DXO PURE RAW 3 vs NEW LIGHTROOM Ai DENOISE - Does Raw Noise Reduction Get Any Better?

DXO PURE RAW 3 vs NEW LIGHTROOM Ai DENOISE - Does Raw Noise Reduction Get Any Better?
21:06 visual error - correction video HERE • Correction
Get DXO Pure Raw tidd.ly/4a2uEAY
Chapter Markers below - please OPEN the description box!
Patreon Members Videos & Articles: bit.ly/2SwaSZ6
Lightroom users now have epic Ai Raw noise reduction built right into the Lightroom interface - and that of Adobe Camera Raw too.
The superb DXO Pure Raw 3 is generally a great tool for denoising raw files and possibly the best raw denoise plugin available. It's a great tool to have if you use non-Adobe software such as Raw Therapee or Darktable on PC or Mac.
Lightrooms' original noise reduction was notoriously terrible, and has lead to the rise in popularity of the well-known offerings from the likes of Topaz and DXO.
BUT......
How does the new Ai Raw Denoise in Lightroom stack up against DXO's latest offering.........let's see shall we?
00:00 Introduction
03:30 The 'TEST IMAGE' Raw files ISO - 10,000 to 20,000
07:30 Setting Up the Lightroom Ai Denoise Preview panel - choosing the amount of Noise Reduction.
10:40 The Comparisons! This is what you want to see!
21:29 ERROR!!!! A TENNER or £10 A MONTH!!!! Missed that bit in the edit.
27:39 Conclusion - it's pretty much A DRAW as far as I'm concerned, and both are pretty much at "the bleeding edge" of Raw file Denoise.
==============================================================================
PLEASE help support this channel by liking, subscribing and commenting - it really does help!
Joining my Patreon Channel / andyastbury helps me even further, plus gets you access to an ever-growing amount of exclusive member's only content.
You could donate to the channel by clicking the 'Thanks' button under the video, or by PayPal at [e-mail]
Many thanks to all the people who help out already - seriously, THANK YOU ALL.

[@AndyAstbury]

At 21:29 I made an error that got missed in the edit - the Photography Package is around a £10 per MONTH, not per week as my crazy mouth said! Also, at 21:06 there is a visuals error - correction video here kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHi5gK2OhMiHoJI

[@leonkirkbride6559]

Excellent video thanks a lot for this Andy, the new LR AI denoise looks very impressive and going by your video handles the fine details very well

[@AndyAstbury]

Cheers Leon 🍻

[@dunnymonster]

I am absolutely loving this new Denoise in Lightroom. I've now tested it pretty extensively using lots of my own noisy problem images and I've been most impressed with the results. I've been a very happy Topaz Denoise user for a few years now but I've had a couple of issues that bothered me that the new Adobe LR Denoise solves. I always like to apply a linear profile to all my RAW files as my starting point. I'll next make sure my white balance is how I want it, set my black and white points and general exposure. Finally I switch off all sharpening. For mildly noisy images I then take it into Topaz Denoise via the plug-in. Once I'm happy with the Denoise result I'm back in LR with the new Tiff file and complete the rest of my post editing to taste. I'll usually just use LR's sharpening but if my image is a bit blurred or out of focus I'll send this edited Tiff file into Topaz Sharpen. So far so good. Here's my problem...my workflow is different for very noisy low light images. Here I'll take the raw file direct into Topaz Denoise's standalone app. I'll use the RAW Denoise setting as that seems to give me the best results than converting my very noisy RAW into a Tiff then sending it to Topaz via the LR plug-in. The two problems are 1) I can't apply my linear profile before or even after if I take my RAW direct into Topaz Denoise's standalone app. 2) The .DNG Topaz creates after raw renoise looks pretty bad to be honest in terms of colour. Now I can have my cake and eat it. My new workflow is apply linear profile in LR. Set WB, Black/White point and turn off all sharpening. Now I'll use LR's AI Denoise. I get very impressive results and a colour accurate .DNG file ( all be it it's huge!) which retains wide editability. I continue with the rest of my post editing on this lovely clean .DNG and just use LR's sharpening. Whilst many might winge that LR's Denoise only works on RAW files I'd say that's a positive benefit. Even Topaz works better when given a raw file than one that has been converted to tiff first ( in my humble opinion. ) So Adobe has a real winner here I believe. Topaz, On1 and DXO have some genuine competition on their hands, yes it's that good! For somebody with my workflow preferences this has answered my needs greatly. If Adobe can add more adjustment options within Denoise rather than the rudimentary zero to one hundred slider they will make it very hard to justify paying extra for 3rd party plugins.😉

