Make ISO 12,800 Look Like ISO 400: Lightroom Denoise Master Class

[Ed Erkes]

So I guess you are saying topaz could have given a better outcome on Steve's images.

At least as good or significantly better, if even higher ISOs are used. With effort you can effectively recover the detail and eliminate noise from an ISO102,400 image. LR tools were ineffective at that level of noise.

 

[SCoombs]

At least as good or significantly better, if even higher ISOs are used. With effort you can effectively recover the detail and eliminate noise from an ISO102,400 image. LR tools were ineffective at that level of noise.

I've had a lot of thoughts on Topaz over the years and ultimately in spite of being hopeful for it I've been extremely unimpressed in practice.

The first thing that has long come to mind with Topaz is "plastic," because at overwhelming rates most photos I've seen people present from Topaz have had this plastic, almost vinyl look to them, and with respect the duck photo shared above is no exception. It's not as bad as many, but especially in the feet it just looks very much fake like it's made out of some kind of polymer. For the past few years I have actually come to use Topaz as a verb, regularly saying, "that photo looks Topazed" when talking about a photo that so strongly had the characteristic look that is a clear sign of having been through Topaz's sharpening. I really do think there's a very noticeable look that often gives away when something has been through Topaz, too.

That doesn't mean I hate Topaz. In fact, I own it and use it all the time. I first bought it after photographing a fundraising event and having a couple of faces that were not in focus as they should have been and so I bought it to try to salvage them. It wasn't perfect, but it did work well enough to get by for the size of photo that I needed - and I think that's very critical with Topaz. For a photo that will be viewed below a certain print/display size Topaz can do some really incredible things. Here's an example of a photo I took for my employer at one point when I just didn't have a lens that was nearly adequate for the scenario:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

It's right on the edge of being too big here, but at this size and lower - or printed as, say, a 4x6 or 5x7, it looks great, and far, far better than it did out of camera. This used Topaz's facial reconstruction as well as its sharpening and it works great. Get much larger than this, though, and the people start to look clearly plastic, almost like the fake Santa Claus from the second Santa Clause film.

So I do use Topaz a lot, mainly with people photography. After I bought it for trying to save some people photos, I went back and tried it on most of my catalog of old wildlife shots which had been not quite good enough to use for much of anything and I was disappointed to find that it didn't work to make even one of them worth using even just for a social media post. For people, though, I find it can sometimes save a just barely out of focus shot without looking too bad - as long as the final image isn't going to be viewed at too large a size.

In another discussion I had on this subject recently, I had gone and found a noisy image that I hadn't ever really done anything with to do a quick comparison. I searched my LR catalog by ISO value and the first one I found was this one:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

The only edit was a crop to help the part of the image we are actually interested in be more visible. Now this image is not in danger of winning any awards either for artistic merit or image quality, even after denoising, but I chose it because it shows a somewhat rough case and what each piece of software can do with it.

Here is LR's:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Next is Topaz's. I played with the Topaz settings a lot to try to find the optimal result. This was the best I could achieve:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

To me the LR output is significantly better. Some notable areas to compare:

First, look at the beak and the area around the beak in the LR version vs. Topaz's: the LR version has a beak that is rich in coloring, has very clear edges, and has strong separation from the background. From Topaz it is more muddy in color and the edges tend to blend more with the background - especially on the very tip, where LR's is extremely sharp and clear while Topaz's is starting to blur and bleed into the background.

Next, look at the reddish brown autumn leaves behind the bird. One is just under his beak, another is under his breast, and a third noticeable one is under the tail - noticeable, that is, in the LR version, where the denoise has brought out their color and contrast. In the Topaz version you'd be excused if you missed them as they are dull and soft and blend into the grass. Next to the leaf under the breast, do you see a vaguely pink blob in the Topaz version? Oh - in the LR version I can see that it's a berry.

Look at the eye. In the Topaz version it looks mostly like a single dark circle. In LR's you can see the pupil distinct from the iris. Look at the blue part of the bird's feathers: in LR's version you can see not only richer blues, but also the different secondary shades and colors that are there in different parts of the body. In Topaz's, you can't.

Look at the grass in the foreground. In many areas Topaz has produced a sort of splotch of greyish-green that all runs together, but in LR's you can see the individual blades of
green grass. Heck, in LR's you can see that there are, mixed in with all the green grass, many dead or dying brown blades, but in Topaz you don't really see these.

