Great to have this comparison so quickly after the LR feature release! So thank you. I would say in my view you're turning up the denoise *too high* however. We have to keep in mind that small amounts of noise, when viewed at 100% or less, actually add to *perceived detail* . Obviously it's a balance you need to strike, but what I quickly realized with LR's AI denoise preview is it's showing the image a 400%. This is useful if you approach it correctly, but I don't think that should be to remove all visual evidence of noise, because when you're seeing it this close-up you have a heightened perception of noise compared to "normal" viewing conditions of 100% or less. So I found that leaving a *little* visible noise in the preview actually helped with the perceived detail in the final vs. others like DxO. This reduces the need to apply post sharpening, which can never properly make up for lost denoising detail anyway. Now the relatively high settings you showed for denoise may have just been for the purposes of the comparison, but ultimately I think showing the realistic approach, how you'd actually use it, is most valuable. Maybe you prefer extremely smooth images, but I find that in *all* current denoisers it's best to leave a little noise. And when you compare on that basis I think LR's results are comparable if not better than most of the state of the art (Topaz, DxO), depending on the scene/subject. My tests so far show LR winning in landscape (retaining more relevant detail, as shown in several of your examples), but for portraits and people in general, LR still has some artifacts to work out, and DxO and Topaz tend to give better results for now. But for a first release from Adobe I'm really impressed!
I prefer the Topaz version of the bald eagle vs. Light Room's sharpening. I'd take down the Topaz sharpening a bit and still be better off with that image.
I've been going back and trying out the Adobe Denoise on images I had previously done with Topaz Denoise, and I gotta say the results are better in every case with the Adobe AI model. It's doing a better job at preserving details without adding strange artifacts due to artificially generated detail or sharpening, without mistaking image detail for noise, without introducing color bleed, without creating a subtle "blotch" noise pattern in out of focus areas, etc. Plus it's much simpler to just do it with a couple clicks inside Lightroom. I'm very impressed so far.
I downloaded the trial version of Topaz last week and was ready to pull the trigger. Glad I didn’t! It’s great to see Adobe FINALLY adding features that everyone has been asking for. This DeNoise along with object removal in PS are game changers for me. Thx for taking the time to create this video!
I mentioned in another comment that I've seen a few people say that this new LR/PS denoise release paused them from completing their Topaz purchases. Ultimately, I see this as a good thing: more competition requires all players to bring their A-game to the table in terms of performance and value.
I have now tried both Topaz and Ligthroom and compared. Since I have both it really does not matter which is best as long as they work well. After three weeks I prefer Lightroom. With Topaz you get a lot of artefacts. Red and purple dots here and there. But the most annoying thing is the extra saturation and white balance change when saving Topaz image back to Lightroom. You can see it clearly in this video too. You will not see it directly, only when you save the image back to Lightroom. See how the color changes in the image with the eagle in this video. Look how purple the trees are turning. It also seems that Topaz AI is trying to force warm color to the image. I have tried it with lot of portraits and they all turn warm in color and hard to clean up. Topaz earlier versions were much cleaner, but with the recent updates the quality is worse with more artefacts and saturation.
I never use Topaz sharpen on RAW files. My workflow is 1. denoise the raw file 2. Edit the DNG file as necessary 3. use Topaz to sharpen the final Tiff/jpg. In my experience using Topaz Sharpen on raw files results in oversharpened, artificial looking, artifacted images.
Good video comparison. I think Adobe really stepped up. I still prefer Topaz Photo AI (for now). I have seldom used the auto-pilot settings, and sometimes prefer going into DeNoise or Sharpen. I have a slightly older PC, but the speed of the Lightroom Denoise is much slower than Topaz (it is actually brutally slow by comparison).
