Denoising programs - some thoughts

[myotis]

This is a summary of my experiences testing several denoise programs and explains why I think you cannot rely on published test to help you make a decision.

We now have, at least three (four) AI denoising options ie Topaz DeNoise AI, ON1 NoNoise and DXO Deep Prime either in the form of Pure Raw, or as part of PhotoLab 5. I've used DXO Prime noise reduction in the past (Not DeepPrime), along with NeatImage, and more recently Topaz DeNoise AI.

Overwhelmingly positive tests and comments about DXO PureRaw, encouraged me to try it out. Not only for its denoising capability, but it's claims of improving the demosaicing quality of raw images at any ISO with claims that it could save you buying a new lens or camera because of how good it was. Not that I believed this, but it piqued my interest.

Introduction

My trial of DXO Pure Raw 2, didn't last very long because even with sharpening turned off, I was getting sharpening haloes, so I switched to a trial copy of DXO Photolab 5. A sharpening setting of +1 in Photolab 5is the same as the default in PureRaw, and and a sharpening setting of 0 in PhotoLab 5 is the same as switching sharpening off in PureRaw.

I used Photolab5 at sharpening settings of -1 and -0.5 for my tests.

While trialling PhotoLab 5, I bought a copy of ON1 NoNoise (half price offer, version 2022.5) and downloaded the beta version of Topaz Labs PhotoAI that combines Denoise AI, Sharpen AI and Gigapixel AI into a single program, which was getting rave reviews even in beta (I used the 0.6 beta). With NoNoise, I ended up using the "low" setting for noise reduction and switched the sharpening off entirely.

Topaz PhotoAI I abandoned as I couldn't get it to give consistent results, and I only used Topaz Denoise AI 3.7

I tested with eleven different files from ISO 200 to ISO 20,000. Cameras were Olympus EM5 MkII, Fuji XE1, Nikon D600, D750 and Nikon D500. Subject matter was landscape, flowers and birds. Raw processing was done by the denoise programs (except Neat Image), and exported as DNGs. Comparisons were made in Capture One 22, which allows subtle editing of multiple images at the same time, This it easier to match image quality than any other software I'm aware of. Neat Image was used a a Photoshop plugin with images round tripped from Capture One. Denoising was also done in Capture One for comparison purposes.

Where options were available in each program, I worked hard to get the best results, nothing was just "left at the defaults" as that rarely gave the best results. I spent several weeks, working at least part of every day comparing the results. Often re-running the denoising software, if I felt I had got something wrong.

At this point you may expect to see lots of photo comparisons, but firstly as I don't post images on line, sorting out posting lots of images is more work than I am willing to put into this. And secondly, I don't think they would mean very much, as my conclusions constantly changed as I went back and had another go at "improving" the results. I deliberately erred on minimising the effects of the denoising programs so I had some leeway to tweak (increase) sharpening and denoising in Capture One.

Not surpassingly there was no clear winner.

Results

With every image I came to a different conclusion about which combinations gave the best result.

Low ISOs (200 to 800)

With an 800 ISO Olympus file, all the denoise options, gave a slightly smoother, sharper and detailed result than C1, but at the expense of giving various artefacts and loss of colour gradation. C1 and DXO were close, but looking at the whole image, C1 clearly gave a nicer result. Interestingly, re-running NoNoise removed the texture artefacts it had created in the first run. Winner C1 or NoNoise

With the 200 ISO Olympus file, Topaz and DXO gave severe sharpening haloes (even with sharpening turned down in DXO) which I couldn't remove with the C1 halo slider. NoNoise and C1 also gave haloes, but these could be removed in C1. Not much to tell these apart at normal print size magnification. Winner NoNoise or C1

A Nikon D600. file at 200 ISO was just horrible with Topaz, which gave blocky textures and bad haloes. DXO, NoNoise and C1 were similar, all had halos that could be removed in C1. NoNoise had better detail and shadow contrast than DXO. Again CI had better colour. A second D600 file at ISO 320 gave similar results. Winner C1 for colour, NoNoise for noise and detail

Two Fuji XE1 files at 200ISO, gave very poor results but Topaz. Nonoise and DXO were very close, with NoNoise showing some artefacting. C1 has less detail, but as before still looks better in terms of colour and microcontrast. Winner C1, but DXO or NoNoise very close with more detail at the expense of colour

Medium ISOs (1600 to 6400)

No Olympus files from this range, but with Fuji XE1 files at 1600 and 6400 ISO, C1 started to really struggle and the slightly better colour from C1 ws more than offset by the lower noise and higher detail from the denoising programs. Again Topaz performed badly in comparison with the others and NoNoise was slightly better than DXO. Winner NoNoise

With Nikon D500 files up to 5000 ISO, with a bit of effort, I could get files that competed reasonably well with the denoise programs (i.e. comparisons at 50%) Topaz again trailed behind DXO and NoNoise. With ISOs above 5000, C1 couldn't seriously compete with the denoise programs. There was very little between DXO and NoNoise, NoNoise was maybe slightly better. Winner DXO or NoNoise

High ISOs (one file 20,000)

Nikon D500 file which C1 and DXO gave very poor results. This time Topaz Denoise gave similar results to NoNoise, but noNoise was still noticeably better. Winner NoNoise or DXO (see edit below)

EDIT 01/09/22: I have re-run the DXO test. My focus on avoiding sharpening haloes meant I had left DXO to auto-adjust the noise reduction bit,which seemed to work well. But having noticed that it seemed to always leave the noise setting at 40 I decided to tried to improve on my earlier results.

I ended up with the DXO noise reduction set to 75 and the sharpness at 0 rather than the 40 and the -0.1 I had previously used. The result was different to the NoNOise result, but with neither "overall" obviously better than the other. I probably preferred the DXO results, but as I tweaked the results, I kept on changing my mind.

Comments on the above.

Topaz

Topaz didn't do very well in the above, where it was used in the same way as DXO and NoNoise by Denoising the RAW file and exporting as a DNG. This is how Topaz recommend you use the program, but it wasn't how I had been using it before this test.