What's more, in addition to having less detail the Topaz version also somehow has more noise, even though we'd normally expect the opposite - that if it is going to have less detail it will also have less noise, but that isn't what we see. This has in general been my experience with trying to use Topaz for denoising: to get rid of the noise in a photo I tend to have to push it to the point that the details start to lose all definition, or even take on that vinyl look - something which fortunately enough hasn't really happened in this photo.

LR has been far and away better in my experiences. Just now I decided to take up the "challenge" of an extremely noisy photo and so I found the noisiest one I could. It's not my photo, but is one a family member sent to me asking if I could fix it in editing. (Funny aside, by the way: just now for the first time thanks to the forum's little metadata caption, have I noticed that this badly underexposed, very high noise photo that needed an attempted salvage, was taken at f13! It could have been something like ISO 2000 instead of 25,600, or with a slower shutter since the person was just standing still it could have been ISO 400 or so.) To avoid the forum limit I'm not posting the original, but here is Topaz':

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Here is LR's:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

They're both pretty rough, but they're also pretty comparable. I actually think that when viewed at a normal size LR's is clearly better, but it's not that much better. It does lack some of the weird discolorations that Topaz has introduced around the hair. Regardless, it's definitely not a situation where Topaz is just accomplishing something LR can't. In fairness, I will however give Topaz this: if we let it do facial recovery, Topaz puts out something that blows LR or Topaz's denoise alone out of the water - here, cropped in because it's good enough that we can:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

The major downside? This is not exactly what this person actually looks like. It's sort of... mostly close, but very much not her to anyone who knows her. In fact, even from the photo itself we can tell something is wrong. Look at the differences in the two eyeglass frames, for example. So on the one hand, it's a heck of a lot better "texture-wise." On the other hand, when processing makes a person look like someone else, that's not so great!

In any case, here's my personal favorite (in a way) use of these denoising tools:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

It's a photo of two of my kids at a wedding when I had a lens which was not really up to the task. The whole thing was extremely noisy and just really very poor quality overall in terms of everything, including being pretty lacking in sharpness. I hung onto it even though it was not a picture worth saving, and eventually when Adobe released their AI denoise I ran it through and was amazed at how much it was able to bring it back. It's not the best picture by any means, but it means a lot to me. I've put this through Topaz and never gotten anything that made me want to hit the save button.

 

[Ken Miracle]

A Master Class On Lightroom Denoise!
This video is a master class on Lightroom Denoise! If you want to see my techniques for making ISO 12,800 look like ISO 400, you're gonna love this! It's the BEST way to fix a noisy photo!

In fact, I think the advanced techniques at the end of the video allow you to make your images look better than any third-party app - just using Lightroom!

In this video, we'll take a really deep dive, and I'll show you everything you need to know to get the most from Lightroom Denoise. We'll talk about the kinds of images that work best, how the Donoise tool works, and some advanced techniques beyond just the simple Denoise dialog.

In fact, in my experience, the advanced techniques featured towards the end of this video preserve detail better than any third-party software I've tried while giving you the best possible noise reduction.

It's the best 45 minutes you'll spend on post processing!

thank you ... some good hint that will help me refine as needed ... I have used the masking tool as a first step every since it came out ... a big game changer and then when the new Denoise came along I dropped Topaz.

As you have always noted I first get the image as good in camera as possible. But there are times in my run and gun bird ID photography world that and image cries out for that post processing assist and it is now much much easier and more effective.

 

[Ed Erkes]

I've had a lot of thoughts on Topaz over the years and ultimately in spite of being hopeful for it I've been extremely unimpressed in practice.

The first thing that has long come to mind with Topaz is "plastic," because at overwhelming rates most photos I've seen people present from Topaz have had this plastic, almost vinyl look to them, and with respect the duck photo shared above is no exception. It's not as bad as many, but especially in the feet it just looks very much fake like it's made out of some kind of polymer. For the past few years I have actually come to use Topaz as a verb, regularly saying, "that photo looks Topazed" when talking about a photo that so strongly had the characteristic look that is a clear sign of having been through Topaz's sharpening. I really do think there's a very noticeable look that often gives away when something has been through Topaz, too.

