Excellent video as always, Matt. I appreciate how evenhanded it was near the end, when helping decide whether to use Lightroom or a third-party app on noise. You're right: all these AI apps are so good that you sometimes have to pixel-peep at 300% to show meaningful differences. It's all about the preferred workflow. I already have a preference of DxO PureRAW 3 over Lightroom's update, but I'll continue to tweak my results with Lightroom and would love to wean off my continually updated (at $79 each time) add-on.
Great addition to Lightroom and camera raw. My workflow with high ISO files is DXO and finish with Topaz Sharpen. You hit the nail on the head, the new noise removal is very close, now we need adobe to bring world class sharpening to Lightroom. Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks Matt. What a great comparison of the 2 products that I use a lot: LR and Topaz Photo AI. At the end, you did a great job of explaining whether to use LR or AI and you hit on the 2 main reasons a person might stick with the AI: your personal work flow and up-sizing . Looking down the road a bit- if Topaz wants to charge me for updating the AI, (AND LR has kept pace) it might be time to let it go and just focus (see what I did there?) on LR for all of my editing needs. And thanks for the comparison photos. Nothing beats actual side by side images to let us see for ourselves. Well done, fella.
Thanks, Matt for an interesting and helpful video - I really like your pragmatic approach. I have been using Topaz DeNoise, Sharpen and Gigapixel for some time now and have found I get better results on my particular photos using the individual plugins than from using their Photo AI. I am really excited to try the new LR denoise to see how that compares with Topaz. Thank you!
I'm used to Adobe CC and don't want to switch or add programs but I routinely feel sour about paying for it. The standout is Lightroom - the updates they've been cranking out there in the past few years are awesome. Excited to try this out, great vid!
Thanks for this great video and comparison. Your videos on the LR virtual summit were great. Will you update your wildlife editing book to include this new future? Also, is the noise reduction better in Photoshop than LR Classic?
Great explanation as is usual, in all of your videos. I used it yesterday for a while and for me Topaz De Noise is still streets ahead. Both In the results and speed, at least that’s what I thought anyway. I was happy to go back using Topaz, I find it just works well every time. That wasn’t always the case though, so it’s only a matter of time before the next best thing appears from one of these companies that will take all of this to a new level again 👍🏻
It's great to see your take on this. I saw the update Monday night and nobody was talking about it yet. Now that several people are dropping videos, it seems that the consensus is that Adobe really hit it out of the park on this one. I expect we'll see sharpening from them fairly soon as well. In the one photo that you should with the comparison to Topaz, I thought that the Topaz version was a little "crunchy" in terms of sharpness, and it also looked like it had more noise still than what the Adobe result was. I think that it is important that everyone determines what will work best for them as it may not be a one size fits all photos solution. My biggest issue, personally, is how long it takes. My computer is sitting right around 10 years old, so it takes a very long time to process this on an image. I did recently get ON1's NoNoise, which I think is faster, but it's also cumbersome to send the image out to another program.
Hi Craig. Thanks, glad you liked it. 1. RE: crunchy... I want my zoomed in images to look a little crunchy. When zoomed out they look fantastic and if you print (which I do), you need to over sharpen. It's a process and a look that everyone needs to develop on their own. But, for me, my photos should always look crunchy when zoomed in to those levels. 2. I'm not sure Adobe will do sharpening. They already did the "Enhance Details" thing and I think that was their attempt. Who knows. I honestly don't keep up with betas much so I have no idea. Thanks!
Thank you for the great video! Currently my preferred workflow is using Lightroom new noise reduction and then use Topaz Sharpen AI. Also, I prefer being less aggressive with noise reduction, maybe around 20-30% and then add a mask with more aggressive noise reduction of the background only.
At 24 seconds, that IS super quick - I've had a single image take 24 minutes (42mp, Iso32,000)!! I definitely am going to have to upgrade my graphics card to use this, but that will cost almost the price I was going to have to spend on DxO anyway, so, I guess I've put that upgrade off long enough!
Well presented. AI is just getting better. This also makes F4 lens more usable in low light and not necessary to upgrade to f2.8 lens , as u can just push up ISO and use Denoise
I can shoot my camera to over 25.000 ISO and still get a clean image. Even images up to 50.000 do well in some situations. Together with adding the background and foreground blur in photoshop saves me a few thousand Euro's. It just costs a lot of effort to blur.
After trying the new LR denoise on a dozen shots or so and comparing them to Topaz, I find that detail is preserved better in Topaz DeNoise. The difference is noise reduction isn't huge, both do a great job, but to my eye the Topaz NR just looks better when viewing the photo at normal size. Also, I feel like Topaz DeNoise does a fantastic job of sharpening. Better than I can get with LR.
WOW!! This is great, and I knew exactly who to go to to learn about it the fastest, thanks Matt! Few questions, can the new AI Denoise be performed on multiple photos? Or synced/copied from one photo to another/many?
I have been playing with the trial of DXO PureRaw3, barely 7 days in. To me LR Denoise seems to go head on against DXO. I have Topaz and have learned to use it so as to avoid the artifacts/oversharpening it sometimes does. I think, for now, I’m going to pause on DXO and just focus on LR and Topaz, as they seem complementary in that LR is raw only and Topaz does jpegs and tiff, plus I know how to use Topaz but not really DXO.
Like you, I've been using Topaz for noise reduction. This update is simply fantastic. If anything, Topaz has (to my eyes) a tendency to oversharpen in the course of reducing nose. I'm definitely going to play around with the Adobe Denoise. I never upsize; so I may have a decision to make about Photo AI if my results mirror yours.
Keep in mind, Photo AI is still not ready for prime time. I think it won't be till at least 2.0... I still feel like it's at the incremental update are just beta updates and it's still better than this. This is a nice start for Adobe
Good video, thank you, I have subscribed. I renewed my Topaz package in December 2022, having purchased it at about half price the year before. It will be interesting to discover how good Adobe Denoise is in December this year versus Topaz, which will determine whether I renew my Topaz package again, or just Topaz sharpening - I've already concluded Adobe enhance is already pretty good vs Topaz Gigapixel.
I love, love, love this! Topaz tended to add weird artifacts in animal fur and whiskers. There was also no way to turn off the sharpening. It would destroy the very subtle feather detail in birds. Adobe really came through! I actually will sharpen in ACR now after doing denoise, and I love the result.
