I have a friend who has been after me to give DXO a try. I guess I should
Topaz DeNoiseAI and SharpenerAI on the way out!
- Thread starter Karl Gillard
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I have several of the programs for RAW import and denoise. At this point in time, I prefer PureRaw 4 for wildlife images. With high resolution sensors and good glass the rendering of fur and feather details looks a little better to me (Z9 and 400 TC lens) For portrait type worrk I use Topaz Photo AI (not Auto Pilot) I seems to do a little better rendering skin details. Adobe LR denoise does just as good for skin details as Topaz. The only reason I do not use it is processing speed. My graphics card is not as up to date as my main board and it seems to be a bottleneck. I have heard good things about Capture 1 but have no personal experience. ANy one of hte programs is a vast improvement over the best available 2 years ago.
Last edited:
TonyB
Active member
I’ve been using Topaz Photo AI since it was released. They have issues with supporting new cameras and lenses as they rely on open source projects for that support (Libraw and Lensfun). It has been an up/down experience where they break the product with an incremental release only having to fix the issue in a future release. The product has also suffered from wonky UI changes, strange artifacts, checkerboard patters and performance issues. Eventually, Topaz has corrected all/most of these and when it works, it does a really good job.
My real issue with them is their business practices and constantly changing their maintenance/update pricing. Since moving to an annual fee for updates, the terms and prices have changed 3 or 4 times, and always more expensive to the customer, now to the point that I’m not sure the price is worth the product. Come Black Friday, I’ll be saying Hello to DXO (Pure Raw 4) and if I like it, I won’t be renewing Topaz come February.
My real issue with them is their business practices and constantly changing their maintenance/update pricing. Since moving to an annual fee for updates, the terms and prices have changed 3 or 4 times, and always more expensive to the customer, now to the point that I’m not sure the price is worth the product. Come Black Friday, I’ll be saying Hello to DXO (Pure Raw 4) and if I like it, I won’t be renewing Topaz come February.
Dxo pure raw 4 is great
I use Sharpen AI (selectively) and DeNoise AI and like both of them and their results pretty well. An expert I know says she now likes the new Photoshop 2025 ACR for denoise. For those of you that say you use Gigapixel a lot, I’m new to it and wondering how big are the files you’re getting and storing out of the program?
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
I used a host of Topaz products for years, but stopped using their DeNoise and Sharpen a long time ago.
When Adobe enhanced their DeNoise, I compared it along with DXO Pure Raw and Adobe won... and I already pay for it, so it's a win/win.
I keep Gigapixel only because the Adobe Super Resolution (another Enhance function that works directly from RAW) only does double size (not x3 and above), but I haven't actually needed that (more than x2) in the past couple of years.
If I had to rebuild this machine and re-install my apps, I would not restore the Topaz products.
Chris
When Adobe enhanced their DeNoise, I compared it along with DXO Pure Raw and Adobe won... and I already pay for it, so it's a win/win.
I keep Gigapixel only because the Adobe Super Resolution (another Enhance function that works directly from RAW) only does double size (not x3 and above), but I haven't actually needed that (more than x2) in the past couple of years.
If I had to rebuild this machine and re-install my apps, I would not restore the Topaz products.
Chris
TJ McG
New member
I use Photo AI very sparingly, mostly for just denoising and sharpening files like jpegs that are not raw. Recent updates have improved it. Camera Raw does a fine job of denoising raw files. I will not be updating Gigapixel which I purchased and never used because of the awful artifacts. DeNoise and Sharpen are redundant and Photo AI does those things as well as the others, so I see no need for two more hundred-dollar programs. Same with Gigapixel. Upsizing is not a big part of what I do, so between Photo AI and Photoshop, I'm good.
Last edited:
SMB
Well-known member
Surprised at how few people have responded with using LrC DeNoise. I gave up on Topaz months ago after LrC updated its noise management. I find it excellent for most of my low light/high ISO shots.
Steve has a recent video on how he uses LrC DeNoise.
Steve has a recent video on how he uses LrC DeNoise.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
For my crop-sensor Nikon RAW images, I find denoise on a Mac Studio (M1 chip, lots of memory) reasonably quick.
macwalter
Well-known member
I use both topaz and DxO pure raw. I have had good luck with the latest photo Ai from topaz on photos that are clean and not too noisy and well exposed. It is simple and fast. The sharpen options are terrible if you push them very hard. They overprocess the image in an unpleasant way so for these i go to DxO pure raw which has better algorithms. I miss the masking options from the basic stand alone plugs and have been in touch with them about these issues. I used to use topaz stand alone exclusively then a couple of years ago switched to DxO pure raw. I did wish DxO had more options to modify the results and it is a pain to compare form the basic image as it has to regenerate the preview each time. Both of these programs can over compress feather detail in a hurry so sometimes I have to set them to their lowest settings. I do feel topaz has gone to a platform aimed at easy rather than thorough but they will listen to you if you reach out to them. I have hopes they will continue to improve their software. Same goes for DxO. I haven’t found LR Denoise Ai to be any better. Just my opinion. I also will say you need to play with these plugins and not just use what they “recommend “.
