![]() ![]() The Deep Prime results were very noticeably better. I ran an Z9 HE* raw image shot at ISO 12,800 through Topaz DeNoise AI, standard model with auto settings for the sliders, and through a trial version of PureRaw 3 with Deep Prime. Looking forward to trying it more now that DxO has added HE* raw support. Since I have been shooting with HE* raw files on my Z9 in most cases, I have not been using DxO noise reduction in the last year. I currently convert my raw files in ACR, with sharpening and luminance noise reduction off (but color noise reduction on, as I find that ACR does better with that in many cases than Topaz) and apply Topaz DeNoise AI as the first step in Photoshop. Started using Topaz DeNoise AI when it first came out and have been updating it since. I have used PhotoLab for its noise reduction for a number of years, as it has added more powerful algorithms. ![]() And others at the same ISO that do not.Īs to comparisons, I have Topaz DeNoise, PureRaw 3 (I skipped PureRaw 2, after trying PureRaw 1, because PureRaw 2 did not work with Nikon Z9 HE* Files) and PhotoLab Elite 6.4. I’ve seen high ISO images that clean up beautifully with Topaz or DxO. But more anecdotally, it seems to me that noise reduction results can vary significantly between images even with the same ISO. Of course…my output is almost exclusively screen for the blog…which means that I also need to look at the exported images as well as looking in LR…but we're really talking about polishing the cannonball I reckon. I think if DxO had both the 'one click' option and sliders for masking, adjusting I would be overall happier with that…and I'm not really sure why a denoise program would add sharpness as well out side of the one click thought, seems like noise removal then regular processing then sharpening as needed on whatever parts are needed would give better results. I'm heading out to Fort DeSoto SP on Monday so will have some new images to test out…I think I'll do some of them with both options and see how much if any real difference I see with multiple tests and whether the extra work is worth it. Still going to try a few more images though the 129 price for DxO3 with no upgrade pricing seems a little steep to me given the lack of controls…but I guess they were going for one click operation vice having to make decisions between modes and masking and the amount sliders. John…yeah…that's about my conclusion as well…but to be honest one really can't go wrong with any of the 3 and I found that the lack of masking or sliders in DxO 3 ended up with images that were a little over sharpened out of the denoise process to me even before any other processing. I've also got FastEditRAW and sometimes use it for pre-culling of the bad images and not import them into LR…but I haven't so far liked it for selecting photos to process and since disk space isn't really an issue importing everything into LR and then just ignoring most of the ones I don't process is a better idea since occasionally I go back and do something with one of the 'good but not great' shots. But figured it was worth a discussion on how to best go about these things. But now that DxO3 is out…I downloaded the trial and if I use the new super duper mode (whatever they call it…can't remember at the moment and too lazy to go look) the output is a bit better than DxO 2 noise wise albeit slower…and also a bit better than the same photo processed in Topaz DeNoise for noise and to me it looks a little over sharpened…I only did noise reduction and sharpening as noted and no other processing.Īt this point…it looks to me that figuring out how to work batch processing in Topaz just might be a better idea since there are no adjustment options therein for either noise or sharpening and just accept the fact that noise reduction will be a little slower in Topaz due to having to check the various noise removal modes and then use sharpening with subject selection as needed. So…has anybody else done some comparisons between these 3? I've been using DxO2 after importing into LR Classic and selecting images to be processed then DxO2 then normal processing with sharpening via Topaz Sharpen AI if necessary, that was based on workflow as there didn't seem to be much difference in output between the two and the fully auto DxO process was easier than trying to batch process with Topaz DeNoise and select the right mode for each shot.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |