Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: PeterAit on July 04, 2025, 02:02:38 pm
-
I am developing the healthy dislike for the latest denoise implementation. Not the results, which are just as good as always, but the interface in LR. No more quick preview that made it easy to decide before committing to a 20-30 second process. And having no separate output file is a flaw IMO. No disk space is saved as I understand the pixel data are saved elsewhere, just not as a LR-accessible form.
-
. . . having no separate output file is a flaw IMO. No disk space is saved as I understand the pixel data are saved elsewhere, just not as a LR-accessible form.
I'm inclined to disagree. I don't suspect Adobe's primary motivation was to save disk space: mass storage is inexpensive these days. But preserving an end-to-end raw workflow is a win from my perspective. Not only being able to revisit the amount of noise reduction, but also the ability to take advantage of future improvements in the entire image-processing pipeline without having to recreate intermediate files.
-
Biggest problem IMO is that LRC keeps the Denoise window open when processing any number of files and this locks you out of LRC until done. Not too bad for a single or few files but if I want to process 50 or so then I'm out for 25 mins. Previous version would close the window and you could continue work on LRC and monitor on the progress bar.
-
It requires a high end graphics card to do it faster.
-
Does this new workflow needs you to use and keep the catalogue?
-
Does this new workflow needs you to use and keep the catalogue?
There is no workflow in LRC without a catalog.
-
Well I use it as such- and it works for me.
I don't want to be a hostage of LR that tells me how to move my photos around.
I have the finder for that.
There are better and more easy ways to keep track of your photos.
I have 17 archive Harddisks and can find anything with Neofinder.
25€ no subscription
-
Well I use it as such- and it works for me.
You use LRC without a catalog; how?
Maybe you wish to clarify:
Does this new workflow needs you to use and keep the catalogue?
-
You use LRC without a catalog; how?
Maybe you wish to clarify:
My guess is that he has a catalog, as he must, but does not knowingly use it for anything. But it is beyond me how you can develop or even view a photo without selecting it in the catalog.
-
At first I also did not like the new implementation of Denoise. However I have grown to prefer it. You can now copy the Denoise setting to multiple raw files (for example a focus stack) I don’t remember that being possible and instead you had to create a new dng for each image you wanted to use Denoise on. You have a slider after the process has run so you still can alter the output. I prefer this over the previous. I also like not having a separate dng image for each implementation of Denoise but I agree that for others it would be nice if Adobe added a checkbox to allow creation of the dng. One other note on my old M1 MacBook Pro it seems to run faster.
Paul
-
I also like not having a separate dng image for each implementation of Denoise but I agree that for others it would be nice if Adobe added a checkbox to allow creation of the dng.
Is there a particular reason you want to work on a rendered version of the image rather than the raw file? If not, making a virtual copy and applying Denoise to it would allow you to keep the original and denoised versions logically separate without creating an additional file.
-
The "Problem" with VCs is that they are proprietary within the catalog and do not really exist. If your catalog goes belly up, so do your VCs. I don't care about storage space, it is cheap. I care more about my data, which is why I'll often export a VC as a DNG, a real document I can backup in multiple locations and have access to OUTSIDE the catalog.
-
Is there a particular reason you want to work on a rendered version of the image rather than the raw file? If not, making a virtual copy and applying Denoise to it would allow you to keep the original and denoised versions logically separate without creating an additional file.
Not sure how to answer this I guess our workflows are different as noise reduction is usually part of the workflow. I don’t see how the Denoise process has rendered anything more than any other tool in Lr. It’s still a raw file till you export it or chose to edit it in Photoshop at least I believe it is. And there is a check box to just turn it off.
Paul
-
You use LRC without a catalog; how?
Maybe you wish to clarify:
Well OK, I have a temporal catalog that i throw away ever now and then: I use LR stricktly to develop a load of images. The catalog i do not use as such.
I have better / more flexiable ways to find my images.
now I can just dump the NR DNG's to the trash after i have developed my photos. I only keep the original raw files with the xmp.
my question is : with the new way of dealing with NR do I need to Keep the catalogue?
If yes, I wil have to turn to an other NR.
-
now I can just dump the NR DNG's to the trash after i have developed my photos. I only keep the original raw files with the xmp.
my question is : with the new way of dealing with NR do I need to Keep the catalogue?
The denoise information is stored in the xmp as a very large chuck of unreadable data (binary) with the tag "Table". You don't need to keep the catalogue, although your process is quite unorthodox.
I'm wondering why you don't use ACR instead.
I'm not sure what you mean by "now I can just dump the NR DNG's to the trash after I have developed my photos". The new process does not generate DNG's
-
Well OK, I have a temporal catalog that i throw away ever now and then: .
Yes you use and can only use LRC with a catalog.
-
…although your process is quite unorthodox.
I'm wondering why you don't use ACR instead.
Yes! And +1!