That doesn't mean I hate Topaz. In fact, I own it and use it all the time. I first bought it after photographing a fundraising event and having a couple of faces that were not in focus as they should have been and so I bought it to try to salvage them. It wasn't perfect, but it did work well enough to get by for the size of photo that I needed - and I think that's very critical with Topaz. For a photo that will be viewed below a certain print/display size Topaz can do some really incredible things. Here's an example of a photo I took for my employer at one point when I just didn't have a lens that was nearly adequate for the scenario:


View attachment 80352

It's right on the edge of being too big here, but at this size and lower - or printed as, say, a 4x6 or 5x7, it looks great, and far, far better than it did out of camera. This used Topaz's facial reconstruction as well as its sharpening and it works great. Get much larger than this, though, and the people start to look clearly plastic, almost like the fake Santa Claus from the second Santa Clause film.

So I do use Topaz a lot, mainly with people photography. After I bought it for trying to save some people photos, I went back and tried it on most of my catalog of old wildlife shots which had been not quite good enough to use for much of anything and I was disappointed to find that it didn't work to make even one of them worth using even just for a social media post. For people, though, I find it can sometimes save a just barely out of focus shot without looking too bad - as long as the final image isn't going to be viewed at too large a size.

In another discussion I had on this subject recently, I had gone and found a noisy image that I hadn't ever really done anything with to do a quick comparison. I searched my LR catalog by ISO value and the first one I found was this one:View attachment 80355

The only edit was a crop to help the part of the image we are actually interested in be more visible. Now this image is not in danger of winning any awards either for artistic merit or image quality, even after denoising, but I chose it because it shows a somewhat rough case and what each piece of software can do with it.

Here is LR's:

View attachment 80356

Next is Topaz's. I played with the Topaz settings a lot to try to find the optimal result. This was the best I could achieve:

View attachment 80357

To me the LR output is significantly better. Some notable areas to compare:

First, look at the beak and the area around the beak in the LR version vs. Topaz's: the LR version has a beak that is rich in coloring, has very clear edges, and has strong separation from the background. From Topaz it is more muddy in color and the edges tend to blend more with the background - especially on the very tip, where LR's is extremely sharp and clear while Topaz's is starting to blur and bleed into the background.

Next, look at the reddish brown autumn leaves behind the bird. One is just under his beak, another is under his breast, and a third noticeable one is under the tail - noticeable, that is, in the LR version, where the denoise has brought out their color and contrast. In the Topaz version you'd be excused if you missed them as they are dull and soft and blend into the grass. Next to the leaf under the breast, do you see a vaguely pink blob in the Topaz version? Oh - in the LR version I can see that it's a berry.

Look at the eye. In the Topaz version it looks mostly like a single dark circle. In LR's you can see the pupil distinct from the iris. Look at the blue part of the bird's feathers: in LR's version you can see not only richer blues, but also the different secondary shades and colors that are there in different parts of the body. In Topaz's, you can't.

Look at the grass in the foreground. In many areas Topaz has produced a sort of splotch of greyish-green that all runs together, but in LR's you can see the individual blades of
green grass. Heck, in LR's you can see that there are, mixed in with all the green grass, many dead or dying brown blades, but in Topaz you don't really see these.

What's more, in addition to having less detail the Topaz version also somehow has more noise, even though we'd normally expect the opposite - that if it is going to have less detail it will also have less noise, but that isn't what we see. This has in general been my experience with trying to use Topaz for denoising: to get rid of the noise in a photo I tend to have to push it to the point that the details start to lose all definition, or even take on that vinyl look - something which fortunately enough hasn't really happened in this photo.

LR has been far and away better in my experiences. Just now I decided to take up the "challenge" of an extremely noisy photo and so I found the noisiest one I could. It's not my photo, but is one a family member sent to me asking if I could fix it in editing. (Funny aside, by the way: just now for the first time thanks to the forum's little metadata caption, have I noticed that this badly underexposed, very high noise photo that needed an attempted salvage, was taken at f13! It could have been something like ISO 2000 instead of 25,600, or with a slower shutter since the person was just standing still it could have been ISO 400 or so.) To avoid the forum limit I'm not posting the original, but here is Topaz':

View attachment 80362

Here is LR's:

View attachment 80363

They're both pretty rough, but they're also pretty comparable. I actually think that when viewed at a normal size LR's is clearly better, but it's not that much better. It does lack some of the weird discolorations that Topaz has introduced around the hair. Regardless, it's definitely not a situation where Topaz is just accomplishing something LR can't. In fairness, I will however give Topaz this: if we let it do facial recovery, Topaz puts out something that blows LR or Topaz's denoise alone out of the water - here, cropped in because it's good enough that we can:
View attachment 80367
The major downside? This is not exactly what this person actually looks like. It's sort of... mostly close, but very much not her to anyone who knows her. In fact, even from the photo itself we can tell something is wrong. Look at the differences in the two eyeglass frames, for example. So on the one hand, it's a heck of a lot better "texture-wise." On the other hand, when processing makes a person look like someone else, that's not so great!

In any case, here's my personal favorite (in a way) use of these denoising tools:View attachment 80370

It's a photo of two of my kids at a wedding when I had a lens which was not really up to the task. The whole thing was extremely noisy and just really very poor quality overall in terms of everything, including being pretty lacking in sharpness. I hung onto it even though it was not a picture worth saving, and eventually when Adobe released their AI denoise I ran it through and was amazed at how much it was able to bring it back. It's not the best picture by any means, but it means a lot to me. I've put this through Topaz and never gotten anything that made me want to hit the save button.

Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but I have to disagree. I really dont see the "plasticky" look in the duck's feet, even in a large print. I just got out the large print I made and checked it again. The feet are the closest part of the body to the camera and are not as in-focus as the rest of the duckling, so there is less detail there. That is what I see.
Topaz products have a lot of options and there is more of a learning curve in how to get the most out of it. If not using the right model or the right amount of adjustment on the various sliders, you can easily make it look very bad. And it is easy to get artifacts if you are not careful. And if you just let the program choose the right model and adjustments, then you are likely not to get the best result.
In your examples of the woman in the green shirt, the topaz version does look really bad. The Lightroom version does not look that great either. I can assure you that if the image is in focus, it can easily be made to look good with Topaz and better than the Lightroom version you show.
Just for kicks shoot an image at ISO 102,400 and crop it 50%. This should be similar to my 50% crop of a 3 stop underexposed IS0 12800 image. And see what you can do with it in lightroom. With all the noise you wont even be able to get any type of masking to work for sharpening, and any adjustment on the noise reduction slider will give you just mush. I couldnt get anything decent at all on my image. And there arent that many different variables you can try. It just wont work.
I was able capture a moment in very dark conditions and was able to edit an image that was selected to be the cover image on a national magazine. I am not saying that to be bragging in any way, but to lend credence to my statement that my efforts resulted in a quality image.

 

[SCoombs]

Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but I have to disagree. I really dont see the "plasticky" look in the duck's feet, even in a large print. I just got out the large print I made and checked it again. The feet are the closest part of the body to the camera and are not as in-focus as the rest of the duckling, so there is less detail there. That is what I see.
Topaz products have a lot of options and there is more of a learning curve in how to get the most out of it. If not using the right model or the right amount of adjustment on the various sliders, you can easily make it look very bad. And it is easy to get artifacts if you are not careful. And if you just let the program choose the right model and adjustments, then you are likely not to get the best result.
In your examples of the woman in the green shirt, the topaz version does look really bad. The Lightroom version does not look that great either. I can assure you that if the image is in focus, it can easily be made to look good with Topaz and better than the Lightroom version you show.
Just for kicks shoot an image at ISO 102,400 and crop it 50%. This should be similar to my 50% crop of a 3 stop underexposed IS0 12800 image. And see what you can do with it in lightroom. With all the noise you wont even be able to get any type of masking to work for sharpening, and any adjustment on the noise reduction slider will give you just mush. I couldnt get anything decent at all on my image. And there arent that many different variables you can try. It just wont work.
I was able capture a moment in very dark conditions and was able to edit an image that was selected to be the cover image on a national magazine. I am not saying that to be bragging in any way, but to lend credence to my statement that my efforts resulted in a quality image.