Very good, methodical comparison, Brian. There are two problems I have with Topaz Photo AI that I also see in your results. 1. Mid-level detail, such as texture on walls and bricks, frequently get mis-interpreted as noise, and smoothed so detail is lost. 2. When sending the RAW file to Photo AI from Lightroom, the DNG returned by Photo AI looks different than the image looked in Photo AI - it seems to add additional sharpening sometimes to the point of objectionable artifacts. It looks like Lightroom avoids both of these issues (based your examples - I haven't had a chance to try it yet). The Lightroom result does look a bit less sharp when pixel peeping, but much more natural (such as on the eagle's tail feathers).
Yes, my thoughts exactly. Topaz is always slightly overkill and that approach tends to produce artefacts, smudge out the microdetail (9:05), or oversharpen flat objects (8:40). It's kind of gimmicky in that it makes you want to go 'wow' at the zoomed out image, but doesn't hold up well to scrutiny. Denoise is definitely more elegant here and I love how there aren't any knobs to tweak, just a single slider. They've actually done a pretty good job and may give PureRaw a run for its money too. Just another sign of how healthy competition can get. But I wonder will Adobe's subscription pricetag go up at some point.. very well might :)
IMHO the whole problem you describe is a matter of consistency. It seems Lightroom uses a more general noise model while both Topaz and DxO use a subject detection - which then renders both of them useless for me because the application of the noise reduction becomes inconsistent across the image. That's why LR looks so much more natural - because there are no inconsistencies in the application of noise reduction...
@@k.g.wuensch9998 you're correct, using specialized models can backfire - naturally as time goes on all of these companies will perfect their respective models and this chat will be a thing of the past. But so far the general model of Adobe is what instantly won me over. I do have to wonder, has Adobe sneakily been taking peeks at the files we work with and import from those programs to catch a few hints about the before and after.. After all, 'send optional data' has never been as important. Interesting times :)
Ok good! I thought I was the only one who saw additional artifacts when I returned that eagle photo to LR from Topaz Photo AI. It actually caught me off guard, which is kind of evident in the recording. I also agree with your hypothesis that TPAI sometimes inadvertently crushes mid-level details and textures. That may be fixable by retraining the AI model, but I'm not sure. "The Lightroom result does look a bit less sharp when pixel peeping, but much more natural" - I think this is the best way to explain it, and I actually prefer that. I can always add a bit of additional sharpening to get more bite, but it's much harder to deal with an already-oversharpened image. Thank you very much for the thoughtful insights!
I'm currently loving the trend in using Lightroom Classic (LRC), as it's now occupying a significant portion of my photo editing time. About 50-75% of my pictures are exclusively edited using LRC, and with the latest enhancements in masking for post-processing, LRC is becoming more and more attractive. Topaz Studio 2 provides some impressive creative options, and while I can achieve similar outcomes using Photoshop, using Studio is much more straightforward and enjoyable. However, I do hope that Topaz reconsiders its decision to continue developing Studio, as I may lose interest in Topaz Photo AI. Additionally, I've noticed that I'm using Luminar Neo less and recently uninstalled On1, which I hadn't used in years. The best thing about On1, or whatever it was known as 15 years ago, is that I met an excellent instructor who conducted live webinars, and I never missed a single one!
Awww! You’re making me blush, amigo! That’s very kind to say. And I’m with you fwiw, although I’m 100% invested in Lightroom (not Classic), so it’s even more restrictive due to an utter lack of 3rd party app support. So, to have this improved noise reduction in-app is a big win. Ultimately, this is a good thing all around because competition forces everyone to bring their A-game in terms of improved performance, more innovation, and/or better prices.
i use Topaz a lot. what i have to do much of the time with Sharpen AI...Topaz tends to over sharpen and over sharpen in unexpected places so you have to inspect the whole image from top to bottom to see if sharpening went crazy. i "erase away" the over sharpened areas and try to end up with sharpening in the most important parts of the image and mostly the eyes. erase away the funkiness to bottom layer!!
You didn't mention two of Photo AI's strong points (for me): you can use it stand-alone / plug-in both in Photoshop and LRC AND it works on other file formats (ie jpg), not just raw files. I often have to harshly crop snap-shot portraits, and Photo AI lets me resize the resulting jpg very well. LRC ONLY works on raw files, and you cannot use both the new Denoise AI and Enhance (ie super zoom) together. So for jpg shooters, Photo AI is the best option.
Good to know, the ability to work with jpg's is one important feature I need. Topaz will remain on my radar, but I'm going to play with Lightroom in the meantime.
On my computer Lightroom says 71 minutes to denoise the image topaz will do it in just a couple on my computer anyway so cant use it yet, it was the same with enhance (size) when it first came out but I still find Topaz better for that too!
Good review! One step with Photo AI is it will pick out the subject only so you need to add the whole image by selecting the are with your mouse/pen and drag over the image adding the area to be used. Yes Photo AI uses all of Topaz AI tools in one tool as well as a cropping tool at the end and then resize the image upto 4X. Also I have found that using the individual tool that have more options can be better results. You should have used the Denoice AI instead of Photo AI. Also ALL the Topaz Tools get updates in the beginning were almost daily, then weekly but now monthly or so meaning better results over time in all areas. It is like Sharpen AI has 10 things to use from blur/noise/focus as well as standard and all the AI's have noise reduction. The key is Lightroom is improving all things also since it got dust control in the beginning years that was a god send. Also post editing is playtime and learning your tools. I will use many programs to sse the out comes of each and will use Topaz AI's to to tweak. I can list all but that's not the point here, Recently did some birding and the requires a lot of cropping, like an area where birds have a rookery and there will be lots of nest in a capture some with baby birds and in one image you will have three to five nests all with baby birds look over the top of nests with mother or both above and cropping to 3000 from 9504 and still have good focus on all along with bokeh in the background also A flying egret with big sticks in their beaks small in the image but cropped again to say 2000 and still sharp but some tweaking. Lightroom Classic is getting more tools like PS has but easier to play with BUT more tools mean better images and never the same results twice!
I’ve noticed what you saw in the eagle photo too. That’s why I usually use Topaz inside Photoshop and I can dial it back in the spots where it looks like it went overboard.
I'm currently using Lightroom Denoise and Topaz sharpening AI and have been happy with results. I even prefer this over the trials of Topaz Photo AI and Gigapixel.
I'm a BIG fan of Topaz but you have done an excellent comparison and I'd like to call your attention to the video at 22:20 - the antlers!!!!! You were focused on the noise reduction of Lightroom but I was amazed at the SHARPNESS in the horns with it!!!!!!! Especially the detail in the left horn. So the big fan of Topaz - me - saw a big benefit in better detail of the antlers. Over a number of years working with various Topaz programs prior to AI, I have definitely seen that sometimes you have to FOOL AROUND WITH IT and that's especially true with the new AI version. I agree with your final assessment that if you are already paying for Lightroom, you can easily get by. If you are a bit picky - like me - fiddling around with both often times gets me where I want to be. I'll even make multi-layers in Photoshop, mask out certain little things I don't like from one process that turned out better in another process and reveal that one, then combine them all to a final..... ADHD??? Yeah, I think Photoshop has revealed that!!!! LOL!!!!!!! Who needs a doctor!!!!!??????? LOL!!!!
In the images of the transit sign, I see that in the Topaz version, the blue color is more intense. It would have been interesting to compare them with the original image to see which one maintains the original colors better.
@@flyingpig3674 Technically Lightroom has had AI upscaling for a long time - in the very same dialog box you can do Super Resolution, although not both at the same time.
Hi Brian, thank you for the video. There is this last part of the comparison, where I can’t follow your logic. In Topaz AI , you apply only denoising and no detail enhancement and sharpening. Then, in LRC you apply denoising, raw detail and also sharpening. Eventually, you come to the conclusion that LRC image is sharper and shows more detail. I don’t think that part was really apples to apples comparison.
