Are you satisfied with your denoise software?

[Jacques Cornell]

Yes, I'm happy with DxO PhotoLab v6.

Moderately happy with Topaz Denoise AI, but I would only use it on images that I can't process using DeepPRIME (i.e. non-raw images).

Noise reduction and sharpening for detail are two sides of the same coin. While Photolab 6 noise reduction of RAW files is excellent and I use it whereber possible, PL 6 lacks the best sharpening routines.

OTOH, DxO's lens profiles apply excellent capture sharpening. For creative and output sharpening, I rely on Lightroom.

For many files the sharpening of Topaz software and in some cases Luminar Neo will provide a better overall result. I print almost exclusively on13x19" and 17x22" papers and occasionally on 17x25".

Whatever capture sharpening is applied by DxO isn't a complete solution, as you note. In fact, DxO has a separate independent sharpening module, which strongly suggests that DxO understands the limitations of whatever sharpening is automatically applied.

Sharpening in Photoshop is not the same as Lightroom and Photoshop has no dedicated output sharpening.

Depending on the photo if I want the best quality sharpening, following whatever rudimentary sharpening is applied by DxO

There's nothing "rudimentary" about DxO's profile-based Lens Sharpness. It applies stronger sharpening in areas where a given lens model is known to be softer. Try that with any other app. In my view this is all that's needed for capture sharpening.

For creative sharpening, DxO's USM combined with U-point local adjustments is pretty versatile.

, I will use Topaz or Neo. This is particularly effective for high ISO. I will also do an output sharpening for inkjet printing some photos with either NIK or the old Photokit output sharpener.

I used to use PhotoKit Sharpener for output sharpening until I read that much of the tech behind it had been shared by the devs with Adobe and incorporated into Lightroom's output sharpening in the Export module.

Teatro Colon, Buenos Aires

Note: the lens was a fisheye, not 50mm as reported by the camera. While DxO provided good noise reduction, sharpening outside DxO (Topaz) was required to bring in detail.

--
"Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean. Because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai

Landscape & Wedding Photographer - Jacques Cornell

Jacques Cornell Photography - landscape, travel, portrait and art reproduction

jacquescornell.photography

Happening Photos - Event Photography in New York City

Event Photography in New York City and Around the World - conferences, sales meetings, fundraisers and more.

happening.photos

 

[s_grins]

I am speaking for processing noisy pictures RAW from small sensors

I am very familiar for many years with DXO PL , All Topaz AI stuffs and ON1 Photo RAW with all the latest versions

I tested many times all combinations of these 3 denoising tools and my conclusion is that I always get my best results with a combination of two of them

So the first unbeatable step is demosaic and denoise with DXO PL6 with DeepPrime Xd

Most of the time when I still see some annoying noise and to sharpen I reach my best result processing the DXO PL TIFF File with ON1 PR 2023 using Nonoise AI and Tack sharp AI

Sometimes we can get pleasant results with one Topaz stuff but it's too much unpredictable so using Topaz stuff recquired too much time to check again and again the results. I don't give up with Topaz but still with Photo AI the results are too much inconsistent

not sure what "annoying noise" you talk about

but no mattter how good AI noise reduction is, i personally set denoise gentle enough, leave a little bit of noise that i consider to be kind of grain make image look natural.

you know you really don't have to denoise your image too clean at 100% pixel peep.

And as i see, AI noise reduction still have trouble to deal with shadow, dark area noise.

As I see, AI noise reduction leaves this exactly amount of noise in shadows that satisfies tastes of noise gourmand.

Cheers

S.

 

[Euell]

Yes, I'm happy with DxO PhotoLab v6.

Moderately happy with Topaz Denoise AI, but I would only use it on images that I can't process using DeepPRIME (i.e. non-raw images).

Noise reduction and sharpening for detail are two sides of the same coin. While Photolab 6 noise reduction of RAW files is excellent and I use it whereber possible, PL 6 lacks the best sharpening routines.

OTOH, DxO's lens profiles apply excellent capture sharpening. For creative and output sharpening, I rely on Lightroom.

For many files the sharpening of Topaz software and in some cases Luminar Neo will provide a better overall result. I print almost exclusively on13x19" and 17x22" papers and occasionally on 17x25".

