LR AI DeNoise vs Topaz AI DeNoise

[Phocal]

A month or so ago, I needed some help to rescue some portraits I had done during a Northern Lights tour. After downloading several different trials, I ended up going with Topaz Photo AI. I found it to work really well on people in my portraits as well as for my Northern Light Photos. But I was never really satisfied with how it worked on, say, my fox photos. I have always felt that the detail any of the AI programs would put back in after removing noise looked way too "fake" or "artificial."

So, let's take a look at Topaz and the new LR on a fox photo...

This photo was taken using my OM1 with the Olympus 75-300 with the following settings: ISO 2500, 1/2000 @ ƒ6.7, handheld. After noise removal, I used my standard wildlife preset that I use on all my wildlife photographs.

First, something I noticed from the first time I used Topaz is the way it changes the color in the photos. Not a fan of the color shift, and I have still not been able to get the colors back to what I like.

This first edit was done in Topaz. The program wanted to add sharpening, so I went with it. I did dial back all the settings to 1/2 of what the program applied. Even taking the settings 1/2 way back, it still looks "fake" or "artificial" to me.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I did this one in Topaz with just noise reduction and applied sharpening in LR afterward. I do feel like this one is a lot better, but the detail (to me) still has a bit of an "artificial" look to me.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

For this photo, I used the new LR AI DeNoise at 100%. I also applied my normal sharpening when using LR, which is also the same amount of sharpening I applied to the above photo after using the DeNoise portion of Topaz.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

For this one, I did the DeNoise @ 50% to see what the difference would be.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And just for completeness, here is an edit using the old LR tools.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

After looking at these for the last hour, I have concluded that they both do about the same when it comes to noise removal. Where LR pulls ahead in how realistic any added detail looks. Topaz just makes fur look "artificial" to me, and I am not a fan of how it looks. LR still has a bit of an "artificial" look, but not as glaring to my eyes. When using LR, the difference between 100% and 50% isn't that noticeable, but there is a difference. To me, the noise removal is much better at 100%, but you get a bit more detail in the fur at 50%. I still need to play around with it and will most likely settle on something between the two.

I can't upload client portraits, but I will say that they do about the same job. I do slightly prefer LR over Topaz for people because I feel LR just does a better job of retaining more natural-looking detail and doesn't have that color shift. That said, I will say that when you need to rescue a slightly missed focus shot, Topaz does a much better job and will make keeping it around useful.

my two copper pieces,

Phocal

 

[Toddster]

Thanks @Phocal for bringing the update to my attention. I just downloaded the LR update. Wow! I have been a bit of a DxO PL fanboy, I think they were the first and (until now) the best at AI noise reduction. Topaz was not far behind but Adobe had been woefully absent. Until now. I have only done a few quick test but in my limited testing it seems the LR Noise AI was worth waiting for. This is a tight crop from a high ISO image.

DxO Deep Prime:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

LR Enhance NR AI:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I think DxO did a really good job on a very rough image that prior to DxO would have gone to the bin. In my opinion though LR did an even better job. This is going to be fun running through some old images and doing a more detailed comparison.

 

[John King]

Thanks @Phocal for bringing the update to my attention. I just downloaded the LR update. Wow! I have been a bit of a DxO PL fanboy, I think they were the first and (until now) the best at AI noise reduction. Topaz was not far behind but Adobe had been woefully absent. Until now. I have only done a few quick test but in my limited testing it seems the LR Noise AI was worth waiting for. This is a tight crop from a high ISO image.

DxO Deep Prime:
View attachment 381338

LR Enhance NR AI:
View attachment 381339

I think DxO did a really good job on a very rough image that prior to DxO would have gone to the bin. In my opinion though LR did an even better job. This is going to be fun running through some old images and doing a more detailed comparison.

Todd, that's really chalk and cheese in favour of LR.

Wonder if Adobe's done the same with Photoshop? I haven't updated any of my Adobe products lately. Too much other stuff going on.

 

[davidzvi]

Thanks @Phocal for the nice review. With the web resolution and the smaller screen I viewing, the detail probably isn't as clear as you see. But the color shift sure is. That's not something I would be too happy with.

I'm also noticing a lot of changes in the snow. Topaz seems to have removed a lot of detail.

 

[WhidbeyLVR]

I have been having mixed results with Topaz Photo AI, as well. It seems to often destroy detail in noise reduction mode, even at minimal settings. I think that I prefer DxO for my noise reduction. On the other hand, the sharpening mode has helped me salvage a few shots that are slightly mis-focused. I often find myself reducing the automatic correction settings and turning off noise-reduction. If I need noise reduction in a particular case, I will mask in the areas where it helps and mask off the rest.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

At one time, I put DxO out on top, but it really doesn't do as well with Fuji RAW files. It took them forever to support RAF in the first place. On1 2023 is worth a look, as it has AI NR, and also AI Focus fix. Both work well in conjunction sometimes, and you can adjust how they work. Never have tried Topaz. I forget it's out there.

 

[Matero]

I haven't used Topaz AI but realized that LR has Denoise AI nowadays, as well. I tested with Leica M8 high ISO, relatively speaking, and perhaps this LR Denoise gives more opportunities for Leica M8. I used 35% enhancement. What say you?

 

[Matero]

Another example with 50% enhancement.

 

[Matero]

Too much enhancement gives a bit plastic feeling to some details with better light. Last sample with 33% enhancement and scaled to social media size 1280x860 in jpeg (compared to the downsampled original).

 

[griffljg]

Thanks @Phocal for bringing the update to my attention. I just downloaded the LR update. Wow! I have been a bit of a DxO PL fanboy, I think they were the first and (until now) the best at AI noise reduction. Topaz was not far behind but Adobe had been woefully absent. Until now. I have only done a few quick test but in my limited testing it seems the LR Noise AI was worth waiting for. This is a tight crop from a high ISO image.

DxO Deep Prime:
View attachment 381338

LR Enhance NR AI:
View attachment 381339

I think DxO did a really good job on a very rough image that prior to DxO would have gone to the bin. In my opinion though LR did an even better job. This is going to be fun running through some old images and doing a more detailed comparison.

Have you tried DxO DeepPRIME XD? I realise it is very processor-hungry, but I am now starting to use it as my default "pre-processor".

 

[Toddster]

Have you tried DxO DeepPRIME XD?

I have not. I am a version behind on DxO PL so I don’t have PRIME XD. I had planned to upgrade later this year when the next update is released. With this addition to LR though I may not upgrade at all. It just depends what the next version of PL brings to the table.