Great video, thanks for uploading. I have Lightroom/Photoshop, all 4 apps from Topaz, from a Black Friday bundle and also DxO Photolab 7... I agree that the new adobe AI enhance noise module is very good, especially when a gentle hand is needed with smooth transitions and for an otherwise very sharp image. Personally I find DxO to be the best at converting high ISO/noisy Raws. They have some controls but the files tend to have more details without artifacts if you use the right module. I find Topaz Photo AI good when you play around with the controls, as you do, but you can easily get artifacts in the results. For non raw files needing a tidy up, final little de-noise the stand alone DeNoise AI does a more refined job... So we are spoiled these days for choice. I'm using more of the Adobe module now, utilizing the other software for special cases or to finish off, mostly out of Photoshop, my most used App.
Topaz Denoise is still superior. I used the AI Denoise in LrC and it was a complete miss on several photos with ISO 7000+ on my A7RIV. Topaz came to the rescue.
Great video. Thanks for the comparison. I have Topaz AI but actually prefer their separate programs for denoise and sharpening, for some reason I still believe I get better results. That said I subscribe to lightroom and Photoshop and do feel if I can do more within one program and get good results it can only mean a better workflow. Time to start experimenting!
Thanks Brian. I've been waiting for this comparison ever since Adobe released its AI-powered NR. There's one more aspect that should be taken into account and that is the software update frequency. Topaz Photo AI has a huge advantage over LR or ACR with its recent release updates.
That's a very important and valid distinction, Shlomo. You're certainly correct - Topaz Labs has been releasing weekly updates to TPAI, and in some cases, those updates brought serious feature and performance improvements. Thank you for bringing that up!
I just came across your channel & this video & have now subscribed! Great comparison video! Perfect timing for me as I was about to do some similar comparisons myself. Thanks for posting!
A downside to Topaz Photo AI used on a RAW file from Lightroom is that Topaz does its own demoniac step using an open source library rather than the tried and true ACR.
Brian - thank you. So helpful! Coming from a long time background in film photography, I would never go as far as you do in smoothing things out - I actually like a tiny bit of texture, which both of these programs offer with the user's ability to set that slider. It's interesting to see how different parts of the photos were better, in my opinion, than other parts, with each program. I look forward to seeing what happens on peoples faces now, which is where distortions were often the most noticeable and sometimes horrifying.
Excellent video Brian thank you. Explanation and examples were crystal clear. I was on the verge of buying Topaz but after watching this, I'll save my money and stick to LRC. Being the first release, I can only imagine it will get even better. Now subscribed.
I've received a few messages similar to yours, Alan. I certainly don't want to indicate that people shouldn't consider Topaz Photo AI because it really is a fantastic app. However, it wouldn't be genuine for me to pretend that Lightroom's new Denoise tool wouldn't satisfy the needs of most photographers without having to spend additional money. It simply boils down to your individual needs.
Many thanks again. Can I ask you a related question? I downloaded LR Classic v13 in Creative Cloud and normally LR updates my catalog to the new version. This time it didn’t prompt for an upgrade. How do I upgrade tha catalog to v13?
It may not need to create an entirely new catalog for this update. That usually happens when there is a full version upgrade (v12 to v13). This is a “dot update”, so you should be fine with your existing catalog.
I am under the impression that the eagle is not just an example of noise reduction but also sharpening. I think Topaz Sharpen AI is still superior in this to Photo AI. Did you try that? I understand that this option does not deal with the Raw file for noise reduction but still, at the end of the day we care about the final outcome and this picture is not just about noise reduction.
I didn't try Sharpen AI for this image mostly because I didn't want to make an already long video even longer. Also, I explicitly wanted to compare LR to Topaz Photo AI (and not the individual apps because I believe they will eventually be retired).
Yep. I think using photo AI on raw files for these examples gives people a negative impression of topaz in general. The same with expecting it to work miracles and being back details in the eagle and leave the background smooth, for example. I think the best use of topaz is in photoshop where you don’t have to worry about color interpretations and can mask it off certain areas and use different models for different parts of the image and different steps in the workflow.
