Topaz Photo AI Noise Reduction Example

[Viathelens]

It's crazy these days how easy it is to remove noise from some images. I use Topaz products for the most part for this, although I also use LrC denoise. This image was shot in a darkened tree area, the subject is the bark on a madrone tree. I was shooting upward into the darkness and the ISO was 25,600. I used Topaz Photo AI Raw noise removal, not the option to create a TIF. For this kind of subject the noise removal worked beautifully. Depending on the circumstances, of course, we no longer have to worry as we once did about noise in low light images.

25,600 ISO Original Image first, then edited image second.

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

 

[Nimi]

To my eye on this phone, many of these look overly processed.

 

[Charles Loy]

Pleased you are pleased, and agree it looks so much better for a fact.
I've not bought into that, years past I enjoyed other Topaz stuff but have been passing on the newer -

 

[Viathelens]

To my eye on this phone, many of these look overly processed.

Interesting response, "many" actually only means two...what would be "over processed" in your opinion? I'm interested in hearing the details. The image was posted more for the effects of using Topaz Photo AI than it was for commenting on processing but it could be an interesting discussion.

 

[Nimi]

Interesting response, "many" actually only means two...what would be "over processed" in your opinion? I'm interested in hearing the details. The image was posted more for the effects of using Topaz Photo AI than it was for commenting on processing but it could be an interesting discussion.

It was a general comment on many of the photos I see with Topaz or with the in-camera noise reduction algos in especially the MFT and cell-phone sensors. Too soft/creamy to my eye on my phone. Same for sharpening, btw.

 

[Viathelens]

It was a general comment on many of the photos I see with Topaz or with the in-camera noise reduction algos in especially the MFT and cell-phone sensors. Too soft/creamy to my eye on my phone. Same for sharpening, btw.

As with any shot, some of the blame for softness falls on the shooter...in this case I was holding a longer lens, leaning against a tree, and pointing the lens up so the image itself is somewhat soft. Having said that, I sometimes like a soft image and I don't shoot everything for tack sharpness, as one might do with a portrait shot. So, I could be to blame for a lack of technical skill in both the shooting and the processing. I do think there is a difference in the images from a mirrorless camera, but I find that the images are, in general, sharper and crisper. I also think there are so many variations in how one shoots, what the settings and situations are, that it could be difficult to determine what might be at fault for a look you call over-processed. I tend to experiment a lot so I could be guilty of a lot of mistakes! But, I still think that the software has come a long way, which is what the post was about, to take the noise out of images, especially the color noise that is evident in mirrorless images, and it can work well in many cases. In the image below the ISO was 12,800. The edited image looks exactly like the original image except for processing so perhaps it's a better indicator of the possibility with denoise products, in this shot I used the LrC denoise option. It is a quickly changing photography world that we live in today and sometimes it takes awhile to get it right as we learn how to navigate the new software. Your comment did make me look harder at the software so 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.

 

[Nimi]

As with any shot, some of the blame for softness falls on the shooter...in this case I was holding a longer lens, leaning against a tree, and pointing the lens up so the image itself is somewhat soft. Having said that, I sometimes like a soft image and I don't shoot everything for tack sharpness, as one might do with a portrait shot. So, I could be to blame for a lack of technical skill in both the shooting and the processing. I do think there is a difference in the images from a mirrorless camera, but I find that the images are, in general, sharper and crisper. I also think there are so many variations in how one shoots, what the settings and situations are, that it could be difficult to determine what might be at fault for a look you call over-processed. I tend to experiment a lot so I could be guilty of a lot of mistakes! But, I still think that the software has come a long way, which is what the post was about, to take the noise out of images, especially the color noise that is evident in mirrorless images, and it can work well in many cases. In the image below the ISO was 12,800. The edited image looks exactly like the original image except for processing so perhaps it's a better indicator of the possibility with denoise products, in this shot I used the LrC denoise option. It is a quickly changing photography world that we live in today and sometimes it takes awhile to get it right as we learn how to navigate the new software. Your comment did make me look harder at the software so thanks.

View attachment 70780View attachment 70781

We dont disagree!

