I just downloaded DXO's Pure Raw 3 and Photolab 6. Deep Prime XD is a GAME CHANGER for Fuji users. It's early days, but the raw files are equaling or exceeding anything full frame can do. I'm getting clear images at 200% viewing. Any desire for a little better image quality from full frame is gone now completely. I really like Photolab 6. I am a bit of a minimalist post processor, and it's seems fast, efficient and intuitive. But I like how Pure Raw 3 gives you the instant feedback on what Deep Prime XD has done to your image. Photolab 6 only gives you a loupe version for speed while your editing because of the processing requirements. So I have 30 days to decide if I want to get the Pure Raw 3 and continue with Capture One and Affinity, or just get Photolab 6 and switch over to that, which is probably what I'm going to do.
Fixing basic sharpness and removing the worming problem has been why I turned to Topaz originally. Actually, a bird photographer told me they were using it with their Fuji setup. I had been using Iridient X-Transformer before that. I’m hearing really good things about DXO and I will have to try Pure Raw. I need to stick with Lightroom/Photoshop as I need it for other projects. I have tried Capture One now and that was very good but DXO might solve some of the problems I have with topaz and might mean I can drop their yearly fee next year (which, ironically, I’ve just paid). We’ll have to see.
I think DxO is really great at reducing noise and enhancing details. It gives a very natural denoising effect, and sometimes the XD version can be a bit too aggressive in enhancing details. Hopefully, they'll make the noise reduction even better in the next PhotoLab version.
@@ONE1_tw I bought Photolab 6 about 2 months ago and now it's my go to photo editor. Interestingly I have not even used the de-noise function once so far. The raw conversions are really spectacular for Fuji files, and the editor itself is fast and intuitive. Great software, worth every penny. The de-noise aspect is just the icing on what is a really great cake.
One thing that Topaz Denoise gives you is the batch processing capability. Depending on your situation as Topaz and LR are so similar, for non “works of art” that can be a game changer when the “time vs money” is an important construct in a photography business. I use it for basic events (not weddings) all the time where high ISO was needed. On my “works of art” I always use the tools one photo at a time.
I can see some wedding photographers using the batch function in Topaz, actually. It really can make a difference, and it definitely has a place commercially. The great thing is that if something goes wrong, you have your original files to fall back on.
Do you use just Topaz Photo AI or do you use sharpen AI too? I’m just wondering how the noise reduction on both programs compare, I assume they’d mostly be the same but I’m not entirely sure.
I have got, and have used all of the Topaz photo programs at one point or another. At the moment, Photo AI is pretty much the same as Sharpen AI (as is Denoise, in fact) but I understand they are no longer updating the older programs and will be exclusively focusing on Photo AI from now on. If I was going to have to chose between the two, I would chose Photo AI for that reason.
@@SteveMellorPhotography Ah, thanks, I already purchased Sharpen AI late last year so I’m stuck with it now, but half the appeal for me was the noise reduction ability, almost second to the sharpening, it allows me to shoot in a higher ISO range I usually never would have bothered with before.
@@jamesmacnamara8174 Yes, all of the Topaz tools have been really good for me, especially for wildlife. Sharpen is fantastic but it will be worth considering something else later on, perhaps even just Lughtroom.
@@SteveMellorPhotography I did have Lightroom just a couple of months ago, but the subscription based part kills it for me, need something I can do a one time purchase on and forget about it.
I do tend to cut back on the recommended values in Topaz photo AI and mostly get useful results. I agree LR does a very good and perhaps somewhat better job in a number of cases. As far as I could see the resulting file size is much bigger in LR, though.
Yes, much like the previous enhance feature, it adds a lot to the file. I think it's worth it, though. I am see the benefit of both tools. I might not use Photo AI as much though.
I started using Topaz because of topaz Impression. It saved me from going into Corel Painter all the time. The noise and sharpening was just a benefit. Topaz has quit updating their studio and Impression programs. I hope this gets topaz rethinking their old programs. So Please Topaz do so thing new with the old programs. I’m not suggesting like an ai program like mid journey . Just an update to the old programs !
I feel that LR is about equal to Topaz when it comes to noise reduction, HOWEVER when it comes to sharpening, Topaz destroys LR. I wonder if Adobe is working on an AI sharpener. AlI AI noise removal works by finding consistent patterns across the entire image. Anything that is consistent everywhere in the image is likely to be identified as noise. Therefore, it is at its best if you have a very large image with a variety of objects and some light and dark areas. So, if you took a photo of a blank wall, and the wall filled the entire image, any small pattern in the wall would likely be considered as noise.
I think there’s likely different use cases for the different products. Certainly, sharpening wildlife is just not anywhere near as good with Lightroom, but Lightoom has done a fantastic job in the tests I've done. I do hope there will be some AI sharpening in Lightroom. They have a ‘Raw Details’ option but it's not quite the same as the control you have in Topaz.
@SteveMellorPhotoVlogger Theres all this " blockiness" to a lot of fine feather detail, you can see how the pixels are clumped together in an unnatural repetitive pattern. In doing this its reducing the resolution of the file.
