Lightroom classic 12.3 denoise AI

Trying it now. I'll let you know what it looks like in about an hour!
 
Ed Sutton said:
Trying it now. I'll let you know what it looks like in about an hour!
Click to expand...
Did you get a notification of it being available?

I updated PS yesterday in response to a notification but nothing about Lightroom. I imagine they stagger notifications to avoid overloading the servers, and maybe, as I came across the Adobe page by accident, its only "just" been released.
 
myotis said:
Did you get a notification of it being available?

I updated PS yesterday in response to a notification but nothing about Lightroom. I imagine they stagger notifications to avoid overloading the servers, and maybe, as I came across the Adobe page by accident, its only "just" been released.
Click to expand...
On my desktop (PC) I did. It wouldn't update straight away though.

Tried it on an ISO 40000 image but had it set too agressively which killed some details, so trying again.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Musicman said:
Blooming typical that this arrives literally hours after I laid out some dosh for DxO PureRAW exactly for AI Denoising to DNG (although it is very good at the job and possibly better than Adobe’s effort)
Click to expand...
I suspect LR is going to only work on original raw files (I might be wrong) so it will probably be an either/or when it comes to using LR or DXO for noise reduction.

DXO currently (in my view) does a better job at lens corrections and sharpening than LR does, so it will be interesting to make the comparison.
 
I'll try to share an X-Trans before/after later. The update wasn't showing as available for me a few hours ago though,
 
Greg Benz has a useful review and comparison (with LR original and Pure Raw 3):

gregbenzphotography.com

Incredible new AI noise reduction in LR / ACR - Greg Benz Photography

Adobe Camera RAW (ACR v15.3) and Lightroom (Classic v12.3 / Desktop v6.3) have just added a powerful new noise reduction tool using artificial intelligence (as well as some great enhancements to HDR capabilities and more noted at the bottom of this post). Noise reduction is a powerful tool not...
gregbenzphotography.com

edit: I maybe should emphasise that he does a very detailed comparison with Pure Raw, a program he already uses.
 
Last edited:
1681853556410.jpeg
It isn't the noisiest photo to start with, but one of the few ISO 6,400 XTrans files I have in Lightroom - the denoise has made a decent improvement though.
 
I've just been playing with the new feature and initial results are quite positive. I imported a NEF file shot at ISO 25,600 into LRC and then used both the new LRC Denoise and Topaz DeNoise AI to get a comparison, not just of the finished article but also which was quicker ... and that gave me a surprise o_O

So, first I used Topaz DeNoise which opened in the comparison view screen. I have it set to initially go with its own suggested noise and sharpening and left it at that selecting the Clear option and saving back into LRC. Time from start to finish was 1:17 and I got what I expected with well controlled noise and a small amount of sharpening. An eminently useable image.

Next, the new LR Denoise. This took considerably longer to complete - 15:15 to be precise :eek: - and the subject still needed some sharpening afterwards (mask the subject and add sharpening to taste) but once completed I would have trouble telling the images apart.

On my laptop both methods took pretty much the same time (with the LRC method coming in 35s quicker) and gave the same visual results. Most of the extra time for the Topaz method was saving the image back into LRC.

Overall, I think Adobe have made a good start along this road considering the time that Topaz have had to develop and refine DeNoise AI.

So, why the long time on my desktop pc? Well, it does have a rather ancient graphics card (GT1030) with just 2GB of RAM - I guess a new graphics card is on the horizon :eek:
2birds.jpg
 
Just finished a trial of DXO RAW 3 and was going to pull the trigger then saw this mentioned on a FB group last night, done the update and had a play, results look very similar to me so will do some extended testing.
 
BTW it works with the CC version too, seems to be some confusion on that, I don't use classic and my CC now has the new feature.
 
As you may expect, loads of reviews on YouTube.
They all seem favourable and compare well with the other main products. How are you folks finding the speed? Particularly when compared to Topaz and the like.
I only have the Adobe products as supplied with Photography Plan.
 