Thanks! I wonder if this technology will eventually appear in Photoshop as the long-promised Neural Noise Reduction filter so it could be applied to other file formats later in the workflow.
nice review. amazing results, especially for a V1 while pure raw is at V3... any chance one day LRC doesn't create a huge extra DNG file and stores modifications in the catalog for previews..?
Great video, Matt. Sadly, the latest ACR 15.3 is making my RAW images appear super contrasty and underexposed when opened up. ACR Thumbnails look normal and so does the RAW file when I open it in Photoshop. Only way I can access the new denoise and have my RAW files look normal in ACR is to switch off the graphics processor. That's fine, but I need the graphics processor for HDR.
The plug-ins were always too inconsistent to me because they do seem to use the AI to detect the subject and which areas of it should not receive as much noise reduction. LR now seems to use AI to model the noise of the camera as such and then use the RAW conversion process (which contains edge detection already for example) to give hints to the noise reduction which pixel variance would be expected and thus what to smooth out - if you look at the dialog then you see that the RAW Detail enhancement is automatically enabled. This IMHO results in a much more consistent noise reduction which makes it infinitely more palatable to me.
Its nice to save high iso photos but for lower iso levels like 800-3200 I tend to prefer the classic look with the noise over the smooth denoised image. Depends on the usecase ofcourse.
It does a pretty decent job! My main issue with it is CPU performance, since my GPU is too old to use the full hardware acceleration in Lightroom. It takes several minutes per photo running on my 12th gen Intel, compared to 30-45 seconds in Topaz. Also, it makes a stack with the original, but doesn't add it to the collection with the original like Topaz does.
Thank you very much for your explanation. However, I noticed that the new feature is not compatible with older RAW files from my Canon 7D en 5D or G5X.
I have Denoise software and after using Adobe's Denoise, I prefer Adobe's Denoise as it does not change the colour post Denoising unlike Denoise software. Additionally, Adobe's Denoise maintains the quality of raw files which Denoise does not do completely. Cheers for making this video.
This is the way things always go if major companies are on the ball. Let edge companies develop the edge tools, then learn from them and incorporate. Congrats to Adobe for staying on the ball. But let's applaud Topaz for being in the game and driving things forward.
I tried it, it is better than any denoise reduction software on the market. So you don’t need to spend money on the sharpest lens or expensive high iso cameras. Just great!
That may be going a bit far :-) Noise Reduction doesn't replace good photography. The photo needs to be sharp or all the noise reduction and sharpening in the world won't help.
Great denoise intro and comparisons w/ old Adobe and Topaz. The new built-in LRC denoise is way faster than using Topaz, at least the way I'm doing it. With Topaz (Windows), I right-click on a photo and click "Edit in..." and choose Topaz DeNoise (or Sharpen or Photo). This generates a pop-up asking to confirm settings (Edit a Copy with LR Adjustments, File Format, Color Space, etc.). Click on "Edit" then Topaz launches its app w/ the photo. From there, fiddle with the adjustment knobs and zoom range (and wait for Topaz to re-render every time you make the slightest zoom change), click Apply and wait for Topaz to re-generate the final TIFF and exit back to LRC. This is clunky, cumbersome, and even on my AMD 3970X monster machine (32 processors, 128GB RAM, SSD, nVidia GeForce RTX 4080), a simple file will take maybe a minute+ all-in. With Adobe, I click "DeNoise", and click "Enhance" when the popup box appears (don't even have to wait for the sample rendering). Within 10-15 seconds I'm done. Also, just like Topaz, in LRC you can select an entire group of photos, turn on AutoSync, then click Denoise just one time to automatically apply Denoise to all photos in the group at once. Super handy, especially if you have a group of relatively similar photos (same outdoor lighting, same general camera conditions, etc.). When I pixel peep, Topaz does do a slightly better job overall, but part of this is the fine-tuning Topaz enables. Adobe's solution has but one basic slider and I've found it's best/fastest/easiest to just let Adobe choose where that slider belongs. I'll probably keep my Topaz tools, for special pics. But for the most part, Adobe's NR just changed my workflow for the better.
I always enjoy Matt's honest assessments of the software changes. Thank you. It is great to see Adobe making these ongoing improvements. I would have preferred they linked the HSL panel to the masks instead of the curves, but curves can be beneficial. I have to believe the Adobe marketers are looking at all those 3rd party apps out there, and wondering how they can improve loyalty and grow the business by displacing those apps. AI is changing everything and Adobe has the resources to stay ahead. The key is to simplify the processes and make them more time efficient. That gets more people using LR &PS. Just imagine if Adobe looked at all the 3rd party panels for PS that simplify creating luminosity masks - why hasn't Adobe rendered them all obsolete?? It has to be an opportunity as defined by whats out there on the market - just like Denoise. I am also waiting for the text creation tool in PS to be, somehow, added to LR.
Hi. You already have Saturation and Hue built in to masking, along with color range masking which allow you to adjust any color using any slider. If anything, color range masking is more powerful than HSL. As for Luminosity Masking, it already is in your raw editor (Range Masking for Luminance). Same concept, but better for the most part. Basically, I think the tools you want are there - they're just not called what you want, but they exist.
Is there a way to batch edit in Lightroom with ai denoise? Or you have to manually go in every pic and activate the ai denoise? Couldn't find a way to make it like a preset...
Competition is good. Adobe has thousands of features to worry about so I’m not sure we’ll see updates to this. Each of those companies only have a handful of features to worry about, so we’ll probably see more innovation which is only a good thing for us.
I'd love to see more comparisons to the plug-ins. Of the two comparisons you show in the video, to my eyes on my monitor, Topaz had more detail in the first and Adobe in the second. But it is clearly a tremendous improvement. Now if they would just add the HSL function to masking.
Hi. Why not give it a try yourself. They all have free versions and your eyes will tell you the best with your own photos. Re: HSL - it's already there. Range Masking with color options as well as the Saturation and Hue adjustments. It's everything HSL but much better and more robust.
@@MattKloskowski I will, thanks. For some reason I find the new color bar much harder to use than the HSL controls. I miss the HSL eye dropper which would pinpoint the color or combination of colors.
@@MattKloskowski tried and yes. However; it’s not the same as pasting or syncing the other settings. One must highlight the images and then click on “denoise” once the pop up window opens, it will ask of you want to apply the denoise to all the images selected. Thanks Matt! Love your content.