When you take a closer look at images from great photographers such as Steve Mc Curry you can’t but notice lots of noice an some other imperfections they couldn’t control with the technology they had on their disposal and yet their images evoke emotions. Nowadays we put too much emphasis on pixel peeping stuff which makes an image look like an artificial piece of plastic without character.
As for upscaling in Topaz AI Ive found it can introduce noticeable patterns especially in blue sky or areas of uniform colour. So beware. By the way I agree with all you say in this video 100% great job.
To be honest I'm quite surprized that LR did so well in the comparison (I mean I tested it, but I felt more impressed when was testing topaz, maybe because it was new to me xD). As for Luminar's plugins I didn't consider buying any of them, since you either cannot test it, or getting to test it is pain to even get to, so I ignored it completely
I think in the eagle photo, LRC was doing its own default sharpening on top of the sharpening by Topaz, creating the artefacts. I always knock LRC/PS sharpening down to zero before sending to Topaz for best results - and make sure there's no LRC sharpening applied when you re-open it.
Those don't look like LR sharpening artifacts though. They look mostly like the Topaz "strong" model artifacts if you go back and look at the video just before he shows it in LR. Could be a bug in Topaz, they release often, but that's partly because they have a lot of such bugs and quirks. 😄
Actually it is recommended to denoise before any other processing. Also, the reason why you cant do it in photoshop is because it uses the RAW data (which is great). And lastly, its better that you do the sharpen separately afterwards with more control. Thus LR's denoiser is the best.
22:51 I don't think that one looks better, in fact it looks way too smudgy and the watercolor effect is taking over the image, the fur looks like painting. The one on the right look more detailed and natural. It's ok to have some noise in an image and that one looks perfectly fine.
Hello Brian. Great tutorial, thank you. I have the Topaz Sharpen and Noise AI and really like them. Trying the Denoise in Lr shows a time of 10 minutes to process a raw file from a 45mp file from a Canon R5. Processing your images looks to be much faster. Would you know why? Thank you, Tom
I think this is not a good comparison. I only use Topaz PhotoAI for quick and dirty development, not for serious work, because of artefacts and over interpretation…eg the darker blue on the sign. When the new LR arrived I tested it against Topaz DeNoise AI (with sharpening turned off in LR and in DenoiseAI) on 6400 ISO noisy image. I found both to give a great result so in future I mat use the LR DeNoise (without sharpening) as first step on noisy images. By far the best approach to sharpening the resulting image is to use Topaz Sharpen AI.
IMO you are a little too heavy handed with the denoise and making your photos look a little muddy. Thank you for the video and a deep compare between AI and LRC Denoise. Very good video
The thing is that for the moment it doesn t process jpegs, only raw files.Topaz does jpeg also. I always shoot jpeg+raw, and sometimes jpegs are just perfect out of the camera and you save a lot of time not processing raw files.
It's funny how everyone has a very different tolerance for noise. I often shoot at 6400 and am very tolerant of the noise at that level. The noise in this photo at ISO 1600, I think I probably wouldn't even bother with the denoise step.
Estimated 7sec, mine say's 26min and I'm using a windows PC with 3.2GHz processor and 32GB of Ram, and Adobe Denoise seems very heavy but Topaz seems quicker for me.
My observation of the eagle's head reveals to be sharper with Photo AI. I care less about the total sharpness of the tail. Photo AI tends to focus on object areas, but in this case the head. Does on human faces too, with a special recovery feature. Photo AI has my vote for the eagle image.