Well I've tried everything apart from contacting adobe directly but my Lightroom Classic is not finding version 12.3. Any ideas?
 
Is your operating system up to date?
 
Graham W said:
As you may expect, loads of reviews on YouTube.
They all seem favourable and compare well with the other main products. How are you folks finding the speed? Particularly when compared to Topaz and the like.
I only have the Adobe products as supplied with Photography Plan.
Click to expand...
I'm using a Macbook Pro with M1 chip, it's faster than Topaz with better results for sure and on par with DXO Pure Raw 3 in terms of speed and quality of final image in my opinion.
 
Craikeybaby said:
Is your operating system up to date?
Click to expand...
S'ok now. I use the online chat to get someone at Adobe. I had to uninstall LRC, reboot then reinstall -- all functioning now. Thanks anyway.
 
I was thinking about getting DXO but now this has come out I can save myself £115, so that's next years LR subscription taken care of, result!
 
In my casual testing, LR's new AI Noise reduction is good, but DxO still wins consistently for the amount of genuine-looking detail it can pull out of a file

Adobe doesn't achieve this while there is still noise left in the image

A sample image taken with my Sony A7III and FE 24-105 f/4 at ISO 10000

200% crops

01 original with no noise reduction
02 Lightroom Ai
03 DxO PureRAW 3 DeepPrime XD


300% crop

04 Lightroom AI vs DxO

Edit: I've not done timings, but Lightroom has a big head start over DxO in not having to open a separate application to do the processing. Actual processing time is between 20 and 30 seconds for my 24 Mpx files.

For the manual focus shooters, I have a lot of photos taken with legacy lenses (Contax C/Y and FD) and DxO fares less well not having lens data to do its lens-correction magic with than my more modern lenses with electronics like the 24-105.
 

Attachments

  • 04_LRvsDxO.jpg
    04_LRvsDxO.jpg
    71.6 KB · Views: 18
  • 03_DxO.jpg
    03_DxO.jpg
    165.7 KB · Views: 18
  • 02_LRAI.jpg
    02_LRAI.jpg
    178.8 KB · Views: 17
  • 01_Original.jpg
    01_Original.jpg
    226.5 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
DxO is noticeably more sure-footed when handling fine detail like hair where Lightroom gets a little unsure about where the edges of things are - 400% crop comparison attached

I have noticed this with surfaces like tarmac roads or rendered walls on buildings. DxO nails it where LR AI and even Topaz render it as a fuzzy mush.

For bird and other animal photographers concerned with feathers and fur this may be quite important.
 

Attachments

  • 05_LRvDXO_400.jpg
    05_LRvDXO_400.jpg
    118.3 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
Musicman said:
Blooming typical that this arrives literally hours after I laid out some dosh for DxO PureRAW exactly for AI Denoising to DNG (although it is very good at the job and possibly better than Adobe’s effort)
Click to expand...
DXO Pure raw is much better.

Not only do you get the lens corrections but DXO produces a sharper image with more refined detail. LR gets a bit mushy.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
DXO Pure raw is much better.

Not only do you get the lens corrections but DXO produces a sharper image with more refined detail. LR gets a bit mushy.
Click to expand...

Yes, that concurs with my findings a couple of posts above.

Even with clean files at 100 ISO DxO finds detail in a RAW file that ACR does not, without the image produced by DxO being oversharpened.

If you need even more, I have found clean DxO rendered RAW files make a much better starting point for LR's Super Resolution Enhancement.
 
I've just tried it in PS2023 and I'm impressed. I've just tried it on some Sony A7 pictures taken at ISO 25,600 under some awful artificial lighting and the results look poor at 100% but as whole pictures filling my screen they're useable and would I guess look ok as an A4 print when viewed normally.
 
ecoleman said:
DXO Pure raw is much better.

