Noise Reduction Apps COMPARED

[@AnthonyMorganti]

In this video, I compare the following noise-reduction applications: Lightroom Denoise Luminar Noiseless Raw On1 NoNoise AI 2024 Topaz Labs Photo AI DxO PureRAW 4 Download all the files that I used in this video here: bit.ly/NoiseReductionApps I compare PureRAW 4 to PureRAW 3 in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXzbhoZ5YppqeJI Get Luminar Neo here: bit.ly/3KJzmIK Save 10% with promo code: AM10 To get more info about PureRAW 4, go here: tidd.ly/3MQ3uU7 Currently, I do not have a personal promo code to share. Check out the Topaz Labs Photo AI here: bit.ly/44VxLrq I do not have a current discount code. For more info about NoNoise 2024, go here: on1.sjv.io/0Z6jAL Use Promo Code AM20 to save a few dollars. Not that the discount code may not work when the product is on sale. To get more info about Lightroom, go here: prf.hn/l/lGnjDBl I am an affiliate for all the companies listed above and will benefit financially if you purchase their product using the above links or the Promo Code. Please read my Code of Ethics Statement: onlinephotographytraining.com/code-of-ethics/

[@tomwojtowicz9567]

Like you, I own all of the apps you tested. Since I shoot landscapes I seem to get different results in processing quality. I just downloaded DxO PureRaw 4 a few days ago and I find it gives me the best results. The other apps also did a good job, but Topaz Photo AI has been a constant disappointment for landscapes since it was released. It turns distant green foliage / fall colors, water, woodgrain, and even text on signs into mud. I can force good results, but I have to spend too much time tweaking. I can see why every reviewer uses the same type of image for the Topaz product -- a sharp focused close up element with an out of focus background. On the other hand, the landscapes I process are 100% in focus to the horizon, and for some reason the Topaz AI product can't handle raw Canon images without messing them up. Within minutes of installing PureRaw I was shocked to see how well it performed. Every image I tested (except one) was better when compared with Topaz AI processing. I still have 8 more free days with PureRaw 4, but I am definitely going to buy it. Topaz will soon be gone from my workflow (Except for Gigapixel which I am still using)

[@The_golden_charlie]

With pur raw try soft sharpening and force detail around 10. Denoised and nicely sharpened on my nikon files. I bought it too!

[@I922sParkCir]

I appreciate you making this video! I'm a wedding photographer and I denoise photos above 4,000 ISO with Lightroom Classic. I really need a noise reducing process that doesn't radically alter colors. Looks like Lightroom Classic Denoise is the way to go. It helps that it has the best workflow as well.

[@MrFreakwent]

When Adobe introduced noise reduction in LR Classic, they noted when I upgraded at that time, it worked on Nikon and Fuji sensored cameras. Luckily, that's what I use. I've used denoise on a good number ( more than 100 images) shot on a live theatre stage from my seating at ISO's from 1600-4000 and was amazed at the results. VERY happy with them; I only set the strength at 51 to 56 % and couldn't believe how well it works. All of them. It performs well on noise when I've cropped in as well. I don't know if Adobe expanded their camera brand denoise abilities, but I'm surprised the Ricoh brand doesn't work very well. Let's hope they fix that. One could note that despite Adobe's subscription model, they keep adding features that other photo software makers sell as an upgrade.

[@jackieboshoff2013]

Nice comparison, although I'd like to see one with Canon bodies as Canon shooters takes up a BIG chunk of the market. I'm a Canon shooter and shoot wildlife and aviation in South Africa. Often on safari I have to shoot on ISO12800, especially early morning before sunrise and early evening after sunset. I have tried a few of them and find that DXO Pure Raw works best for my purposes. I'm still using Pure Raw 2, which still works fine for me. Haven't felt the need to upgrade to Pure Raw 4 yet.

[@healinginfluence]

I want to thank you for this video. I am. very impressed with DxO PureRaw. I also have been having problems with Topaz Photo AI. The app often becomes un responsive when I try to export a file to PS on my Mac. I tested DxO PureRAW on Canon, Leica, Ricoh and Fuji and each time I was impressed. The app is also reasonably quick. I am going to buy it due to your video.

[@funicats]

Great video, but please can you do the same tests using Canon RAW files? Thanks.

[@ChocoLater1]

Excellent comparison on very challenging images where you pushed these softwares to their limit. Adobe seems to be very solid and probably the best in all areas. PureRAW 4 is doing a great job as well with added local sharpening to the most detailed parts of the image. I'm curious what PureRaw 4 would look like if it did not add any local sharpening and only cleaned it just like Adobe does. That local sharpening is actually very neat to be honest. Thank you so much for this.

[@PaulGibbings01]

It's great to see a comparison for different camera systems. I watched a video the other day regarding noise reduction software, and it really didn't reflect my experiences. You have confirmed my suspicions that performance is related to the camera sensor, I should imagine that the more popular file formats get given precedence when software is developed.

[@thomasriera2030]

Great, systematic comparison! That was very helpful. To my eye, DXO was the best for both noise and preserving sharpness. I use LR and Topaz currently. LR uses a light touch so it never looks overprocessed but, sometimes doesn't go far enough. I like the amount of control that you have with Topaz as the AI often needs tweaking. After seeing this, I think that I need to demo DXO. That looked well-balanced.

[@stephenrobinson9923]

First of all, thank you for this video. It could not come at a more appropriate time. I shoot exclusively with a Fuji X-T5 and have just been experimenting with the new ON1 no noise 2024 which I have as part of my subscription as well as Lightroom Classic's newish no noise feature. The ON1 NN 2024 seems to work on the noise ok, but as in your example is returning with a distinct yellow color cast. I will be contacting ON1 about this but have not had a chance to do so. LRC has given me mixed results but OK. In your example I would go with LRC and Pure Raw for Fuji raw files.