-
I don’t see how the Denoise process has rendered anything more than any other tool in Lr. It’s still a raw file till you export it or chose to edit it in Photoshop at least I believe it is.
On reflection, I shouldn't have used the word "rendered." The file produced by the previous implementation of Denoise was a scene-referred linear DNG: demosaiced, but without color, tonal, or gamma corrections applied. So for subsequent post-processing, it was mostly possible to treat it as a raw file.
The advantage of that approach is the one Andrew pointed out earlier in this thread. The derivative file was independent of the Lightroom catalog. It could be backed-up separately from the raw file—and optionally edited in a program other than Lightroom without losing any Lightroom adjustments that had been applied before it was created.
The advantage of the current approach is that it preserves the functionality of a raw workflow. All the edits performed in Lightroom are recorded in the catalog data and can be retrospectively modified—at the expense of a little catalog bloat.
Disclaimer: I have no information about the internals of Adobe software so what follows is conjecture.
It seems that some and possibly all of the Lightroom functions that are based on machine-learning are performed on a demosaiced file. The demosaiced data may be stored in an independent linear DNG or in the Lightroom catalog. I suspect the reason Adobe changed the behavior of Denoise, Raw Details, and Super Resolution was that storing the information for those modifications in the catalog was consistent with the "non-destructive" Lightroom design philosophy of using a database for a list of edits while leaving the raw file untouched. The illusion of a pure raw workflow isn't perfect, however, since in the current version of Lightroom, you can't apply Super Resolution after Denoise or vice-versa.
-
On reflection, I shouldn't have used the word "rendered." The file produced by the previous implementation of Denoise was a scene-referred linear DNG: demosaiced, but without color, tonal, or gamma corrections applied. So for subsequent post-processing, it was mostly possible to treat it as a raw file.
The advantage of that approach is the one Andrew pointed out earlier in this thread. The derivative file was independent of the Lightroom catalog. It could be backed-up separately from the raw file—and optionally edited in a program other than Lightroom without losing any Lightroom adjustments that had been applied before it was created.
The advantage of the current approach is that it preserves the functionality of a raw workflow. All the edits performed in Lightroom are recorded in the catalog data and can be retrospectively modified—at the expense of a little catalog bloat.
Disclaimer: I have no information about the internals of Adobe software so what follows is conjecture.
It seems that some and possibly all of the Lightroom functions that are based on machine-learning are performed on a demosaiced file. The demosaiced data may be stored in an independent linear DNG or in the Lightroom catalog. I suspect the reason Adobe changed the behavior of Denoise, Raw Details, and Super Resolution was that storing the information for those modifications in the catalog was consistent with the "non-destructive" Lightroom design philosophy of using a database for a list of edits while leaving the raw file untouched. The illusion of a pure raw workflow isn't perfect, however, since in the current version of Lightroom, you can't apply Super Resolution after Denoise or vice-versa.
Another question comes to mind. The new denoise does not create a DNG but saves its results as unreadable digital information elsewhere. It takes about 5-6 sec for me. If you then change the denoise slider, the change happens instantly. How does this work?
-
Another question comes to mind. The new denoise does not create a DNG but saves its results as unreadable digital information elsewhere. It takes about 5-6 sec for me. If you then change the denoise slider, the change happens instantly. How does this work?
Well, only Adobe knows.
Just my guess: it could be similar to a layer, with the maximum denoise applied. Then when you move the slider, it changes the opacity.
-
The denoise information is stored in the xmp as a very large chuck of unreadable data (binary) with the tag "Table". You don't need to keep the catalogue, although your process is quite unorthodox.
I'm wondering why you don't use ACR instead.
I'm not sure what you mean by "now I can just dump the NR DNG's to the trash after I have developed my photos". The new process does not generate DNG's
thank you for the answer:
is this new enormous chunk called 'Table' as large as the previous DNG file that was rendered with NR on? so say 100MB for one 50MB original Raw file? makes 150 MB total?
PS I work with LR instead of ACR because it is easier to handle say 100 files at a time. And it works a bit differently: faster. I use the cataogue at that point to filter lenses and ASA etc.
After lightroom i go to photoshop to do additional editting and the endpoint is a large layered PSB file.
-
I just tested with a few images and the size depends on the content. For example 36MPx NEF, original file about 40MP. I got xmp files from 16MP to 38MP.
What seems to be a better option is to export as DNG. Instead of 40MP + 38MP for NEF + xmp, I get 61MP for the DNG, which includes de denoise information. These DNGs are undemosaiced, so they are considerably smaller than the Linear DNG generated in the previous version.
-
thanks again,
I cannot use the latest and am stuck on Monterey ,
my question is now: can you reverse the NR ( like i could throw away the DNG) or is it final?
