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

[Ed Erkes]

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.

That's fine. I don't think we're in as much disagreement as you think. Both work well at reasonable ISOs. But at extreme ISOs we'll agree to differ. And if you do all your image processing in Lightroom , then Lightroom is the way to go. I go to Photoshop with all my images, so Lightroom would have to significantly better for me to accept a dng file that is 4-5 times larger than my raw file.
The main problem I have with your video on deciding what is sharp or not is that almost all of your examples are large in the frame subjects in good light and you almost seem to be counting eyelashes to decide whether it is sharp or not. And you seem to be rejecting some images at 200% magnification that I think could be sharpened up with Topaz Sharpen AI and be just fine (maybe its an issue of video resolution). I just got a sense of overemphasis on pixel peeping vs content.
Your criteria for judging acceptable sharpness would not work on images like these below:

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.

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.

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.

 

[Tim Karels]

I think this has to be one of the most valuable tutorials for me that Steve has done in recent years. I'm just about to head to Ecuador for two months where I tend to use a lot of high ISOs because of the low amount of light in the understory. This technique is definitely going to be useful, and I think I'll need to go revisit many of my older ISO files and apply this technique. Thanks again for being such a great educator.

 

[Tom-Neth]

Enjoyed every second of the video. Brought new suggestions for my processing approach, will try them the fitst time I start working on new pictures. And as always very well and clear presented by Steve, !

 

[Steve]

That's fine. I don't think we're in as much disagreement as you think. Both work well at reasonable ISOs. But at extreme ISOs we'll agree to differ. And if you do all your image processing in Lightroom , then Lightroom is the way to go. I go to Photoshop with all my images, so Lightroom would have to significantly better for me to accept a dng file that is 4-5 times larger than my raw file.
The main problem I have with your video on deciding what is sharp or not is that almost all of your examples are large in the frame subjects in good light and you almost seem to be counting eyelashes to decide whether it is sharp or not. And you seem to be rejecting some images at 200% magnification that I think could be sharpened up with Topaz Sharpen AI and be just fine (maybe its an issue of video resolution). I just got a sense of overemphasis on pixel peeping vs content.
Your criteria for judging acceptable sharpness would not work on images like these below:
View attachment 80426
View attachment 80427
View attachment 80428
View attachment 80429
View attachment 80430View attachment 80431

I wanted to let this go but you're using some example here that are obvious exceptions - such as the moths and hummingbird. I'm not going to get into a pedantic argument. There are exceptions to every rule and I think that's implied in any tutorial. I swear, I sometimes feel like I have to spend half my video making qualifying statements, LOL. Of course for slower shutter speed shots where sharpness isn't as critical I don't hold them to the same standards. I do slow shutter speed panning at times and obviously I don't hold those images to the same standards. Same with the flock of blackbirds - I'm not saying they all have to be critically sharp at 100% or 200% views.

However, I'm also careful in the field and tend to not find myself in situations back on the computer where I have to give up a shot because it was soft. Most of the time, I have it covered pretty well. I do tend to fill the frame and I do tend to capture sharp images. Great images and proper technique aren't mutually exclusive IMO.

Also, in the video I mentioned 100% and 200% views based on monitor resolution. When I look at an image at 100% on my HD monitor (1920 x 1080) it looks the same as 200% on my 5K monitor. We all have different standards for sharpness and how we want our images to look. I feel I have as much right to mine as you have to yours.

In addition, I wanted to show how to get the most from the techniques in the video - and part of that is getting it as right as you can in the field. It makes a huge difference and if I leave that part out I think I'm doing people a disservice. Again, I'm happy you like what you get from your workflow and the images look good on my screen. More than one way to skin a cat. I was just trying to stay out of an argument because this is one where I'm confident you and I won't agree.

 

[SCoombs]

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.

As I said, I've had a lot of people say it's possible to get better results from Topaz than I have, but none who have demonstrated it when I offer a RAW file. The files are there - if it's possible to get better results, I'm happy to learn something new.

 

[Phil Seu]

Great video, thanks Steve. Maybe I missed this but in terms of work flow, are the described sharpening/denoise steps of the RAW file the very first steps in post processing?

 

[ButlerKid]

Great video, thanks Steve. Maybe I missed this but in terms of work flow, are the described sharpening/denoise steps of the RAW file the very first steps in post processing?

Yes, that was discussed at the beginning of the video.

 

[Woodyg3]

I was shooting some pics of aquarium fish recently with an "ancient" D7200. The ISOs were pretty high, 5000 up to 12800. There was a LOT of noise in the shadows and plenty everywhere in the shots. I tried both Topaz DeNoise and Lightroom Denoise processes. I played around a lot with the options and settings, and in the end the Lightroom tools gave the best results on both noise and sharpness.

Meanwhile, for files with just a little noise, I find using Topaz DeNoise is quick, does and great job, and adds a very nice "finishing touch" to the sharpness. I am too lazy to use the Lightroom Denoise in this case, because it just takes a good bit more time, and I'm satisfied with the results from Topaz .

So, you know, I do what works for me. I keep an open mind and try new things and learn from others.

Thanks again, Steve, for all the time you put into this video. I know it represents many hours of work. I am very sure I will be incorporating some of your suggestions into my future work. Now, excuse me while I try some of Steve's tricks on my aquarium shots.

 

[JoelKlein]

Thank you Steve!

 

[Doomrider74]

It's seems like some people just like arguing for the sake of it.

Steve clearly explains at the beginning of the video the circumstances where the techniques work best, and it's fine if you prefer other workflows.

As an aside, I tested the techniques he presented on a file where the subject (a Bald Eagle) didn't fill the frame and actually found they still worked and, to my eye, produced a better result than what I achieved using DXO. I think the ability to mask the sharpening in LR vs the global sharpening of DXO was a big factor in the difference. I'll have to do more testing, though.

 

[Rixpx]

Thanks for this video, Steve. Just like your books and previous videos, this is full of practical information. I no longer use Lightroom, but find your advice carries over nicely into software that I currently use.

I must comment on the earlier tirade that was posted conflating sharpening with AI. I’ve enjoyed the hobby of photography for over 60 years. I grew up with manual controls, a variety of film, and spent many hours in the darkroom. I find digital photography a great improvement.

The folks who demean photography software as inauthentic, seem to forget, or don’t know that great photographers, like Ansel Adams routinely used colored filters and did a tremendous amount of manipulating in the darkroom to create his masterpiece images. These definitely weren’t straight out of the camera photos.

I’ve met my share of “get it right in the camera“ purists. I’ve also met plenty of Hi-Fi snobs, wine snobs, and fly fishing purists. I ignore them all.

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

I purchased DxO Studio 7. I am using it for for converrting Nikon NEF to Linear DNG and for noise reduction, lens correction and some sharpening. The results are clearly better than Topaz AI and Denoise and Sharpening. Comparing to Lightroom Classic Denoise, they are different but the differences are subtle. I cannot say for sure that I believe one is better than the other. For fur and feathers, I have a slight preference for DxO. This may change when I try using texture and some more advanced masking techniques. Both are magical compared to LR just a few years ago. I was always hesitant to use my Z 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 because of the higher ISO required. Last few weeks wih LR enhanced Denoise or DxO, it comes out way more often and gives usable results.

 

[Anjin San]

I'd argue that 90% of what we call AI actually isn't AI.

And 90% of what is supposedly actually Ai is just more sophisticated algorithms running on faster/more capable processors. Software has been able to 'fix' things for awhile now…and the whole "it's AI so it must be good" is just taking about more sophisticated software.

