After using Lightroom Denoise since release, I've been really excited by the results I'm getting. I've even gone back and re-edited photo's from my 7D MKII and I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference those and 1.6x cropped mode images from my R5. Soon it won't matter what the image quality coming out of the camera is... AI will make it look like you used perfect settings.
Good to see your comments on the new Denoise. I've been using Topaz but would prefer to use Lightroom's version in my workflow if it works as well or better. I've found the R7 to be particularly noisy with underexposure, wondered if you had as well? I'm excited to see more photos and videos as soon as you are able physically (hopefully) in the near future. Hope you have a wonderful Scotland trip!
I started playing around with this recently and have been consistently impressed by the results (Sony A6000, btw). Huge improvement over the NR controls we've had up to now in LR/Camera Raw. The only red flag I noticed is that I did some handheld/high ISO shooting in an old church and it was occasionally doing some "over-AI" stuff to the wood textures in the room. Like it was trying to recreate them entirely and it was coming up with a whole new wood grain/colour. It's taught me to just be extra cautious with really recognizable features on buildings and people. Also, thanks for the astro test. This is an area I've been hopeful it would excel at, especially for shots where stacking isn't possible.
Thanks for this video, I'll definitely play around with this. Got some astrophotography back in 2020 with the comet and unhappy with the noise, using a Canon rebel so not made for high iso shots. Good luck with the shoulder.
It was my understanding this first version of Adobe Denoise was optimized for cameras with Bayer and T-Tran sensors. So I continue to use third party plugins on CR3 files.
I've been using Topaz Photo AI for noise reduction and I'm very happy with it. I wanted to try the Adobe AI but for some reason it takes forever to render (at least 45 minutes on my Windows laptop that has 32 GB of RAM. I'm away from home and haven't had a chance to use it on my 80 GB desktop PC. Maybe it's from using Lightroom instead of ACR but it really shouldn't. My laptop tenders Topaz in under a minute into a TIFF file. I use Topaz at the end of my edit, whereas Adobe only works on the RAW file. I don't know why Adobe Denoise takes forever to render on my laptop. I've not seen that observation from any reviews.
I have a 32GB core i9 laptop. Usually Adobe takes maybe 10 seconds, but sometimes for seemingly no reason, Adobe AI takes a few minutes to denoise (not near 45 though) while Photo AI is usually 10 to 30 seconds for RAW.
I'm pleased Adobe have added this, and I think I will use it occasionally in my Lightroom Classic workflow. But a while back I purchased DxO's Pure RAW 2, and really prefer its results for both the AI NR and the extra bit of sharpening and lens correction it adds. Just recently I've been trying the Pure RAW 3 demo, which adds an upgraded level of processing, and it's pretty incredible too--still debating whether to upgrade, but I probably will. It's only money, right? :)
Hi Brent, I have DXO, Topaz Denoise & Luminar Neo. I would definitely support a comparison of them with Lightroom. I would also be interested in how you use Luminar Neo as I have not used it much at all. Still trying to figure out the best tools to suit my workflow. All the best in Scotland and hope you get your shoulder sorted.
When in Scotland try to take some shots of seals, there is a place with loads of them. Anyway I know you are more into birds, but just in case you want other type of animals
Started using it for Bird/Wildlife images but the adobe denoise is too processor heavy ( drags my pc down even though it has 32GB ram) so I will be carrying on with Topaz denoise Ai.
I have had Topaz Sharpen and Gigapixel for a couple of months now and I’m not sure I am going to keep original files alongside the sharpened files either. I have so far but I mean, why? If I’m backing up images why not make copies of the sharpened image instead?
It's very interesting that everyone is saying that it won't work with phone images. It works great on the DNGs from my Note 9. Unfortunately my 10+ year old computer takes way longer than I would like. It's about 30 minutes for my R5 images, and it says over 10 for the phone images.
Hi Brent, if you end up near Assynt in NW Scotland, give me a shout, we've got some great birds up here, unfortunately it's a bit too late for any astro stuff
After using Lightroom Denoise since release, I've been really excited by the results I'm getting. I've even gone back and re-edited photo's from my 7D MKII and I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference those and 1.6x cropped mode images from my R5. Soon it won't matter what the image quality coming out of the camera is... AI will make it look like you used perfect settings.
Good luck with the shoulder, and have fun in Scotland.
Good to see your comments on the new Denoise. I've been using Topaz but would prefer to use Lightroom's version in my workflow if it works as well or better. I've found the R7 to be particularly noisy with underexposure, wondered if you had as well? I'm excited to see more photos and videos as soon as you are able physically (hopefully) in the near future. Hope you have a wonderful Scotland trip!