I repeated the tests using Topaz as a plugin for Photoshop on images demosaiced in C1 and round tripped from C1 to Photoshop for denoising in Topaz DeNoise AI. I didn't repeat the detailed comparisons described above, but in these comparisons Topaz did much better than the first run through. Where my results above suggest DXO and NoNoise are very close, I found that Topaz was also very close. I also noticed that the colour rendition and the microcontrast of files processed this way, were a better match for the C1 files than those processed in DXO or NoNoise.

DXO

Although NoNoise seemed to just beat DXO a few times, DXO seemed, overall, to be less susceptible to artefacts and gave better colour rendering than NoNoise.

EDIT (01/09/22) DXO TIP: DXO only displays the results of Deep Prime in a small window, making it difficult to assess how much it's affecting the image. But if you export the image as a JPEG (using the original image folder export option and keeping the file name the same as the original), it will appear (with deep prime applied) in the thumbnails alongside the original RAW.

In DXO you can then select the small disclosure arrow on the compare view icon, and choose the JPEG you have just created to get a split screen view showing the DeepPrime version in one half and the standard DXO noise reduction version in the other. The jpeg can then be deleted and different settings tried if necessary. It's not great, and you can't compare multiple JPEGS (at different deep prime settings), but it's a relatively easy way of seeing the effect of Deep Prime across the whole image in a single view.


Neat Image

I didn't make a full set of comparisons with the non-ai Neat Image 9 as it requires a lot of effort to use. It's been around for a long time and release 9 came out last year. There is some automation, but it mainly relies on the user to manually adjust settings at the colour channel and detail frequency level.

I think it gives more natural results at low to moderate ISOs than the AI programs do, but at cost of a serious learning curve and time needed on each file. I've never had much success, compared to the AI options with high ISO files.

Colour
I've mentioned better C1 colour (and the microcontrast) on a few occasions, as C1 has a reputation of doing both these things a bit better than other raw processors. Something I agree with, but it's very subtle and not something that will make or break a photograph. There was nothing wrong with the colours from any of the options tried. I did mean to repeat some of the comparisons with Lightroom, but I ran out of steam.

Conclusion

I'm not sure I have a conclusion, other than the need to try these programs out for yourself. They all do a good job, and they all have positives and negatives. What is best will depend on your preferred workflow, sensor size, subject choice, working ISOs, and final output for your images (and how much money you want to spend).

I'm back where I started. Using Capture One and round tripping from C1 to Photoshop to use Topaz Denoise AI or Topaz Sharpen AI as PS Plugins.

At the price (especially as I got it for £35) ON1 NoNoise was impressive. especially if you look at the masking and editing tools it provides to subtly and selectively control noise and sharpness across your image. It was also very fast compared to the other options. If I didn't have PS plus Topaz, Denoise would be a very attractive plugin for C1 to deal with higher noise images.

DXO partially lives up to his marketing of making your existing cameras/lenses better, as it's generally more reliable in results than NoNoise or Topaz, and comes with high quality lens and sensor profiles, that give very clean results.

The lens corrections cuts off far less of the image than the C1 lens corrections and, colour apart, most of the time gave slightly more detailed and smoother results than C1, even at low ISOs. It increasingly got better than C1 as ISOs increased.

My one test at a very high ISOs suggest that Topaz and NoNoise give better results at high ISOs than DXO, and some Youtube bird photographers are combining DXO PureRaw at the beginning of their processing with Topaz in Photoshop at the end of it.

If they add more sharpening options to DXO Pure Raw, it should become a useful option to do initial processing, especially as a plugin to Lightroom. As it is, the full Photolab 5 feels like a much better value alternative, which can still be run as a Lightroom Plugin. But seems like an overkill to just manage noise. It could of course replace Lightroom or Capture One (if you don't need cataloguing) and I did do some comparisons, but "overall" I still preferred the result from C1 over DXO, and DXO over Lightroom.

Well done if you have made it to the end of this, hopefully some of it was useful.

Below is about a quarter of a Nikon D500 (APS-C) frame at ISO 20,000 processed in Capture One (lower image) and ON1 NoNoise (upper Image). Neither are very good, (its not very sharp to begin with) but it gives an idea of the improvements that NoNoise can bring.

20,000 ISO with Capture One default denoising and ON1 NoNOise

• myotis
• 28 Aug 2022

 

[Sky]

Wow! You've been busy - thanks for telling us about it.

I tried Topaz Denoise when it first came out years ago to try and improve an image for a friend, but have never gone back to it and I've not looked at any of the others.

I must admit, I use the computer as little as possible on my images as I really don't enjoy it and find it a chore. Maybe I should make a little more effort . . .

 

[myotis]

Wow! You've been busy - thanks for telling us about it.

I tried Topaz Denoise when it first came out years ago to try and improve an image for a friend, but have never gone back to it and I've not looked at any of the others.

I must admit, I use the computer as little as possible on my images as I really don't enjoy it and find it a chore. Maybe I should make a little more effort . . .

Thanks. I ended up spending more time on it than I intended !

Depending on what you photograph, you may not need to make more effort.

I'm interested because I often end up with high ISO bird photographs, and all the options have some kind of workflow or potential quality penalty.

Quality wise they are all fairly similar, but have different workflow implications and costs. And the Topaz programs have frequent updates, so any comparison might only be valid for a few weeks.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have not ever used a denoise program. I have not found noise to be a problem.
I would expect to see some noise in the shadows of high ISO shots, In the same way I would expect to see grain in under exposed or high ISO film.

 

[myotis]

I have not ever used a denoise program. I have not found noise to be a problem.
I would expect to see some noise in the shadows of high ISO shots, In the same way I would expect to see grain in under exposed or high ISO film.

It really depends on the kind of photography you do as to whether it's a problem or not, and if it is, these AI programs offer a generally effective and easy to use solution.

