 days trial. Tried it on 3 recent jpg image and very impressed! Nearly too good to be true.

Add a quick look to import 2 raw files too and it looks good. But not yet found how I could play between LR and this. Is there a LR preset or a way i can apply this on the raw and then carry on editing the raw in LR?

I use LR6 stand alone and Topaz Denoise is automatically installed as a plugin. It seems that you can't export a Topaz adjusted file as a raw file but you can export it as dng or tiff.
I have found that the Topaz DeNoise setting of "clear" in auto mode has given me the best results so far.

 

[nandbytes]

When I’ve used Denoize in the past, it’s almost posterised the shot and I lose detail and definition in the feathers. I must be doing something wrong as yours are perfect.

Not sure how long ago you tried it but they certainly improved it a lot over the years.

Perhaps worth giving them a try again with their month trial?

 

[Deleted member 34016]

I don't use Noise reduction - unlike you guys, I get it right in Camera

Les

 

[DG Phototraining]

@footman I've not tried any NR plugins for years but I'm going to now having seen your opening post - cheers

Dave

 

[footman]

I don't use Noise reduction - unlike you guys, I get it right in Camera

Les

Hang on Les, we've all seen your photographs.........................

 

[Rustydon]

I have found that the Topaz DeNoise setting of "clear" in auto mode has given me the best results so far.

- interesting comparison for the 3 different Topaz Denoise AI modes! Until I read your post, I used only the "standard" mode, but I now also find the "clear" mode even better - so a big Thanks

Russ

 

[Peter123]

Thanks for this footman.
I too wasn't aware of the clear option and it is certainly good.
I've owned Denoise AI for well over a year. When I click on now it wants me to pay for the latest version. Any opinions as to whether it is worth upgrading?

 

[mazdaman]

I have used it with my Olympus kit and Micro 4/3 gets a bit of a bad rap with regard to ISO performance but Topaz has made a significant improvement to my high ISO files

 

[footman]

Thanks for this footman.
I too wasn't aware of the clear option and it is certainly good.
I've owned Denoise AI for well over a year. When I click on now it wants me to pay for the latest version. Any opinions as to whether it is worth upgrading?

I've not used the previous version but there are many reports of this version being much better.

 

[Bristolian]

Thanks for this footman.
I too wasn't aware of the clear option and it is certainly good.
I've owned Denoise AI for well over a year. When I click on now it wants me to pay for the latest version. Any opinions as to whether it is worth upgrading?

I upgraded recently as it was within my license period and I think the latest version makes for much cleaner images.

 

[Lemaildetom]

Just had another go.
It seem that if i export a jpg from lightroom topaz makes an amazing job add removing noise and keeping sharpness up.
But when i try using topaz as a plugin, the results are pretty rubbish?

 

[footman]

That's interesting, I tried using Topaz as an LR plugin this afternoon. It was certainly a different process and I'm not sure I'll do it again.
I was using raw files and I was still happy with the results, I'll see if I can reproduce your findings tomorrow using jpegs

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Hang on Les, we've all seen your photographs.........................

Then you know I;m right

 

[footman]

Just had another go.
It seem that if i export a jpg from lightroom topaz makes an amazing job add removing noise and keeping sharpness up.
But when i try using topaz as a plugin, the results are pretty rubbish?

Just had a test and I can confirm that I had the same results as you, the file edited using Topaz as a standalone was better than that using Topaz as an LR plugin but I wouldn't say that the plugin version was "rubbish"

 

[Lemaildetom]

I got some bad artifact created on mine and files looked bad one reimported in LR.
It might be easier to just edit in LR, export jpg, denoise the jpg. That seem to get great results.

Then I might be silly but I nearly think it looks too good. I'm expecting some sort of noise when I "pixelpeep". It's part of the photo.
Do you sometimes think that the results look so good that they look too good to be true?

 

[footman]

I got some bad artifact created on mine and files looked bad one reimported in LR.
It might be easier to just edit in LR, export jpg, denoise the jpg. That seem to get great results.

Then I might be silly but I nearly think it looks too good. I'm expecting some sort of noise when I "pixelpeep". It's part of the photo.
Do you sometimes think that the results look so good that they look too good to be true?

It's sorcery.....



Seriously, I didn't get any artefacts at all, in fact I found it difficult to distinguish between the two examples
There is so much variability in the systems we are all using that the results are difficult to analyse.

 

[Lemaildetom]

Another test still on jpeg.
Went to see if northern light was out but mostly cloud. Still got a file to test out. I'm impressed, i can not see any stars which get removed from denoising which is pretty incredible. In lighrtoom you continuosly play trade off number of stars vs smoothness of background.