Like you, I have sharp, clinically-perfect set ups and the latest software. But I yearn (as do all my clients) for an organic look, flare, imperfections, etc. When I sit down to edit I have to remind myself not to push the sliders all the way to the right and worry more about composition and "story." There is a saying in the custom-bike world: modifying a bike is like drinking cheap tequila; you got to know when to stop.

More than half my work is video, which is even harder because clients, especially agencies, compare the footage to cinema which by definition doesn't have a clinical look and there is an entire industry of lenses, sensors, filters, and sfx that's dedicated making digital output similar to film. Those means are crazy expensive, so depending on the project I sometime forgo the new lenses and use 20 and 30 year old Nikkor Ai-S lenses, then use film emulation software on top of that (FilmConvert is my choice).

 

[RichF]

I have found that I can save high iso shots. Amazing how well the software works. Fav is dxopure raw

 

[flashpixx]

Both Topaz PhotoAI and LRC Denoise are amazing tech!
Just for now I've settled on a release of PhotoAI and wont be updating every week as I find the output from the denoise and sharpen models change with each release.
Back with v.1.5 I used the RAW model with great success, but with the release of 2.x.x. the LRC plug in works better.
So I'm staying with 2.02 for now and just using the plug in

 

[SCoombs]

It was a general comment on many of the photos I see with Topaz or with the in-camera noise reduction algos in especially the MFT and cell-phone sensors. Too soft/creamy to my eye on my phone. Same for sharpening, btw.

I agree that most photos I see people showcasing having used Topaz have a characteristic look to them that really marks them as clearly from Topaz and which I don't think is especially good. They stick out to me and honestly don't look especially sharp. I've long wondered if Topaz doesn't per se sharpen photos as much as it does selectively blur them in a way that fools the eye into appearing sharp when viewed at a sufficiently small size.

I wouldn't say the same about photos processed in other applications, which usually look great to my eye (when well done, of coruse).

 

[RockvilleBob]

I've been using Topaz for some time. My concern with Photo AI is that I have not found a way to have it just remove noise, it seems to add sharpening or other "improvements" even if you turn of sharpening.
Ideally I would like a DXO PL Deep Prime Photoshop plug-in but the workflow using PL and Pure Raw within Photoshop seems cumbersome. It just is not as simple as a filter like Topaz Photo AI
what I've been using lately is the NIK Define filter. Seems to work well. If I get a noisy high ISO image that DEFINE doesn't handle and will probably do a DXO Deep Prime one off for that image.
I have what is likely the final version of Topaz Denoise and may see how that compares with NIK Define.
I am unlikely to renew my Topaz support plan. I see how going with just one product makes economical sense for Topaz.

 

[Mark Hauser]

I don't like Photo AI it do many things but nothing correct.
Most time i use the older DeNoise AI
There can a use my own setup and have different versions of noise reduction.

If you use Photo AI move your recover original slider to the right and minor deblur to the left
Than you have only noise reduction. Pull the recover slider step by step back till the level of denoise you can live with.

 

[RockvilleBob]

I don't like Photo AI it do many things but nothing correct.
Most time i use the older DeNoise AI
There can a use my own setup and have different versions of noise reduction.

If you use Photo AI move your recover original slider to the right and minor deblur to the left
Than you have only noise reduction. Pull the recover slider step by step back till the level of denoise you can live with.

Thanks Mark. I will try comparing the old Topaz Denoise, NIK Define and the new noise reduction in Camera Raw. All these work without (I think) adding additional enhancements.

 

[bsinc1962]

In my opinion I still find in that the "low light" setting in Topaz Denoise ai works best for furry or feathered subjects while still keeping it looking natural. If I have to add a bit more sharpening then I do that back in Lightroom.

Photo ai is just too aggressive and makes fur look "crunchy". By the time I tone down the sliders to give me the look I desire it would just be quicker to do it in Denoise to begin with.

 

[RockvilleBob]

In my opinion I still find in that the "low light" setting in Topaz Denoise ai works best for furry or feathered subjects while still keeping it looking natural. If I have to add a bit more sharpening then I do that back in Lightroom.

Photo ai is just too aggressive and makes fur look "crunchy". By the time I tone down the sliders to give me the look I desire it would just be quicker to do it in Denoise to begin with.

Thank you bsinc1962 - I will give that a try.