It's not an issue for me with landscapes, but it is for my bird photographs. I haven't actually done any direct comparisons, but my best guess is that these de-noising programs are probably giving me an extra two stops lee way in the choice of ISO for bird photographs.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

And the Topaz programs have frequent updates, so any comparison might only be valid for a few weeks.

True; They change and break things at lightning speed. There was a point in the earlier v3 releases of Sharpnen AI where it was unusable and v2 produced far better results. Luckily it was quietly fixed in a minor update.
In fact there is a significant difference of denoise capabilities (or lack of) between Sharpen and Denoise. This taught me that for ultimate IQ one should be prepared to work with layered approach and generate both standard RAW file output, Denoise, and even Sharpen AI versions and blend them together as required, only utilising the necessary parts. This is particularly the case for Sharpen AI which may only produce a whole workable image for something like a landscape low ISO scene. The masking feature is useless as it leaves the rest of image exposed to noise, etc. You would hope that maybe their new app would simplify these things but maybe I'm expecting too much.
I find it is best to feed files from LR with sharpening, NR and clarity turned off. That is clearly the case for SharpenAI, and to a lesser degree DenoiseAI.
Another interesting observation is that Topaz apps really dislike monochorme input. Far better results are achieved with colour files and running BW conversion afterwards.

A final note. LR may be quite conservative with their NR, and while that is a good thing for most well-captured files, there are tricks to take it a step further. Shadows are where the noise lurks, so add a luminosity range mask set for black and deep shadow range, and apply any of the following as needed: noise +, blacks -, texture --, saturation -, shadows -. Don't forget Canon chroma noise is usually magenta + green so desaturating those in shadow areas can also help. It's a much quicker if less sophisticated fix when working on the pressure, particularly for batch processing. Texture is particularly nasty setting in LR, and with cameras like 5Ds you have to be looking to subtracting it, never adding!

 

[Cobra]

That was an excellent post Graham.

Thanks for doing it

 

[Olly B]

That was a very interesting post Graham, especially as I am an Olympus user with Capture One and No Noise AI, like you landscapes rarely need any de-noising but wildlife is a different matter, and as I also possess DXO PL5, I mostly find myself processing with Capture One and using the No Noise plug in, curious thing though, recently after sending a raw image to No Noise from Capture One, the DNG image has returned with a very bright green cast on any foliage in the shot, I am perplexed as to why this should be happening?

Thanks for all your work on this, it was helpful in confirming my workflow choices!!

 

[myotis]

I've just added a single photo to the end of my original post of a file at 20,000 ISO processed in Capture One and ON1 Denoise.

 

[myotis]

A final note. LR may be quite conservative with their NR, and while that is a good thing for most well-captured files, there are tricks to take it a step further. Shadows are where the noise lurks, so add a luminosity range mask set for black and deep shadow range, and apply any of the following as needed: noise +, blacks -, texture --, saturation -, shadows -. Don't forget Canon chroma noise is usually magenta + green so desaturating those in shadow areas can also help. It's a much quicker if less sophisticated fix when working on the pressure, particularly for batch processing. Texture is particularly nasty setting in LR, and with cameras like 5Ds you have to be looking to subtracting it, never adding!

I think that's a good point as I can, with effort, make a far better job in Capture One than a straight comparison suggests, by using luminosity masks and selective masking of the subject.

 

[myotis]

That was a very interesting post Graham, especially as I am an Olympus user with Capture One and No Noise AI, like you landscapes rarely need any de-noising but wildlife is a different matter, and as I also possess DXO PL5, I mostly find myself processing with Capture One and using the No Noise plug in, curious thing though, recently after sending a raw image to No Noise from Capture One, the DNG image has returned with a very bright green cast on any foliage in the shot, I am perplexed as to why this should be happening?

Thanks for all your work on this, it was helpful in confirming my workflow choices!!

The most obvious reason for unexpected and selective bright green colour casts in C1 is accidentally switching on the focus peaking tool in C1.

But there have also been posts about various colour issues with the different Denoising programs. C1 has traditionally not been very good with DNGs, but has slowly improved.

Have you got the most up to date versions of C1 and NoNoise?

Is this just one file or many files, and is it just greens.

 

[Olly B]

The most obvious reason for unexpected and selective bright green colour casts in C1 is accidentally switching on the focus peaking tool in C1.

But there have also been posts about various colour issues with the different Denoising programs. C1 has traditionally not been very good with DNGs, but has slowly improved.

Have you got the most up to date versions of C1 and NoNoise?

Is this just one file or many files, and is it just greens.

Thanks for your input re this, I do have the most up to date versions of both programs and previously it seemed to be green foliage in every image I sent to be processed in no noise, however just to see what happens, I have just sent an image to no noise from capture one, essentially it is of a beach flower and only has two colours, pink and green, and it has been processed perfectly! Oh well, hopefully it was a glitch which has now sorted itself out!

 

[myotis]

Thanks for your input re this, I do have the most up to date versions of both programs and previously it seemed to be green foliage in every image I sent to be processed in no noise, however just to see what happens, I have just sent an image to no noise from capture one, essentially it is of a beach flower and only has two colours, pink and green, and it has been processed perfectly! Oh well, hopefully it was a glitch which has now sorted itself out!

Hopefully that's it fixed.

 

[russellsnr]

Hi, firstly thankyou for the effort you must have put in to this comparison.
Topaz Photo AI is only in the pre production phase just now and does seem to be progressing every week however I just now find that the Topaz stand alone options are giving better results, but in both options I do not like the fact that every time you make a change or just move the image you have to wait to see the result, I moved away from Adobe and now do use On1 photo raw with NoNoise AI included, I do like the fact that everything is within the one application and when you move a slider you see a near instant change and I move sliders on a regular basis as also feel although AI options are quite good they are not precise, maybe in a few years they will get it spot on but now manual adjustment is IMO the way to go.
I did try the DXO option but found way to harsh (for want of a better word)
One of the biggest problems that face us IMO however is the amount of so called YouTube experts who keep popping up every time a release of software is made telling us how the sun shines out from each software.
Only real way to find out what one you feel is best is do what the OP has done and test them out for yourselves.
Russ.

