Topaz Denoise vs Lightroom NR

Is Topaz DeNoise AI really much better than the standard noise reduction slider in Lightroom?  I've been playing with the trial version, and it seems to me that with careful manipulation of the settings with both programmes you end up with pretty much the same result - certainly close enough that the difference would not be obvious on a screen or in a pretty large print. Have people generally found the cost of the Topaz plugin worthwhile?

timo wrote:

Is Topaz DeNoise AI really much better than the standard noise reduction slider in Lightroom? I've been playing with the trial version, and it seems to me that with careful manipulation of the settings with both programmes you end up with pretty much the same result - certainly close enough that the difference would not be obvious on a screen or in a pretty large print.

I have found it dependent on the photo, and the ISO it was taken at (sometimes driven by the lens).

I can easily use LR on most photos for social media.

Have people generally found the cost of the Topaz plugin worthwhile?

It is for me.

timo wrote:

Is Topaz DeNoise AI really much better than the standard noise reduction slider in Lightroom? I've been playing with the trial version, and it seems to me that with careful manipulation of the settings with both programmes you end up with pretty much the same result - certainly close enough that the difference would not be obvious on a screen or in a pretty large print. Have people generally found the cost of the Topaz plugin worthwhile?

HI, I tried several times to do what Topaz does in LR NR and Topaz is better for me.  But I only use Topaz for touch photos, otherwise I use LR as I find it's good enough to fix most of my shots.

However, I'm beta testing LR Classic and they have put in a AI Denoise to test and it's better than the traditional LR IMO.  Since it was just released one day ago, I'm sure it will improve drastically over the next few releases.  The masks and heal tools were similar paths where the final release was much better.

timo wrote:

Is Topaz DeNoise AI really much better than the standard noise reduction slider in Lightroom? I've been playing with the trial version, and it seems to me that with careful manipulation of the settings with both programmes you end up with pretty much the same result - certainly close enough that the difference would not be obvious on a screen or in a pretty large print. Have people generally found the cost of the Topaz plugin worthwhile?

If you can't see a meaningful difference, then I would say Topaz is not for you.

timo wrote:

Is Topaz DeNoise AI really much better than the standard noise reduction slider in Lightroom? I've been playing with the trial version, and it seems to me that with careful manipulation of the settings with both programmes you end up with pretty much the same result - certainly close enough that the difference would not be obvious on a screen or in a pretty large print. Have people generally found the cost of the Topaz plugin worthwhile?

It sounds like you've reached your own conclusion, so save your money and don't get the Topaz. It's very image dependent, so be sure to evaluate all types of images.

For me, LR doesn't do anything best.

I use Topaz Photo AI quite a bit, over the last few updates it's gotten much better at noise reduction and sharpening. If I have an image that Photo AI can't improve much I'll try DeNoise and/or Sharpen. I find all three of the Topaz products are superior to what LR has to offer. As mentioned, you'll get different results with different images but I've found that 90% of the time I get by with just Photo AI. I'm just a hobbyist so the normal disclaimers apply, IMO, YMMV etc.

M

noellenchris wrote:

timo wrote:

Is Topaz DeNoise AI really much better than the standard noise reduction slider in Lightroom? I've been playing with the trial version, and it seems to me that with careful manipulation of the settings with both programmes you end up with pretty much the same result - certainly close enough that the difference would not be obvious on a screen or in a pretty large print. Have people generally found the cost of the Topaz plugin worthwhile?

HI, I tried several times to do what Topaz does in LR NR and Topaz is better for me. But I only use Topaz for touch photos, otherwise I use LR as I find it's good enough to fix most of my shots.

However, I'm beta testing LR Classic and they have put in a AI Denoise to test and it's better than the traditional LR IMO. Since it was just released one day ago, I'm sure it will improve drastically over the next few releases. The masks and heal tools were similar paths where the final release was much better.

Wow. I have been waiting so long for this. I knew it was just a matter of time.

Photolab allegedly has the best noise reduction and can transfer to other programs, including Photoshop and Lightroom, which in turn can access programs such as the Topaz products and Luminar Neo as "filters."  Pretty good, as opposed to very good, noise reduction and sharpening is not OK for prints of a significant size. There is also the issue of lens corrections.

timo wrote:

Is Topaz DeNoise AI really much better than the standard noise reduction slider in Lightroom? I've been playing with the trial version, and it seems to me that with careful manipulation of the settings with both programmes you end up with pretty much the same result - certainly close enough that the difference would not be obvious on a screen or in a pretty large print. Have people generally found the cost of the Topaz plugin worthwhile?

