Using Topaz DeNoise AI

[chriscrafford]

I recently saw a strong recommendation to try Topaz DeNoise AI. I got a 30 day trial and processed some images from my library.

The positives: The noise reduction and sharpening is very effective.
Here is an example of an original RAW image and the Denoised file with good color replication:

Sandhill Crane just after take off

• chriscrafford
• Sep 7, 2020

Sandhill Crane at Basque in NM. Sony A7R3 with Sony 200-600. I just reprocessed it after first...

Issues: Topaz recommends doing the Denoise before you do any processing so that you do not enhance any noise. That implies you should run the Denoise on the RAW files (assuming you shoot Raw). The output from this is a DNG file. I found the color of the DNG file and the ability to get close to the color range I can with the original Sony RAW files very challenging. In some cases it works well but in others it was quite poor. For example on some BIF shots the sky went from Blue to nearly white and no amount of adjustment could bring the sky back to even close to what it should be.

Here are examples of the color issue I experienced:

So I tried the process on my out JPEG files contrary to the Topaz guidance. The results were mixed. The noise reduction and sharpening were not as good as you can get on the RAW file but color was fully preserved.

If you have an image that need noise reduction and/or sharpening this is a very effective tool, but you need to experiment (as with all tools) to ge the result you want.

All processing of the RAW images was with CaptureOne.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I always denoise after I have adjusted my images, and I find it's far more effective. M y reasoning for doing so is that if you have to boost shadows, or exposure for example, it often adds noise, and so why denoise first? That seems counter intuitive to me. I would not be without Topaz now. It's allowed me to relax when shooting higher ISO images, because it really can rescue some grainy images. I tend not to use Sharpen as much, but interestingly, if you hit Auto, the program uses more sharpening and less denoise, with good results. AI Clear is often better too, especially on lower ISO images.

 

[chriscrafford]

Agreed. Based on my experience I will only use it after processing as well. That allows me to get the the best of both CP1 and Topaz DeNoise. I will have to try Clear.

 

[Merlinator]

Topaz recommends using it on the original file so it can have access to more pixels. I've done it both ways and haven't noticed much of a difference. If you use lightroom open the file as a smart object in PS and it should still be the raw file .

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Topaz recommends using it on the original file so it can have access to more pixels. I've done it both ways and haven't noticed much of a difference. If you use lightroom open the file as a smart object in PS and it should still be the raw file .

The point about more pixels, is a bit weird, you only lose pixels when you crop.

 

[Spiderx1]

I love DeNoise AI. Although I tend to crop a lot. Also using high ISO of 8000-10000. The difference really shows up in a print. I also PP in LRc first then go to DeNoise. For the reasons the OP stated, color preservation.

 

[garuda]

I always denoise after I have adjusted my images, and I find it's far more effective.....

When you say "after adjusted my images" -- are you using PS's Camera Raw, LR, or other? Occasionally I must tweak using CamRaw. Yours always look good, what do you use to adjust?

The point about more pixels, is a bit weird, you only lose pixels when you crop.

I use DeNoise only sparingly as there have been issues. But I have PM'ed Topaz support people and have gotten several "weird" replies that make no sense. They have young people there and sometimes they seem not so savvy about tech things (similiar to what you commented on above, which I agree).

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

When you say "after adjusted my images" -- are you using PS's Camera Raw, LR, or other? Occasionally I must tweak using CamRaw. Yours always look good, what do you use to adjust?


I use DeNoise only sparingly as there have been issues. But I have PM'ed Topaz support people and have gotten several "weird" replies that make no sense. They have young people there and sometimes they seem not so savvy about tech things (similiar to what you commented on above, which I agree).

Yes, adjust in Photoshop CC, so drop highlights, raise shadows, crop etc, then Denoise, because then you aren't denoising an area you are going to crop out anyway, which makes no sense. You can select the area you want to denoise, but I never do that. As I say, making those adjustments can add noise, so do it after.