 

[myotis]

Hi, firstly thankyou for the effort you must have put in to this comparison.
Topaz Photo AI is only in the pre production phase just now and does seem to be progressing every week however I just now find that the Topaz stand alone options are giving better results, but in both options I do not like the fact that every time you make a change or just move the image you have to wait to see the result, I moved away from Adobe and now do use On1 photo raw with NoNoise AI included, I do like the fact that everything is within the one application and when you move a slider you see a near instant change and I move sliders on a regular basis as also feel although AI options are quite good they are not precise, maybe in a few years they will get it spot on but now manual adjustment is IMO the way to go.
I did try the DXO option but found way to harsh (for want of a better word)
One of the biggest problems that face us IMO however is the amount of so called YouTube experts who keep popping up every time a release of software is made telling us how the sun shines out from each software.
Only real way to find out what one you feel is best is do what the OP has done and test them out for yourselves.
Russ.

Thanks, but the effort was entirely selfish, it was just the the bit about deciding to share it that was a bit more altruistic

And it was partly because of what you said about Youtube reviews that encouraged me to post. Plus your point of trying things out for yourself

Was the DXO option you tried Pure Raw or PhotoLab, because having the full control that PhotoLab 5 offers makes Deep Prime much more useable.

But, if I was happy with ON1 PhotoRaw (which I've never used) and it's built in NoNoise, I wouldn't be looking to change. Even if it's interesting to see what other programs might offer.

I'm pretty well locked into using Capture One (I keep on trying to change, but always fail), and while you can get decent results (with a lot of work) up into the medium ISO range, it can't really compete with dedicated noise reduction programs once you get into high ISO images. How well it competes depends on how well the subject fills the frame, so it's tricky to suggest a specific ISO cut off point.

 

[russellsnr]

Thanks, but the effort was entirely selfish, it was just the the bit about deciding to share it that was a bit more altruistic

And it was partly because of what you said about Youtube reviews that encouraged me to post. Plus your point of trying things out for yourself

Was the DXO option you tried Pure Raw or PhotoLab, because having the full control that PhotoLab 5 offers makes Deep Prime much more useable.

But, if I was happy with ON1 PhotoRaw (which I've never used) and it's built in NoNoise, I wouldn't be looking to change. Even if it's interesting to see what other programs might offer.

I'm pretty well locked into using Capture One (I keep on trying to change, but always fail), and while you can get decent results (with a lot of work) up into the medium ISO range, it can't really compete with dedicated noise reduction programs once you get into high ISO images. How well it competes depends on how well the subject fills the frame, so it's tricky to suggest a specific ISO cut off point.

Was the DXO option you tried Pure Raw or PhotoLab? Pure RAW2 just thought it was to harsh, understand you can change some settings but again with On1 everything is in one place and I only photograph mostly small birds many under a heavy tree canopy so high ISO is what it is

 

[myotis]

Was the DXO option you tried Pure Raw or PhotoLab? Pure RAW2 just thought it was to harsh, understand you can change some settings but again with On1 everything is in one place and I only photograph mostly small birds many under a heavy tree canopy so high ISO is what it is

On PureRaw 2, you can only switch the sharpening off or on, which makes a worthwhile difference, but as I said in my post I still found that too be too sharp.

The sharpening "off" choice in Pure Raw, matches the the "0" setting in Photolab 5, and I used Photolab 5 at -0.5 and -1 settings

 

[LCPete]

Thanks for taking the trouble to do this Graham it’s very helpful and interesting
I mainly do macro and wildlife photography with Canon gear up to 2 years ago was using crop cameras such as 7D and 7D mk 2 , now use Canon full frame
I did work hard to get the exposure spot on to reduce noise but as you say some sort of noise reduction is often nessersary
I started years ago with the original version of neat image and although it killed detail it gave nice results if I used it on the background
I then moved to Topaz sharpen and denoise AI they were especially good at recovering old shots where my technique wasn’t as good as it should be
I now use DXO photolab together with Affinity photo for most editing
DXO is excellent but as you found the sharpening results on the default settings is not very good
I mostly use deep prime with the sharpening settings turned down a lot often the default preset gives nice results otherwise I just use optical correction only setting
I export as a DNG as it says in the export options to have correction’s applied, it doesn’t give that option with tiffs the then re export the DNG to a tiff then do any pixel editing in affinity photo
One thing that I’ve always struggled with is images that need large amounts of colour correction that you sometimes need with wildlife such as a subject under trees giving a green cast I still have not figured the best way to do that in DXO and sometimes do a white point correction afterwards in photoshop

 

[myotis]

Thanks for taking the trouble to do this Graham it’s very helpful and interesting
I mainly do macro and wildlife photography with Canon gear up to 2 years ago was using crop cameras such as 7D and 7D mk 2 , now use Canon full frame
I did work hard to get the exposure spot on to reduce noise but as you say some sort of noise reduction is often nessersary
I started years ago with the original version of neat image and although it killed detail it gave nice results if I used it on the background
I then moved to Topaz sharpen and denoise AI they were especially good at recovering old shots where my technique wasn’t as good as it should be
I now use DXO photolab together with Affinity photo for most editing
DXO is excellent but as you found the sharpening results on the default settings is not very good
I mostly use deep prime with the sharpening settings turned down a lot often the default preset gives nice results otherwise I just use optical correction only setting
I export as a DNG as it says in the export options to have correction’s applied, it doesn’t give that option with tiffs the then re export the DNG to a tiff then do any pixel editing in affinity photo
One thing that I’ve always struggled with is images that need large amounts of colour correction that you sometimes need with wildlife such as a subject under trees giving a green cast I still have not figured the best way to do that in DXO and sometimes do a white point correction afterwards in photoshop

How were you using Neat Image?