[@AndyAstbury]

Hi matey, long time no hear! You know me, and what I always say about 'fine grain noise' being an asset in a lot of cases - so I urge everyone to 'take it easy' and not over-do things in the NR department! With regard to workflow, try going linear THEN denoising, and the opposite, denoise the Lightroom default, denoise, then go linear - see if it makes a difference.

[@dunnymonster]

@@AndyAstbury Well that's interesting...I did exactly as you suggested. I applied my linear profile to my RAW file first, followed by white balance, black/white points/exposure, then turned sharpening off. Then I did the Denoise which created my new DNG file. I did sharpening and moved a few sliders like clarity/texture and vibrance. Job done. Next I created a virtual copy of my original raw file. I did nothing, this time just going straight to Denoise at the same setting as previously. I've now got my second denoised .DNG. I simply synced the settings from my first DNG and copied all those settings to the second .DNG. Well, it was identical! It even let me apply the linear camera profile to this DNG file. My experience has always been that my linear profiles have never worked on anything but my original raw, if I converted it to tiff or DNG as a result of a plugin it would never give me the option later to apply the linear profile. So it seems that the .DNG file created as a result of Denoise in LR retains all the information of the original raw file 😊 It also doesn't seem to matter when you apply Adobe's Denoise either, pre sharpening seems to have no detrimental effect. It seems to me that the Denoise in LR ignores any edit sliders you've already made and goes about denoising as if it had nothing done to the raw file ( I assume it simply ignores the .xmp data ). I'm aware however that Adobe recommend doing Denoise prior to using masks and spot removal type edits which makes sense. 😁

[@AndyAstbury]

Yep, identical is what I get too! Like you, I'm thinking that Ai NR totally ignores everything you may have set on the sliders, does its thing, then re-applies whatever adjustments you put on before, and Lightrooms background adjustments. Seeing as I have no 'input' presets set (for instructional video purposes), personally, I'd apply NR first, and only on files where I judged it necessary - which, let's face it, on a lot of my long lens wildlife work, is pretty much everything. But not necessarily the same amount!

[@dunnymonster]

@@AndyAstbury Indeed, at the moment the zero to one hundred slider gives some control over how much Denoise you want to apply. I've only used the default 50% which seems to give a good compromise between good noise reduction without giving that painterly plastic look ( in which case I'd prefer to just keep it with the original noise ). If they can expand it to have the flexibility of Topaz Denoise ( allowing masking too ) then if I were Topaz I'd be very worried. Like Topaz it seems to enhance sharpness too and does a good job doing so. Before I actually used it I'll be honest and say I figured it was just Adobe's attempt at a me too function which was going to be lousy. I couldn't be more wrong, this Denoise is very good and I see very few if any of those blotchy artifacts on fine details that I often encounter with Topaz. Topaz has been my go to and I've been very happy with their products but make no mistake, Adobe has a genuine contender here for what amounts to zero investment assuming you already have creative cloud. 😉

[@dobriradev2967]

Thanks a lot for sharing Mr Andy ! Your help has been very much appreciated !! Would love to see videos of you outside in action , giving tips about birds behaviour ,camouflage , hiding whatever you believe would be significant for someone to make progress over bird photography ! Would love to see you in action !Love your work,thanks for all the help! !! Lazos , Greece !

[@AndyAstbury]

Hi Lazos, you're most welcome, and many thanks! Making videos of setting up and shooting is hard for me 'cos a. I don't have much of the extra camera gear required for the job, and b. I suffer from COPD brought on by long covid, but hey, it's my intention to try! But, what I will say here and now is this, you do NOT need fancy camo and hides 99% of the time. I always wear drab olive green myself - walking round in Real Tree stuff tends to draw attention from the public if there are any about, and THEY create a disturbance! It's all basic field craft to be honest, and the two basics are, NEVER break the horizon, and always move slowly - even when reaching for your flask of coffee! When it comes to birds, generally, the bigger they are the less they seem to care - hell, I'm wearing a high viz floatation suit! The only 'cammo' that's really worth having is a ghillie suit - but honestly, I haven't worn mine for at least 15 years! But if you fancy a combo of cammo and hide together, I'll recommend a bag hide from Kevin over at wildlifewatchingsupplies.co.uk/ - I don't use mine very often, but when needed, it works a dream.