Matt, two questions... 1) after applying Denoise to an image, would you think the original file should be saved or deleted? and 2) do you think Adobe will come later with an update to Denoise that works WITHOUT creating a new file?
Hi. 1) It doesn’t matter and it’s up to you. Once I get more comfortable with it, I’d probably start deleting the raw photo just to make it cleaner. 2) Yes.
I have 2 folders, one with subfolders in chronological order (year -> month -> exact date with optional comment -> raw files called date_#### The other folder is for exported, copied and edited images and in no chronological order. Jpg/png/dng etc. This way I have one folder with clean structure and naming thats super easy to backup and another folder where I can do whatever to my files. Just copy the raw to the editing folder and the original is always intact. I never open the chronological files in any editing software. Works well for me.
Using Topaz Denoise AI or PureRaw or others, the resulting DNG file is much (about 2 times) bigger than the original DNG file. Please comment on the size of the resulting DNG file using Lightroom's new Denoise tool. Thank you.
You have to consider the kind of files you need to process: both Dxo PureRaw & Adobe Denoise only work in Raw Photos, Topaz Photo AI and On1 No Noise can also be applied to Jpeg or Tiff. That makes a lot of difference, of course if or when Adobe Denoise can also work with Jpegs etc that can turn things in their favour. To early to tell.
Is this new feature not available in Photoshop via Camera Raw? In other words, you could open a JPG in Photoshop, convert to Smart Object, then edit Camera Raw.
I and others, have noted that Denoise appears to REPLACE the original Sony A1 raw file with the DNG. Can't seem to find the original raw file after running Denoise? Any thoughts?
Matt, does TOPAZ also create a "side file"? I mean...does Topaz also duplicate the original photo? Because what lightroom does is SO VERY SPACE CONSUMING :(
Love your video on this. I want to use Noise AI in Photoshop then access it in ACR then close the raw file in PS so it saves as a TIF not a DNG. But there is no noise AI button in ACR when I open it from inside Photoshop. I called Adobe and the support tech didn't even know there was this new feature. I tried to open the dgn then save it but it will nto auto save as a tif. I do save as then I must laboriously find the folder I want to save it to. The DNG file is a pain.
Do you turn off sharpening before applying LR NR, and then mask and sharpen subject? I could not tell from the video but it appeared that you didn’t do any if that…. Thanks.
I pay for Lightroom so have this anyway, but unfortunately it has the same cartoonish features as the early AI denoising programs. Pureraw 3 is just on another level, im going to keep using it.
You saw the only controls. I always want mine to look over sharpened at that zoom level. It means it will look great when zoomed out and if printing it always needs to have extra sharpening applied to it.
Hi Matt, Many thank for your great guide. However could you please go further with denoise timing...my PC is Intel i5 11th, RAM 32GB, SSD and it takes 5 minutes for Olympus MFT raw file and 15 minutes for Fuji GFX100s for denoise (Standard setting 50%). is that normal? what should I do to improve it?
I tested the manual noise reduction on the latest LR and it is better at retaining some detail on a face with some blemishes (ISO 5000) than a much older generation of LR. The new Denoise feature showed more detail especially on the clothing, face, and eyes, but it added some strange pattern on the face of one of the ladies who had some blemishes almost as if she did a very poor makeup job. Adding to the fact that my computer is a little older (specs: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz 3.19 GHz with 32 GB RAM), the painstaking slowness of the processing makes it unusable unless I'm only editing one specific image. It might be time to upgrade. LOL
Its not the chip in your computer which matters for this. While running it my CPU shows 0 activity but my limited GPU - Graphics card, is at 100% sos that's where this process is done and if its slow, a new graphics card might be the answer not necessarily a new computer.
Hi Matt, Thank you for great instructional vid as always. I have latest Lr and Camera Raw version installed as you described but when I open one of my existing catalog of Sony A1 ARW files in Lr, the 'Denoise' button is grayed out with message below saying "Denoise is not currently compatible with this photo format". Any thoughts ! Thank you ...
If I am in PS and go into the Camera Raw filter the newer denoise button is not there. Do I need to change a setting or do you have to use this new filter when you bring the original raw image into camera raw? btw I see the new filter when I open the raw image directly into camera raw.
Unfortunately, RAW photos taken with the phone give a warning that they are incompatible for DNG format and the new denoise option is not active. Works with Canon DSLR CR2. I guess it only recognizes DSLR cameras DENOISE option.
trying to use Denise on a raw Sony arw file but its saying denoise is not currently available on this photo format? do you know how to fix this ? thanks in advance
I'm running a mid range PC with 56 gig ram, GTX 1060 etc and I'm getting an error when hitting enhance - dng file not created and gpu has been disabled for current session... frustrating!!
I was literally just comparing Topaz with DXO to determine which one to go ahead and purchase - good timing Adobe! Now just need an improved sharpening AI tool and I’ll be content (for a while).
The denoise function appears to be very cpu/gpu intensive. You were demonstrating denoise with renderings under 30 secnonds. My I7 with an NVIDIA GForce 660--yeah, it's an old system--takes 45 minutes to process a raw image from my Nikon D600. Anyone published minimum requirements??
Yeah, that's crazy intensive! Matt showed a screenshot of his machine's specs: It's an M1 Max MacBook Pro with 96GB of RAM. I have a similar machine, and got similar times to Matt. However, I also have a 2018 Lenovo X1 Yoga, which is no slouch of a PC, and it would take hours to render the same files (but more likely hang up trying). It's basically inoperable with any AI photo app.
@@the-birdman-of-panama You need a mid level or high end discreet GPU for DxO or any AI noise reduction to be fast. A laptop with integrated graphics on the cpu will not run these programs efficiently at all. DxO recommends a minimum of an NVIDIA RTX 2060 or AMD RX6600 gpu, and with that you would have a processing time of about 2Mpx per second, so about 30 seconds for a 60MP file. If you have a Thunderbolt port on that Lenovo X1 you could add an external desktop gpu add on when you are at your desk at home, or at the office.
@@the-birdman-of-panama As for DxO 6 on Mac, the M1 and M2 chips are natively supported and DeepPrime and DeepPrimeXD are very fast as seen here in this video compared to an Intel chip with onboard graphics.
Help, why my render of a raw file from a6400 takes 9 minutes? On a i7 12700k, 64 gb ram, radeon rx 6700 xt. Whats wrong? The results are great but it renders very slow. I use camera raw in PS.
