Very enlightening video, Andy! As a DxO PureRAW 3 owner, I was fascinated at how the setting change from Prime XD to Prime could sometimes make for a better image. I will try both ways on complex images from now on.
Cheers Andy , Certainly saved me a lot of work on comparisons. I have some low light images I took in March that where a mess when I edited them. Just retried them in lightroom with the noise reduction and wow so much better. I had been contemplating getting Topaz AI , but in light of what I have seen here , I think I will hold on that. Thanks for your work on this, much appreciated 👍
Have to say kudos to Adobe. Very nice. A couple of questions if I may, Andy. Firstly, does it look to you like Adobe have finally catered for the unique Fuji sensor (i.e., no worms) and secondly, is it possible to reduce the sharpening on the DxO XD algorithm to help reduce the over processed look?
Good question. Yes - I believe the worms are history. Saw no evidence at all in my shots taken with X-T4. Secondly the solution to the over-sharpening is to do a bit of image blending in Photoshop. I plan to do a video explaining this. :)
@@Andyhutchinson Andy. Re: Fuji worms. I've just got Lightroom Classic on trial and found that provided the 'Sharpening' and 'Manual Noise Reduction' sliders are all set to zero before hitting 'Denoise...', then there don't appear to be any worms in the final .dng file. However, if you leave those sliders at default (especially the Sharpening slider), then the worms will make an appearance!
Been a topaz user for over a year and when I tried dxo I was left wondering if it's even the same photo. The ability to not only remove noise but enhance/bring back details takes a giant shit on the face of topaz. This Adobe thingy does great job removing noise. But I miss the detail boost. If dxo pureraw is too aggressive, one can use photolab and move the sliders around to ultimate satisfaction. I assume Adobe will in the future bring more features. It just takes time. Which is ultimately good, then they don't produce garbage like some of the other companies.
Totally agree Martin. The DxO technology is the current front-runner by some margin. I think Topaz took their eye off the ball because they're busy developing their combined Photo AI app. :)
Very enlightening video, Andy! As a DxO PureRAW 3 owner, I was fascinated at how the setting change from Prime XD to Prime could sometimes make for a better image. I will try both ways on complex images from now on.
Yea it surprised me too. What I do now is process in Prime first and then if I need a bit more try again in XD, but XD is definitely not my default :)
Cheers Andy , Certainly saved me a lot of work on comparisons. I have some low light images I took in March that where a mess when I edited them. Just retried them in lightroom with the noise reduction and wow so much better. I had been contemplating getting Topaz AI , but in light of what I have seen here , I think I will hold on that. Thanks for your work on this, much appreciated
👍
Thanks Paul. Yea I honestly think the margin between PureRAW and LR's Denoise is marginal at best - I sure wouldn't buy it knowing what I now do. :)
Great comparison!
Thanks Lawrence :)
Thanks Andy...saved me a few bucks...
No worries :)
Did you open as a smart object in photoshop when you tried raw files through topaz. ?
No I don't use Photoshop in between the image and Topaz - I just open the RAW directly in Topaz. :)
Have to say kudos to Adobe. Very nice.
A couple of questions if I may, Andy.
Firstly, does it look to you like Adobe have finally catered for the unique Fuji sensor (i.e., no worms) and secondly, is it possible to reduce the sharpening on the DxO XD algorithm to help reduce the over processed look?
Good question. Yes - I believe the worms are history. Saw no evidence at all in my shots taken with X-T4. Secondly the solution to the over-sharpening is to do a bit of image blending in Photoshop. I plan to do a video explaining this. :)
@@Andyhutchinson Andy. Re: Fuji worms.
I've just got Lightroom Classic on trial and found that provided the 'Sharpening' and 'Manual Noise Reduction' sliders are all set to zero before hitting 'Denoise...', then there don't appear to be any worms in the final .dng file. However, if you leave those sliders at default (especially the Sharpening slider), then the worms will make an appearance!
Been a topaz user for over a year and when I tried dxo I was left wondering if it's even the same photo. The ability to not only remove noise but enhance/bring back details takes a giant shit on the face of topaz. This Adobe thingy does great job removing noise. But I miss the detail boost. If dxo pureraw is too aggressive, one can use photolab and move the sliders around to ultimate satisfaction. I assume Adobe will in the future bring more features. It just takes time. Which is ultimately good, then they don't produce garbage like some of the other companies.
Totally agree Martin. The DxO technology is the current front-runner by some margin. I think Topaz took their eye off the ball because they're busy developing their combined Photo AI app. :)
Every photo can take a variety of tweaks to get right, and Topaz DeNoise absolutely rules.
That it does, Jonas. I own all the Topaz apps, but DxO's better these days. :)