Lightroom 12.3 - Denoise is there

[StephaneB]

Well, as DigitalDog implied in another thread, Adobe added an AI-based demoise feature in the Enhance photo. It generates a DNG with both Denoise and Raw details applied. You can tune the intensity of Denoise.

Inevitably I had to compare with DXO PureRaw 3, for Which I still have 8 days in the trial period.

Even without touching DeepPrimeXD, just with deepPrime, the results I see after just a few pictures are that with some photos it can be very close after adding sharpening to the Denoise, but in most cases PureRaw DeepPrime is clearly better. I mean, much better. Better details, better contrast, good sharpness. In those cases, sharpening in LR does not uncover the extra details DXO brings.

DeepPrimeXD leaves no chance to LightRoom.

PureRaw is much faster but the workflow is not as well integrated, with PureRaw creating a DXO subfolder instead of putting the DNG in the same folder as the original and stacking them together, which I would prefer.

DXO really did something extraordinary in my opinion.

Regarding the difference in details it is only in higher ISO, pretty noisy photos, like ISO 3200 with a D800. With less noisy images, like ISO 400 on a D850, there is by default more detail in the DXO conversion, but tuning the sharpening in LR brings the same levels of details as DXO.

Is the difference worth 129€? Well, when I see what people (me included) sometimes spend extra on lenses for much less visible differences, I'd say yes.

Edit: I have since tried yet other pictures and it is not as clear cut.

[digitaldog]

As someone who's tested this for months and someone who purchased a license to DxO PureRAW2, I will not be upgrading to version 3.

Also necessary at this point to put out: high ISO doesn't cause noise (sometimes it does the opposite). Underexposure does.

[StephaneB]

As someone who's tested this for months and someone who purchased a license to DxO PureRAW2, I will not be upgrading to version 3.

If I had version 2 I probably wouldn't either. It is just that on some pictures XD increases the difference between Adobe's Denoise and PureRaw. I would be considering PureRaw whether it had XD or not.

I expected Adobe to be closer to DXO.

[Rand47]

I agree.  DXO has done something really extraordinary w/ Pure Raw, and V3 Deep Prime XD is truly remarkable.  Thanks for the comparison.  I’ll be doing my own testing later today, but your example shows a pretty dramatic advantage for DXO.  One of the things that’s too rarely commented upon re DXO Pure Raw is that it’s way more than an excellent noise reduction tool.  Its ability to extract better detail from the raw file than does LrC is a significant thing.  And their sharpening and lens correction modules are superb as well.  The price for this is time.  With files from my GFX 100, DXO can be painfully slow to render and unsuitable to use on “everything.”  It is reserved for “keeper” images that will be printed, and usually printed large.

I’m more excited about the curves panel for masks in LrC 12.3.  This is a powerful enhancement.  As I learn more combinatorial uses of “intersect with” in masks, my round tripping to Photoshop is diminishing.  Curves for masks will further this trend.  😎 

Adobe has really lived up to their promise to keep developing LrC and rolling out updates as improvements are made.  Even though I wasn’t a big fan of the subscription model, I have to say that as a “value proposition” the Adobe Photographer’s bundle is really a bargain.   Couldn’t be happier. 

Rand 

[gazwas]

Thanks @StephaneB for the example.

Not updated to LR 12.3 yet, but in your above example is this result typical of DeepPrimeXD?

Has done a better job of NR for sure but at the expense of all they wierdness in the background and hyped sharpening and over contrast edges almost like a PS paint/sketch filter.

I much prefer the more realistic LR result here.

[StephaneB]

Has done a better job of NR for sure but at the expense of all they wierdness in the background and hyped sharpening and over contrast edges almost like a PS paint/sketch filter.

I much prefer the more realistic LR result here.

Firstly, keep in mind this is a 100% view. Full screen is better with DXO in my opinion.

Secondly, this is after further sharpening in LR, just to see how it behaved.

Default sharpening in DXO is pretty well juged. Furthermore, you can apply negative clarity in LR to tone it down globally and put it back locally with masks.

I find the Adobe Denoise version does not give you as many options because it does not react well to sharpening., contrarily to the DXO result.

[digitaldog]

Firstly, keep in mind this is a 100% view. Full screen is better with DXO in my opinion.

The only accurate way to view the processing is at 1:1 or greater (100% +) and in Develop module. All other zoom ratios (zooming out) are subsampled and not an appropriate way to view NR or sharpening.

[John Hollenberg]

I tested with an image I took last week of the Victoria Crested Pigeon at the San Diego Wildlife Park (AKA part of San Diego Zoo).  Taken with Canon 5DSr and Canon 100-400mm L IS II at 400 mm and ISO 3200.  Here is a view comparing Adobe Enhanced NR with DXO Pure Raw 2 at 100% pixels.  I prefer the Adobe version which looks much more natural to me; the DXO version is oversharpened in this area.

[StephaneB]

I processed other pictures; with better original sharpness and less noise (D850 at 1600) and there I too preferred the Adobe result. In comparison the DXO processing indeed appears to oversharpen.

On the attached example, I could not find a difference between DeepPrime and DeepPrimeXD.

[mcbroomf]

https://jkost.com/blog/2023/04/denoise-masking-and-edit-in-photoshop-updates-in-lightroom-classic-v12-3.html

[John Hollenberg]

Here is a comparison of a portion of the pigeon's crest at 100% showing the image before noise reduction and after Adobe Noise Reduction.  The background is very clean with minimal if any loss of sharpness in the subject.  In my opinion Adobe hit it out of the park with this feature.