On the few images that I have tried I find the new LR Denoise is better than Topaz, it maintains the detail more, Topaz can make images look a bit 'plasticy'
Is anyone able to explain why Dimension of new DNG file, which was created after denoising is 683x1014? How to keep dimension as the Original foto 6024x4024?
They probably used the same technology that they use in Audition. Stand alone products get built around technologies, but video usually also has sound, and both parts can be (and sometimes need) enhancement. But a combination of all these technologies, including AI will lead to some (easy to use) amazing products. (create the story and the movie out of thin air) The UIs of most Adobe products are still not that easy to use, including Audition. Back in the day before "digitilized" sound, most sound enhancement were done by hardware, removing background noises, the spacial projection effects etc.
@@MattKloskowski When you use the word "denoise" I was thinking about "audio" hi-fi denoise. Didn't realize they are now using an audio term for picture clarity and fidelity as well as audio clarity and fidelity. Are they using "signal to noise ratio" for pictures as well? Noise used to mean a very specific thing, it was something "in addition to" the actual useful recorded information, not distortion or corruption of the actual recorded information itself. (that needed to be filtered or rearranged in some way, instead of completely removed.) Most of my recording experience is with audio and their Audition product, where the noise (that you hear) can actually be seen on the track.
Matt, my kids send me lots of pictures from their iphones that are translated into .jpg files. I do not share the perspective that pics from all these high end phones create good quality pics. When I import and try to edit noise in these photos into LR and/or PS, I don't get the option of Denoise telling me it is not compatible with a jpg format. You said as much in your tutorial that it has to be in a CR format. When I click on the CR filter in PS it shows that the CR filter is applied, but still shows the photo as a jpg, and thus I cannot enable the Denoise filter. What am I doing wrong?
I have not really considered getting a new computer. Mine seems OK. But what takes you 25 seconds takes me 2 minutes. Maybe a new graphics card? Is it the GPU that does the work? I updated the drivers. No help. Oh well, maybe a new graphics card!
is their a way to apply this to more than one photo in Lightroom? also is there a way to delete the old file since it makes two separate files on Lightroom?
It's a nice start but it's still quite behind Topaz Denosie AI and Photo AI. Photo is still not ready for prime time. It's something to keep an eye on but my wildlife image look significantly better in Topaz apps at this point
In my case - Adobe Camera Raw processing Canon EOS R6 25,3 MB test raw file generates 89,1 MB DNG duplicate file, means ca 350% increase in disk space needed. So if you want to just denoise and export say 25 GB wedding folder, you will end up needing another 90 GB (at least temporary) disk space. And if you want to further process those denoised files and keep those edits, you actually HAVE TO KEEP those DNG files, not just lightweight (10 to 300kB) .acr sidecar files like for you raw files. So, it is feasible for single files, but for batch processing, I prefer Topaz DeNoise, which does not create any heavy intermediates. Just my 2 cents.
@@MattKloskowski I process my RAW files in ACR, export them as TIFFs or HQ JPEGs. If I want to denoise them, I open them all at once in Topaz Denoise. I get a list files, I can adjust their denoise and sharping parameters 1) individually for each file, or 2) groups of files, 3) or all of them at once. When ready - I hit the SAVE IMAGE button and I can export all the files in one batch. I have option to 1) overwrite original TIFF or JPEG file (saves space and logistic), or 2) generate a second set of just denoised files. I have only one set of edited RAW files. If I want to do the same with this version of Adobe Denoise, from my RAW files (Adobe recommendation) I should first denoise files (in that moment second 3.5x bigger DNG version of original file is saved to disk), then edit, save - and just then export them as TIFFs or JPEGs. I have one set of (un)editet RAW files, and second set of edited DNG files.
Whoa..... It must be time to build a new computer. I just ran this on an old image from 2016 when I was shooting with a D7200 and the new LR AI denoise took over 10 minutes to process. Next test is going to be on an image from the Z9. I'm not looking forward to that test...lol. My current system was built in 2015 and is running an Intell i-5-6500 CPU @ 3.2 GHz with 32 GB of RAM. Ummm.... yeah, she has some miles on her.
İ tried it 2 ways at the beginning of coloring and after completed the coloring , to be honest it definitely should have done at beginning because otherwise it ruins all the color !
Pretty spectacular results. Thanks for all the info and the video. Well done!
Excellent video as always, Matt. I appreciate how evenhanded it was near the end, when helping decide whether to use Lightroom or a third-party app on noise. You're right: all these AI apps are so good that you sometimes have to pixel-peep at 300% to show meaningful differences. It's all about the preferred workflow. I already have a preference of DxO PureRAW 3 over Lightroom's update, but I'll continue to tweak my results with Lightroom and would love to wean off my continually updated (at $79 each time) add-on.
As usual, the most measured sane advice. Thanks Matt
Great addition to Lightroom and camera raw. My workflow with high ISO files is DXO and finish with Topaz Sharpen. You hit the nail on the head, the new noise removal is very close, now we need adobe to bring world class sharpening to Lightroom. Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks Matt. What a great comparison of the 2 products that I use a lot: LR and Topaz Photo AI. At the end, you did a great job of explaining whether to use LR or AI and you hit on the 2 main reasons a person might stick with the AI: your personal work flow and up-sizing .
Looking down the road a bit- if Topaz wants to charge me for updating the AI, (AND LR has kept pace) it might be time to let it go and just focus (see what I did there?) on LR for all of my editing needs.
And thanks for the comparison photos. Nothing beats actual side by side images to let us see for ourselves.
Well done, fella.
Thanks Randy!
This is like a god send to people just getting into photography and editing
Awesome advice! Thanks for your videos!
Thanks for this. I didn't know this had been added. Looking forward to use.
Thanks Matt, Great comparison video much appreciated.
Thanks, Matt for an interesting and helpful video - I really like your pragmatic approach. I have been using Topaz DeNoise, Sharpen and Gigapixel for some time now and have found I get better results on my particular photos using the individual plugins than from using their Photo AI. I am really excited to try the new LR denoise to see how that compares with Topaz. Thank you!
I'm used to Adobe CC and don't want to switch or add programs but I routinely feel sour about paying for it. The standout is Lightroom - the updates they've been cranking out there in the past few years are awesome. Excited to try this out, great vid!