The denoising in Neat Image is in two stages. The first step is to remove all noise, ie create the noise profile, which is designed remove "all" noise and ignore detail. If it hasn't removed all the noise you can tweak the image before saving the profile. This is the bit that Neat Image can do automatically ie use a saved profile for a specific sensor and iso, or create a profile on the fly

Once the profile has been applied, You then move onto the adjust tab, and use the multitude of manual controls to set your personal choice of balance between noise sharpness and detail.

As I said, I often prefer the results from Neat Image (when I get it right), but have always found it difficult and time consuming to use. At my skill level, results were a little bit hit and miss I was interested that a recent noise reduction software comparison by Greg Benz (of Lumenzia fame ) concluded that he would now start to use DXO Pure Raw for everyday use (by blending an unsharpened image with a sharpened one), but for or tricky (difficult) noise problems he would still use Neat Image.


For your colour problem, I "think" you may be using the wrong export option. I apologise if you already know this and it has nothing to do with the problem.

The TIFF will, by default, have all the DXO corrections applied.

This is what exporting as a TIFF or JPEG from a raw convertor does. The raw convertor changes the values of every pixel, before exporting them, to match the settings you used in the raw convertor. This means that any further edits in Affinity or Photoshop are edits on the edits you already made in the raw convertor. This can limit how much you can make further edits to tonal range and colour of the image, especially white balance. So you need to get it right in the raw processor before exporting as a TIFF or PSD.


The DNG export option (denoising &. optical corrections only), only demosaics the file, and exports as a linear "raw" file with none of the DXO tonal or colour edits applied. Meaning that when you open the DNG file in another Raw processor, you get the benefits of the DXO lens corrections and Deep Prime, but the colour and tonal values, at the pixel level stay identical to the values of the original raw file. So when you open a DXO exported Nikon D750 file in Capture One, it looks identical to the original NEF file when opened in Capture One (except for the noise and lens corrections)

The DNG export (with all corrections applied) is (from the manual) for :

"...when you use Lightroom only as a cataloger, while entrusting the entire processing of your RAW files to DXO Photolab"

DXO are a little bit opaque as to what is happening here, but strongly imply that DNG exports with (corrections applied) aren't suitable for further editing. They also make a point of emphasising that Lightroom doesn't understand DXO edits and vice versa. And, more than that, they imply they are specifically designed to be viewed "only" in Lightroom. But if this is the case, why bother with a DNG in the first place, why not just use TIFFs.

I have a wild guess here.

The DXO edit information is stored in the *,DOP file and within a "catalogue" file used directly by DXO.

A DNG file is actually a package of files and I think that the DXO with corrections option is possibly exporting a TIFF or JPEG preview inside the DNG (showing the edits made in DXO), and also storing the Raw file conversion, and DXO edit information inside the DNG. This makes the original raw Plus the DXO edits available for further editing in DXO, even without the *.DOP sidecar file or links back to the original DXO "catalogue" file. You couldn't do that if it was a TIFF or JPEG.

DNGs aren't the universal format that some people think, and if DXO are generating DNGs specifically to use in a Lightroom catalogue, they may well act oddly, and inconsistently, in other programs. Maybe a deeper search will find the answer.

But you may well know all this, but if you do, no harm, and if you don't, hopefully it might be useful.

 

[LCPete]

Thanks Graham that helps a lot I’m out at the moment will reply properly later

 

[LCPete]

How were you using Neat Image?

The denoising in Neat Image is in two stages. The first step is to remove all noise, ie create the noise profile, which is designed remove "all" noise and ignore detail. If it hasn't removed all the noise you can tweak the image before saving the profile. This is the bit that Neat Image can do automatically ie use a saved profile for a specific sensor and iso, or create a profile on the fly

Once the profile has been applied, You then move onto the adjust tab, and use the multitude of manual controls to set your personal choice of balance between noise sharpness and detail.

As I said, I often prefer the results from Neat Image (when I get it right), but have always found it difficult and time consuming to use. At my skill level, results were a little bit hit and miss I was interested that a recent noise reduction software comparison by Greg Benz (of Lumenzia fame ) concluded that he would now start to use DXO Pure Raw for everyday use (by blending an unsharpened image with a sharpened one), but for or tricky (difficult) noise problems he would still use Neat Image.


For your colour problem, I "think" you may be using the wrong export option. I apologise if you already know this and it has nothing to do with the problem.

The TIFF will, by default, have all the DXO corrections applied.

This is what exporting as a TIFF or JPEG from a raw convertor does. The raw convertor changes the values of every pixel, before exporting them, to match the settings you used in the raw convertor. This means that any further edits in Affinity or Photoshop are edits on the edits you already made in the raw convertor. This can limit how much you can make further edits to tonal range and colour of the image, especially white balance. So you need to get it right in the raw processor before exporting as a TIFF or PSD.


The DNG export option (denoising &. optical corrections only), only demosaics the file, and exports as a linear "raw" file with none of the DXO tonal or colour edits applied. Meaning that when you open the DNG file in another Raw processor, you get the benefits of the DXO lens corrections and Deep Prime, but the colour and tonal values, at the pixel level stay identical to the values of the original raw file. So when you open a DXO exported Nikon D750 file in Capture One, it looks identical to the original NEF file when opened in Capture One (except for the noise and lens corrections)

The DNG export (with all corrections applied) is (from the manual) for :

"...when you use Lightroom only as a cataloger, while entrusting the entire processing of your RAW files to DXO Photolab"

DXO are a little bit opaque as to what is happening here, but strongly imply that DNG exports with (corrections applied) aren't suitable for further editing. They also make a point of emphasising that Lightroom doesn't understand DXO edits and vice versa. And, more than that, they imply they are specifically designed to be viewed "only" in Lightroom. But if this is the case, why bother with a DNG in the first place, why not just use TIFFs.

I have a wild guess here.

The DXO edit information is stored in the *,DOP file and within a "catalogue" file used directly by DXO.

