and the site receives a small commission
Lightroom classic 12.3 denoise AI
- Thread starter myotis
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,835
- Name
- dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
im impressed with the denoise AI i took a picture with high iso on purpose to try it out and it did a really good job, deffo gave me something to think about when im taking pics in the dark nowadays, wish i had it when shooting bands in clubs all those years
- Messages
- 23,629
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I’m finding it faster than Topaz by a country mile (M1 Pro Max with 64gb ram) but I can still get marginally better results with topaz. Topaz has far more control, you have very little with Lightroom but I expect it will get better over time.
D
Deleted member 95430
Guest
Your tolerance for noise is much lower than mine!
- Messages
- 4,289
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
For sure, LRC makes much heavier use of any graphics card when using the denoise function than Topaz does. Even when I had turned off GPU use in LRC's preferences it still maxed my old card out! A new RTX3060 graphics card has solved the problem I was having - about 15 minutes to denoise an image - but my wallet feels a lot lighter than it did last week
The processing time difference is amazing - 15 minutes to 15 seconds - and far more than I was expecting. Money well spent? Don't ask the wife 
The processing time difference is amazing - 15 minutes to 15 seconds - and far more than I was expecting. Money well spent? Don't ask the wife
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,655
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don’t know if you looked on a phone screen or a pc screen but it’s quite obvious on a bigger screen but almost invisible on a phone screen. But yeah tolerance will vary!Your tolerance for noise is much lower than mine!
D
Deleted member 95430
Guest
A phone screen yeah! Now I must check with my laptop!
- Messages
- 2,679
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
Just been using it on images I took at Pulborough Brooks yesterday. Typical Sunny Sunday turns to overcast as soon as I arrive in Sussex..
But, the LR denoise is very good and very quick on my machine, but this is on 20MP D500 images, will be interested to see how it copes with 36 or 46 MP... that's where my old machine failed miserably.
But, the LR denoise is very good and very quick on my machine, but this is on 20MP D500 images, will be interested to see how it copes with 36 or 46 MP... that's where my old machine failed miserably.
- Messages
- 23,629
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Very quick for me on a 50mp image
- Messages
- 7,082
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I used this a lot yesterday, after shooting a mountain biking race in a forest - I was mostly at ISO 6,400 so there was a fair bit of noise. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to do the denoise as a batch, so did 5 images at a time, before going back to do the rest of the edit. This is the first time in 18 months I have heard the fans kick in on my M1 Pro MacBook.
2 other minor annoyances:
2 other minor annoyances:
- On all the uncropped images I used denoise on there was a weird purple line across the top
- When the new DNG appears it switches off the filter you have applied. E.g if you have filtered to only show flagged images, you will get all your images again.
- Messages
- 23,629
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Topaz Denoise often gets the fans going on my M1 MacBook, haven’t noticed it yet using LR denoise (or anything else for that matter)
- Messages
- 7,082
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Interesting, I thought that it had been recommended to do the denoise first (although I apply some minor tweaks on import).
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,678
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The problem is that the dng is not a raw file; the only advantage it has over a jpeg is that it is a 16 bit file. But the only difference I am really seeing is that applying denoise after the edits allows you to see how the edits will affect the results (e.g. shadow recovery/sharpening). I.e. the amount of de-noise applied might not be sufficient if applied first; but if you apply the same amount in both cases it makes no apparent difference.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,289
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Like Steven I have been doing some testing over the last couple of days and I prefer the end result if denoise is applied after my other develop adjustments, with the exception of output sharpening which I think is better if left until the very end.
Has anyone had any odd results when synchronising settings between images after applying denoise? I'm getting mixed results including increased noise
Has anyone had any odd results when synchronising settings between images after applying denoise? I'm getting mixed results including increased noise
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,678
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I haven't tried that... but the de-noise is not synced/copied, so I can see why the apparent noise level would vary/increase.Has anyone had any odd results when synchronising settings between images after applying denoise? I'm getting mixed results including increased noise
Just to say, I love the new LR Classic Noise Reduction
I'd have a few thousand images for selection in photo mechanic,
With DXO Pureraw I'd denoise my first selection pass before LR.
With LR I can denoise the final selection AFTER processing, but BEFORE the export - so that saves me time right there.
Also I'd noticed pureraw was adding different colour casts with some of my lenses, so I'm free of that issue now.
I'd have a few thousand images for selection in photo mechanic,
With DXO Pureraw I'd denoise my first selection pass before LR.
With LR I can denoise the final selection AFTER processing, but BEFORE the export - so that saves me time right there.
Also I'd noticed pureraw was adding different colour casts with some of my lenses, so I'm free of that issue now.