👏👏👏 concert photography will never be the same
Thanks for this great video and comparison. Your videos on the LR virtual summit were great. Will you update your wildlife editing book to include this new future? Also, is the noise reduction better in Photoshop than LR Classic?
I love you mention about better option and compared it
Pretty awesome. I hope they do a sharpening update soon, too, that gives as good results as Topaz which currently blows LR away.
Matt, thanks so much for the review. I always appreciate your reviews. I use Topaz Photo AI for noise reduction but now I will have to compare images.
Damn now i have to go through all my damn old high noise photos and see how many of them are saved by this improvement.
Great explanation as is usual, in all of your videos. I used it yesterday for a while and for me Topaz De Noise is still streets ahead. Both In the results and speed, at least that’s what I thought anyway. I was happy to go back using Topaz, I find it just works well every time. That wasn’t always the case though, so it’s only a matter of time before the next best thing appears from one of these companies that will take all of this to a new level again 👍🏻
Thanks Matt.
It's great to see your take on this. I saw the update Monday night and nobody was talking about it yet. Now that several people are dropping videos, it seems that the consensus is that Adobe really hit it out of the park on this one. I expect we'll see sharpening from them fairly soon as well.
In the one photo that you should with the comparison to Topaz, I thought that the Topaz version was a little "crunchy" in terms of sharpness, and it also looked like it had more noise still than what the Adobe result was. I think that it is important that everyone determines what will work best for them as it may not be a one size fits all photos solution.
My biggest issue, personally, is how long it takes. My computer is sitting right around 10 years old, so it takes a very long time to process this on an image. I did recently get ON1's NoNoise, which I think is faster, but it's also cumbersome to send the image out to another program.
Hi Craig. Thanks, glad you liked it.
1. RE: crunchy... I want my zoomed in images to look a little crunchy. When zoomed out they look fantastic and if you print (which I do), you need to over sharpen. It's a process and a look that everyone needs to develop on their own. But, for me, my photos should always look crunchy when zoomed in to those levels.
2. I'm not sure Adobe will do sharpening. They already did the "Enhance Details" thing and I think that was their attempt. Who knows. I honestly don't keep up with betas much so I have no idea.
Thanks!
Thank you for the great video! Currently my preferred workflow is using Lightroom new noise reduction and then use Topaz Sharpen AI. Also, I prefer being less aggressive with noise reduction, maybe around 20-30% and then add a mask with more aggressive noise reduction of the background only.
At 24 seconds, that IS super quick - I've had a single image take 24 minutes (42mp, Iso32,000)!! I definitely am going to have to upgrade my graphics card to use this, but that will cost almost the price I was going to have to spend on DxO anyway, so, I guess I've put that upgrade off long enough!
Well presented. AI is just getting better. This also makes F4 lens more usable in low light and not necessary to upgrade to f2.8 lens , as u can just push up ISO and use Denoise
Heck I have been using a 200-600 at 6.3 shooting at 5000 iso and in Topaz it makes it look like 100 iso. Could prob shoot up to 12800!
I can shoot my camera to over 25.000 ISO and still get a clean image. Even images up to 50.000 do well in some situations. Together with adding the background and foreground blur in photoshop saves me a few thousand Euro's. It just costs a lot of effort to blur.
After trying the new LR denoise on a dozen shots or so and comparing them to Topaz, I find that detail is preserved better in Topaz DeNoise. The difference is noise reduction isn't huge, both do a great job, but to my eye the Topaz NR just looks better when viewing the photo at normal size. Also, I feel like Topaz DeNoise does a fantastic job of sharpening. Better than I can get with LR.
WOW!! This is great, and I knew exactly who to go to to learn about it the fastest, thanks Matt! Few questions, can the new AI Denoise be performed on multiple photos? Or synced/copied from one photo to another/many?
Thanks Andrew. I believe it can. I haven't tried it, but give it a try and see.
Great advice!
I have been playing with the trial of DXO PureRaw3, barely 7 days in. To me LR Denoise seems to go head on against DXO. I have Topaz and have learned to use it so as to avoid the artifacts/oversharpening it sometimes does. I think, for now, I’m going to pause on DXO and just focus on LR and Topaz, as they seem complementary in that LR is raw only and Topaz does jpegs and tiff, plus I know how to use Topaz but not really DXO.
Thanks for insight
Like you, I've been using Topaz for noise reduction. This update is simply fantastic. If anything, Topaz has (to my eyes) a tendency to oversharpen in the course of reducing nose. I'm definitely going to play around with the Adobe Denoise. I never upsize; so I may have a decision to make about Photo AI if my results mirror yours.
Keep in mind, Photo AI is still not ready for prime time. I think it won't be till at least 2.0... I still feel like it's at the incremental update are just beta updates and it's still better than this. This is a nice start for Adobe
Good video, thank you, I have subscribed. I renewed my Topaz package in December 2022, having purchased it at about half price the year before. It will be interesting to discover how good Adobe Denoise is in December this year versus Topaz, which will determine whether I renew my Topaz package again, or just Topaz sharpening - I've already concluded Adobe enhance is already pretty good vs Topaz Gigapixel.
Nice video! Nice shirt!
Well Done!!!
I love, love, love this! Topaz tended to add weird artifacts in animal fur and whiskers. There was also no way to turn off the sharpening. It would destroy the very subtle feather detail in birds. Adobe really came through! I actually will sharpen in ACR now after doing denoise, and I love the result.
Thanks! I wonder if this technology will eventually appear in Photoshop as the long-promised Neural Noise Reduction filter so it could be applied to other file formats later in the workflow.
I don't think so, it's integrated in the RAW Detail enhancement which is a demosaicing...
Its pretty impressive! just been trying it out!
hey !! great video, lovely example photos and... greetings from CHile !! ;)
nice review. amazing results, especially for a V1 while pure raw is at V3... any chance one day LRC doesn't create a huge extra DNG file and stores modifications in the catalog for previews..?
Great video, Matt. Sadly, the latest ACR 15.3 is making my RAW images appear super contrasty and underexposed when opened up. ACR Thumbnails look normal and so does the RAW file when I open it in Photoshop. Only way I can access the new denoise and have my RAW files look normal in ACR is to switch off the graphics processor. That's fine, but I need the graphics processor for HDR.
I Love It !!!