Whatever capture sharpening is applied by DxO isn't a complete solution, as you note. In fact, DxO has a separate independent sharpening module, which strongly suggests that DxO understands the limitations of whatever sharpening is automatically applied.

Sharpening in Photoshop is not the same as Lightroom and Photoshop has no dedicated output sharpening.

Depending on the photo if I want the best quality sharpening, following whatever rudimentary sharpening is applied by DxO

There's nothing "rudimentary" about DxO's profile-based Lens Sharpness. It applies stronger sharpening in areas where a given lens model is known to be softer. Try that with any other app. In my view this is all that's needed for capture sharpening.

For creative sharpening, DxO's USM combined with U-point local adjustments is pretty versatile.

DxO lens corrections are very good, but print making usually requires additional sharpening and not just output sharpening. The photo below was trash coming out of DxO; the detail was smeared by the noise reduction. What detail there is was restored using Topaz sharpening. True, this was an extreme case, but I find additional sharpening using Topaz and sometimes Neo can make a big difference in prints.

, I will use Topaz or Neo. This is particularly effective for high ISO. I will also do an output sharpening for inkjet printing some photos with either NIK or the old Photokit output sharpener.

I used to use PhotoKit Sharpener for output sharpening until I read that much of the tech behind it had been shared by the devs with Adobe and incorporated into Lightroom's output sharpening in the Export module.

I use Photoshop, but not Lightroom.

Teatro Colon, Buenos Aires

Note: the lens was a fisheye, not 50mm as reported by the camera. While DxO provided good noise reduction, sharpening outside DxO (Topaz) was required to bring in detail.

 

[Jestertheclown]

PhotoLab is excellent software.

Believe it or not, your choices for yourself are not always the best choices for everyone else.

Is that an oxymoron . . . ?


"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Yes, I'm happy with DxO PhotoLab v6.

Moderately happy with Topaz Denoise AI, but I would only use it on images that I can't process using DeepPRIME (i.e. non-raw images).

Noise reduction and sharpening for detail are two sides of the same coin. While Photolab 6 noise reduction of RAW files is excellent and I use it whereber possible, PL 6 lacks the best sharpening routines.

OTOH, DxO's lens profiles apply excellent capture sharpening. For creative and output sharpening, I rely on Lightroom.

For many files the sharpening of Topaz software and in some cases Luminar Neo will provide a better overall result. I print almost exclusively on13x19" and 17x22" papers and occasionally on 17x25".

Whatever capture sharpening is applied by DxO isn't a complete solution, as you note. In fact, DxO has a separate independent sharpening module, which strongly suggests that DxO understands the limitations of whatever sharpening is automatically applied.

Sharpening in Photoshop is not the same as Lightroom and Photoshop has no dedicated output sharpening.

Depending on the photo if I want the best quality sharpening, following whatever rudimentary sharpening is applied by DxO

There's nothing "rudimentary" about DxO's profile-based Lens Sharpness. It applies stronger sharpening in areas where a given lens model is known to be softer. Try that with any other app. In my view this is all that's needed for capture sharpening.

For creative sharpening, DxO's USM combined with U-point local adjustments is pretty versatile.

DxO lens corrections are very good, but print making usually requires additional sharpening and not just output sharpening. The photo below was trash coming out of DxO; the detail was smeared by the noise reduction.

The photo below was made with a lens that was incorrectly reported by the camera and thus DxO was unable to apply a profile for Lens Sharpness.

What detail there is was restored using Topaz sharpening. True, this was an extreme case

and an unrepresentative one

, but I find additional sharpening using Topaz and sometimes Neo can make a big difference in prints.

That may be. But, in this case, you are not taking full advantage of DxO's capabilities.

, I will use Topaz or Neo. This is particularly effective for high ISO. I will also do an output sharpening for inkjet printing some photos with either NIK or the old Photokit output sharpener.

I used to use PhotoKit Sharpener for output sharpening until I read that much of the tech behind it had been shared by the devs with Adobe and incorporated into Lightroom's output sharpening in the Export module.

I use Photoshop, but not Lightroom.

Teatro Colon, Buenos Aires

Note: the lens was a fisheye, not 50mm as reported by the camera. While DxO provided good noise reduction, sharpening outside DxO (Topaz) was required to bring in detail.