The idea is that in a few Years NR will be better and AI has grown up)
Topaz has an interesting development : they say bring your file here to our servers and we do the NR for you:
much better and faster for we have supercomputers.
an other idea is that you can say this area contains little faces so AI knows that they should not be turned into little monsters as is happening at the moment.
-
thanks again,
I cannot use the latest and am stuck on Monterey ,
my question is now: can you reverse the NR ( like i could throw away the DNG) or is it final?
Just uncheck the denoise box and you are back to the original.
-
Just uncheck the denoise box and you are back to the original.
Yes, but it will not delete the denoise data in the catalogue.
-
Yes, but it will not delete the denoise data in the catalogue.
So? Storage is cheap.
-
So? Storage is cheap.
Good luck with a LR catalogue in the order of TB
-
Good luck with a LR catalogue in the order of TB
I've got TBs of image data, why should I worry about the catalog and need 'luck"?
You know, I could wipe History and save space. But I want that data too.
A great way to save space would be to convert all my raws to JPEG; I'm not doing that either.
My first HD was 48MB and cost $1000. Today, storage is cheap.
-
I stand corrected. Lightroom does not store the denoise data in the catalogue. The catalogue does not increase its size by denoising images.
It creates blob (bynary large object) files for each image in the folder <catalogue name>.lrcat-data
The name of the blob files does not relate directly with the images
When you delete history steps, these blob files don't get deleted.
If you delete or lose the blob files, Lightrooms issues a warning and you can recreate them.
-
So, you store an original Raw file with a huge XMP file that contains the NR-part called "Table". The catalogue remains the same.
That 'Table Part" part: will it be a pure waste of space when a future better NR arrives? ( next year probably)
Do we get an added 'table 2" or will it be updated?
Anyway for the way i work it is a pure waste of space anyway for I only want the develop data to be saved separate from the original raw file.
Maybe with a program like BBedit you can batch trash the 'Table part" but it is more work.
Now I just say "find .DNG" and throw them in the Trash
-
That 'Table Part" part: will it be a pure waste of space when a future better NR arrives? ( next year probably)
Good thing you added that question mark.
Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don't know.
-
Good thing you added that question mark.
Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don't know.
Those who are cynical ... write cynical
-
Those who are cynical ... write cynical
In the absence of substantiating evidence, pundits resort to absurdity.
That 'Table Part" part: will it be a pure waste of space when a future better NR arrives? ( next year probably)
-
After using this implementation now for a while I prefer it. Easy to uncheck the box if you don’t want it and you can now copy Denoise setting to other images. So for focus bracketing and exposure bracketing it a plus.
Paul
-
I've got TBs of image data, why should I worry about the catalog and need 'luck"?
You know, I could wipe History and save space. But I want that data too.
A great way to save space would be to convert all my raws to JPEG; I'm not doing that either.
My first HD was 48MB and cost $1000. Today, storage is cheap.
Ah, I must be a bit older than you. My first HD was a 10MB disk in days when I used floppy disks on an early IBM PC. Photoshop and the concept of serious digital photography was a pipe dream and all of my work then was on MS Word or Wordstar and documents were measured in a few KBs (anyone remember those?). It probably cost me about the same as your disk and I remember thinking that 10MB should last me a lifetime. Now a single tiff from a Hasselblad X2d comes in at 600MB. I store most recent work on ssds and backup and archive on HDs. I just bought 2 8 TB Seagate drives for less than £120 each. How times have changed.
-
You must be older; my first HD was 44MB and cost $988.00. But I had to share that space with my wife.
-
Respectfully to anyone that disagrees with me. Why is $9.95 a month such a road block for Lightroom and Photoshop combined?
When the average skilled photographer has between $10,000 and $20,000 worth of equipment.
I may be the odd bird but that pittance is the best investment you could ever imagine.
-
Ah, I must be a bit older than you. My first HD was a 10MB disk in days when I used floppy disks on an early IBM PC.
Luxury (said in a Yorkshire accent: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE). Mine held 5MB, connected to a Mac Plus. Huge thing it was, but so much better than endlessly swapping floppy disks.
Ah, nostalgia. Not what it used to be.
Jeremy
-
Respectfully to anyone that disagrees with me. Why is $9.95 a month such a road block for Lightroom and Photoshop combined?
When the average skilled photographer has between $10,000 and $20,000 worth of equipment.
I may be the odd bird but that pittance is the best investment you could ever imagine.
I agree 100%. It is the best deal in photography, IMO.
I recall back when Adobe was first changing to subscriptions, there were some real doom-and-gloomers here on LULA predicting all sorts of drastic price hikes and other nastiness.
-
Luxury (said in a Yorkshire accent: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE). Mine held 5MB, connected to a Mac Plus. Huge thing it was, but so much better than endlessly swapping floppy disks.
Ah, nostalgia. Not what it used to be.
Jeremy
;D ON
My old RK04 drive was the best ! Fast and removable hard platter .
;D OFF
Cheers !