- Messages
- 2,780
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes. I suspect that if we "syncronise settings" the new noise reduction would not be applied. There is the option to include manually applied noise reduction in the options list but the AI assisted method is particular to the individual image so I don't see that it could be applied to a set.
- Messages
- 7,901
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
The AI masking tools can, apparently, be synced across files and adjust to each image. I assume only if the subjects are very similar - e.g all have skies to select. maybe the denoise can too? There's one way to find out.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,780
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Indeed!There's one way to find out.
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can include the AI Masks in Presets too. I have a few of my personal presets set up with AI Masks included now, you just have to tell LR to recalculate the mask. Weirdly the iPad app applies them automatically but the Windows desktop and Android apps don't.The AI masking tools can, apparently, be synced across files and adjust to each image. I assume only if the subjects are very similar - e.g all have skies to select. maybe the denoise can too? There's one way to find out.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,678
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you have an AI mask it will be reapplied to the new image... e.g. if it is a "select subject" mask it will re-run the AI subject selection on the new image... the subject/selection may be entirely different, but the applied settings will be the same.The AI masking tools can, apparently, be synced across files and adjust to each image. I assume only if the subjects are very similar - e.g all have skies to select. maybe the denoise can too? There's one way to find out.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Just wondering if LR denoise also sharpens like DXO does?
- Messages
- 6,376
- Name
- Elliott
- Edit My Images
- No
No, just noise reduction.
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
While I'm not sure I'd have gone for DXO (Photolab) if LR had already included NR, DXO does such a good job of sharpening I'll keep on using it now.
OP
- Messages
- 3,267
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
The Adobe Denoise AI uses the enhances details tool (which can't be switched off), along with the de-noising so it's compensating for the loss of detail due to the de-noising, but sharpening is done using the standard LR/ACR sharpening tools.
It doesn't include lens corrections or chromatic aberration corrections either, but these can be switched on after, or before, running the denoise.
It's not that different from DXO as these same things can be switched off and on with DXO. At least some of them can, I went for PhotoLab 6, rather than PR, because of the extra control PL6 provided. I normally now set the sharpening in PL at minus two, and I think PR only allows sharpening options of zero and plus one.
If you choose to use the lens corrections in DXO (PL, probably in PR as well), and switch sharpening off, you still get some sharpening to correct lens sharpness fall off at the edges, and the effects of diffraction etc.
In my tests, on poor quality lenses (like my Olympus 12-200), DXO gives much better overall results than LR, because of the combined lens correction/edge sharpening tools in DXO. With good quality lenses, I think DXO still has a slight edge, but probably not enough to warrant the cost if you already have Adobe Denoise AI. Noise reduction capability of both programs seem similar.
I also think the raw processing is slightly better in DXO over LR, giving a slightly better dynamic range and more shadow fine detail.
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
There's obviously far more to "sharpening" than I realised!
I'm using "texture" as well as "sharpening" in LR on occasion but "clarity" seems to go too far very quickly. Any file that's worth keeping and looks like it needs it goes through Photolab 5 first which does a really fine job of sharpening and NR and if necessary I can then tweak it in LR. I find that landscape images shot at 200 ISO on the Olympus OM1 + 12-100 zoom are usually quite noise free and need little sharpening. Thanks for your explanation of the more technical aspects of it all.
OP
- Messages
- 3,267
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
As a generalisation I find the lens correction better in PL6 than LR or C1. ie PL6 corrects distortion while cutting off less of the frame and adjusts for sharpening differences between the centre and the edge. With C1 there is an easy manual sharpening for the "edges" to correct edge sharpness, and there may well be similar in LR, but its not as convenient or as good as PL6
I've also found that at very low denoise (Deep Prime) and sharpness settings (10% and -2) at even base iso gives an improvement in detail (e.g moss on branches) and in the deeper shadows, if I want to open them up. T
This seems to be "real" detail so while sharpening, clarity and texture (structure in C1) or even dehaze can increase the impression of sharpness by playing with contrast, it just looks "sharper". Together with better DR from PL6, I've kind of got into the lazy habit of round tripping from C1 into DXO PL6 for everything, as it seems to do a better job.
Only with Deep Prime however, I find DeepPrimeXD to be rather harsh, even at low settings: Unless you start of with poorish image quality (e.g. my 12-200mm seems to benefit for DeepPrime XD.
The problem is that there are so many combinations of tools that I find it difficult to decide if any one approach is "really" better than another, especially as it seems to be very image dependent.
- Messages
- 7,901
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Using more than one program fro processing makes my head spin. I'll stick with Lightroom and my lifelong mantra of 'close enough for rock'n'roll'.
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Using more than one program fro processing makes my head spin. I'll stick with Lightroom and my lifelong mantra of 'close enough for rock'n'roll'.