Not only do you get the lens corrections but DXO produces a sharper image with more refined detail. LR gets a bit mushy.
Click to expand...
You get lens corrections in LR and imo they are better. Something that made me hesitate about DXO was although the lens corrections were apparently applied, when the processed file was imported back into LR the lens correction had to be applied again as it seemed to lose it when exporting from DXO.
 
imattersuk said:
You get lens corrections in LR and imo they are better. Something that made me hesitate about DXO was although the lens corrections were apparently applied, when the processed file was imported back into LR the lens correction had to be applied again as it seemed to lose it when exporting from DXO.
Click to expand...
Never had that problem myself.
 
ecoleman said:
Never had that problem myself.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's a weird one, says all lens profiles downloaded and after DXO has finished you can see it's been applied but reverts back after importing to LR, needs further investigation.
 
To add to the above, LR sharpening was set at 40 by default, DXO Deep Prime applies more aggressive sharpening, just trying to compare what could be classed as "auto settings" for want of a better description.
 
I'm pleased that I now have denoising software as part of my LR subscription but I had pretty much decided (before it was announced) that the number of times I would want it at all did not merit the -- for DXO -- £115 cost. Looking at the pictures above, by Pete, shows that unless one is pixel-peeping, there is absolutely no discernible difference between the images as displayed. Now whether or not differences would show up in printing rather than on a screen, I have yet to determine, but de-noising software, to my old and jaundiced eye, seems to be a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist.

I'll get my coat :exit:
 
ShinySideUp said:
I'm pleased that I now have denoising software as part of my LR subscription but I had pretty much decided (before it was announced) that the number of times I would want it at all did not merit the -- for DXO -- £115 cost. Looking at the pictures above, by Pete, shows that unless one is pixel-peeping, there is absolutely no discernible difference between the images as displayed. Now whether or not differences would show up in printing rather than on a screen, I have yet to determine, but de-noising software, to my old and jaundiced eye, seems to be a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist.

I'll get my coat :exit:
Click to expand...
I've learnt not to see noise as the enemy, having said that there's a big difference between how it appears depending on the image. An under exposed high iso image will look awful when raising the shadows so I take more care these days to try and get the exposure right. Personally, I find blown highlights offend my eyes far more than a bit of grain.
 
ShinySideUp said:
I'm pleased that I now have denoising software as part of my LR subscription but I had pretty much decided (before it was announced) that the number of times I would want it at all did not merit the -- for DXO -- £115 cost. Looking at the pictures above, by Pete, shows that unless one is pixel-peeping, there is absolutely no discernible difference between the images as displayed. Now whether or not differences would show up in printing rather than on a screen, I have yet to determine, but de-noising software, to my old and jaundiced eye, seems to be a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist.

I'll get my coat :exit:
Click to expand...

I think it's a real issue for some people especially when they want to see detail retained under difficult conditions, such as birds feathers at high ISO etc. I've found that for me the worst noise seems to be in pictures with some sorts or artificial lighting and for eg some pictures at very high ISO's might look ok but others under poor artificial lighting may look poor at ISO 1,600.

I've tried the latest Adobe noise reduction on a few ISO 25,600 shots which were taken under artificial lighting and which looked very poor and as I posted above it has helped. I do agree though that at these sizes in this thread it may be difficult to see anything significant.
 
Last edited:
Andy Astbury (who has just bought DXO PR3), has a fairly detailed comparison here: He regrets buying DXO.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_anFnrfs0d0


I have been comparing Adobe with the tests I did last year (DXO, Topaz and ON1), using 11 different files . So far I am finding the Adobe offering very good. In my previous test, I didn't use any default values but iterated different settings to try and get the best out of each program, and I can't really be bothered doing a proper comparison, but so far...

At the end of last years testing I ended up using DXP Photolab 6 for with very low noise and lens correction values for initial processing (thus avoiding the sharpening artefacts with PR2) and exported as a linear DNG into either Capture One or Photoshop. This gives me a starting point that still had some noise, and after finished editing I finalise the noise reduction(and sharpening) as a Photoshop layer using Topaz.

As others have noted, DXO seems to extract a bit more detail than Adobe (as does Capture One), but, at the moment, I think I prefer the over all "look" of the Adobe denoising over DXO. I'm still testing but Adobe is looking very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top