Actually, I forgot to include in my post this link, which I have previously shared in a similar discussion: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12pF2DGMoiIwx-4fGwruWDc3k1UfaXe1w/view?usp=sharing

That is the original RAW file for the Blue Jay photo. I have seen a lot of people say about Topaz that the reason there are a lot of poor results out there is that people don't know how to use it correctly. In response, I've asked several times - not as a way to catch anyone in a "gotcha," but in genuine curiosity - for people saying this to give an example of a good result from Topaz and the settings they used, or more specifically to take a photo that someone else has run through Topaz and gotten poor results and to show how to use it correctly. I've really never seen anyone actually take up the "challenge." So, there is the RAW file. I'd genuinely be curious to see what settings would yield better results in Topaz, because I have certainly tried a very large number of combinations. In that previous discussion, one person did make an attempt and posted a result which even they agreed was not as good as the LR results.

Regarding your "challenge" (I don't want to sound confrontational but I don't know what other word to use, which is why I keep putting "challenge" in quotes ), I am not quite sure I understand where you are getting from the ISO of 12,800 that your photo is to saying we should use a 100,000 ISO, but I did do a quick experiment by trying to underexpose a shot by about the same 3 stops you had in your image and using the highest ISO my camera will do. The only edits here were to crop by about 67% and to raise the exposure b7 3.07. I also adjusted the sharpening mask. Here are the results:

Original:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

LR:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Topaz:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Neither is great, but the LR photo is one that I think would nevertheless, with some additional editing, be usable as a 4x6 print or for some kind of small online photo. The Topaz example is very splotchy with a very uneven look, as though someone spilled water on the photo and damaged parts of the image. It also loses a lot of the colors and contrast that LR's brings back a bit. I also think I could likely refine the overall look of the LR version a bit more. I'm sure the Topaz one could be refined further, too, but... honestly I played with the sliders and didn't get a whole lot that was substantially different.

Regardless, here is the RAW file if anyone wants a go at it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RS5fSXNMX7JAHE2RnUerEBatM8B78JSs/view?usp=sharing

One thing worth noting here is that I think you are using the old standalone Topaz Denoise, and that may make a difference. I have heard from some longtime Topaz users that essentially all of the functionality is significantly worse in PhotoAI and more recent standalone releases than it was in the older versions of the standalone applications.

 

[RichF]

@Steve after watching this video I would like to see you offer a course of preparing an image. Actually best if it were multiple videos, 1 per image to show you identify features and enhance them in your images (hopefully all the way through printing and preparing for the web)

 

[oldforester]

This video is full of great techniques. Glad I haven't used Denoise on a lot of old photos yet. Thanks so much.

 

[Takatanaka]

THANK YOUUUUU STEEEVE! Honestly, Steve is my man
I´ve been using Topaz products for some time (iniitially DeNoise AI and Sharpening AI, latly the PhotoAI), it works ok with some photos but sometimes I get very poor results. They come up with quite frequent product updates and sometimes the update fixes some things but create new problems and the output photos are worse than with their previous software version...
Steve, with this million-dollar video, you just made me save ninety something euro per year. Thus, I can spend some more on your future educational releases (I already have all released so far). I´m even thinking of cancel my ISP contract and extend a cable from my place (in Portugal) to Steve´s place
After watching the video yesterday, I run to my PC to try out this new Steve´s technique. I grabbed one old, discarded photo shot at ISO 12800 and here is the result:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

The original looked like this:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

While extending a cable might be a little difficult, I´m starting a conversation with my city mayor for a statue of Master Steve Perry on my street!

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Very good video - thank you - I might even consider starting to sharpen my photos

 

[Pat Cassity]

Well, here's my two cents worth... The fist image was edited a few days ago using the DXO's noise reduction and dedicated camera / lens module. The 2nd is the same image edited with Steve's technique from the video. To me, the LR only edited shot has a more realistic look. I especially prefer the background. I'll let you be the judge! Thanks!

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[PhotoKat]

Wow Steve. Just wow! This technique is simply fabulous - thank you so much!

 

[Wade Abadie]

Awesome video Steve, as usual.

 

[Zep33]

Can't wait to watch this later tonight. I've already basically dropped Topaz and have been using LR denoise for the past few months. So I'm sure a few new techniques in here will even help more. So excited.

Thank so much for this Steve!!