I'd normally agree with you that simple is best. But my experience with Photolab is that it does such a good job of pre-processing noisy/unsharp files that it is well worth using it before Lightroom.
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm certainly not able to distinguish such fine details and differences as you are. I would normally agree with Ed Sutton that simple is best and if the differences between the new LR AI denoise and DXO's denoise are so subtle maybe there's a case for keeping everything within LR. However I'm happy with the results I'm getting at the moment using DXO then LR, so I guess I'll just carry on doing that. But things may change!
OP
- Messages
- 3,267
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
A good policy.Using more than one program fro processing makes my head spin. I'll stick with Lightroom and my lifelong mantra of 'close enough for rock'n'roll'.
Historically, I switched programs a lot simply because of always (until now) owning low spec computers that struggled to run some programs.
I originally found LR unusably slow, which first led me onto Photo Mechanic for culling and then onto other programs for other tasks such as processing and cataloguing.
With an interest in birds, and a spell using the much underrated Nikon 1 cameras, I have been a bit fanatical about dealing with noise. Eventually ending up with a "toolbox" of programs, which in more recent years I have failed to reduce, in spite of attempts at rationalisation, as each one offers something I seem unable to give up. But I haven't added anything "new" for at least 10 years, and most programs I've been using for around 15 years. Edit:: I realise that isn't correct as I have bought the Serif Affinity suite more recently than 10 years ago.
Lightroom is a great all round program especially with this new denoise tool, its difficult to think of. a better choice of a "single" program. But to be fair, I don't know that much about programs outside of LR (PS), C1 and DXO.
My biggest problem with LR (in spite of using it since it was in beta) is that I just don't enjoy using it, and it's dead easy to roundtrip from C1 to DXO or Photoshop (all programs I enjoy using, especially C1).
Having said, that LR and DXO has been dramatically improving over the last few years, and I'm increasingly using PS rather than C1 as my main processing tool I also reckon DXO is now giving better quality demosaicing than C1, so C1, apart from it still being my preferred "editing hub" has kind of lost its justification in my workflow. The LR DAM is much better than C1, so maybe it's time to say goodbye to C1, and put LR at the centre of my processing !
Sorry for this ramble, it seems your post prompted a bit of brainstorming in me
- Messages
- 7,901
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Sharpening and denoising aren't things I've ever bothered with much as the photos I take and where/how I display them doesn't really need me to make clean sharp pictures with lots of detail. If a photo is a bit unsharp I print it smaller and nobody can tell!
That said, LR's denoise has made a difference to some recent shots of mine. Although only at pixel peeping level. reduced down to the size TP allows them to be displayed there's no difference between before and after!
But I realise it's different for different kinds of photographs and uses.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 3,267
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
In terms of "photographs" the comparisons I do are almost entirely irrelevant, I hesitate to say completely irrelevant, but you could justifiably make that argument.
I just like to feel I have handle on how the different programs work and can potentially affect my images. Although it doesn't come across this way, the important lesson for me is more about how little the differences are, rather than any nuanced differences that I might find. But I like to feel, when making choices about programs I'm making an informed assessment.
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, where I normally struggle with noise and sharpness is with bird photography using long focal lengths and (too) slow shutter speeds.
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Indeed, And us users need people like to you to help us make the choices we make over software and other things. I don't really have that much interest in technical details but I like to to know I'm roughly making the right decisions.
OP
- Messages
- 3,267
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
For what I would call subject orientated photography, e.g. documentary, noise and sharpness are almost entirely eclipsed by the subject. If it isn't, then reducing noise or improving sharpness still won't make it a good photograph.
With bird photography, a lot of the attraction, for many is the detail and colours of the bird, where too much noise and lack of sharpness can directly detract from the enjoyment of the picture.
Although, I also do bird photographs, my biggest emotional commitment is to landscape where I have, as with everything in my life, a dichotomy of preferences. I love the grainy, gritty landscapes of the likes of Bill Brandt, and the "perfect print" approach of Ansel Adams and his ilk (even though I'm not actually all that excited by Ansel Adam's images).
With the latter type of image I find the connection is more abstract and related to the tonal and colour gradation, the details and the geometry of the shapes that make up the image. Even if the subject is recognisable as a tree and leaves, or a rock and lichens, or a mountain and river, the subject is largely (totally) irrelevant to my emotional reaction to the image.
For these latter photographs, I find that small nuanced changes with things like noise and sharpening, which can also affect tonal and colour gradation can be important to the "feel" of these types on images.
- Messages
- 3,171
- Name
- North York Moors
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I find that if I do adjustments before using it, even if that is only cropping it will sometimes say it is working but never complete - the only way to continue doing anything is close lightroom and it still says task in progress but allows you to shut down.
So probably best to normally use it first if you are going to.
So probably best to normally use it first if you are going to.