I need to try it more.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
Your Sony FF images (you use Sony, right?) are bigger. I just timed it again. From the time I hit the enhance in LR (so I've picked the denoise level, etc) it's about 15 seconds to finish. That implies a 40+ megapixel image will take 30 or more seconds. That is with the M1 max chip. 15 seconds is okay with me, since I'm only denoising a minor subset of the images. And although that does create a DNG file, you aren't spending any clock time bringing up another program.
RGS
Well-known member
I agree with you - Sharpen seems to fail more often than not, but DeNoise and Gigapixel are great. I've had the same conversation with Topaz. To their credit, they upgraded my Gigapixel to the latest version without charge. I, too, will continue to use them until they no longer work - or something else proves to be better.
macwalter
Well-known member
I liked to use sharpen to do things like bring a pet of the bird in better focus, say the head for instance when the shot is good but the hear is slightly out of focus. This can sometimes save a shot from the trash bin. Not often but once in a while. The masking options on these individual plugins give them the edge for me. It’s mush easier than the brush tool in the new version and you could dial in the amount, it didn’t have to be 100%.
I've used Topaz for ages. Had no idea Denoise and Sharpen were on the way out. I've found denoise to be just fine after I've done some other work in Photoshop. I've used some of their more far-out image modifications, and enjoy them. I tried their Photo AI and found it totally weird. I guess I'll keep Topaz for a while, but I started a trial of Nik collection and really like it. I tried DXO Pure Raw, and since I only use Photoshop , not Lightroom, I found it awkward and difficult to operate, nor did it seem all that good. Admit I didn't try to use it much....but don't want to pay for it either.
I will definitely give it a try when I get back in there. I wish they would get it right and not have to use any plugins
macwalter
Well-known member
I use DxO from LR and it takes a bit of time to process. It does do a better job on nasty photos than photo Ai but sometimes I just Denoise with photo Ai with no sharpen and it can do an ok job but often it robs too much feather detail. Then I tend to go to ps and on a separate layer Denoise the image with the standalone and can either mask in the standalone or in PS using the layer to try and preserve more detail. I do this less often these days. I just toss these shots.
Some time ago used DXO and Topaz. Now if i need any noise reduction beyond what I can do in camera I use Light Room Classic DeNoise AI
macwalter
Well-known member
I have tried LR Denoise but it does not offer enough control for me. I never process anything in camera. The software out there today in post is way superior and to try and do something critical like denoising a photo on a 3 inch camera screen would be difficult at best. I guess for wide angle shots you could get away with it but I would never consider it for wildlife. That just my opinion. None are perfect which is why I use more than one.
macwalter
Well-known member
Another thing I sometimes do is use the blur tool in LR or ACR to Denoise the background where the apps miss stuff close in around the subject. It can be tricky but the newer versions are better. I just flick it on and off to looks for things it has processed that you dont want. I do this especially when I need to use less denoising on a noisier photo where I need to use less on the photo to preserve critical detail on the subject. Also selecting various areas in LR to process in different ways can work well but sometimes the photo is very complex and the blur tool can smooth out the background better.
I do not process in the camera after the image is taken. When I say doing in camera it is the settings for things like high iso noise reduction dialed in before the photo is taken. Then if you use NX studio all the in camera settings are applied, if you shot in jpg same or if you have LRC apply the camera settings high iso nr is one of the camera settings along with the adjustments made in the picture control that are applied.
macwalter
Well-known member
I avoid all that stuff so I can’t make a comment. I always shoot in raw and go straight into LR then edit from there. I’m sure there are other ways to do things especially if one needs stuff fast. I rarely do.
I also shoot in Raw ... I want to get as much done in camera as possible, especially in those areas that LRC thinks of as camera settings and imports as is. It makes time on the computer much simpler and shorter especially for a bird ID photographer with hundreds to thousands of images from a birding outing sitll left after initial culling with Photo Mechanics.
If you want to see what your images look like according to your camera you should open them first in the camera makers software. That is Nikons NX Studio for me. Some pros who sell a lot use only their cameras makers software. My wife uses only NX Studio, I occasionally if time is of the essence open images in NX Studio and export jpgs in the size I need for the recipient.
LRC cataloging and the key word structure I can use is very important to me. Being on the move as well as birds popping up unexpedtedly in all lighting and conditions bird ID photography is beyhond my ability to get it right in camera a lot so I use LRC 98 % of the time.
macwalter
Well-known member
I like you have so many photos from near 20 years of wildlife photography. There are shoots I still haven’t gotten to. For me it’s simple to not spend time in camera and than have to go through more than one photo edit platform. I realize that Capture one or DxO may give you a better raw file to start but I live in the Adobe world for good or bad. I can go out and shoot several thousand photos and come home download them go have dinner come back and go through them pretty quickly and in many cases just enjoy the process. I like post processing and do not do this for a living. My guitar does that so for me so it’s a release and a way to still be creative. Ido periodically take a Quick Look in camera but don’t spend much time there. I have never cared for Nikon NX but that’s just me. I’ve been using LR since version 2 or 3 and am comfortable in its use. Maybe if Adobe raises the cost of the subscription I might think otherwise. I hear you about having to adapt to changing conditions. That’s part of the fun after all. I love a challenge and strive for excellence in all I do. That’s why I love the z8 and not an iPhone.