The plug-ins were always too inconsistent to me because they do seem to use the AI to detect the subject and which areas of it should not receive as much noise reduction. LR now seems to use AI to model the noise of the camera as such and then use the RAW conversion process (which contains edge detection already for example) to give hints to the noise reduction which pixel variance would be expected and thus what to smooth out - if you look at the dialog then you see that the RAW Detail enhancement is automatically enabled. This IMHO results in a much more consistent noise reduction which makes it infinitely more palatable to me.
Could I ask whether you are using any mic to record or the sound comes from a built-in mic?:)
Its nice to save high iso photos but for lower iso levels like 800-3200 I tend to prefer the classic look with the noise over the smooth denoised image. Depends on the usecase ofcourse.
It does a pretty decent job! My main issue with it is CPU performance, since my GPU is too old to use the full hardware acceleration in Lightroom. It takes several minutes per photo running on my 12th gen Intel, compared to 30-45 seconds in Topaz. Also, it makes a stack with the original, but doesn't add it to the collection with the original like Topaz does.
Thank you very much for your explanation. However, I noticed that the new feature is not compatible with older RAW files from my Canon 7D en 5D or G5X.
I have Denoise software and after using Adobe's Denoise, I prefer Adobe's Denoise as it does not change the colour post Denoising unlike Denoise software. Additionally, Adobe's Denoise maintains the quality of raw files which Denoise does not do completely. Cheers for making this video.
This is the way things always go if major companies are on the ball. Let edge companies develop the edge tools, then learn from them and incorporate. Congrats to Adobe for staying on the ball. But let's applaud Topaz for being in the game and driving things forward.
I tried it, it is better than any denoise reduction software on the market. So you don’t need to spend money on the sharpest lens or expensive high iso cameras. Just great!
That may be going a bit far :-) Noise Reduction doesn't replace good photography. The photo needs to be sharp or all the noise reduction and sharpening in the world won't help.
Great denoise intro and comparisons w/ old Adobe and Topaz. The new built-in LRC denoise is way faster than using Topaz, at least the way I'm doing it. With Topaz (Windows), I right-click on a photo and click "Edit in..." and choose Topaz DeNoise (or Sharpen or Photo). This generates a pop-up asking to confirm settings (Edit a Copy with LR Adjustments, File Format, Color Space, etc.). Click on "Edit" then Topaz launches its app w/ the photo. From there, fiddle with the adjustment knobs and zoom range (and wait for Topaz to re-render every time you make the slightest zoom change), click Apply and wait for Topaz to re-generate the final TIFF and exit back to LRC. This is clunky, cumbersome, and even on my AMD 3970X monster machine (32 processors, 128GB RAM, SSD, nVidia GeForce RTX 4080), a simple file will take maybe a minute+ all-in. With Adobe, I click "DeNoise", and click "Enhance" when the popup box appears (don't even have to wait for the sample rendering). Within 10-15 seconds I'm done. Also, just like Topaz, in LRC you can select an entire group of photos, turn on AutoSync, then click Denoise just one time to automatically apply Denoise to all photos in the group at once. Super handy, especially if you have a group of relatively similar photos (same outdoor lighting, same general camera conditions, etc.). When I pixel peep, Topaz does do a slightly better job overall, but part of this is the fine-tuning Topaz enables. Adobe's solution has but one basic slider and I've found it's best/fastest/easiest to just let Adobe choose where that slider belongs. I'll probably keep my Topaz tools, for special pics. But for the most part, Adobe's NR just changed my workflow for the better.
I always enjoy Matt's honest assessments of the software changes. Thank you. It is great to see Adobe making these ongoing improvements. I would have preferred they linked the HSL panel to the masks instead of the curves, but curves can be beneficial. I have to believe the Adobe marketers are looking at all those 3rd party apps out there, and wondering how they can improve loyalty and grow the business by displacing those apps. AI is changing everything and Adobe has the resources to stay ahead. The key is to simplify the processes and make them more time efficient. That gets more people using LR &PS. Just imagine if Adobe looked at all the 3rd party panels for PS that simplify creating luminosity masks - why hasn't Adobe rendered them all obsolete?? It has to be an opportunity as defined by whats out there on the market - just like Denoise. I am also waiting for the text creation tool in PS to be, somehow, added to LR.
Hi. You already have Saturation and Hue built in to masking, along with color range masking which allow you to adjust any color using any slider. If anything, color range masking is more powerful than HSL.
As for Luminosity Masking, it already is in your raw editor (Range Masking for Luminance). Same concept, but better for the most part.
Basically, I think the tools you want are there - they're just not called what you want, but they exist.
@@MattKloskowski Thanks Matt: I have some homework to do !!
I like the shirt you wore today! God bless America! Oh, yes, and thanks for the informative AI video.
Is there a way to batch edit in Lightroom with ai denoise? Or you have to manually go in every pic and activate the ai denoise? Couldn't find a way to make it like a preset...
Looks good to me, I think Topaz, ON One and DXO will be a bit concerned about this.
Good review, thanks, Martin.
Competition is good. Adobe has thousands of features to worry about so I’m not sure we’ll see updates to this. Each of those companies only have a handful of features to worry about, so we’ll probably see more innovation which is only a good thing for us.
I'd love to see more comparisons to the plug-ins. Of the two comparisons you show in the video, to my eyes on my monitor, Topaz had more detail in the first and Adobe in the second. But it is clearly a tremendous improvement. Now if they would just add the HSL function to masking.
Hi. Why not give it a try yourself. They all have free versions and your eyes will tell you the best with your own photos.
Re: HSL - it's already there. Range Masking with color options as well as the Saturation and Hue adjustments. It's everything HSL but much better and more robust.
@@MattKloskowski I will, thanks. For some reason I find the new color bar much harder to use than the HSL controls. I miss the HSL eye dropper which would pinpoint the color or combination of colors.
Hi. You have eye droppers with the color range tools and definitely more precise then the one you’re talking about
This is awesome. Do you know if this can be synced or pasted to several images?
I think so but give it a try and see.
@@MattKloskowski tried and yes. However; it’s not the same as pasting or syncing the other settings. One must highlight the images and then click on “denoise” once the pop up window opens, it will ask of you want to apply the denoise to all the images selected. Thanks Matt! Love your content.
It's really good. I think the only competitor is DxO's DeepPrimeXD, which may be a tiny bit better.
Do you think this will come to Lightroom mobile on iPad cause this will be game changing! Can’t find anything for iPad photo editing like this!