 

[brockgs]

For what it's worth, I picked up a license for DxO Raw this morning after seeing some pretty decent reviews and comparisons to DeNoise AI which I also have a license for and have been using off and on. I made that that I was running the most current release of DeNoise AI (3.0.3) and DxO Raw since it just came out is at 1.0. I used the same horribly grainy image I shot this morning, and used the absolutely default DeNoise settings for both with NO additional adjustments applied.

Disclaimer: This may very well not be a "fair" comparison of the two apps. I don't know for an exact fact what each step of processing each of the apps does. This is purely - Fresh install - Open app - drag in .ARW file - click OK with all defaults (no even peaking at preferences or touching sliders). So each app I'm sure can do even better that is display here, this just shows the starting point each app puts you at.

 

[brockgs]

For what it's worth, I picked up a license for DxO Raw this morning after seeing some pretty decent reviews and comparisons to DeNoise AI which I also have a license for and have been using off and on. I made that that I was running the most current release of DeNoise AI (3.0.3) and DxO Raw since it just came out is at 1.0. I used the same horribly grainy image I shot this morning, and used the absolutely default DeNoise settings for both with NO additional adjustments applied.

Disclaimer: This may very well not be a "fair" comparison of the two apps. I don't know for an exact fact what each step of processing each of the apps does. This is purely - Fresh install - Open app - drag in .ARW file - click OK with all defaults (no even peaking at preferences or touching sliders). So each app I'm sure can do even better that is display here, this just shows the starting point each app puts you at.

I took things a step further in that since DeNoise AI allows for apply addition effects beyond just a once click DeNoise, I did that. I took 60 seconds to quickly tweak a few more settings immediately available and then exported the entire image. I similarly exported the full image from DxO PureRAW after it did it's one task, and since it doesn't offer additional tweaks (for that you have to go into DxO PhotoLab which I did not do).

Both images are attached for comparison. My take away is that DxO PrimeRAW is quite a decent tool for simple drag and drop batch DeNoise'ing of photos. Its output is clearly better in the case of my test photo as compared to DeNoise AI if you don't do ANYTHING in DeNoise AI other than just let it guess at the best settings, apply them and export. DeNoise AI is the clear winner in terms of a more fully rounded product that can really do much more as soon as you even just barely scratch beneath the surface.

 

[pointreyes]

If I want to reduce noise before post processing, I will only use DXO's DeepPrime. This is what I discovered a week ago and provided the following information on a youtube response I gave about what I experienced.
I tried with a recent image I took using the latest versions of the software. The color shift was so bad that DXO was definitely better for that image. In the case of DeNoise the raw histogram (used RAW Digger) was shifted to the right and the color channels were smoothed out and equaled out whereas with DXO the color channels were closer to the original and the red channel was not shifted to match the green and blue channels which helped to explain why RGB rendering (in RAW Digger) of the DeNoise file actually had an pinkish color cast on it.

 

[Reciprocum]

I recently saw a strong recommendation to try Topaz DeNoise AI. I got a 30 day trial and processed some images from my library.

The positives: The noise reduction and sharpening is very effective.
Here is an example of an original RAW image and the Denoised file with good color replication:

View attachment 1912

Sandhill Crane just after take off

• chriscrafford
• Sep 7, 2020

Sandhill Crane at Basque in NM. Sony A7R3 with Sony 200-600. I just reprocessed it after first...

Issues: Topaz recommends doing the Denoise before you do any processing so that you do not enhance any noise. That implies you should run the Denoise on the RAW files (assuming you shoot Raw). The output from this is a DNG file. I found the color of the DNG file and the ability to get close to the color range I can with the original Sony RAW files very challenging. In some cases it works well but in others it was quite poor. For example on some BIF shots the sky went from Blue to nearly white and no amount of adjustment could bring the sky back to even close to what it should be.