Yeah, when I had my r7, it was definitely noticeably noisier than my full frame cameras.
I really like this new update. I used it on both my R5 and R7 images in low light, and it was able to make keeper’s out of the images.
I started playing around with this recently and have been consistently impressed by the results (Sony A6000, btw). Huge improvement over the NR controls we've had up to now in LR/Camera Raw. The only red flag I noticed is that I did some handheld/high ISO shooting in an old church and it was occasionally doing some "over-AI" stuff to the wood textures in the room. Like it was trying to recreate them entirely and it was coming up with a whole new wood grain/colour. It's taught me to just be extra cautious with really recognizable features on buildings and people. Also, thanks for the astro test. This is an area I've been hopeful it would excel at, especially for shots where stacking isn't possible.
Amazing. Need to run the update for LR on my pc. Great video 👍🏼👍🏼
Nice to have AI denoise in the Adobe suite. I have Topaz and DXO and it compares favorably .. Also the new removal tool on PS is WOW!!!
That's gona nicely revive some older cameras
Thanks for this video, I'll definitely play around with this. Got some astrophotography back in 2020 with the comet and unhappy with the noise, using a Canon rebel so not made for high iso shots. Good luck with the shoulder.
It was my understanding this first version of Adobe Denoise was optimized for cameras with Bayer and T-Tran sensors. So I continue to use third party plugins on CR3 files.
I've been using Topaz Photo AI for noise reduction and I'm very happy with it. I wanted to try the Adobe AI but for some reason it takes forever to render (at least 45 minutes on my Windows laptop that has 32 GB of RAM. I'm away from home and haven't had a chance to use it on my 80 GB desktop PC. Maybe it's from using Lightroom instead of ACR but it really shouldn't.
My laptop tenders Topaz in under a minute into a TIFF file. I use Topaz at the end of my edit, whereas Adobe only works on the RAW file. I don't know why Adobe Denoise takes forever to render on my laptop. I've not seen that observation from any reviews.
I have a 32GB core i9 laptop. Usually Adobe takes maybe 10 seconds, but sometimes for seemingly no reason, Adobe AI takes a few minutes to denoise (not near 45 though) while Photo AI is usually 10 to 30 seconds for RAW.
I'm pleased Adobe have added this, and I think I will use it occasionally in my Lightroom Classic workflow. But a while back I purchased DxO's Pure RAW 2, and really prefer its results for both the AI NR and the extra bit of sharpening and lens correction it adds. Just recently I've been trying the Pure RAW 3 demo, which adds an upgraded level of processing, and it's pretty incredible too--still debating whether to upgrade, but I probably will. It's only money, right? :)
Hi Brent, I have DXO, Topaz Denoise & Luminar Neo. I would definitely support a comparison of them with Lightroom. I would also be interested in how you use Luminar Neo as I have not used it much at all. Still trying to figure out the best tools to suit my workflow.
All the best in Scotland and hope you get your shoulder sorted.
Gotta love Madera Canyon!
I've never been there, but I hear it's pretty awesome! Hopefully I'll get out there at some point this summer or fall.
When in Scotland try to take some shots of seals, there is a place with loads of them. Anyway I know you are more into birds, but just in case you want other type of animals
I'm always down for any and all wildlife! Didn't see any seals on this trip though. Maybe next time.
Started using it for Bird/Wildlife images but the adobe denoise is too processor heavy ( drags my pc down even though it has 32GB ram) so I will be carrying on with Topaz denoise Ai.
The AI denoise worked on a dng file from my R5.
I have had Topaz Sharpen and Gigapixel for a couple of months now and I’m not sure I am going to keep original files alongside the sharpened files either. I have so far but I mean, why? If I’m backing up images why not make copies of the sharpened image instead?
Brent, it is only compatible with Bayer and X-trans raw files
It's very interesting that everyone is saying that it won't work with phone images. It works great on the DNGs from my Note 9.
Unfortunately my 10+ year old computer takes way longer than I would like. It's about 30 minutes for my R5 images, and it says over 10 for the phone images.
Oh wow. Yeah it didn't work for any of my phone images, but for my r5 images it only takes about 5-10 sec on my computer.
Hi Brent, if you end up near Assynt in NW Scotland, give me a shout, we've got some great birds up here, unfortunately it's a bit too late for any astro stuff
Thanks man! I didn't make it up that far north, but hopefully I'll be back next year.
Nowhere near as good as DxO, it just isn't.
Never used DxO before but I hear it's the best out there. I'm just glad Adobe is trying at least, and for a free update, I'll take it.