If you are not a professional who sells picture for living, or you don't print in sizes bigger than 14x18, or you use it online, Lightroom is more than enaugh.
I think many professionals could start using Lightroom now as well. Like many software algorhythms, it is a bit situational, but it is pretty impressive, none the less.
Your statement that you can't use the new RAW Detail feature at the same time as the Denoise is incorrect - in fact the RAW Detail enhancement is a mandatory part of the Denoise process! Topaz and DxO were much too inconsistent in the images I tested it with, it was basically useless and I never bought either, not so LR Denoise - contrary to DxO and more importantly Topaz it didn't remove spider webs or hair just because they were possibly not linked to the subject. More importantly it didn't completely mess up the image by applying any sharpening way too early in the development process.
You're right. I really meant Super Resolution, which has been the main reason I've used Enhance before and they've both kind of merged in my head to be the same thing. I think Topaz still has a bit of an edge when it comes to wildlife, mostly because you have a more granular way of dealing with sharpness & what's wrong with the image (motion blur on animals, for example). With Enhance and basic sharpening, you can get some incredible results, but it could do with more control over which details are being changed and how.
@@SteveMellorPhotography In my tests Topaz was so bad that I deleted it after a few tries - it was so inconsistent across the images I tried. It deleted any detail in some areas while representing other areas as a jumbled mess of oversharpened streaks that once were hair - even at low settings for both noise reduction and sharpening; even single whiskers that were clearly visible in the unprocessed image were taken apart and mushed up and oversharpened within the length of it, just based on the surrounding structure. That being said, I use a camera with a bayer filter sensor and a decent AA-filter, not that x-trans abomination that Fuji sticks in their cameras.
You know, I have no idea. For my part, I chose Photo AI because it is the latest iteration and clearly the future of the company as they're hailing it as "Tomorrow's Technology". I did try the image in Topaz Denoise but there wasn't anything substantially different in the image quality. Similar issues persisted and, with Fuji at least, you lose the colour simulations (something that Photo AI keeps intact).
![Does applying noise reduction to RAW files really make a difference? [Topaz Photo AI Tutorial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/G369prGk7O0/mqdefault.jpg)
I would love to know what you are using for denoising images? Have you tried Lightroom's new tool and what did you think of it?
Great video. This was helpful. I use both features but was curious what others thought about the comparison.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I just downloaded DXO's Pure Raw 3 and Photolab 6. Deep Prime XD is a GAME CHANGER for Fuji users. It's early days, but the raw files are equaling or exceeding anything full frame can do. I'm getting clear images at 200% viewing. Any desire for a little better image quality from full frame is gone now completely.
I really like Photolab 6. I am a bit of a minimalist post processor, and it's seems fast, efficient and intuitive. But I like how Pure Raw 3 gives you the instant feedback on what Deep Prime XD has done to your image. Photolab 6 only gives you a loupe version for speed while your editing because of the processing requirements. So I have 30 days to decide if I want to get the Pure Raw 3 and continue with Capture One and Affinity, or just get Photolab 6 and switch over to that, which is probably what I'm going to do.
Fixing basic sharpness and removing the worming problem has been why I turned to Topaz originally. Actually, a bird photographer told me they were using it with their Fuji setup. I had been using Iridient X-Transformer before that.
I’m hearing really good things about DXO and I will have to try Pure Raw. I need to stick with Lightroom/Photoshop as I need it for other projects. I have tried Capture One now and that was very good but DXO might solve some of the problems I have with topaz and might mean I can drop their yearly fee next year (which, ironically, I’ve just paid). We’ll have to see.
I think DxO is really great at reducing noise and enhancing details. It gives a very natural denoising effect, and sometimes the XD version can be a bit too aggressive in enhancing details. Hopefully, they'll make the noise reduction even better in the next PhotoLab version.
@@ONE1_tw I bought Photolab 6 about 2 months ago and now it's my go to photo editor. Interestingly I have not even used the de-noise function once so far. The raw conversions are really spectacular for Fuji files, and the editor itself is fast and intuitive. Great software, worth every penny. The de-noise aspect is just the icing on what is a really great cake.
One thing that Topaz Denoise gives you is the batch processing capability. Depending on your situation as Topaz and LR are so similar, for non “works of art” that can be a game changer when the “time vs money” is an important construct in a photography business. I use it for basic events (not weddings) all the time where high ISO was needed. On my “works of art” I always use the tools one photo at a time.
I can see some wedding photographers using the batch function in Topaz, actually. It really can make a difference, and it definitely has a place commercially. The great thing is that if something goes wrong, you have your original files to fall back on.
Do you use just Topaz Photo AI or do you use sharpen AI too? I’m just wondering how the noise reduction on both programs compare, I assume they’d mostly be the same but I’m not entirely sure.
I have got, and have used all of the Topaz photo programs at one point or another. At the moment, Photo AI is pretty much the same as Sharpen AI (as is Denoise, in fact) but I understand they are no longer updating the older programs and will be exclusively focusing on Photo AI from now on. If I was going to have to chose between the two, I would chose Photo AI for that reason.
