I agree about Steve's noise reduction video -- it describes a great technique that has helped me tremendously. But I also keep hearing about Topaz AI noise reduction -- has anyone had enough experience with that program to know if the "AI" offers a step up? Some people seem to be very impressed with it.
I don't have much experience with it because I am still busy moving from the Nikon software to Capture One for post processing. But I have tried a couple of things within the 30 days trial period, so please take my thoughts as a first impression.
It seems to produce really good results but I am not yet able to compare them with the results of other tools, being it the built-in noise reduction tool of the raw conversion and processing software out there like Photoshop/Lightroom, Capture One, Capture NX-D and such alike.
However, beside the sheer result in terms of noise reduction there are more aspects to think about.
Yes, like
@Oztours said, you need a bit of patience if your PC has not the power ...
Yes, it's an excellent program and does some magical work, but always bear in mind that a lot depends upon what you start with and how you perceive the changes to the image as you tweak the settings whilst you play with it. Also remember it is a resources hog and puts a big demand on your graphics controller (GPU) and the PC itself.
..., but I think the way to look at it is comparing the total time needed for denoising photo.
Step 1:
The first priority is always to avoid causing noise or at least keep it to a minimum when taking the picture in the first place (Extra processing time = 0
).
Step 2:
If you still have too much of it the next step would be to use the built-in function of your post processing software that you can use
- either flat, i.e. apply it plain on the complete picture (Extra processing time = very small ) ...
- or selective on certain parts of your image by means of masks/layers (Extra processing time = small to considerable ,. depending on your routine level and complexitiy of the picture).
At this stage let's assume you use it plain up to the level where you don't have negative effects on overall IQ like e.g. loosing fine details
Step 3:
If this is still not good enough the next two option are
- Using the selective noise reduction of your processing software
- Using a sparate denoising tool like Topaz Denoise.
Both options have their pros and cons.
Option 1 ...
... is a bit more demanding, because you need to spend some time with setting up the masks/layers. For people living in their post procsssing software this might not be a big deal but for others it could - and that is where things like Topaz Denoise become tempting for me
.
On the other hand you are able to keep a complete non-destructive worklflow based on your RAW's under just one piece of software having
all processing done based on the original RAW file.
Option 2 ...
... is easier to handle, as you just drop a complete image in the software's throat and it does the job for you. Topaz Denoise is quite clever in providing proposals for setting the parameters in order to get a very good result without having to dive in the details. The downside is that you have to break up the technical workflow. What does this mean ?
Topaz Denoise can read my Nikon RAW files (NEF) directly, but can store only in file formats outside the RAW workflow, i.e. (JPG, PNG, TIFF 8 or 16 bit, DNG). However, the main post processing software works non-destructive, i.e. stores all processing steps in sidecar files leaving the original RAW flie untouched. Topaz will thus open a NEF file always in its original state ignoring the processing you might have already done to it. The alternative would be to do all the processing apart from final noise reduction in the main processing software, then export your image and use the exported image as input for Topaz Denoise. The implications of this will be that
- the noise will remain present while you do your processing and may optically get in your way, and
- you will "process" the noise as well (e.g. sharpen it)
I you want to work the other way round in order to avoid this you would need to run your original image through the denoising tool and then do the rest of the processing. But then you have to do it based on a DNG or a 16 TIFF instead of your RAW file and you could have lost information stored in it.
As I said I didn't have the chance to learn everything yet, but something I also realized was that Topaz Denoise has bent the colour settings in images I procesed with it, but I am not sure whether this has something to do with the settings of my processing software and/or color profiles.
I would be really interestes to hear from experienced Topaz Denoise users how they organize their workflow if they are NOT using Adobe software as main post processing software, but a software working based on the native Raw formats of the camera producers. The DNG format was invented and patented by Adobe with the intention of creating something like a PDF standard for RAW files of imaging systems, but fortunately they never got even close to this point (having standards is a goods thing but monopolies never are ...).
You might want to take a look at two articels written by Nasim Mansurov at Photographylife about RAW versus DNG to get an idea.
I am still very interested in Topaz Denoise myself but I haven't had a chance to go deep enough to find out what would be the best way for me to use it.
Currently I think the first way I try is:
- Do the complete processing of my images first including using the built-in denoise function of my processing software up to the limit where I would have to start working selectively with masks / layers in order avoid killing details with it, so that I can reduce noise already in step one as far as possible.
- If the result is o.k., do final export to JPG, else export the processed RAW image to 16bit TIFF
- Running this 16 bit TIFF through Topaz Denoise and save as JPG from there.
Once I have learned to properly use the layers/Mask functions of my new processing software I would try selective denoising with the built-in tool, compare with the results I get with Topaz and then decide which way to go.
I am working in the area of proces design and IT solutions for industrial manufacturing management and there is an inflationary trend to calling everything AI that is too difficult for the sales and marketing guys to explain to the client
.
Another consideration is storage capacity. If you use the Denoise tool occasionally just fpr critical pictures it shoudln't matter, but i f I run a NEF with 20-24MB through Topaz Denoise the result is as DNG or TIFF file with around 140 MB, i.e. 6 to 7 times bigger !
Looking forward to how this discussion continues