[@dobriradev2967]

@@AndyAstbury Thanks a lot Mr.Andy , hope your COPD gets better.. i have asthma issues as well and passed covid like 4 times until today , no sense of smell until today but still lucky for not leaving me something worse ! Anyway i would love to see you in action , as well as many of your subscribers as well ! Take care mate !

[@johnsamuelmcelroy]

Thanks for doing the comparison! I don't use LR, I use Bridge and ACR, then go into PS. I already have DXO PureRaw3 so I'm in the same boat as you are. Mine was an upgrade so not the full price but I'd be perfectly happy using the NR in ACR at this point and it may depend on the situation. Like you, I either don't use the sharpening in PR3 or use it on the lowest setting depending on the raw file. I guess it's good to have options but will not upgrade in the future! Great content Andy. 🙂

[@AndyAstbury]

Cheers John, much appreciated 👍

[@Eiscy]

Great video! I'm landscape super wide angle lover. What about fixing vignetting? DXO and Lightroom, which one is better? My CPL makes vignetting too much and bring noises on the corner.

[@Eigil_Skovgaard]

Yes, you need it, Andy, your 115 paper money has not been wasted. I saw a comparison on YT over an image of a deer, and the dxo version of the hair in the ears was a winner - without any discussion. This is a major improvement to ACR and Lightroom, no doubt about it - and about time.

[@AndyAstbury]

DXO is great for NR then sending to DT or RT - makes all DT/RT noise reduction invalid. I have a slight problem Eigil, in the fact that, seeing as it's not a 'proper dng', you can't change/set the demosaicing, and have to go with the demosaic algo in DXO, which is 'mystery meat'. But at the end of the day that's only a slight niggle, so in a non-adobe workflow it's well worth the dollar! And like I always say, at the end of the day, if the image looks good, then who really gives a crap as to how you got there!!

[@Eigil_Skovgaard]

@@AndyAstbury Right, in e.g. Darktable the demosaicing is set and locked with DxO. A minor loss for me as I in most cases can't tell the difference (I am not saying it isn't there - I have studied your eagle video about the subject). The rest of the sliders practically have the same effect on the DNA from DxO as on the native raw file (ARW in this case). So, I am super satisfied with PureRAW -2 - and most often use it without the lens sharpening. I think my remark about a deer and its fur is from the following video, it shows a number of images for comparison between Adobe, DxO and Topaz - /watch?v=U_8nXWT9fE4 (hope you can find it).

[@AndyAstbury]

I wonder why he's going for 60 in Lightroom - 50 or a tad less seems to work fine for me on sharp images at up to 20,000 ISO and honestly, as I say in the vid, there's little to nothing between DXO and Lr on my images at least. From a tech standpoint, his conclussions are slightly flawed - neither DXO or Topaz yield a fully compliant DNG, but as we've discussed before Eigil, this generally is a mostly meaningless detail. In a competition between the 3, I'd put Lr and DXO joint top spot, with Topaz behind, and I certainly hope this video puts that across (even though I omitted the Topaz plugin). Topaz still has the advantage in that it can be used in a raterized image workflow, whereas niether Lr or Pure Raw 3 can, BUT, that advantage can be ruled out in a lot of cases - if we denoise the raw file, why would we need any NR in a rasterised workflow. I certainly rank Pure Raw 3 - hell, I bought it for that very reason!

[@martinlennon4673]

Good review, great photos. Do you know if the new Lightroom noise reduction AI will work on compressed raw files ? 👍

[@AndyAstbury]

Hi Martin, it shouldn't be a problem because most of the shots in the vid are off Canon - and they are always compressed.

[@STAR0SS]

The DeepPRiME XD methods can generate weird artifacts on some images, it can also over-smooth areas with low details, which look quite unnatural. The lack of controls is a bit of an issue.

[@AndyAstbury]

Yep, agreed - but I find those problems go away for the most part if you turn the options off except Chromatic aberration. As a Lightroom user it's not worth the worry though now!