A DNG file is actually a package of files and I think that the DXO with corrections option is possibly exporting a TIFF or JPEG preview inside the DNG (showing the edits made in DXO), and also storing the Raw file conversion, and DXO edit information inside the DNG. This makes the original raw Plus the DXO edits available for further editing in DXO, even without the *.DOP sidecar file or links back to the original DXO "catalogue" file. You couldn't do that if it was a TIFF or JPEG.

DNGs aren't the universal format that some people think, and if DXO are generating DNGs specifically to use in a Lightroom catalogue, they may well act oddly, and inconsistently, in other programs. Maybe a deeper search will find the answer.

But you may well know all this, but if you do, no harm, and if you don't, hopefully it might be useful.

thanks again Graham for the detailed reply
It was a long time ago now when I was using Neat Image but I used a saved profile for a specific sensor (Canon 350D and 40D) then just used the default settings, it does sound like I should have experimented with the program more

For DXO it does sound like I’ve been using the wrong export option it’s great you’ve explained it as I’m not so well versed on the technical side of Raw conversion and editing, I’m ok using my camera and do shoot raw but don’t completely understand the process after that . I did have Adobe Lightroom figured out but now use DXO photolab and Affinity photo so it’s a learning process again
It does explain why I get a message when I open the Tiff file in Affinity to say it’s converted to the right format ( can’t remember sorry exactly what it is)
in future I will export the files directly to a Tiff from DXO , I almost always use deep prime , I may as well as my laptop is fast anyway and it takes seconds to run a few conversions

 

[myotis]

thanks again Graham for the detailed reply
It was a long time ago now when I was using Neat Image but I used a saved profile for a specific sensor (Canon 350D and 40D) then just used the default settings, it does sound like I should have experimented with the program more

For DXO it does sound like I’ve been using the wrong export option it’s great you’ve explained it as I’m not so well versed on the technical side of Raw conversion and editing, I’m ok using my camera and do shoot raw but don’t completely understand the process after that . I did have Adobe Lightroom figured out but now use DXO photolab and Affinity photo so it’s a learning process again
It does explain why I get a message when I open the Tiff file in Affinity to say it’s converted to the right format ( can’t remember sorry exactly what it is)
in future I will export the files directly to a Tiff from DXO , I almost always use deep prime , I may as well as my laptop is fast anyway and it takes seconds to run a few conversions

The message might be about converting the colour space.

Actually, as I still have 3 days on my DXO trial I've just tried it.

I opened the LT tit picture (as in this thread) in DXO opened the export dialog, and added Affinity Photo to the application list and selected it, then I chose an ICC profile of Adobe RGB, and hit export.

DXO exported the file and then opened Affinity Photo with the file already open, with no warnings. In affinity Photo I changed the colour space to Adobe RGB (in preferences), and, as far as I can make out the colours in DXO and Affinity Photo are identical.

 

[LCPete]

The message might be about converting the colour space.

Actually, as I still have 3 days on my DXO trial I've just tried it.

I opened the LT tit picture (as in this thread) in DXO opened the export dialog, and added Affinity Photo to the application list and selected it, then I chose an ICC profile of Adobe RGB, and hit export.

DXO exported the file and then opened Affinity Photo with the file already open, with no warnings. In affinity Photo I changed the colour space to Adobe RGB (in preferences), and, as far as I can make out the colours in DXO and Affinity Photo are identical.

Thanks yes that’s it the message was about the colour space , I’ll change the colour space in Affinity to Adobe RGB and DXO

 

[myotis]

I have edited my origin post to add some comments on DXO. The edited bits are repeated below:


High ISOs (one file 20,000)

Nikon D500 file which C1 and DXO gave very poor results. This time Topaz Denoise gave similar results to NoNoise, but noNoise was still noticeably better. Winner NoNoise or DXO (see edit below)

EDIT 01/09/22: I have re-run the DXO test. My focus on avoiding sharpening haloes meant I had left DXO to auto-adjust the noise reduction bit,which seemed to work well. But having noticed that it seemed to always leave the noise setting at 40 I decided to tried to improve on my earlier results.

I ended up with the DXO noise reduction set to 75 and the sharpness at 0 rather than the 40 and the -0.1 I had previously used. The result was different to the NoNOise result, but with neither "overall" obviously better than the other. I probably preferred the DXO results, but as I tweaked the results, I kept on changing my mind.


AND

DXO

Although NoNoise seemed to just beat DXO a few times, DXO seemed, overall, to be less susceptible to artefacts and gave better colour rendering than NoNoise.

EDIT (01/09/22) DXO TIP: DXO only displays the results of Deep Prime in a small window, making it difficult to assess how much it's affecting the image. But if you export the image as a JPEG (using the original image folder export option and keeping the file name the same as the original), it will appear (with deep prime applied) in the thumbnails alongside the original RAW.

In DXO you can then select the small disclosure arrow on the compare view icon, and choose the JPEG you have just created to get a split screen view showing the DeepPrime version in one half and the standard DXO noise reduction version in the other. The jpeg can then be deleted and different settings tried if necessary. It's not great, and you can't compare multiple JPEGS (at different deep prime settings), but it's a relatively easy way of seeing the effect of Deep Prime across the whole image in a single view.

 

[LCPete]

I have edited my origin post to add some comments on DXO. The edited bits are repeated below:


High ISOs (one file 20,000)

Nikon D500 file which C1 and DXO gave very poor results. This time Topaz Denoise gave similar results to NoNoise, but noNoise was still noticeably better. Winner NoNoise or DXO (see edit below)

EDIT 01/09/22: I have re-run the DXO test. My focus on avoiding sharpening haloes meant I had left DXO to auto-adjust the noise reduction bit,which seemed to work well. But having noticed that it seemed to always leave the noise setting at 40 I decided to tried to improve on my earlier results.

I ended up with the DXO noise reduction set to 75 and the sharpness at 0 rather than the 40 and the -0.1 I had previously used. The result was different to the NoNOise result, but with neither "overall" obviously better than the other. I probably preferred the DXO results, but as I tweaked the results, I kept on changing my mind.