--
"Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean. Because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai

Landscape & Wedding Photographer - Jacques Cornell

Jacques Cornell Photography - landscape, travel, portrait and art reproduction

jacquescornell.photography

Happening Photos - Event Photography in New York City

Event Photography in New York City and Around the World - conferences, sales meetings, fundraisers and more.

happening.photos

 

[Jacques Cornell]

PhotoLab is excellent software.

Believe it or not, your choices for yourself are not always the best choices for everyone else.

Is that an oxymoron . . . ?

No.

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

I'm glad for you.

 

[Jestertheclown]

PhotoLab is excellent software.

In your opinion.

Personally, I find it good but not great.

Believe it or not, your choices for yourself are not always the best choices for everyone else.

True.

Which is why you should refrain from telling us, in italics, that something's excellent as if it was a statement of fact.

When it's not.

Is that an oxymoron . . . ?

No.

No, I know it's not.

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . Me!"

I'm glad for you.

Thank you.




"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

 

[Graham Meale]

Neat Image has always served me well. I haven't even kept upgrading to newer versions. I only ever need to reduce noise in about 1 or 2% of shots, so a relentless pursuit of the latest and greatest is not how I operate.

--
www.grahammeale.info

 

[Jacques Cornell]

PhotoLab is excellent software.

In your opinion.

Personally, I find it good but not great.

Believe it or not, your choices for yourself are not always the best choices for everyone else.

True.

Which is why you should refrain from telling us, in italics, that something's excellent as if it was a statement of fact.

When it's not.

I said it was excellent, and it is. Its performance in several key areas is visibly better than most of its competition.

What I didn't say is that it's the best choice for everyone else.

Is that an oxymoron . . . ?

No.

No, I know it's not.

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . Me!"

I'm glad for you.

Thank you.

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

--
"Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean. Because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[Jestertheclown]

I said it was excellent, and it is. Its performance in several key areas is visibly better than most of its competition.

As I said; that's your opinion which you're stating as a matter of fact.

I disagree.

What I didn't say is that it's the best choice for everyone else.

No-one, as far as I know, is suggesting otherwise.

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I said it was excellent, and it is. Its performance in several key areas is visibly better than most of its competition.

As I said; that's your opinion which you're stating as a matter of fact.

I disagree.

When I say, "The sky is blue today", that's an opinion stated as fact. You can offend yourself over it, but I don't see the point.

What I didn't say is that it's the best choice for everyone else.

No-one, as far as I know, is suggesting otherwise.

I suggest you read the post by charlyw64 to which I was responding about best choices for everyone else.

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

 

[Jestertheclown]

I suggest you read the post by charlyw64 to which I was responding about best choices for everyone else.

I'll pass, thanks.


"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I suggest you read the post by charlyw64 to which I was responding about best choices for everyone else.

I'll pass, thanks.

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

If you're not going to bother to read the post to which I'm responding, then you shouldn't be commenting on my response.

Jacques finds Jester's interjections tedious. And ill-informed.

 

[Jestertheclown]

I suggest you read the post by charlyw64 to which I was responding about best choices for everyone else.

I'll pass, thanks.

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

If you're not going to bother to read the post to which I'm responding, then you shouldn't be commenting on my response.

It's an open, public forum upon which I'll post as I see fit.

Jacques finds Jester's interjections tedious.

Not so tedious that you can't help responding.

Something that I shall no longer be doing . . .




"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

 

[Euell]

Yes, I'm happy with DxO PhotoLab v6.

Moderately happy with Topaz Denoise AI, but I would only use it on images that I can't process using DeepPRIME (i.e. non-raw images).

Noise reduction and sharpening for detail are two sides of the same coin. While Photolab 6 noise reduction of RAW files is excellent and I use it whereber possible, PL 6 lacks the best sharpening routines.

OTOH, DxO's lens profiles apply excellent capture sharpening. For creative and output sharpening, I rely on Lightroom.

For many files the sharpening of Topaz software and in some cases Luminar Neo will provide a better overall result. I print almost exclusively on13x19" and 17x22" papers and occasionally on 17x25".