Matt, two questions... 1) after applying Denoise to an image, would you think the original file should be saved or deleted? and 2) do you think Adobe will come later with an update to Denoise that works WITHOUT creating a new file?
Hi. 1) It doesn’t matter and it’s up to you. Once I get more comfortable with it, I’d probably start deleting the raw photo just to make it cleaner. 2) Yes.
@@MattKloskowski Thanks Matt!
I have 2 folders, one with subfolders in chronological order (year -> month -> exact date with optional comment -> raw files called date_####
The other folder is for exported, copied and edited images and in no chronological order. Jpg/png/dng etc.
This way I have one folder with clean structure and naming thats super easy to backup and another folder where I can do whatever to my files. Just copy the raw to the editing folder and the original is always intact. I never open the chronological files in any editing software. Works well for me.
Using Topaz Denoise AI or PureRaw or others, the resulting DNG file is much (about 2 times) bigger than the original DNG file. Please comment on the size of the resulting DNG file using Lightroom's new Denoise tool. Thank you.
You have to consider the kind of files you need to process: both Dxo PureRaw & Adobe Denoise only work in Raw Photos, Topaz Photo AI and On1 No Noise can also be applied to Jpeg or Tiff. That makes a lot of difference, of course if or when Adobe Denoise can also work with Jpegs etc that can turn things in their favour. To early to tell.
Is this new feature not available in Photoshop via Camera Raw? In other words, you could open a JPG in Photoshop, convert to Smart Object, then edit Camera Raw.
@@namakudamono it is in camera raw but only shows up for raw images
@@ToniCorvera Got it, thanks!
I and others, have noted that Denoise appears to REPLACE the original Sony A1 raw file with the DNG. Can't seem to find the original raw file after running Denoise? Any thoughts?
exiting times, this already is a game changer as they say and things are only getting quicker and finer..
Matt, does TOPAZ also create a "side file"? I mean...does Topaz also duplicate the original photo? Because what lightroom does is SO VERY SPACE CONSUMING :(
Yes. Any app you go to from LR will always make a duplicate.
Love your video on this. I want to use Noise AI in Photoshop then access it in ACR then close the raw file in PS so it saves as a TIF not a DNG. But there is no noise AI button in ACR when I open it from inside Photoshop. I called Adobe and the support tech didn't even know there was this new feature. I tried to open the dgn then save it but it will nto auto save as a tif. I do save as then I must laboriously find the folder I want to save it to. The DNG file is a pain.
It seems the results are now much closer to the PureRAW2 results.
Updating now!
Do you turn off sharpening before applying LR NR, and then mask and sharpen subject? I could not tell from the video but it appeared that you didn’t do any if that…. Thanks.
Thats what I would do
I pay for Lightroom so have this anyway, but unfortunately it has the same cartoonish features as the early AI denoising programs. Pureraw 3 is just on another level, im going to keep using it.
Nice but can we control this sharpness? It looks oversharpened and also adds too many lines that were not there originally.
You saw the only controls. I always want mine to look over sharpened at that zoom level. It means it will look great when zoomed out and if printing it always needs to have extra sharpening applied to it.
It says denoise is not compatible with this photo format; what format does it your image need to be in?
What do you think about DxO Purewaw?
Hi Matt, Many thank for your great guide. However could you please go further with denoise timing...my PC is Intel i5 11th, RAM 32GB, SSD and it takes 5 minutes for Olympus MFT raw file and 15 minutes for Fuji GFX100s for denoise (Standard setting 50%). is that normal? what should I do to improve it?
Hi. I cannot. You’d want to contact Adobe if you’re having issues. Thanks
Makes Canon 600mm and 800mm F11 a lot more usable, especially with crop cameras like the R10 and R7.
I tested the manual noise reduction on the latest LR and it is better at retaining some detail on a face with some blemishes (ISO 5000) than a much older generation of LR. The new Denoise feature showed more detail especially on the clothing, face, and eyes, but it added some strange pattern on the face of one of the ladies who had some blemishes almost as if she did a very poor makeup job. Adding to the fact that my computer is a little older (specs: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz 3.19 GHz with 32 GB RAM), the painstaking slowness of the processing makes it unusable unless I'm only editing one specific image. It might be time to upgrade. LOL
Its not the chip in your computer which matters for this. While running it my CPU shows 0 activity but my limited GPU - Graphics card, is at 100% sos that's where this process is done and if its slow, a new graphics card might be the answer not necessarily a new computer.
Hi Matt, Thank you for great instructional vid as always.
I have latest Lr and Camera Raw version installed as you described but when I open one of my existing catalog of Sony A1 ARW files in Lr, the 'Denoise' button is grayed out with message below saying "Denoise is not currently compatible with this photo format".
Any thoughts ! Thank you ...
I got the same message.
I have the R6mkll
If I am in PS and go into the Camera Raw filter the newer denoise button is not there. Do I need to change a setting or do you have to use this new filter when you bring the original raw image into camera raw? btw I see the new filter when I open the raw image directly into camera raw.
It will only work on raw files directly opened in to Camera Raw.
Unfortunately, RAW photos taken with the phone give a warning that they are incompatible for DNG format and the new denoise option is not active. Works with Canon DSLR CR2. I guess it only recognizes DSLR cameras DENOISE option.
trying to use Denise on a raw Sony arw file but its saying denoise is not currently available on this photo format? do you know how to fix this ? thanks in advance
is that option setting only available for purchased Adobe product only or what ? please answer, really appreciate it
Yep
Is this available in the lightroom app for iPad etc
I'm running a mid range PC with 56 gig ram, GTX 1060 etc and I'm getting an error when hitting enhance - dng file not created and gpu has been disabled for current session... frustrating!!
I was literally just comparing Topaz with DXO to determine which one to go ahead and purchase - good timing Adobe! Now just need an improved sharpening AI tool and I’ll be content (for a while).
The denoise function appears to be very cpu/gpu intensive. You were demonstrating denoise with renderings under 30 secnonds. My I7 with an NVIDIA GForce 660--yeah, it's an old system--takes 45 minutes to process a raw image from my Nikon D600. Anyone published minimum requirements??
Hear hear! I tried it on my laptop and the estimated time was 217 minutes!
Yeah, that's crazy intensive! Matt showed a screenshot of his machine's specs: It's an M1 Max MacBook Pro with 96GB of RAM. I have a similar machine, and got similar times to Matt. However, I also have a 2018 Lenovo X1 Yoga, which is no slouch of a PC, and it would take hours to render the same files (but more likely hang up trying). It's basically inoperable with any AI photo app.