[@thefincapaloma]

I also recently bought DXO 3 as well as Topaz,, right before the lightroom launch. I have come to the initial conclusion that I will use DXO 3 when batch editing. It is quicker and the default settings are less agressive and more consistent then whatI get from Topaz. For my batch (typically 2-300 images of sports) I am not that conserned with the finer details, and DXO 3 renders nicely. For a more individual treatment I haven't concluded which one I prefer yet. I've got a fairly new windows machine with top specs, but using Lightroom Denoise still takes a lot of time. Topaz AI does not takes as much time but it drains processing power while in use.

[@AndyAstbury]

It's only your machine that dictates speed and time taken. I've just switched to an M1 Max baseline Studio, and Lightroom absolutely flies, with DXO no more than a second behind per image, and still not much between the results. Topaz is by far the slowest on my machine, and gives the widest quality bracket of results - okay to worst of all. So the 'speed' is down to the machine being used, and not the software in general.

[@JohnArnoldUK]

I am WELL impressed with the new LR noise reduction. I've not used the DxO version so this is a useful comparison for me. But I can't see myself paying for another tool to do noise reduction now and it's been a few years since I got review copies of anything!

[@AndyAstbury]

Hi John, there's no need - IMO of course - for Lightroom users to get anything else really. But a lot have already got DXO (or Topaz) prior to the Lightroom addition of Ai Denoise, simply because the 'normal' denoise in Lightroom has always been, let's not beat about the bush - CRAP! On another note, I can't believe the voter turn out was so damn low, idle bastards the lot of 'em. But at least I tried man!

[@JohnArnoldUK]

​@@AndyAstbury I couldn't agree more with you about the old LR NR. It was terrible. I never used it. But I'll use this new one! Thanks for your vote, too. I was a bit gutted because I really worked hard and it seemed to go so well. But this is a very conservative ward - the most conservative in Sandbach. Going up against a conservative candidate and getting within 100 votes is moving the needle pretty hard. Next time! Plus I'm also standing for town council. The count for that is on Sunday and I have a pretty good chance there. So being a town councillor will give me more opportunity to build up a track record. I'm already working with the town councillors on stuff. We made progress today even though it was a loss and I'm determined to keep working at it.

[@AndyAstbury]

Well, if you win by one vote John, you know where it came from!

[@JohnArnoldUK]

@@AndyAstbury Either way I owe you a pint.

[@JohnArnoldUK]

@@AndyAstbury I won a seat on the Town Council. So you're now officially allowed to bug me for stuff!

[@thegroove2000]

They are all good. Enjoy.

[@thegroove2000]

Lightroom denoise looks interesting but what about for out of focus issues? Thats where topaz fills the gap.

[@thegroove2000]

Everyone is not perfect but all have their purposes and can get the job done.

[@AndyMillerPhotoUK]

The "issue" for me is that I "hate" LRC/ACR? RAW conversion of Nikon Z9 Lossless RAW files -- therefore I run "all" files I want to work on through Pure Raw 3 (3.1) XD - it takes moments. BUT - then when posting images on the web I also run the output through Topaz DeNoise AI. I am not "ready" to switch to LRC's new DeNoise solution -- not least because I already own PR3 and DeNoiseAI -- both of which seem to get better and better. My "only" issue is that DxO does not yet have the lens modules for the lenses I am using on the Z9 - so I have to use LRC's lens corrections -- which is a shame. So I also disable the "lens" adjustments in PR3.1. One of the surprising "things" is PR3 "uncovers" metadata like the Focus/Subject distance, which are hidden in the normally accessible exif data.

[@AndyAstbury]

I have to admit to never having seen a single Z9 raw file, so I've no experience of how they fare in Lr or anything else Andy. I wish PR3 only took moments to do anything on my machine! Topaz DeNoise Ai hasn't been updated for a while now, all their focus seems to go into PhotoAi. Topaz has the advantage of being usable on both raw and non-raw. PR3 is exceptionally good on raw files, but has no 'user' amount control, and spits out a non-raw dng; these are my only two niggles with it. Lr is as good as PR3 in general, and produces a 100% correct raw dng, but the denoise component is not readable by anything else - such as DT or RT, so the image has to stay within an Adobe workflow. They ain't daft are they!!