 

[Anjin San]

Another good video…with some good tips for doing things in LR only as opposed to LR plus something else. However…and I've said this before…better is the enemy of good enough and one must really consider the final output medium and see whether…at that resolution and output medium…there there is a whole lot of difference between way 1 and way 2 of doing something. While I haven't done an exhaustive comparison…if your output is to the screen then a lot of the 2:1 differences that Steve and others have noted disappear on downsampling. None of the alternative ways of doing things is wrong…but 'good enough' is in the eye of the beholder and while I realize this will be considered heresy by some…I think we collectively spend far too much time obsessing over minute differences which depending on your output medium…screen, print, whatever…might not really make any difference in actual output quality. While one might see some differences at 2:1 and I think that Steve is right in suggesting this over 1:1 with a high resolution monitor…a lot to all of those 'differences' just disappear when down damping the original file size down to 1200 or whatever wide for the web and most of us would…if we admitted it to ourselves…not really be able to tell a quality difference between the various ways of doing things at the intended output size and viewing distance…and if we did see a difference then it's really going to be more "just different' than "better and worse". Obviously everybody's good enough is different…but with today's bodies, lenses, sensors, and software…we're really debating about polishing the cannonball in most instances.

 

[Pat Cassity]

I purchased DxO Studio 7. I am using it for for converrting Nikon NEF to Linear DNG and for noise reduction, lens correction and some sharpening. The results are clearly better than Topaz AI and Denoise and Sharpening. Comparing to Lightroom Classic Denoise, they are different but the differences are subtle. I cannot say for sure that I believe one is better than the other. For fur and feathers, I have a slight preference for DxO. This may change when I try using texture and some more advanced masking techniques. Both are magical compared to LR just a few years ago. I was always hesitant to use my Z 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 because of the higher ISO required. Last few weeks wih LR enhanced Denoise or DxO, it comes out way more often and gives usable results.

Im with you in regards to DXO PL7. However, I believe the results are very ‘lens specific’. It provided great results for my 100-400 and especially the 180-600. It also did wonders for the 400 4.5 with the 2.0 TC. However, I havent been as happy using it with 600PF. Ive had to really reduce many of the default settings in order to make sure the photo isn’t over sharpened and / or contains artifacts. However, it seems to be ok when using the 1.4x as that tends to produce a softer photo SOC. After following Steve’s techniques and re-editing a few of the shots from the 600, I have found the results to be much more realistic, at least to me. Yes, using LR only is much more time consuming but in my opinion, well worth it.

 

[Krish]

I've been a long time user of Topaz (from when they were stand-alone products) and moved to Topaz AI when that came out. At the same time I also used DXO (I, II &III).

Then, when Lightroom came out with it's own Denoise I began using it more than the third party apps. While using it I'd move the sliders around a bit, not completely undertstanding what each implied - in a kind of hit or miss method.

Now in this video you've lit up the whole thing for me - I now understand what and how each tool can be used in ways I never did before.
Thank you you for this. It is nothing short of brilliant !!

 

[Dave Douglass]

I watched this video then went out and shot some backyard birds in very poor light then came in and loaded them up, picked the ones Iiked (about 10) and took your advice and they came out really nice. Big subjects nice and sharp, and a nice bokeh background with no noise. I am sold! You are such a prize. Thanks. Your devoted follower, Dave.

 

[Alistair]

It is clear from images and discussions in this thread that post processing is very much subject to personal taste. Perfection to some is over-processed to others. I very much enjoyed watching the video.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

thing is this - Topaz and other similar software programs, are the Quick fix method which works really well for a lot of people. How many on this forum actually even want to know how it works - most click a button - might move a slider - because most people with camera don't even like editing, or spending more than a couple of seconds on any image. And that is fine. If that works for you - then whats the problem?

However - the information and method used by Steve isn't rocket science - but takes understanding, effort, and some willingness on your part.
Perhaps a little more time than say Topaz, and you have to do the thinking. Steve took time to do an good video - for those who want to improve and make better pretty pictures.
This video is really for those who want to understand more, and Steve's explanations were to the point - and very valuable if you want to really control your own work. Yes I also have Topaz DeNoise - and yes I have used it plenty - and yes one has some control. And yes you can see a Topaz image a mile away at the best of times. (caveat - not always) But if you have to run all the options, low light, sever noise etc, it also takes time - who does that anyway. Mostly I see people just click and off they go.