@@the-birdman-of-panama You need a mid level or high end discreet GPU for DxO or any AI noise reduction to be fast. A laptop with integrated graphics on the cpu will not run these programs efficiently at all. DxO recommends a minimum of an NVIDIA RTX 2060 or AMD RX6600 gpu, and with that you would have a processing time of about 2Mpx per second, so about 30 seconds for a 60MP file. If you have a Thunderbolt port on that Lenovo X1 you could add an external desktop gpu add on when you are at your desk at home, or at the office.
@@the-birdman-of-panama As for DxO 6 on Mac, the M1 and M2 chips are natively supported and DeepPrime and DeepPrimeXD are very fast as seen here in this video compared to an Intel chip with onboard graphics.
@@DragonfireRC Indeed. That's why I bought the M1 Max.
Whenever I try the denoise in ACR it freezes then shuts my MacBook off. I have a MacBook Pro mid-2012 laptop.
would be nice if they put actual noise reduction in premier!
Help, why my render of a raw file from a6400 takes 9 minutes? On a i7 12700k, 64 gb ram, radeon rx 6700 xt. Whats wrong? The results are great but it renders very slow. I use camera raw in PS.
On the few images that I have tried I find the new LR Denoise is better than Topaz, it maintains the detail more, Topaz can make images look a bit 'plasticy'
I want this for my tablet version
Is anyone able to explain why Dimension of new DNG file, which was created after denoising is 683x1014? How to keep dimension as the Original foto 6024x4024?
They probably used the same technology that they use in Audition. Stand alone products get built around technologies, but video usually also has sound, and both parts can be (and sometimes need) enhancement. But a combination of all these technologies, including AI will lead to some (easy to use) amazing products. (create the story and the movie out of thin air) The UIs of most Adobe products are still not that easy to use, including Audition. Back in the day before "digitilized" sound, most sound enhancement were done by hardware, removing background noises, the spacial projection effects etc.
Hi. You can read how it was developed here. Doesn't say anything about Audition technology.
blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/04/18/denoise-demystified
@@MattKloskowski When you use the word "denoise" I was thinking about "audio" hi-fi denoise. Didn't realize they are now using an audio term for picture clarity and fidelity as well as audio clarity and fidelity. Are they using "signal to noise ratio" for pictures as well? Noise used to mean a very specific thing, it was something "in addition to" the actual useful recorded information, not distortion or corruption of the actual recorded information itself. (that needed to be filtered or rearranged in some way, instead of completely removed.) Most of my recording experience is with audio and their Audition product, where the noise (that you hear) can actually be seen on the track.
Matt, my kids send me lots of pictures from their iphones that are translated into .jpg files. I do not share the perspective that pics from all these high end phones create good quality pics. When I import and try to edit noise in these photos into LR and/or PS, I don't get the option of Denoise telling me it is not compatible with a jpg format. You said as much in your tutorial that it has to be in a CR format. When I click on the CR filter in PS it shows that the CR filter is applied, but still shows the photo as a jpg, and thus I cannot enable the Denoise filter. What am I doing wrong?
Hi. You're not doing anything wrong. It will not work on non-raw photos, not JPGs. There is no workaround.
@@MattKloskowski Thank you, Matt!
I shoot lots of panos and the new Lightroom AI Denoise won't let me denoise an HDR pano file. Single files no problem. Why is that?
I have not really considered getting a new computer. Mine seems OK. But what takes you 25 seconds takes me 2 minutes. Maybe a new graphics card? Is it the GPU that does the work?
I updated the drivers. No help. Oh well, maybe a new graphics card!
is their a way to apply this to more than one photo in Lightroom? also is there a way to delete the old file since it makes two separate files on Lightroom?
Yes….
1) Sync feature that’s always been there
2) yes… press delete
It's a nice start but it's still quite behind Topaz Denosie AI and Photo AI. Photo is still not ready for prime time. It's something to keep an eye on but my wildlife image look significantly better in Topaz apps at this point
In my case - Adobe Camera Raw processing Canon EOS R6 25,3 MB test raw file generates 89,1 MB DNG duplicate file, means ca 350% increase in disk space needed. So if you want to just denoise and export say 25 GB wedding folder, you will end up needing another 90 GB (at least temporary) disk space. And if you want to further process those denoised files and keep those edits, you actually HAVE TO KEEP those DNG files, not just lightweight (10 to 300kB) .acr sidecar files like for you raw files. So, it is feasible for single files, but for batch processing, I prefer Topaz DeNoise, which does not create any heavy intermediates. Just my 2 cents.
Not sure what you mean. My raw file in to Topaz results in a 5x increase in file size when the TIFF comes back.
@@MattKloskowski I process my RAW files in ACR, export them as TIFFs or HQ JPEGs. If I want to denoise them, I open them all at once in Topaz Denoise. I get a list files, I can adjust their denoise and sharping parameters 1) individually for each file, or 2) groups of files, 3) or all of them at once. When ready - I hit the SAVE IMAGE button and I can export all the files in one batch. I have option to 1) overwrite original TIFF or JPEG file (saves space and logistic), or 2) generate a second set of just denoised files. I have only one set of edited RAW files.
If I want to do the same with this version of Adobe Denoise, from my RAW files (Adobe recommendation) I should first denoise files (in that moment second 3.5x bigger DNG version of original file is saved to disk), then edit, save - and just then export them as TIFFs or JPEGs. I have one set of (un)editet RAW files, and second set of edited DNG files.
As I get a new DNG File I can then delete my original RAW-File?
Whoa..... It must be time to build a new computer. I just ran this on an old image from 2016 when I was shooting with a D7200 and the new LR AI denoise took over 10 minutes to process. Next test is going to be on an image from the Z9. I'm not looking forward to that test...lol. My current system was built in 2015 and is running an Intell i-5-6500 CPU @ 3.2 GHz with 32 GB of RAM. Ummm.... yeah, she has some miles on her.
Lol... just as I thought, estimated 20 minutes to process the Z9 file.
This process is all done in the graphics card not the CPU
Does not seem to work with Canon CRAW files. Not compatible
İ tried it 2 ways at the beginning of coloring and after completed the coloring , to be honest it definitely should have done at beginning because otherwise it ruins all the color !