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.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.
Your tolerance for noise is much lower than mine!so very noisy to begin
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!
A phone screen yeah! Now I must check with my laptop!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!
Very quick for me on a 50mp imageJust 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.
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)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:
- 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.
Interesting, I thought that it had been recommended to do the denoise first (although I apply some minor tweaks on import).Used it a bit now... still trying to decide if it's better to denoise first, or last. So far I think applying denoise last is the best choice, at least when working with raw files.
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.Interesting, I thought that it had been recommended to do the denoise first (although I apply some minor tweaks on import).
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
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.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.
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.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.
Indeed!There's one way to find out.
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.
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.
No, just noise reduction.Just wondering if LR denoise also sharpens like DXO does?
No, just noise reduction.
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.Just wondering if LR denoise also sharpens like DXO does?
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.
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 PL6There'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.
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'.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.
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'.
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.
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'.
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!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.
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'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!
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.
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.
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.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.