NOISE REDUCTION ... Which one is the BEST?

[@1948painter]

As someone whose hobby includes photographing bands in dimly lit music venues (I don’t use flash), ISO 1,250 (the ISO setting of the portrait in the video) is a relatively low setting. A couple of weeks before Denoise was added to Lightroom, I bought DxO Pure Raw 3.0 after being amazed at the clarity and detail of a couple of really high ISO photos (51, 200 and 102,400) taken with a Nikon Z9 of dancers in a dimly lit barn-much better than I could produce with Topaz DeNoise AI. In the brief tests I did after Lightroom added Denoise, both DxO and Lightroom performed well. If I have a bunch of similar really high ISO photos, I may continue to batch process them with DxO, letting DxO adjust everything while I do something else. On the other hand, I like the ability in Lightroom to adjust the percentage of the denoising applied to individual photos. I may still use Topaz in Photoshop to reduce noise in specific parts of jpegs.

[@Fessoid]

hi, why not combine noised copy with denoised straight in Photoshop without Topaz?

[@technor007]

Wonderful video. Loved the comparision here. The new Adobe LR Denoise is fantastic and I couldn't agree more with your analysis. However, I think the performance of Denoise softwares really vary by image and they are not really the same across all. This is based on my experience. For flowers and insects for e.g. I don't use Topaz since it bleeds colors mildly. So to have a fair comparision, I think one needs 5-6 categories of shots. Say Landscapes, birds/animals, flowers, people and architecture. And then a comparision could give an overall result. For my bird photography, Denoise works well, so does LR, and so does PureRaw (which takes way toooooooooo long on my machine, so don't use it much), I don't have issues like you did here in the outcomes.

[@marleenvandam6931]

In Nonoise , you'll have to play with the sliders and not just trust the preset and then you get much better results.The fact that you get over processed results is due to the standard severe mode.Try moderate or slight and much better result , also the fastest of the 4 in my comparison I made.

[@PeteEH]

In dxo you should uncheck the sharpening option. Too much usually...

[@davepastern]

I would concur with this - sage advice.

[@jensgaethje8555]

5:25 on a Mac you can use the app switcher (Command + tab) to simply drag the photo(s) into DXO Pure Raw. You can, in the dialog box, drag the same image onto the custom folder window. That way the resulting images will be saved next to the original (rather than a subfolder). When DXO is done you can drag the resulting images (show in Finder on Popup window) back onto the Lightroom App icon, which will open import, click, press command z after and you have the DXO images next to the originals INCLUDING all previous develop settings (excluding details and lens corrections). This way there is no syncing of settings or moving of files required. Im using the app switcher to open, edit and save files all the time, so it works very fast for me. That said, I only use DXO on higher ISO images, concerts, night time, at ISO 4000 and up, especially when I want to pull up the shadows etc. PS you can also open files in DXO by dragging them from LR onto the Dock Icon, however, for whatever reason the develop settings are not applied (only when dragging onto the app switcher, or the app window)🤔

[@omprakashmistry6725]

i use dxo and i love it. when photo has too much noise it help me to give new life to skintone and skin texture

[@glyndewis]

Nice one

[@jadie1234a]

So far I love the ACR denoise. It retains fine detail in bird feathers. Also, with Topaz I have noticed with animal whiskers it tends to make them thicker instead of leaving them as a pin sharp thin line. And pin feathers of a bird would have noise left between the feathers. I do not have this issue with the ACR denoise. Topaz sometimes adds weird artifacts to animal fur, like makes it look "crunchy" even if sharpening is all the way down in low-light mode. Again, ACR denoise does not add sharpening, no issue with this. Sometimes I go back to photoshop, select only the background, then run Topaz to get rid of residual background noise. Another thing is I turn off sharpening in ACR before running denoise. No point in sharpening the noise before getting rid of it. After denoise is finished, I may add back some sharpening in ACR, with the masking applied.

[@TotalOpel]

I was so tempted to buy Topaz but now I'm glad I didn't - Lightroom Denoise has nailed it 👌🏼 I haven't had any issues using it - my M1 Macbook Pro zips through the process taking only a few seconds on a 50MB raw image. It's interesting to see how you got on using each of those different apps - thanks for this insight 👍🏼

[@sergedaleiden5597]

Hi Glyn, excellent comparison and "eye opener". One question though. Instead of Topaz Denoise AI, wouldn't it be better to use Topaz Photo AI? The reason I'm bringing this up is because Topaz seems not to invest any further development into the individual apps, but rather focus all their efforts into Photo AI (almost weekly updates). Just a thought. Thanks a lot for your continuously good work!

[@decay999]

I was about to say the same thing, Photo AI is updated really frequently and every update has made a significant difference. It would be great to see a comparison of LR against photo AI.

[@TheSmartWoodshop]

I own LRC, Topaz, and Luminar. Previously, Topaz was my preferred denoise option, but now I find that LRC yields comparable or superior results and is also more efficient to utilize, plus running it on a 3-year-old MBP is a silky operation. I am optimistic that Adobe will integrate it fully into LR, allowing for direct file manipulation rather than the creation of a separate DNG. LRC's capabilities are steadily improving, enabling me to complete post-processing tasks more frequently with LR and relying less on third-party software. However, for composite work, layering, and more intricate editing such as the new Remove tool, I still turn to PS. It certainly beats dodging and burning with a piece of cardboard on a stick in the darkroom.