 

[Ed Erkes]

Actually, I forgot to include in my post this link, which I have previously shared in a similar discussion: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12pF2DGMoiIwx-4fGwruWDc3k1UfaXe1w/view?usp=sharing

That is the original RAW file for the Blue Jay photo. I have seen a lot of people say about Topaz that the reason there are a lot of poor results out there is that people don't know how to use it correctly. In response, I've asked several times - not as a way to catch anyone in a "gotcha," but in genuine curiosity - for people saying this to give an example of a good result from Topaz and the settings they used, or more specifically to take a photo that someone else has run through Topaz and gotten poor results and to show how to use it correctly. I've really never seen anyone actually take up the "challenge." So, there is the RAW file. I'd genuinely be curious to see what settings would yield better results in Topaz, because I have certainly tried a very large number of combinations. In that previous discussion, one person did make an attempt and posted a result which even they agreed was not as good as the LR results.

Regarding your "challenge" (I don't want to sound confrontational but I don't know what other word to use, which is why I keep putting "challenge" in quotes ), I am not quite sure I understand where you are getting from the ISO of 12,800 that your photo is to saying we should use a 100,000 ISO, but I did do a quick experiment by trying to underexpose a shot by about the same 3 stops you had in your image and using the highest ISO my camera will do. The only edits here were to crop by about 67% and to raise the exposure b7 3.07. I also adjusted the sharpening mask. Here are the results:

Original:

View attachment 80379

LR:

View attachment 80377

Topaz:

View attachment 80378


Neither is great, but the LR photo is one that I think would nevertheless, with some additional editing, be usable as a 4x6 print or for some kind of small online photo. The Topaz example is very splotchy with a very uneven look, as though someone spilled water on the photo and damaged parts of the image. It also loses a lot of the colors and contrast that LR's brings back a bit. I also think I could likely refine the overall look of the LR version a bit more. I'm sure the Topaz one could be refined further, too, but... honestly I played with the sliders and didn't get a whole lot that was substantially different.

Regardless, here is the RAW file if anyone wants a go at it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RS5fSXNMX7JAHE2RnUerEBatM8B78JSs/view?usp=sharing

One thing worth noting here is that I think you are using the old standalone Topaz Denoise, and that may make a difference. I have heard from some longtime Topaz users that essentially all of the functionality is significantly worse in PhotoAI and more recent standalone releases than it was in the older versions of the standalone applications.

I am using the stand alone Topaz Denoise AI. But I don't know why you can't get good results with Topaz , or Lightoom, for that matter. We'll just have to disagree.

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

THANK YOUUUUU STEEEVE! Honestly, Steve is my man
I´ve been using Topaz products for some time (iniitially DeNoise AI and Sharpening AI, latly the PhotoAI), it works ok with some photos but sometimes I get very poor results. They come up with quite frequent product updates and sometimes the update fixes some things but create new problems and the output photos are worse than with their previous software version...
Steve, with this million-dollar video, you just made me save ninety something euro per year. Thus, I can spend some more on your future educational releases (I already have all released so far). I´m even thinking of cancel my ISP contract and extend a cable from my place (in Portugal) to Steve´s place
After watching the video yesterday, I run to my PC to try out this new Steve´s technique. I grabbed one old, discarded photo shot at ISO 12800 and here is the result:

View attachment 80394
The original looked like this:
View attachment 80395

While extending a cable might be a little difficult, I´m starting a conversation with my city mayor for a statue of Master Steve Perry on my street!

I just wanna know if the squirrel watched the video with you in exchange for that nut. Great work.

 

[bleirer]

Well, here's my two cents worth... The fist image was edited a few days ago using the DXO's noise reduction and dedicated camera / lens module. The 2nd is the same image edited with Steve's technique from the video. To me, the LR only edited shot has a more realistic look. I especially prefer the background. I'll let you be the judge! Thanks!
View attachment 80398View attachment 80399

The top one is ever so slightly better to my eye, especially the detail in the red of the head, but both are quite good. The reason I like dxo photolab is the lens correction module and subjectively I like the demosaicing better on dxo. It's all good though and the techniques presented are going to be useful to me because photolab is similar to lightroom and some of the techniques will apply. Besides in photoshop one can combine easily, so it's not one having to beat the other in a contest.