[digitaldog]

https://jkost.com/blog/2023/04/denoise-masking-and-edit-in-photoshop-updates-in-lightroom-classic-v12-3.html

One recommendation she makes that is rather important and was expressed by Adobe engineering to testers: "I would suggest that you apply Denoise early in your workflow"

[Rhossydd]

I've spent quite a few hours now trying the new NR feature and it's really good.

Comparisons to the DXO conversions are complicated by the addition of their optical corrections, which are sometimes better than the ones in LR. I think DXO PL still has something to offer for some cameras/lenses to get the maximum quality output.

For LR users the convenience of keeping NR 'in house' is huge. On my W10 system processing a file is twice as quick as passing it through DXO PL5.

It's not perfect though;
First LR crash for three years. Maybe a one off and might not be repeated but...
Not sure that the 200% preview is as helpful as a 100% one.
A shame there doesn't seem to be any way of finding out what settings were used for NR in the final DNG or in the export history of the master file.
Annoying there can't be a full size preview option, even if it did take a while.
Curious that the DNG file sizes can be a lot bigger than DXO's DNGs.

[Chris Kern]

One recommendation she makes that is rather important and was expressed by Adobe engineering to testers: "I would suggest that you apply Denoise early in your workflow"

That was also mentioned in Eric Chan's Adobe Blog post, which includes numerous examples and some descriptive information about the technology.

The new Lightroom Denoise feature only works on raw files from Bayer and X-Trans sensors.  And based on what Eric writes, I infer that the neural network was trained specifically to reduce sensor noise, and not deal with other types of speckles.  I'm hoping future enhancements will include rendered files and different defects, such as the dust and scratches that afflict scanned negatives.  The weblog post seems to suggest that work in those directions is taking place.

Denoise is our third Enhance feature. We’re proud of what it can do today, but we’re already looking ahead to make it even better. For instance, we have some ideas on how to use additional training data to improve resolution. We’d like to support additional file formats and combine Denoise with Super Resolution. We’re even looking into ways to speed up the workflow by not needing to make a new DNG file.

I also license, use, and am favorably impressed with DxO PureRaw, but my preference is to perform as much post-processing as possible in Lightroom without invoking additional, external programs unless doing so results in a distinct improvement in image quality that is visible in a normal viewing environment.

[bobtrlin]

I processed other pictures; with better original sharpness and less noise (D850 at 1600) and there I too preferred the Adobe result. In comparison the DXO processing indeed appears to oversharpen.

On the attached example, I could not find a difference between DeepPrime and DeepPrimeXD.

On the images shown, I agree.  The feather detail on the DxO version, looks like wires.  However, I guess, a lot has to do with settings.  We need to see more.  Of course, having it all in the one package is a workflow advantage that can't be dismissed.

[Jonathan Cross]

Have just tried Denoise and am impressed. Julianne Kost’s tutorial is good. Updates to LR these days make it worth the subscription IMHO.

Jonathan

[John Hollenberg]

I tried another photo of Ranunculus from The Flower Fields in Carlsbad taken with Canon 5DSr and 100-400mm lens.  This one at 150mm and ISO 400.  In this case Pure Raw 2 extracts more detail than Adobe LR with no  significant artifacts.  I prefer the Pure Raw 2 image here.  Can't post the 100% comparison view due to restrictions on total uploads to a thread, but you can see the image here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qdqhz5zt1mmg3fi/Flower%20Denoise%20Comparison.jpg?dl=0

[gazwas]

I tried another photo of Ranunculus from The Flower Fields in Carlsbad taken with Canon 5DSr and 100-400mm lens.  This one at 150mm and ISO 400.  In this case Pure Raw 2 extracts more detail than Adobe LR with no  significant artifacts.  I prefer the Pure Raw 2 image here.  Can't post the 100% comparison view due to restrictions on total uploads to a thread, but you can see the image here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qdqhz5zt1mmg3fi/Flower%20Denoise%20Comparison.jpg?dl=0

Each to their own I suppose but all the images posted here from the DXO product look way too hyped and completely digital. Almost like an in camera JPEG from 10 years ago.

If the only goal is more sharpness, then DXO knocks it out of the park but at the expense of everything else. I personally much prefer the subtlety of the LR images to the digital looking DXO. 

[mcbroomf]

I tried another photo of Ranunculus from The Flower Fields in Carlsbad taken with Canon 5DSr and 100-400mm lens.  This one at 150mm and ISO 400.  In this case Pure Raw 2 extracts more detail than Adobe LR with no  significant artifacts.  I prefer the Pure Raw 2 image here.  Can't post the 100% comparison view due to restrictions on total uploads to a thread, but you can see the image here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qdqhz5zt1mmg3fi/Flower%20Denoise%20Comparison.jpg?dl=0

Is it really extracting more detail or is it sharpening more than Ai Denoise?  None of us know what's under the hood but I'd compare them at equivalent NR and sharpening (with the Detail panel).

[Rhossydd]

Is it really extracting more detail or is it sharpening more than Ai Denoise?

Or is it created by machine learning ?

How much would that matter if the results look good ?

(Maybe a it would matter in a few niche specialisations)