I think your concluding comments appropriately sums things up... If you're exclusively a LR user, no need to buy Topaz. That said, if you already own Topaz, you may still appreciate maintaining your workflow and having the sharpening AI as a convenient bonus. I know that you tried to do as fair an apples-to-apples comparison, and with regard to noise reduction I think you were spot on, and I agree with your assessment that LR "won". However, when it came to sharpening, Topaz brought out detail in the eagle that you were not able to get with LR. You commented that Topaz looked over-sharpened, and I agree, but you could dial that back. But in LR you weren't able to get anywhere close to the same level of sharpness, so in terms of capability, Topaz seems to "win" the sharpening game. When it came to the elk, again, noise reduction was comparable and LR did seem to do a better job. However, you applied some sharpening to the LR version but I noticed there was NO sharpening in your Topaz version. I suspect had you turned on sharpening in Topaz is would have looked superior. I don't own Topaz, and I don't intend to buy it. I'm happy, even thrilled, with LR's new Denoise tool. In terms of just noise, your video is right on, but when it came to sharpening I think there's another conversation to be had...
Yes, the power with topaz is the various sharpening models (and denoising models) that you can employ in different scenarios (sometimes in different parts of the same image). Running just photo AI on the whole image is fine for snapshots, but won’t give you the best case results and isn’t the fairest comparison.
first question, is it subscription light "classic" or can i just buy it and add to Lightroom 6. don't like being stuck with an adobe subscription. You are demonstration in the paid subscription version? I bought lightroom outright but the updates don't really update.
Your second comparison of the eagle image is not exactly fair. The weird artifacts in the Topaz's version is likely introduced because you used the wrong settings in the Sharpen module (Strength=62, Clarity=21). Based on my personal experience, Topaz's Sharpen module requires user to try multiple configurations (Strength & Clarity) to fine tune the final result. It is not magic and you have to be patient. You will notice some unwanted artifacts during the try-and-error process, if you pushed Strength or Clarity value too high. I would start with (Strength=25, Clarity=20), and check the final image for artifacts. If no artifacts, then slowly increase the Strength/Clarity value until I find the best setting for noise reduction, sharpness AND detail detention. I recently did a similar comparison for Lightroom Denoise AI v.s. Topaz v.s. DXO PhotoLab 6, with a noisy bird image. The Topaz's result is vastly superior of the three. Its capability to selectively sharpen the subject (bird in this case) while denoise the background is second to none.
I've found that Topaz over sharpens, in both Denoise AI and Photo AI. It seems to be getting worse with each update, if you set the sharpening slider to zero it will still apply some sharpening and if the shot is pretty sharp already it will ruin the shot. On some shots I get better results with the pre AI filters from Topaz.
It seems to work great, but the estimated processing time on my (fairly new) laptop is over and hour for one image! Do you know what is needed to get times in seconds like you have?
It may be Topaz are focusing more on screen output for Instagram rather than for images for print. I never use autopilot for any of my images I know Im going to print.
I'm impressed by the new Lightroom denoise AI but how does your processor do this in 7 seconds? My PC takes 7 minutes for an image. Is the new LR Denoise AI only usable if you have a pro-level fast processor/video card? Topaz processes the same files in 7 seconds like LR in your video, not 7 minutes, which makes the new LR version unusable when I process 50 shots from a concert shoot.
As a long time user …when you were using Topaz Photo Ai I did not see you use the refine subject ..it can make a big difference. For me Topaz Photo Ai wins hands down especially when it is used in accordance with all of its available functionality.
The refine subject mask only applies to the Sharpen model, which I always use in that capacity. However, noise reduction is globally applied with Topaz Photo AI.
@@brianmatiash Brian that is not so . When you go to Topaz Photo Ai in the auto pilot section tap refine …it brings up options to choose from which you can adjust with the Ai brush or the non Ai brush . Usually the default mask selects just the subject but you might prefer the landscape which selects the whole scene .
i dont want another program for minor iso reduction. I am a wedding photographer. I take 2.5k photos in a wedding and the 1rst day i make in ALL photos AI noise reduction the 1rst day and start editing the 2nd day. Too much space but I am way better from what i was 2 months ago. Its more than enough for me. My main questions are 2) 1) is AI noise reduction first or after editing.. I do it first. 2) is the dng file limited anywhere compared to the raw file created from the camera? Any ideas?