 

[jerry12953]

I'd say it's worth persevering with using Denoise AI as a LR plug-in. I've had all sorts of hiccups along the way but it seems to work well now.

Did i say I process them first, then remove any automatically applied sharpness and NR........... before going to Topaz. LR creates a TIF for Denoise to work on and it then sends it back to LR as a TIF.

 

[Rustydon]

what Jerry says works well for me too

Russ

 

[footman]

Do you both find that the file exported back to LR is not named as a file processed specifically in Topaz?

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

I got my Sony 1.4 extender yesterday so I thought I'd have a go yesterday afternoon in the garden. The light was poor anyway and failing fast but I was keen to use it.
The shot was on a Sony A9, Sony 200-600 with a Sony 1.4x teleconverter, shot at an approximate distance of 5 metres. The shot was exported from DXO PL3 as a 16bit Tiff with DXO standard minimal processing applied but without any noise reduction applied and nothing like any exposure or colour settings applied.
The camera settings for the image are 1/800th, f9.0, ISO12,800, 840mm.

Not particularly well exposed!

uncropped original without any noise reduction applied

cropped image without any NR applied.

Image with standard Topaz Denoise automatic setting applied

Image with Low Light Topaz DeNoise automatic setting applied

Image with Clear Topaz DeNoise automatic setting applied

Any comments on the Topaz automatic NR as shown here most welcome.

I've used the Topaz plugins for years and several of them are still my goto's. In the example above I'd have probably favoured the standard rendition in the first picture, tho as the eye seems more natural to me. In the next two versions the eye seems gradually more dulled with less sparkle. Just my take. Do like the Topaz stuff.

 

[Tricky01]

The noise reduction (and sharpen) tools from Nik are also fantastic, and come at the incridible price of 'free'. They've been updated since they were bought by dxo, but the versions that were free under Google are still free today. I've done a comparison and can't see any justification to the paid for versions. Details on how are here : https://lenscraft.co.uk/photography-blog/can-i-get-the-nik-collection-download-free/

 

[jerry12953]

Do you both find that the file exported back to LR is not named as a file processed specifically in Topaz?

That was one of the problems I had - some very odd file names.

The most recent file I processed is called this -" _4090127_edit_2.tif" tho' I'm not sure where the 2 came from!

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

The noise reduction (and sharpen) tools from Nik are also fantastic, and come at the incridible price of 'free'. They've been updated since they were bought by dxo, but the versions that were free under Google are still free today. I've done a comparison and can't see any justification to the paid for versions. Details on how are here : https://lenscraft.co.uk/photography-blog/can-i-get-the-nik-collection-download-free/

Agreed. I have those too but admit that I rarely dip into them anymore in favour of the Topaz. That's probably more by habit than a demonstration of quality or usefulness either way, tho.

 

[Rustydon]

Do you both find that the file exported back to LR is not named as a file processed specifically in Topaz?

- the file exported back to Topaz has the same file number with: -Edit.tif suffix added automatically. Then when I export this file it is saved as: -Edit.jpg suffix

Russ

 

[footman]

When I edit a raw file from LR using Topaz as a plugin the file name is ***-Edit.tif, when I edit a raw file exported from LR and processed in Topaz ( ie not used as a plugin) the file name is ***.DeNoiseAI-clear.tif.

 

[footman]

The noise reduction (and sharpen) tools from Nik are also fantastic, and come at the incridible price of 'free'. They've been updated since they were bought by dxo, but the versions that were free under Google are still free today. I've done a comparison and can't see any justification to the paid for versions. Details on how are here : https://lenscraft.co.uk/photography-blog/can-i-get-the-nik-collection-download-free/

Agreed. I have those too but admit that I rarely dip into them anymore in favour of the Topaz. That's probably more by habit than a demonstration of quality or usefulness either way, tho.

I also have the "old" Nik software but when I began experimenting with Topaz on my Mac the Nik software had been crippled by Apple on the Big Sur OS "upgrade". It works on my Win10 PC but it hadn't occurred to me to compare Topaz with Nik, I'll have a go sometime.

 

[Tricky01]

the Nik software had been crippled by Apple on the Big Sur OS "upgrade".

Strange, I haven't had any problems on macOS with nik. Admittedly with Captureone rather than light room, but all works well. I love the freedom of the local adjustments in things like sharpening. So remove noise then go to sharpen and select key points for sharpening. Works like a charm. Haven't found I'm hindered by their tools but will look out for your comparison. If you think it's considerably better I might give it a look