Whatever capture sharpening is applied by DxO isn't a complete solution, as you note. In fact, DxO has a separate independent sharpening module, which strongly suggests that DxO understands the limitations of whatever sharpening is automatically applied.

Sharpening in Photoshop is not the same as Lightroom and Photoshop has no dedicated output sharpening.

Depending on the photo if I want the best quality sharpening, following whatever rudimentary sharpening is applied by DxO

There's nothing "rudimentary" about DxO's profile-based Lens Sharpness. It applies stronger sharpening in areas where a given lens model is known to be softer. Try that with any other app. In my view this is all that's needed for capture sharpening.

For creative sharpening, DxO's USM combined with U-point local adjustments is pretty versatile.

DxO lens corrections are very good, but print making usually requires additional sharpening and not just output sharpening. The photo below was trash coming out of DxO; the detail was smeared by the noise reduction.

The photo below was made with a lens that was incorrectly reported by the camera and thus DxO was unable to apply a profile for Lens Sharpness.

No, as with many lenses, DxO has no profile for that fisheye lens. But, noise reduction was applied in DxO, which is very good. Even if there had been a DxO lens profile, it would not have brought up sufficient detail for this shot, in my experience.

It irritates me that despite repeated requests over the years, DxO ignores development of lens profiles for several relatively popular Voigtlander lenses (not this photo).

What detail there is was restored using Topaz sharpening. True, this was an extreme case

and an unrepresentative one

Not really. It was a noisy file.

, but I find additional sharpening using Topaz and sometimes Neo can make a big difference in prints.

That may be. But, in this case, you are not taking full advantage of DxO's capabilities.

And, how is that? Look, Jacques, DxO has its uses, which is why I have subscribed for years, but DxO has limitations that prevent it from being a one-stop panacea. For example, the algorithm of the shadow slider washes out contrast before you bring up shadows very far. Adobe RAW and Neo both work better for that. Bottom line is DxO works well as a single solution if you don’t intend significant manipulation and the file doesn’t need much sharpening. Heck, I can make due with Photoshop only for files I never intend to print.

, I will use Topaz or Neo. This is particularly effective for high ISO. I will also do an output sharpening for inkjet printing some photos with either NIK or the old Photokit output sharpener.

I used to use PhotoKit Sharpener for output sharpening until I read that much of the tech behind it had been shared by the devs with Adobe and incorporated into Lightroom's output sharpening in the Export module.

I use Photoshop, but not Lightroom.

Teatro Colon, Buenos Aires

Note: the lens was a fisheye, not 50mm as reported by the camera. While DxO provided good noise reduction, sharpening outside DxO (Topaz) was required to bring in detail.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I suggest you read the post by charlyw64 to which I was responding about best choices for everyone else.

I'll pass, thanks.

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

If you're not going to bother to read the post to which I'm responding, then you shouldn't be commenting on my response.

It's an open, public forum upon which I'll post as I see fit.

Sure. And, as it's an open, public forum, I'll call you out for inappropriate and uninformed commentary as I see fit.

Jacques finds Jester's interjections tedious.

Not so tedious that you can't help responding.

Something that I shall no longer be doing . . .

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

Great!

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Yes, I'm happy with DxO PhotoLab v6.

Moderately happy with Topaz Denoise AI, but I would only use it on images that I can't process using DeepPRIME (i.e. non-raw images).

Noise reduction and sharpening for detail are two sides of the same coin. While Photolab 6 noise reduction of RAW files is excellent and I use it whereber possible, PL 6 lacks the best sharpening routines.

OTOH, DxO's lens profiles apply excellent capture sharpening. For creative and output sharpening, I rely on Lightroom.

For many files the sharpening of Topaz software and in some cases Luminar Neo will provide a better overall result. I print almost exclusively on13x19" and 17x22" papers and occasionally on 17x25".

Whatever capture sharpening is applied by DxO isn't a complete solution, as you note. In fact, DxO has a separate independent sharpening module, which strongly suggests that DxO understands the limitations of whatever sharpening is automatically applied.

Sharpening in Photoshop is not the same as Lightroom and Photoshop has no dedicated output sharpening.

Depending on the photo if I want the best quality sharpening, following whatever rudimentary sharpening is applied by DxO

There's nothing "rudimentary" about DxO's profile-based Lens Sharpness. It applies stronger sharpening in areas where a given lens model is known to be softer. Try that with any other app. In my view this is all that's needed for capture sharpening.