I understand what you are doing for clinical comparison. However, you do that zooming in over 300% and more. Personally I am convinced that looking at both pictures at no zoom, or maybe 50%, one will see no difference. So for me and my R6 LRC will do a great job. Unfortunately not yet for my X100V jpegs.
Ok,... Perhaps you can help me. I just downloaded Lightroom Classic LRC today. When I opened it up, I did not see the new denoise feature. The reason why i switched from Lightroom CC was because I began seeing this message: "Denoise is not currently compatible with this photo format." Still I am seeing the same message in Lightroom Classic.
Yup. It's gonna get tough for ALL competitors and I'm good with that. It'll force each company to dial up their A-game in terms of features, performance, and price. In the end, consumers will win.
I shoot, process, and store a LOT of photos. I like the results when I use the RAW model for noise reduction (Topaz Denoise/Photo AI) and now in LR. BUT ... the intermediate DNG files are so large. With my Sony A1 compressed raw files (52MB), the DNGs are 290MB. With new LR Denoise, the DNGs are about 215MB. I assume similar disparities with other manufacturers raw files. Why do the DNGs need to be so large??
I understand, to be honest, I personally compared various noise removal programs many times, and DeepPromeXD turned out to be better than the rest, so much better that I stopped using all other programs precisely because of this one feature, and besides, it is very convenient to use, much more comfortable than denoising in any other program, but I can welcome the fact that finally Adobe has started to implement something similar in their apps. I also use Photo AI but it is extremely unstable...
Don’t get me wrong - I’ve heard fantastic things about DeepPrime from several followers. It’s just that I’ve reached a point in my career where I’m looking to simplify my workflow and if Lightroom can make that easier/better/faster, then I’m all for it. And I do appreciate your insight.
Dxo has the same problem with all the other third party apps that work on raws; they can’t compute the color in the same way. I wish dxo would’ve gotten together with phase one and combined the best sharpening with the best raw conversion.
I do not consider it that good of an update it has a lot of refinement that needs to be done to it before it becomes a liable tool to use. Also I computer screen glitched it slowed down the processing of the photos after you applied the effect. And I do not see this happening in other denoise AI platforms.
I'm getting the message that it is not compatible with my photo format. I'm using raw images straight from a Canon 5D3 - .CR2. How can it not be compatible with a legacy format? It's working fine with my .CR3 images (From my Eos R camera).
Even if Adobe's NR is the best overall, the big problem is that their sharpening is still industry worst. How can Adobe have not dedicated any resources to these tools over the past 15 years? And is the only option for decent NR inside LR to use the new Denoise? Why haven't we seen any improvements to the existing NR? Is it reasonable to expect users to be forced to convert all their images to DNG to take advantage of the tech? What happens when they update their algo and the NR is baked into the DNG? Can it be reverted somehow?
Im finding in the most up to-date Topaz AI is it appears to be introducing a slight colour shift. Though they have improved autopilot I still find it way overcooks the result and has to be pulled back. For the eagle I would have cropped in Topaz as it massively cuts down rendering time and file size. Great video by the way. The eagle from Topaz AI looks terrible and way too overdone.
Great video. I've been using DxO Pure Raw 2 and Topaz DeNoise and Topaz Sharpen with my images. I tried the updated LR DeNoise version and the message says it will take 116 minutes to process my one image selected. I guess I'll wait on using this feature until a get a more powerful/faster laptop.
FWIW the time estimate in the pop-up LR Denoise dialog have been wayyyy off for me (much longer estimate than reality). So e.g. if it says "7 minutes to process", it's more like 1. 😄
@@ogreenius Thanks... but I've tried it twice now and it seems to "lock up" and won't let me try to stop the process or move to another image. I have to shut down LR and restart. Oh Well. I'll keep using Topaz.
@@francinerattner334 Fair enough, glad you tried again though! Sounds like maybe a GPU/driver issue, but if you already have Topaz and it has no such problems, makes sense to just use that. 👍
A lot of people say DXO is the best but a lot of people like the old DXO Deep Prime and not Deep Prime xd. Deep Prime xd has artifacts. I think DXO did the best they could but then added A.I. to try and clean up images even more. It sometimes works and other times not so good. I would say DXO PhotoLab is better as you have control of the luminance.