AND

DXO

Although NoNoise seemed to just beat DXO a few times, DXO seemed, overall, to be less susceptible to artefacts and gave better colour rendering than NoNoise.

EDIT (01/09/22) DXO TIP: DXO only displays the results of Deep Prime in a small window, making it difficult to assess how much it's affecting the image. But if you export the image as a JPEG (using the original image folder export option and keeping the file name the same as the original), it will appear (with deep prime applied) in the thumbnails alongside the original RAW.

In DXO you can then select the small disclosure arrow on the compare view icon, and choose the JPEG you have just created to get a split screen view showing the DeepPrime version in one half and the standard DXO noise reduction version in the other. The jpeg can then be deleted and different settings tried if necessary. It's not great, and you can't compare multiple JPEGS (at different deep prime settings), but it's a relatively easy way of seeing the effect of Deep Prime across the whole image in a single view.

Thats a lot easier than the way I was deciding on the Deep Prime sharpen settings, which was basically trial and error each batch of similar images
as a starting point I’m going to -1 on the main sharpness slider and -20 on the 2 below , someone on another thread said the same the default settings way over sharpen , I can probably go even lower as I’m not finding I need to sharpen in Affinity photo after running though DXO deep prime raw conversion

 

[myotis]

Thats a lot easier than the way I was deciding on the Deep Prime sharpen settings, which was basically trial and error each batch of similar images
as a starting point I’m going to -1 on the main sharpness slider and -20 on the 2 below , someone on another thread said the same the default settings way over sharpen , I can probably go even lower as I’m not finding I need to sharpen in Affinity photo after running though DXO deep prime raw conversion

Yes, you can always tweak sharpness in Affinity. I think you can probably end up with basic settings in DXO that are "good enough" most of the time and then fiddle with them when you aren't happy with the results.

 

[chambeshi]

Last year, finally, I bought Topaz deNOISE AI and have used it sparingly. In short it works well, compared to the noise reduction on images taken at higher ISOs using the adobe tools in LR Classic. This is on Nikon Z9 RAWs.

Note - Topaz is apparently in negotiation with Nikon to licence its new compressed RAW spec ie HE* RAW, which Nikon is likely to roll out into its forthcoming cameras.

Topaz has released its integrated solution, which sound useful

Topaz Photo AI Review | DeNoise, Sharpen, Gigapixel. all in one!

Today, we are doing a Topaz Photo AI review, because (spoiler alert!) it is a combination of all three Topaz Labs apps in one!

www.slrlounge.com

 

[myotis]

Last year, finally, I bought Topaz deNOISE AI and have used it sparingly. In short it works well, compared to the noise reduction on images taken at higher ISOs using the adobe tools in LR Classic. This is on Nikon Z9 RAWs.

Note - Topaz is apparently in negotiation with Nikon to licence its new compressed RAW spec ie HE* RAW, which Nikon is likely to roll out into its forthcoming cameras.

Topaz has released its integrated solution, which sound useful

Topaz Photo AI Review | DeNoise, Sharpen, Gigapixel. all in one!

Today, we are doing a Topaz Photo AI review, because (spoiler alert!) it is a combination of all three Topaz Labs apps in one!

www.slrlounge.com

In my thoughts as posted a long time ago as AI programs go, I mentioned abandoning PhotoAI as couldn't get consistent results from it.

Although, I haven't done any tests, I am finding that I'm now going into PhotoAI more often than DeNoise AI, so it has definitely improved a lot since my initial comparison.

 

[LCPete]

In my thoughts as posted a long time ago as AI programs go, I mentioned abandoning PhotoAI as couldn't get consistent results from it.

Although, I haven't done any tests, I am finding that I'm now going into PhotoAI more often than DeNoise AI, so it has definitely improved a lot since my initial comparison.

Apparently they are continually updating it , the PhotoAI
I have the older separate versions of Topaz , I now mainly use DXOPhotolab so haven’t upgraded my Topaz programs

 

[myotis]

Apparently they are continually updating it , the PhotoAI
I have the older separate versions of Topaz , I now mainly use DXOPhotolab so haven’t upgraded my Topaz programs

There is a weekly update to PhotoAI (every Friday) !

If you have all three (up to date) Topaz products (DeNoise, Sharpen and GigaPixel) you can get a free upgrade to PhotoAI. Eventually, Topaz are going to drop the stand alone options.

I've ended up using PhotoLab for the initial demosaicing with only small amounts of noise reduction and sharpening, exported as a DNG with PhotoAI used in Photoshop layers for further denoising and sharpening.

PhotoLab doesn't give the sharpening tools that Topaz does, and I prefer the fine control that Topaz + Photoshop give.

I have however, just "fallen" into this routine and not done any proper testing.

 

[Dale.]

This is an excellent read, thank you.

 

[LCPete]

There is a weekly update to PhotoAI (every Friday) !

If you have all three (up to date) Topaz products (DeNoise, Sharpen and GigaPixel) you can get a free upgrade to PhotoAI. Eventually, Topaz are going to drop the stand alone options.

I've ended up using PhotoLab for the initial demosaicing with only small amounts of noise reduction and sharpening, exported as a DNG with PhotoAI used in Photoshop layers for further denoising and sharpening.

PhotoLab doesn't give the sharpening tools that Topaz does, and I prefer the fine control that Topaz + Photoshop give.

I have however, just "fallen" into this routine and not done any proper testing.

my Topaz programs aren’t new enough to get the free update unfortunately, but my version of AI sharpen is still perfect for what I do, it’s especially good when I go back to old Raw files and reprocess them in DXO and then resharpen in Topaz AI sharpen , agree it’s much better for fine control
I am not using photoshop now have gone to Affinity photo for what I use I prefer affinity
A lot of the time I just convert the Raws in DXO deep prime and minor adjustments in Affinity

 

[myotis]

my Topaz programs aren’t new enough to get the free update unfortunately, but my version of AI sharpen is still perfect for what I do, it’s especially good when I go back to old Raw files and reprocess them in DXO and then resharpen in Topaz AI sharpen , agree it’s much better for fine control
I am not using photoshop now have gone to Affinity photo for what I use I prefer affinity
A lot of the time I just convert the Raws in DXO deep prime and minor adjustments in Affinity

Yes, I like Affinity Photo, but use various panels and tools that are PS only. I agree that PhotoLab + Affinity is good combination.