Like others said it depends. No two files are alike. Sometimes I use Photo AI, sometimes DXO PureRaw 2 and sometimes LrC more than adequate. I also 3rd party to squeeze a little more detail out. If the noise is a little high and you push LrC too much is starts to break down and you lose detail.

In case you are interested in PureRaw 2 I would not buy it right now. PureRaw 3 should be out next month. Just do the trial for now.

charlyw64 wrote:

timo wrote:

Is Topaz DeNoise AI really much better than the standard noise reduction slider in Lightroom? I've been playing with the trial version, and it seems to me that with careful manipulation of the settings with both programmes you end up with pretty much the same result - certainly close enough that the difference would not be obvious on a screen or in a pretty large print. Have people generally found the cost of the Topaz plugin worthwhile?

I have tried to like these AI functions - but for me noise isn't the issue others make it out to be. For one I the printing services and my own prints come out nicer if I don't remove noise in the first place, I just need to make sure I don't sharpen the noise (which the mask in LR does perfectly nice, assisted by pressing the option/ALT key while configuring the mask you can see where the sharpening will be applied, limit it to the subject and you often don't need additional noise reduction.

Digital cameras and all the advanced software just continues to let us take advantage of the new technologies. I purchased this and it was very helpful. It was before the advanced masking in LrC which now reduces the need to go to PS nearly as much. One thing he said was he likes to leave a little noise to prevent posterisation for prints.

https://backcountrygallery.com/new-video-workshop-noise-reduction-using-lr-ps/

The other problem is one of consistency across the subject. My subjects are often hairy (butterflies, spiders, bees, other insects, animals) and there I have seen failure after failure through those AI driven noise reduction because they often fail to provide a decent translation from background to subject (so whiskers, hairs, leg protrusions are often either obliterated or surrounded by remnants of the noise - both equally destructive). Worse still, some areas like the eyes are often treated to high noise reduction and thus lose a lot of detail that was originally captured. So for me these tools are not worth the hassle.

noellenchris wrote:

timo wrote:

Is Topaz DeNoise AI really much better than the standard noise reduction slider in Lightroom? I've been playing with the trial version, and it seems to me that with careful manipulation of the settings with both programmes you end up with pretty much the same result - certainly close enough that the difference would not be obvious on a screen or in a pretty large print. Have people generally found the cost of the Topaz plugin worthwhile?

HI, I tried several times to do what Topaz does in LR NR and Topaz is better for me. But I only use Topaz for touch photos, otherwise I use LR as I find it's good enough to fix most of my shots.

However, I'm beta testing LR Classic and they have put in a AI Denoise to test and it's better than the traditional LR IMO. Since it was just released one day ago, I'm sure it will improve drastically over the next few releases. The masks and heal tools were similar paths where the final release was much better.

It will be interesting to see how the new AI NR works with sharpening.  I find that these are tied together, so hopefully Adobe has improved the sharpening algorithm as well.

bakubo wrote:

Yes, I had the same thoughts. Topaz Photo AI which gets better with every weekly release combines denoise, sharpen, enlarging, and face recovery. I rarely use the enlarging functionality, but the others in combination are sometimes very useful. It would be great if Adobe could do this also within LrC.

Unfortunately, this is not what I've found. I now find way more artifacts and have largely gone back to Denoise AI.

charlyw64 wrote:

RikkFlohr wrote:

https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/04/18/denoise-demystified

I will use that on my sample images later today or tomorrow - but what I have seen in the samples in the above blog post looks so much more consistent than the mess that DxO is producing - the statement "Noise is an integral part of photography." and "A bit of noise is not an issue and can actually make a photo look more natural." clearly show which emphasis was put on the development.

There has a been a noise obsession in all forums which I think is a good thing because it forces companies to produce better products. The key is reducing noise in your primary subject while retaining detail. I'm all for that.

Before LrC introduced advanced masking I sometimes used his two step stage. Adjust one file for background noise, the other for subject and send both files to PS. In PS you layer them, paint out one layer and you get the best of both worlds. He says a bit of noise is necessary to avoid pixelization.

https://backcountrygallery.com/new-video-workshop-noise-reduction-using-lr-ps/

I just found this video which is pretty good. So does he. Pretty good video actually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvLudg1TS9o