Noise reduction software -- are they economical with the truth?

[ShinySideUp]

Over the last couple of weeks I have downloaded trial versions of On1 NoNoiseAI, DXO DeepPrime and Topaz AI, I also went out and deliberately took pictures at high ISO so there would be noise to be removed so as to try these packages. They all have their good bits and bad bits, but this is not a review of the software, it's a query about the way they show you the before and after pictures.

Take any image and open the software and one way or another, you will be able to compare the before and after pictures -- and indeed the effects are truly remarkable. Then you compare your original image with the portrayed 'before' image and you find that said 'before' image is significantly worse than the original photograph. It's almost as if they deliberately reduced the quality so that the 'after' result would look a lot better.

I presume I am wrong somewhere as I can't be the first person who's noticed this. What is going on?

FYI I am looking at the originals in either Faststone or Lightroom, doesn't matter which, they both look the same.

 

[4wd]

I think it is called marketing.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I don't remember seeing that - viewing at 100% and then activating the NR function the base image didn't change. On1 PR.

Just a thought, are you importing with noise reduction? Is so, could it be resetting to the unmodified image for the before side?

 

[ShinySideUp]

I don't remember seeing that - viewing at 100% and then activating the NR function the base image didn't change. On1 PR.

Just a thought, are you importing with noise reduction? Is so, could it be resetting to the unmodified image for the before side?

No, straight out of the camera.

 

[ThePrettyDamned]

No, straight out of the camera.

Lightroom imports with a default amount of colour and luminance noise reduction, on mine it's 25 luminance reduction. Try turning that off - it can be a bit drastic!

Edit: I can't comment on whether other software plays tricks! You could export a tiff from lightroom and bring that into nr software for comparison?

 

[ShinySideUp]

Lightroom imports with a default amount of colour and luminance noise reduction, on mine it's 25 luminance reduction. Try turning that off - it can be a bit drastic!

I'll have a look at that, I wasn't aware. Could be that I've confused the issue somewhere as I find it difficult to believe that noise reduction software companies would think no one would notice.

 

[ecoleman]

What you are seeing is the original raw file as it is before LR has applied its default noise reduction and sharpening.

Turn off NR and sharpening in LR and your image will look the same as their before photos.

 

[jerry12953]

What you are seeing is the original raw file as it is before LR has applied its default noise reduction and sharpening.

Turn off NR and sharpening in LR and your image will look the same as their before photos.

Useful info.........So when you send a raw file from LR to (eg) DXO are you sending the unsharpened raw file or the file as already sharpened by LR?

 

[ecoleman]

Useful info.........So when you send a raw file from LR to (eg) DXO are you sending the unsharpened raw file or the file as already sharpened by LR?

You are sending the raw file as in completely raw with zero lens corrections, zero sharpening, zero NR and no profiles.

 

[jerry12953]

Thanks for the reply ecoleman.

As far as the original post is concerned, why not just get on with using the software? I've found DXO nr/sharpening to be excellent and there are plenty of other satisfied users. You're trying to re-invent the wheel.

 

[myotis]

No, straight out of the camera.

Possibly to add to the confusion, but...

A "raw" file is a series of numbers, which simply records the "light" data that hits the photo sites on the sensor. A raw file only records this "raw" numerical data and cannot be seen as an image.

As well as the raw file, the camera produces a jpeg that it embeds inside the raw file. This is created by the camera using the profile you tell the camera to use, e.g. vivid, or flat or neutral etc, which includes noise reduction and sharpening.

Viewers like Faststone, when viewing the raw files, show you the embedded Jpeg, and may or may not emulate the colour profiles used by the camera.

Lightroom, depending on how it's set up, will initially show the embedded Jpeg, but then replace it with a Lightroom processed preview (it doesn't delete the embedded Jpeg, but you no longer see it in Lightroom. What you actually see, depends on how you tell Lightroom to process the Raw file. It might emulate the camera profiles, or it might use an Adobe profile or it might use custom settings decided by the user.

If you use software that does a literal conversion of the numbers in the raw file into something you can see, you end up with a very flat, dark, unsharp and noisy file with a green cast.