[@rmm9747]

Great Video!!! Thank you for your job. What do you think about Canon files (CR3)?.

[@dfinlay587]

I was Topaz user for a long time, but once Adobe released Denoise, I switched. I have Nikon Raw files, and it works very well. From a work flow perspective I don't have to leave LR, and I stack the resultant DNG, so the whole process is seamless, and quick. I regularly shoot at High ISO, 5600+ with a Z6, and the results are just amazing. DXO may be "better" but not worth the cost in editing time and workflow disruption.

[@HadleyHope]

Thank you for doing the comparison across different cameras

[@Harald787]

For me, with an older CANON EOS 7D MK II, DXO PureRAW 4 works best. It makes my 7D still usable in 2024. Tried several other options but PureRAW does the best job for me and eliminates the biggest issue on my camera, the high iso noise.

[@fonluc6241]

Hi Anthony, good job and above all your cats are gorgeous. Compliments. I think Pure Raw is definitely better than other denoising software, plus it has lens correction based on its own database.

[@martinlennon4673]

I think DXO takes the prize again. Nice cats and good comparison 👍😺

[@whamni]

I use Olympus and that's a camera you realy should have compared ! Apart from that a great video Anthony

[@gregfeeler6910]

I second the suggestion of using Olympus/OM System images for any future tests. In my tests of Topaz Photo AI 3 and DxO Pure Raw 4 with Olympus/OMS images DxO is noticeably better with essentially no artifacts where as Topaz can have some artifacts.

[@bowieknife]

Thanks so much for testing with the Ricoh GR III. I have the IIIx and it's been annoying that LR denoise isn't doing much if anything. There's actually a ticket/thread on the Adobe forums about this issue and it seems they're waiting for Ricoh to update before LR can do anything to improve on the denoise for Ricoh dngs. I am looking into dxo now, hoping to spot some discount in the near future.

[@jz4492]

Anthony - great comparison! Another extremely helpful video. Does anything exist for iPad Pro’s? If so would love to hear your views. Would love to be able to travel without my MacBook.

[@HR-wd6cw]

In my testing, PureRAW has generally produced better results, although it can leave halos around some things, but overall I feel it's among the best. LR's built-in denoising system is OK, but it still leaves some artifacts but I have found it does retain pretty good detail in areas that have detail, whereas some programs will tend to blur it too much and you lose detail (particularly fine details or textures).

[@Bigtbone205]

Try using photos of street scenes at night with signage. Then look closely at the writing on the signs. Lightroom manages to denoise without destroying the writing. The others are great for photos of birds and animals, but nit so good at urban landscapes

[@vincentzuck5906]

I'm disappointed that you didn't use a Canon camera in your tests. I'm sure that someone you know uses one. I would presume that a good percentage of your subscribers use Canon cameras. To me, I just think that this was a big omission, since you found that the camera/software combination makes a difference. Otherwise, a good video. Thank you for your expertise.

[@sarimner]

Hi! GREAT VIDEO! 👍 Do you Think there would be a difference if you run them true C1 instead of Lighroom?

[@tessadagnely2201]

Thank you for this very interesting comparison, I appreciate it very much. Following my experience, for me No Noise AI 2024 and PureRaw 4 do the best job. Photography is my hobby and I’m passionate.

[@hanshomesteading1276]

I find Lighrooms NR in the current version actually really good, I tried On1 and find it very aggressive with my camera's (Leica Q and Ricoh GRIIIx). I like Topaz' results as well as DXO's result, however both don't make an immense improvement that could justify their costs. LR and Topaz don't really work with the RAW files from the Ricoh, strangely enough.

[@jefferyrobbins3468]

Is DXO the only one that makes lens corrections? Did you unselect those corrections in LRC before viewing the DXO result in LRC Develop Module?

[@turdboman]

Hey Anthony, tried to follow but with this and that I got lost, can you tell me your OPINION for a fuji file noise reducer ?

[@Graygeezer]

The Lightroom documentation states that Denoise only works with RAW files from Bayer or X-Trans sensors. Open the Denoise dialogue and click Learn More. What sensor type is in your Ricoh?

[@tectoramia-sz1lu]

I like Topaz Denoise AI... It's very good for processing multiple images.

[@j.j.mahanyjr776]

If I didn't know better I would have thought you were taking photos odf my black cat, "Pesty". Pesty is a ferrel cat cat we picked up as a roughly 3-4 week old kitten. It appears you have a number of pets which I hope are all recuses......keep up the good work.

[@SeaAngMo23]

what about Canon raw files?

[@bigbigsquid]

I watched this for the cats. Especially the black one. 🐹❤️😃🎉

[@craigfuchs5464]

How about Nikon software?

[@rikutalvio]

LOL at the atrocious color shifts.

[@JohnDoe1999-lg7mh]

For me, DXO PL and ON1 NoNoise do a better job and don't need to fiddle or next to none. Topaz, ever since they went all AI, just not as good as it was before AI. Topaz AI sharpen far too often produces artifacts. Topaz Clarity was a nice program and quickly abandoned.

[@joshuaweaver5284]

Fuji,Sony,and Nikon wow you like to buy glass.

[@ElementaryWatson-123]

I don't like Lightroom. First it's slow. Second it produces color artifacts, sometimes atrocious. I trashed Luminar immediately because it's slow, buggy and crashes. DXO PR3 works well for me, though linear DNG files are large.

[@owenpeller6471]

i use canon cameras so this video does not help