For creative sharpening, DxO's USM combined with U-point local adjustments is pretty versatile.

DxO lens corrections are very good, but print making usually requires additional sharpening and not just output sharpening. The photo below was trash coming out of DxO; the detail was smeared by the noise reduction.

The photo below was made with a lens that was incorrectly reported by the camera and thus DxO was unable to apply a profile for Lens Sharpness.

No,

Yes.

as with many lenses, DxO has no profile for that fisheye lens.

Nobody offers lens-specific sharpening for that lens. The example you're using to criticize DxO is an outlier. With most lenses, DxO does apply "additional sharpening and not just output sharpening". Adobe offers this feature for exactly zero lenses. In fact, nobody other than DxO is offering this feature for any lens.

But, noise reduction was applied in DxO, which is very good. Even if there had been a DxO lens profile, it would not have brought up sufficient detail for this shot, in my experience.

My experience is different. The combination of capture sharpening via Lens Sharpness and output sharpening via Lightroom's Export module is generally sufficient. If the lens is soft, as my FZ1000 MkII's can be, I'll apply fine sharpening USM in Lightroom. I could just as easily do that in DxO PhotoLab, but the masking slider in Lightroom's USM makes this tool a bit better.

It irritates me that despite repeated requests over the years, DxO ignores development of lens profiles for several relatively popular Voigtlander lenses (not this photo).

There are a lot of lenses hitting the market these days, including relatively obscure manual-focus ones. DxO has to devote its limited resources to the ones with the largest user bases. I've got a couple of Samyang AF primes for FE mount for which DxO does not yet have profiles. I've put in requests to DxO, but I'm not publicly trashing the company about it because, for the vast majority of my work, PhotoLab is stills hands-down the best tool for me.

What detail there is was restored using Topaz sharpening. True, this was an extreme case

and an unrepresentative one

Not really. It was a noisy file.

, but I find additional sharpening using Topaz and sometimes Neo can make a big difference in prints.

That may be. But, in this case, you are not taking full advantage of DxO's capabilities.

And, how is that? Look, Jacques, DxO has its uses, which is why I have subscribed for years, but DxO has limitations that prevent it from being a one-stop panacea. For example, the algorithm of the shadow slider washes out contrast before you bring up shadows very far. Adobe RAW and Neo both work better for that. Bottom line is DxO works well as a single solution if you don’t intend significant manipulation and the file doesn’t need much sharpening. Heck, I can make due with Photoshop only for files I never intend to print.

, I will use Topaz or Neo. This is particularly effective for high ISO. I will also do an output sharpening for inkjet printing some photos with either NIK or the old Photokit output sharpener.

I used to use PhotoKit Sharpener for output sharpening until I read that much of the tech behind it had been shared by the devs with Adobe and incorporated into Lightroom's output sharpening in the Export module.

I use Photoshop, but not Lightroom.

Teatro Colon, Buenos Aires

Note: the lens was a fisheye, not 50mm as reported by the camera. While DxO provided good noise reduction, sharpening outside DxO (Topaz) was required to bring in detail.

--
"Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean. Because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[CAcreeks]

Neat Image has always served me well. I haven't even kept upgrading to newer versions. I only ever need to reduce noise in about 1 or 2% of shots, so a relentless pursuit of the latest and greatest is not how I operate.

Would you mind popping this into Neat Image?

Topaz Denoise AI does a terrible job of correcting JPEG artifacting at the edges, which probably resulted from the camera's pathetic attempt to reduce noise. I should have taken a Raw, but didn't. Topaz doesn't help much to reduce white speckling noise, either.

 

[Graham Meale]

Here you go ...





Just a quick one; I may be able to improve it if I fiddled with settings.

--
www.grahammeale.info

 

[CAcreeks]

Here you go ... [image]

Just a quick one; I may be able to improve it if I fiddled with settings.

Thanks, not bad. Possibly Neat Image is better than Topaz at handling old-school situations like a small sensor camera at high ISO.

Topaz Sharpen works very well with scans from old photo prints, which are "out of focus" from too many generations between lens, negative, print, and scan.