 

[russellsnr]

Have Topaz photo ai but it seems to be a never ending story, I also have denoise and find it does a better job. Along with an attempt to use DXO Pure Raw but that I am finding on many occasions it's stopping 5 or 6 seconds before completing, wish I could get it to work but have been told that an i5 cpu and a gpu with 6gb is not powerful enough, seems to be the answer nowadays from software developers. Russ

 

[GooGaBu]

Thanks for posting this - been looking at some denoise stuff and this post was a good read...
Although - still not sure which one I end up testing first ..

 

[myotis]

Thanks for posting this - been looking at some denoise stuff and this post was a good read...
Although - still not sure which one I end up testing first ..

Please note the date of my post.

Things have moved on, even if the principle of finding one that works for you is the same.

Topaz Photo AI is much much better than it was, I wasn't at all enthusiastic about it in my comparison.

DXP Pure Raw 3.0 is meant to be coming out in March, and they may well deal with the lack of control problems I had with it. And as with PhotoAI. I may well change my mind about Pure Raw. once V3 comes out.

The new release of ON1 NoNoise, since I tested it, added sharpening tools, which I couldn't get on with. But I suspect that this had a lot to do with me not putting the time into it, as I had moved onto a different workflow.

There are some practical reasons that can help choose which one you might want to try first.

The denoise and sharpening tools for DXO (Pure Raw and Photolab) only work with Raw files, and offer no sharpening tools to help fix motion blur or slightly out of focus images. And the "raw only" factor means you can't work them into a layer based Affinity Photo/Photoshop workflow.

On1 NoNoise and Topaz can work on Raw (which is meant to give the best results) or on TIFFs. Both offer sharpening tools for motion blur or slightly out of focus images, and Photo AI comes with an upsizing tool. ON1 offers a separate upsizing tool, but it's not part of NoNoise. This may not be relevant.

The stand alone Topaz products are being phased out once Photo AI can match their capability, which I suspect isn't that far off.

All of them I think are pretty hardware intensive, so your computer and age of Operating System might influence you choice.

I have ended up with starting with DXO PhotoLab, because of its combination of excellent lens corrections, good noise reduction and ability to save raws as linear DNGs. But, very high ISO files (bird photographs) are finalised with the denoising and image sharpening tools from Topaz.

 

[russellsnr]

Please note the date of my post.

Things have moved on, even if the principle of finding one that works for you is the same.

Topaz Photo AI is much much better than it was, I wasn't at all enthusiastic about it in my comparison.

DXP Pure Raw 3.0 is meant to be coming out in March, and they may well deal with the lack of control problems I had with it. And as with PhotoAI. I may well change my mind about Pure Raw. once V3 comes out.

The new release of ON1 NoNoise, since I tested it, added sharpening tools, which I couldn't get on with. But I suspect that this had a lot to do with me not putting the time into it, as I had moved onto a different workflow.

There are some practical reasons that can help choose which one you might want to try first.

The denoise and sharpening tools for DXO (Pure Raw and Photolab) only work with Raw files, and offer no sharpening tools to help fix motion blur or slightly out of focus images. And the "raw only" factor means you can't work them into a layer based Affinity Photo/Photoshop workflow.

On1 NoNoise and Topaz can work on Raw (which is meant to give the best results) or on TIFFs. Both offer sharpening tools for motion blur or slightly out of focus images, and Photo AI comes with an upsizing tool. ON1 offers a separate upsizing tool, but it's not part of NoNoise. This may not be relevant.

The stand alone Topaz products are being phased out once Photo AI can match their capability, which I suspect isn't that far off.

All of them I think are pretty hardware intensive, so your computer and age of Operating System might influence you choice.

I have ended up with starting with DXO PhotoLab, because of its combination of excellent lens corrections, good noise reduction and ability to save raws as linear DNGs. But, very high ISO files (bird photographs) are finalised with the denoising and image sharpening tools from Topaz.

Hi, what are the specs on the GPU? I have 1060 6GB and does not seem enough for DXO prime. Thanks ,Russ

 

[myotis]

Hi, what are the specs on the GPU? I have 1060 6GB and does not seem enough for DXO prime. Thanks ,Russ

Not sure what you are asking? Are you interested in the GPU on my Mac, or the specs that DXO recommend. I don't actually know the answer to either of these things, but I could probably find out what my Mac has. I think it's 2gb.

I'm not finding Deep prime all that slow, Prime is meant to be slower than Deep Prime, but I haven't made a comparison, I never found Prime all that good, and it was Deep prime that brought me back to DXO.

 

[myotis]

Have Topaz photo ai but it seems to be a never ending story, I also have denoise and find it does a better job. Along with an attempt to use DXO Pure Raw but that I am finding on many occasions it's stopping 5 or 6 seconds before completing, wish I could get it to work but have been told that an i5 cpu and a gpu with 6gb is not powerful enough, seems to be the answer nowadays from software developers. Russ

I missed this post, which is probably relevant to the post I replied to. The demands on hardware do indeed seem very high now a days, until a recent upgrade to a Mac Studio, I ether couldn’t run, or struggled to run most of the programs that I can now run happily.

 

[russellsnr]

I missed this post, which is probably relevant to the post I replied to. The demands on hardware do indeed seem very high now a days, until a recent upgrade to a Mac Studio, I ether couldn’t run, or struggled to run most of the programs that I can now run happily.

This is the big problem for me and probably 99% of amateurs, you see all this hype about how good this or that software is then the only way you can get to use a 100 £, $ or Euro software is spend another thousand to get a system that it will work on.