@@SteveMellorPhotography Ah, thanks, I already purchased Sharpen AI late last year so I’m stuck with it now, but half the appeal for me was the noise reduction ability, almost second to the sharpening, it allows me to shoot in a higher ISO range I usually never would have bothered with before.
@@jamesmacnamara8174 Yes, all of the Topaz tools have been really good for me, especially for wildlife. Sharpen is fantastic but it will be worth considering something else later on, perhaps even just Lughtroom.
@@SteveMellorPhotography I did have Lightroom just a couple of months ago, but the subscription based part kills it for me, need something I can do a one time purchase on and forget about it.
Can you use lightroom denoise with non raw files?
I’m afraid not, no.
I do tend to cut back on the recommended values in Topaz photo AI and mostly get useful results. I agree LR does a very good and perhaps somewhat better job in a number of cases. As far as I could see the resulting file size is much bigger in LR, though.
Yes, much like the previous enhance feature, it adds a lot to the file. I think it's worth it, though. I am see the benefit of both tools. I might not use Photo AI as much though.
I started using Topaz because of topaz Impression. It saved me from going into Corel Painter all the time. The noise and sharpening was just a benefit. Topaz has quit updating their studio and Impression programs. I hope this gets topaz rethinking their old programs. So Please Topaz do so thing new with the old programs. I’m not suggesting like an ai program like mid journey . Just an update to the old programs !
It would be very interesting to see them do that.
I feel that LR is about equal to Topaz when it comes to noise reduction, HOWEVER when it comes to sharpening, Topaz destroys LR. I wonder if Adobe is working on an AI sharpener.
AlI AI noise removal works by finding consistent patterns across the entire image. Anything that is consistent everywhere in the image is likely to be identified as noise. Therefore, it is at its best if you have a very large image with a variety of objects and some light and dark areas. So, if you took a photo of a blank wall, and the wall filled the entire image, any small pattern in the wall would likely be considered as noise.
I think there’s likely different use cases for the different products. Certainly, sharpening wildlife is just not anywhere near as good with Lightroom, but Lightoom has done a fantastic job in the tests I've done. I do hope there will be some AI sharpening in Lightroom. They have a ‘Raw Details’ option but it's not quite the same as the control you have in Topaz.
Topaz has a lot more artefacts than lightroom's denoise. It's particularly unkind to fine feather detail .
@@markrigg6623 I've not noticed that myself. I've always found it to be very good with feathers and fur.
@SteveMellorPhotoVlogger Theres all this " blockiness" to a lot of fine feather detail, you can see how the pixels are clumped together in an unnatural repetitive pattern. In doing this its reducing the resolution of the file.
@@markrigg6623 Again, I'm not finding that myself.
If you are not a professional who sells picture for living, or you don't print in sizes bigger than 14x18, or you use it online, Lightroom is more than enaugh.
I think many professionals could start using Lightroom now as well. Like many software algorhythms, it is a bit situational, but it is pretty impressive, none the less.
Your statement that you can't use the new RAW Detail feature at the same time as the Denoise is incorrect - in fact the RAW Detail enhancement is a mandatory part of the Denoise process! Topaz and DxO were much too inconsistent in the images I tested it with, it was basically useless and I never bought either, not so LR Denoise - contrary to DxO and more importantly Topaz it didn't remove spider webs or hair just because they were possibly not linked to the subject. More importantly it didn't completely mess up the image by applying any sharpening way too early in the development process.
You're right. I really meant Super Resolution, which has been the main reason I've used Enhance before and they've both kind of merged in my head to be the same thing.
I think Topaz still has a bit of an edge when it comes to wildlife, mostly because you have a more granular way of dealing with sharpness & what's wrong with the image (motion blur on animals, for example). With Enhance and basic sharpening, you can get some incredible results, but it could do with more control over which details are being changed and how.
@@SteveMellorPhotography In my tests Topaz was so bad that I deleted it after a few tries - it was so inconsistent across the images I tried. It deleted any detail in some areas while representing other areas as a jumbled mess of oversharpened streaks that once were hair - even at low settings for both noise reduction and sharpening; even single whiskers that were clearly visible in the unprocessed image were taken apart and mushed up and oversharpened within the length of it, just based on the surrounding structure. That being said, I use a camera with a bayer filter sensor and a decent AA-filter, not that x-trans abomination that Fuji sticks in their cameras.
Curious. Why are all the TH-camrs comparing the Lightroom AI to Topaz photo AI and not the more feature rich Denoise AI from Topaz
You know, I have no idea. For my part, I chose Photo AI because it is the latest iteration and clearly the future of the company as they're hailing it as "Tomorrow's Technology". I did try the image in Topaz Denoise but there wasn't anything substantially different in the image quality. Similar issues persisted and, with Fuji at least, you lose the colour simulations (something that Photo AI keeps intact).
Because Topaz has said that they won't be developing the individual programs that pre-dated Photo AI. Their focus in on Photo AI
Photo AI has already caught up to and outperforming Denoise AI due to Denoise AI no longer being updated by Topaz.