Some software (e.g Raw Therapee) try to give a starting point that closely matches the information captured in the raw file (the green cast is usually corrected) but most software only ever show you the embedded jpeg or a "good looking" processed preview.

DXO only runs its Prime, Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD on raw files, and it’s a raw file that the plugin sends from LR.

Topaz and NoNoise work on a raw file or a Tiff or a Jpeg, but they recommend starting with the raw file.

In the comparison that I posted last year, (https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/denoising-programs-some-thoughts.741366/post-9198419) I de-noised with all three programs using raw images, and the "before" image displayed was obviously based on a minimally processed (by the de-noising software) version of the raw file.

In that same comparison, I exported the noise reduced files from DXO/Topaz/ON1 as DNGs (noise reduction and optical corrections only) which I opened in Capture One and Lightroom where I could compare the "best" I could get with C1/LR with the best I could get with DXO/Topaz/On1.

I now use DXO (PL6, not Pure Raw) as a raw processor with low values for noise and optical corrections, to create DNGs. I then refine the noise and sharpness using Topaz in a Photoshop layer. Using a layer in Photoshop means that the "before" in Topaz displays the noise reduction applied by DXO as Topaz is no longer referencing the raw file.

 

[Cobra]

I'm more than happy with Topaz denoise, I'm using v6 6.0.1
but I find you need to treat it with kid gloves, including the after sharpening function.

But I do understand what what you are saying Martin, I also find sometimes its not always WYSIWYG.

 

[ShinySideUp]

Possibly to add to the confusion, but...

A "raw" file is a series of numbers, which simply records the "light" data that hits the photo sites on the sensor. A raw file only records this "raw" numerical data and cannot be seen as an image.

As well as the raw file, the camera produces a jpeg that it embeds inside the raw file. This is created by the camera using the profile you tell the camera to use, e.g. vivid, or flat or neutral etc, which includes noise reduction and sharpening.

Viewers like Faststone, when viewing the raw files, show you the embedded Jpeg, and may or may not emulate the colour profiles used by the camera.

Lightroom, depending on how it's set up, will initially show the embedded Jpeg, but then replace it with a Lightroom processed preview (it doesn't delete the embedded Jpeg, but you no longer see it in Lightroom. What you actually see, depends on how you tell Lightroom to process the Raw file. It might emulate the camera profiles, or it might use an Adobe profile or it might use custom settings decided by the user.

If you use software that does a literal conversion of the numbers in the raw file into something you can see, you end up with a very flat, dark, unsharp and noisy file with a green cast.

Some software (e.g Raw Therapee) try to give a starting point that closely matches the information captured in the raw file (the green cast is usually corrected) but most software only ever show you the embedded jpeg or a "good looking" processed preview.

DXO only runs its Prime, Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD on raw files, and it’s a raw file that the plugin sends from LR.

Topaz and NoNoise work on a raw file or a Tiff or a Jpeg, but they recommend starting with the raw file.

In the comparison that I posted last year, (https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/denoising-programs-some-thoughts.741366/post-9198419) I de-noised with all three programs using raw images, and the "before" image displayed was obviously based on a minimally processed (by the de-noising software) version of the raw file.

In that same comparison, I exported the noise reduced files from DXO/Topaz/ON1 as DNGs (noise reduction and optical corrections only) which I opened in Capture One and Lightroom where I could compare the "best" I could get with C1/LR with the best I could get with DXO/Topaz/On1.

I now use DXO (PL6, not Pure Raw) as a raw processor with low values for noise and optical corrections, to create DNGs. I then refine the noise and sharpness using Topaz in a Photoshop layer. Using a layer in Photoshop means that the "before" in Topaz displays the noise reduction applied by DXO as Topaz is no longer referencing the raw file.

Thank you. Your post has revealed how little I know about the mechanics of digital photography and what goes on 'under the bonnet'. It looks like I'm kinda right in that the images DO seem worse as a 'before', but oh so very wrong at the same time since I didn't realise how much was being done to the images before I actually see them anywhere. I shall revisit my experiments with de-noising software; so far Topaz appears to do the best job.