 

[Steve]

@Steve after watching this video I would like to see you offer a course of preparing an image. Actually best if it were multiple videos, 1 per image to show you identify features and enhance them in your images (hopefully all the way through printing and preparing for the web)

That's kind of what I was trying to do, a workflow series, with the videos in the rough order that I normally went. However, it's just too much. It would take forever to do (Like at least a year to two) and there's always the chance that Lightroom will change during that time requiring massive reshoots. Couple that with the fact that my Lightroom Library module wasn't the best seller (worst, actually) and that my YT post processing videos usually don't go to far (this one included) and it's a lot of time for a losing proposition.

 

[Steve]

I appreciate the time Steve put into making this video, and was pleased to learn some new tricks, such as the use of negative texture, clarity and sharpness on enhancing noise reduction. But I have to disagree with his opinion on third party noise reduction plugins. I have found Topaz Sharpen AI and Denoise AI to be as good, and in some cases, significantly better than Lightroom Denoise and Sharpen. I posted an article on my blog about the use of these plugins in salvaging a severely underexposed ISO 12800 image: https://erkesphoto.com/photography-...aging-a-severely-underexposed-high-iso-image/
After watching his video , I reprocessed these images using Lightroom and couldn't get anything usable.
Below are sample images from the article:
View attachment 80338
View attachment 80339
View attachment 80340

View attachment 80341

The first image is the original raw, the second is the raw brightened +2.88 in exposure. The third image is the finished, processed image.
The fourth image is another image from that same shoot. I've posted it to illustrate a second disagreement I have with Steve's video. I disagree with his opinions on evaluating sharpness and deciding what is an acceptably sharp image. I never look at images higher than 100% view. 100 percent provides a view of 1 image pixel to 1 monitor pixel. Anything higher requires the software program to manufacture pixels to fill in for the increased magnification. It also gets you far into the realm of pixel peeping and is unnecessary in my opinion.
The fourth image would probably not qualify as being acceptably sharp by Steve's criteria. But I've printed it up to 24 inches (on the long side) and it is more than sharp enough. I've shown it to photographers and nonphotographers alike and no one has commented that it looks soft or out of focus. In fact I sometimes get comments about how sharp it looks. This image will be on the cover of a national magazine in April of this year.
"Sharpness" is a relative thing and difficult to evaluate and compare in different images. It depends on subject magnification, light quality ( soft light, direct light, backlight, use of flash) and atmospheric conditions. I look at images on my computer and can't necessarily pick out those taken with my Sony 200-600 from those taken with my 600mm, although I know from photos of my resolution charts (using the same image magnification) that the 600mm is sharper. I tend to use the 200-600mm more often because of its compositional versatility. One thing I can conclude after over forty years as a serious photographer is that composition trumps resolution any day.
I appreciate all the info that Steve provides in his books and videos. I've learned a lot from him. But I felt like I had to voice my opinion on this video and his previous video on evaluating sharpness.

I've used both extensively and I like the Lightroom technique better. IMO it gives a more realistic look but honestly, I can tell from a mile away you and I aren't going to agree on this. So, if you like the way Topaz works, then I say stick with it and I'll keep using Lightroom.

 

[ssheipel]

Can't wait to watch this video and try the technique; I'm such an incompetent with post production software (of all sorts!) I think you need (okay I need you) to produce (and sell!) a series of videos (or a book if you prefer) on post production from download to print prep! You really are one great instructor, sir!

 

[bleirer]

Now could you do how to make a $3000 lens look like a $12000 lens?

 

[Ivan Rothman]

That's kind of what I was trying to do, a workflow series, with the videos in the rough order that I normally went. However, it's just too much. It would take forever to do (Like at least a year to two) and there's always the chance that Lightroom will change during that time requiring massive reshoots. Couple that with the fact that my Lightroom Library module wasn't the best seller (worst, actually) and that my YT post processing videos usually don't go to far (this one included) and it's a lot of time for a losing proposition.

Steve, sorry to hear that your Lightroom Library module wasn't a good seller. I bought it and found it to be better than any other LR course that I had used. So I was hoping you would follow it up with a Develop module course. But I can also see the difficulty since Lightroom is constantly changing and improving with new features.
Thank you for making this video on LR sharpening and noise reduction. I found the information in it to be invaluable. I have long been a fan of Topaz AI programs but now I will have to compare them with LR Denoise and see what works better for me.

 

[Steve]

Can't wait to watch this video and try the technique; I'm such an incompetent with post production software (of all sorts!) I think you need (okay I need you) to produce (and sell!) a series of videos (or a book if you prefer) on post production from download to print prep! You really are one great instructor, sir!