[@SEAKPhotog]

Adobe seems to have finally given us a worthwhile denoise solution. I've been pretty impressed testing it out on aurora images. My only issue is that my ancient desktop is glacially slow to process the images. Guess it's time to upgrade my machine....

[@AndyAstbury]

It's geologic on mine! Don't quite understand why it's SO slow - I'm on a 1 TB NVMe, 12 core dual Intel + 64Gb RAM and 3Gb GPU. All normal processing in Lightroom, Photoshop etc is very fast, but Topaz, DXO, and the Lightroom Ai Denoise especially, is cripplingly slow - 5 minutes to render the preview and around 22 mins to render the DNG.

[@SEAKPhotog]

@Andy Astbury hmmmm, I'm on a lessor machine and I get faster renders but also get 22 minute DNGs. I wonder if there's some secret sauce combination of PS processor/RAM settings that'd help.

[@AndyAstbury]

I can only speak from the Mac user PoV, but I'm certain everything is being developed on Apple Silicon machines now, and then being made backwards compatible with Intel machines - I'm thinking that's where the speed is disappearing. It's times like this that I miss the upgrade ability of a PC!

[@pjc3163]

If you use PhotoLab 6 you have the same PureRaw functionality but with a lot more fine control over the settings. I can't understand why it takes so long to process the files in PureRaw. It only takes about 10-15 seconds to export out a PrimeXD processed file to Jpeg note that It all depends to on the size or resolution of your original file. I'll never go back to Lightroom, the Raw processing engine is shockingly bad... (I'm a Windows user).

[@thegroove2000]

Topaz photo AI does the job nicely.

[@AndyAstbury]

In comparison to what exactly?

[@janmichalec5655]

Andy, at the time 21:06 when you say there is absolutely no difference you are looking at both images from LR, aren't you?

[@AndyAstbury]

Christ, something else I missed in the edit - well spotted! Here's the correction kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHi5gK2OhMiHoJI

[@tomshaw8474]

Will not work very well on older computers without best graphics and higher GPU , etc.

[@georgesaguna]

Sorry but I have had such a bad experience with pure raw, especially with their non existent customer care. And yes the problems from pure raw 2 persist onto pure raw 3. I have bought their software about eight eight months ago and they still haven’t solved the problem. They apologise every single time I ask for an update but their software engineers are busy designing new software ( which still has the same ridiculous problem.) Topaz is a much better option and gives much much more control to the end user.

[@AndyAstbury]

No need to apologize, George. What sort of problems are you having, I would be very interested to know? Also, have you tried uninstalling the DXO software completely and then re-installing?

[@georgesaguna]

@@AndyAstbury installed, deleted and reinstalled both pure raw2 and 3. I also installed a diagnostics software suppled by them. The problem, which I found out concerns a lot of other people, was that the software drops down my exposure by more then one stop on all the photos. I asked them to be reimbursed but they just say that the it’s not their policy. The problem is that the software which I paid for, never used is already outdated.

[@AndyAstbury]

Hi George, did you not notice in the video, it does the same on mine!

[@georgesaguna]

@@AndyAstbury yes and had you tried to contact them? It did this with my 5dmk3 mk4 and my r3. If you want I will keep you posted about my situation if it ever changes. I invested in topaz as it has much more control and I can’t really afford all the time of lightroom takes per edit.

[@AndyAstbury]

You might not want to hear this, but it's Lightroom that's at fault here, not PR3 - sorry George! Lightroom puts a lot of hidden background adjustments on your image by default - and one of those is a brightening of the image - by about +1Ev. In all of my Lightroom videos, you'll see me do this 'thing' called a 'process version swap' - this neutralizes those background adjustments, removes excess contrast, and allows you to see the real raw data in a relatively neutral state. And overall, it generally makes the shot look darker - +/-0Ev. You see this very briefly in the video when I start with the Lynx - when I reset the settings, the image gets a bit brighter. All PR3 does is replicate the 'real' Ev of the raw files You can verify this visually by taking the raw file into a FOSS raw editor like Raw Therapee on a neutral profile, and you can verify this technically by opening up the raw file in Raw Digger and viewing the R,G1,G2 and B histogram/tonal response curves. I've tried asking DXO three times to tell me what the demosaicing algo method was in PR2 - they could not be arsed to reply, so I doubt they'll respond any differently now.