Topaz has been immensely valuable over the years - thank you Topaz - but Adobe has upped their game considerably in the last year of 2. And you can bet your arse they will focus on having the best DeNoise if they can help it.

We need videos of higher education as there is not that much out there - it's mostly the same across the board - rinse and repeat. I wonder if anyone actually knows how much time and work it takes to make these videos. Never-mind write a book. And keep updating it. How many of you have done this? Certainly not me.

Steve - re the selling of your LR course - Move to Photoshop - that's much better sorry just had to get that in

 

[JoelKlein]

I watched this video then went out and shot some backyard birds in very poor light then came in and loaded them up, picked the ones Iiked (about 10) and took your advice and they came out really nice. Big subjects nice and sharp, and a nice bokeh background with no noise. I am sold! You are such a prize. Thanks. Your devoted follower, Dave.

Post some…

 

[fcotterill]

thing is this - Topaz and other similar software programs, are the Quick fix method which works really well for a lot of people. How many on this forum actually even want to know how it works - most click a button - might move a slider - because most people with camera don't even like editing, or spending more than a couple of seconds on any image. And that is fine. If that works for you - then whats the problem?

However - the information and method used by Steve isn't rocket science - but takes understanding, effort, and some willingness on your part.
Perhaps a little more time than say Topaz, and you have to do the thinking. Steve took time to do an good video - for those who want to improve and make better pretty pictures.
This video is really for those who want to understand more, and Steve's explanations were to the point - and very valuable if you want to really control your own work. Yes I also have Topaz DeNoise - and yes I have used it plenty - and yes one has some control. And yes you can see a Topaz image a mile away at the best of times. (caveat - not always) But if you have to run all the options, low light, sever noise etc, it also takes time - who does that anyway. Mostly I see people just click and off they go.

Topaz has been immensely valuable over the years - thank you Topaz - but Adobe has upped their game considerably in the last year of 2. And you can bet your arse they will focus on having the best DeNoise if they can help it.

We need videos of higher education as there is not that much out there - it's mostly the same across the board - rinse and repeat. I wonder if anyone actually knows how much time and work it takes to make these videos. Never-mind write a book. And keep updating it. How many of you have done this? Certainly not me.

Steve - re the selling of your LR course - Move to Photoshop - that's much better sorry just had to get that in

Very well said.
I agree 100%

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Very well said.
I agree 100%

Thanks Woody

 

[PhD69]

@Steve

Thank you for the video.

In the denoise process, distinguishing between the subject and the background, or between multiple parts of the picture, is not new.
... what you mention in “I've not seen anyone else do and I'm not saying that I'm the only one that does it I'm sure other people do I just haven't seen it maybe ».

For example, here, where Scott uses Topaz Denoise AI and layers.
This is not 100% the same technique / tools, but the idea / goal is the same : to apply the best noise reduction effect on each part of the image.

It’s clear that the Denoise / Sharpening processes are interesting topics. With only 22K followers, Scott’s video’s gets +360K views.

What is interesting in your video Steve is that it shows that the recent improvements introduced by Adobe in LR make it possible to simply reduce noise (with excellent results) and that it can be applied using masking, all without leaving LR.

Well done Adobe and well done @Steve

 

[Steve]

@Steve

Thank you for the video.

In the denoise process, distinguishing between the subject and the background, or between multiple parts of the picture, is not new.
... what you mention in “I've not seen anyone else do and I'm not saying that I'm the only one that does it I'm sure other people do I just haven't seen it maybe ».

In this video I was specifically talking about Lightroom. As anyone who purchased my (so old it's now discontinued) Noise Reduction Video Workshop can tell you, I've been using selective masking for years in Photoshop for noise reduction and selective sharpening. In fact, my series was talking about the technique years before that video came out.

I'm sure that's why I started doing it in Lightroom when its Denoise option came out - it's an old habit What I was saying in the video is that I hadn't seen anyone using masking with the Denoise option in Lightroom before and I hadn't noticed anyone using things like the sharpen and texture sliders to reduce background noise.

 

[Dave Douglass]

Post some…

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.

I really like how it works. These are fresh samples