Here are examples of the color issue I experienced:

View attachment 1913View attachment 1914

So I tried the process on my out JPEG files contrary to the Topaz guidance. The results were mixed. The noise reduction and sharpening were not as good as you can get on the RAW file but color was fully preserved.

If you have an image that need noise reduction and/or sharpening this is a very effective tool, but you need to experiment (as with all tools) to ge the result you want.

All processing of the RAW images was with CaptureOne.

Pls try also exporting TIFF-16bit from C1 (if Topaz ingests those) to see if there is any benefit compared to feeding Topaz with 8bit JPEGs.

 

[Jeff A]

I recently saw a strong recommendation to try Topaz DeNoise AI. I got a 30 day trial and processed some images from my library.

The positives: The noise reduction and sharpening is very effective.
Here is an example of an original RAW image and the Denoised file with good color replication:

View attachment 1912

Sandhill Crane just after take off

• chriscrafford
• Sep 7, 2020

Sandhill Crane at Basque in NM. Sony A7R3 with Sony 200-600. I just reprocessed it after first...

Issues: Topaz recommends doing the Denoise before you do any processing so that you do not enhance any noise. That implies you should run the Denoise on the RAW files (assuming you shoot Raw). The output from this is a DNG file. I found the color of the DNG file and the ability to get close to the color range I can with the original Sony RAW files very challenging. In some cases it works well but in others it was quite poor. For example on some BIF shots the sky went from Blue to nearly white and no amount of adjustment could bring the sky back to even close to what it should be.

Here are examples of the color issue I experienced:

View attachment 1913View attachment 1914

So I tried the process on my out JPEG files contrary to the Topaz guidance. The results were mixed. The noise reduction and sharpening were not as good as you can get on the RAW file but color was fully preserved.

If you have an image that need noise reduction and/or sharpening this is a very effective tool, but you need to experiment (as with all tools) to ge the result you want.

All processing of the RAW images was with CaptureOne.

I know that this is an older thread but since I spent a good portion of the day with De Noise, I have a couple of things to add and a couple of questions. I watched a short video Tutorial from Anthony Morganti. I used his Tutorials to learn Lightroom. Morganti had me setup my preferences in De Noise to out put the files in Tiff format. Unfortunately Mr. Morganti's tutorial ended before the Export phase. Since the process fount me with the original and 2 copies, I'm not sure where to go from here. I need Export help.

Also, somewhere else, I read that the De Noised files are stripped of Meta Data. Is that correct?

 

[Spiderx1]

Did you use the latest build that was released in October, I think it is 3.3.1?

 

[Alan Clark]

. M y reasoning for doing so is that if you have to boost shadows, or exposure for example, it often adds noise, and so why denoise first? That seems counter intuitive to me.

When you boost shadows, all you do is stretch the pixel values further apart. This does NOT add noise, all it does is make any noise more apparent! So I don't see any advantage in leaving denoising till the end.

 

[Jeff A]

Did you use the latest build that was released in October, I think it is 3.3.1?

I'm using 3.3.2

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

When you boost shadows, all you do is stretch the pixel values further apart. This does NOT add noise, all it does is make any noise more apparent! So I don't see any advantage in leaving denoising till the end.

Well, it works for me, and it looks like it's adding noise. Put it this way, I've tried both and it looks better doing it last.

 

[Spiderx1]

On 3.3.2 save image on bottom right, then popup screen ask which format dng is recommended, then filename option then save directory, either source or custom. If source you will find with DeNoise extension next to original.

 

[Jeff A]

Well, FWIW, I did my first run with De Noise and fumbled through it. It appears to be successful and I did not lose any Meta Data. The photos look much better and the file sizes seem pretty normal but I didn't do a before and after comparison. Now you would think that a program this powerful might warrant a manual to tell you how to do things, but I can't locate one. If it wasn't for YouTube, I'm not sure how it would have turned out.