Thanks so much!
This video was actually supposed to be part of a larger series, but I just can't seem to get them to work. I've tired multiple times with video series and once with a book - it all falls apart. I think I have too much to say and it just always gets out of hand. It's a weird problem, but it seems that no matter what approach I take, it falls apart.

 

[RichF]

That's kind of what I was trying to do, a workflow series, with the videos in the rough order that I normally went. However, it's just too much. It would take forever to do (Like at least a year to two) and there's always the chance that Lightroom will change during that time requiring massive reshoots. Couple that with the fact that my Lightroom Library module wasn't the best seller (worst, actually) and that my YT post processing videos usually don't go to far (this one included) and it's a lot of time for a losing proposition.

too bad. I would find someone analyzing an image and showing how to work it, very valuable.

 

[BillW]

Great video. Thank you Steve.

 

[pnbarne]

Sorry. I must be getting too old to wander around in this fantasyland.

I have to be the advocate of truth on this one and suggest a few corrections to the topic.

If one shoots improperly exposed garbage willingly no amount of sharpening will make them a photographer. Buying a cell phone that does AI is all they need to reach their maximum photographic potential. The bar will be sufficiently lowered to guarantee success.

Denoise does not make 12,800 or any other ISO "Look like ISO 400". ISO 400 always looks like 400 and 12800 always looks like 12800. They are electronic gain values. One and zeros and RAW data never lies. AI simply aborts it into an illusion of what people WISH they had the pride and skill to create. Garbage in gets faked quality out. Did anyone else bother to read the Hogan guides or study induced noise or what dual gain is or any of those other principles that apply to the tools they paid thousands of bucks for?

AI denoise aborts what the photographers selects and replaces it with computer generated information.

But whatever turns you on. I've read great articles about how the Samsung S23Ultra is even better than what you are suggesting.

Does anyone reading any of this actually believe that any publisher of serious photography doesn't recognize the difference between faked out BS, AI converted throw aways and professional images created with human intelligence and pride?

When did grain in photographs become an evil concept? How many great historical images get thrown out of the MMoA when edge to edge, AI sharpness becomes a curators rule of thumb? What makes obvious fakery more marketable than classic realistic photographs that were shot precisely the way the creator intended and displayed with warts and all?

If AI make proper photography this easy, why are all so many saps buying long f/4 at 8 or 10 or 16 grand a pop. Are people really that unmotivated that they will spend big bucks for fan boy bodies and lenses and use them to shoot garbage to correct with CGI?

I'm sure that the AI photography crowds can't stand music performed live because it has ambience. Live music is never sharp "edge to edge". AI music always is.

I remember when photographic techniques were the main topic in BCG forums. Oh well...it's a tik tok, autotune world now and nothing is real. People sell out and forget where they began. But that's the business end of the internet "photography" world. You have to preach to the choir or the donation plate doesn't get filled. The choir wants to hear how to shoot pictures just like Steve or Simon or Gregory without putting in the time to learn to use the tools of the craft.

Why should they when the photographers they admire say "don't bother shooting images until you get it right...AI all you trash instead of throwing it out and you'll be just as good as me. Sort of...".

Ironically, I remember very well being influenced by Steve to buy my Wimberly head and learning to use it properly. I remember reading if you are chasing the subject you are going the wrong way. I remember Steve saying that getting closer is the solution to not having a long enough lens for a shot. I remember Steve emphasizing the value of being a competent naturalist in getting the shot right in the first place. All that ancient photography information was fascinating and helped me create.

It doesn't seem to carry any weight in the crowded "show me the money" internet photography world now that preserving throw aways shot at 20 frames a second is the most profitable aspect of photography to promote.

The only reason some people need to cheat is that someone tells them it's acceptable.

If I were to worry about the purity of the image creation process I would still be shooting a 4x5 Speed Graphic loaded with Tri-X and processing the film in a dark room (where I manipulated both the negatives and the print). However, I find myself wishing that digital cameras and LR had existed 50+ years ago. The quality of the images and the creativity available to us is unsurpassed. No reason to try to eek out an image in a darkroom using chemicals that can be semi toxic.

Great video Steve. Keep us out of the darkroom.