I don't see the point in comparing on OOF pictures which are anyway unseable at the end, and shouldn't even be kept. However, I appreciate that unlike many, you are note that much impressed by fake and artificial details when sharpening. The Topaz eagle is totally ugly to my eyes, while the LR processing is much more subtle and tastefull.
Zooming in 300% is for pixel peepers- in the real world can anyone, especially clents / average viewers, really see the difference ? As it's a 'free' application, that is it's strongest argument.
I had the same issue. In Adobe Creative Cloud I went to the apps section and manually checked for updates. The new LR version then showed up to install.
I’m with you - I really like what Topaz Labs is doing and will definitely keep Topaz Photo AI in my workflow when it’s needed. But, I’m also happy because this new LR feature will require Topaz and all other competitors to be on their A-game.
I have a pretty fast Win 11 desktop. 32Gb RAM, SSD cache and program drives. On my 50Mb Sony a1 files, the new LR denoise takes 6 minutes to process an image and the resulting DNG file is 129mb. Topaz deNoise AI (RAW model) takes 40 seconds to process an image and the resulting DNG file is 291mb (!!!). Denoise results are generally comparable.
I am getting similar results. I have Windows 11, 64 GB RAM, SSD drives for files and for 50 MB Pentax files it's taking around 5 minutes to generate the new DNG file with Lightroom Classic DeNoise. I'm just amazed that Brian is having speeds around 7 seconds. Wow. Maybe it's my graphics card with only 4 GB of RAM.
@@SteveDisenhof I'm using an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 with 4 GB of RAM. I guess Adobe's recommendations are no longer valid if this is the problem with DeNoise.
@@joedusel So we have the same card. After thinking about this and testing some more, I'm 'not' sure the video card is the exclusive problem. Topaz takes 42 seconds; LR takes six minutes. So that speaks to a software issue, not hardware.
I just finished a trial of DX03 and I will not be buying it, hopefully Lightroom will put in a slider for sharpening, clarity, and texture with their new noise reduction because that's all it needs, I just dug up an old picture of a barred owl shot on a D750 at dusk ISO 3500, and 3 stops underexpose, I was quite surprised. and to note the only advantage DXO has was being able to batch process a few images at a time, but then there is no way to know the results, you would basically have to turn the sharpening off because it always over sharpened and even with sharpening off many images appear over sharpened...
Mind that Lightroom can batch process as well. Just go to grid view and select as many images as needed, then invoke the AI Denoise via right-click ("Enhance"). The downside is that you need to decide for a slider setting that works for all selected images.
@@andreas.farsch thanks for the comment! I'll probably would've eventually figured it out but you save me some time anyway, thanks again, I know it will also be nice if the conversion file type can be selected such as TIF instead of a DNG or even a JPEG for that matter if you're doing non-critical work, it could save some time in processing power, that was one of the advantages of DXO in being able to choose your file format.
3 minutes per image for the Lightroom Denoise ai on a reasonably fast iMac. Topaz denoise achieves results in seconds. Think for now will be sticking with Topaz.
Obviously, use whichever apps work best for you and your needs. It just sounds crazy that it takes so long to denoise an image using the new tool. I tried a variety of RAW files and they all took 8-10 seconds on average. I'd contact Adobe support just to see if it's a known performance issue.
@Brian Matiash It does seem unusual for Lightroom I agree as generally it's pretty quick however the noise ai seems to strangle its speed...at least on my system. Will contact Adobe and make them aware.
The easy answer to this question is: OBVIOUSLY NOT, since neither DxO nor LrC's Denoise can be used on JPGs or TIFs (i.e. scanned slides and negatives). This was a big selling point for me re: Topaz Labs, since their apps DO work with non-RAW files. Just sayin'....