[@robertstewart7172]

I am somebody who is in the market for denoise software and am watching every video I can find, particularly comparisons. Most of my images are low ISO where noise is not really of concern and motion blur and lens blur are more likely an issue. Its at very high ISO's that I am interested in denoise so I can operate with higher apertures at the required shutter speed and repair the noise in post-processing. In your comparison, denoising a lovely well taken image at an ISO of 1250 and with very little noise does not really show off the benefits of using any of the denoise software compared. It would be more credible if you were to use a high ISO image with clear noise and do a repeat of your comparison. From your past videos you are clearly a Lightroom devotee and unfortunately your dialogue right from the start of the video comes across to me as Lightroom being the winner.

[@philhawkins7551]

I was thinking the exact same thing. 1250 ISO is hardly the example to use for how good noise reduction really is. ANY noise reduction software-and don't call it "denoise" because it only reduces it or you risk degrading your image-can do justice to a 1250 ISO image. This process is always a dance between image quality and reduction of noise.

[@josh6499]

You really must turn the lens softness option off for DXO, that's why yours came out over sharpened. You're not just removing noise, you're telling it the image was too soft and you want it sharpened. This is not a fair comparison for DXO in my opinion because of this. You told it to sharpen the image, then criticized it for doing what you told it to do. I have done this same comparison myself with everything here except On1. DXO was my winner. Probably too late to go back and change your decision now, but I really think you've done an injustice to DXO with this video. Adobe users who watch this may now miss out on the superior results DXO could be giving them.

[@glyndewis]

The comparison showed the ‘default’ on all of the software

[@josh6499]

​@@glyndewis Yes, I'm pointing out why I don't think that was a fair comparison. It's like comparing the flavors of apples, bananas and oranges at their 'default' so you eat the peels on all of them. That wouldn't be a very fair comparison would it?

[@john3Lee]

As always - Clear and well explained... Thanks Glyn

[@decay999]

Glyn, I love everything that you normally do, I have always respected your opinion and I've learnt so much from your videos in the past. But on this occasion may I respectfully request that some of the comments concerning comparing the correct topaz (photo ai) and sharpening in dxo be addressed as I'm absolutely sure you did not intend for this video to handicap the competition but it definitely comes across as an Adobe marketing video. I still love you 😂 and I am genuinely interested in your opinion, honest 👍

[@mongini1]

At iso 1250 i wouldnt even bother to denoise to be totally honest. MAYBE, just maybe, i would have masked out the subject and touch up the background a little bit. But only if i display that image in a giant print or digitally at 100%. i recently printed a family photo at 60x40cm or roughly 24" by 16" for the lovers of freedom units. That photo was taken at ISO 6400 with my Fuji X-H2 (yes, that APS-C Sensor with 40 MP), and i did not touch the denoise sliders, because it takes away detail. And what can i say, the print turned out wonderfully, and the only area where you can make out noise is a patch of a darker wall in the background, but only if you stick your nose right against the print. Other than that, its crisp and beautiful. Dont get me wrong, I own Topaz Photo AI, Luminar, and Capture One, and there are occasions where they come in handy. Just in this particular case you're showing i wouldnt use the AI stuff, just some modest sharpening and slight luminance noise reduction, if at all...

[@glyndewis]

Used this image as it was the highest iso I have and it did show noise, so it served a purpose for this

[@mongini1]

@@glyndewis oh okay 😅 I got a lot of photos beyond iso 3200 up to 25600. Tested Lightrooms ai denoise yesterday, but it's not comparable to topaz ATM. Sure, you need to fiddle with the settings a bit, but then its noticably better. But I like the way they're heading. Hope they catch up and more so, i hope they get better at Fuji RAW processing

[@e.colemantlpss6406]

A bit of an unfair comparison for DXO here. You had sharpening of 40 on the DXO image which means you had sharpened it twice. When the DXO image is imported back to LR sharpening and NR are disabled by default as it's already been done by DXO but you pasted your edits from your original Raw file so would have re-enabled these settings thus causing the image to be over sharpened. In my experience DXO is far superior to LR Denoise when it comes to retaining detail.

[@glyndewis]

N ot unfair ... this was all done with default settings across each of the software. Adobe DeNoise has only one adjustment which is the Amount, so that's whyh everything was left as is to see how each performs. Not sure howm much experience you have to say DxO is far superior than Adobe Denoise, when Denoise has only been out for literally a few days though.

[@e.colemantlpss6406]

@@glyndewis You didn't read my comment and neither did you show the default settings on the DXO image. The default when the image is returned to LR from DXO is for Sharpening and NR to be zero'd, because it's already been done by DXO. When you copied your edit settings from your original raw file at 6:44 you also copied the sharpening and NR setting essentially doubling up each of those. That's why your DXO image was so sharp. I have run a number of images through both LR and DXO and not just 1250 ISO but also 6400, 12,800, 16,000, 32,000 and 51,200 and in each case I found the details retention better in DXO. I don't really care if you agree with that or not, I was just pointing out that you had double sharpened and NR'd the DXO image. Use that information or not but to get all defensive seems a bit strange. Really makes you sound like you're on the Adobe payroll.

[@omprakashmistry6725]

@@e.colemantlpss6406 i agreed i also tried both and finally dxo is winner my side

[@jtbathome0]

DXO was my go to after comparing a few before Lightroom and I can't currently get the new update. Without all the sharpening, lens distortion etc. turned on for DXO, how does it compare to Lightroom?

[@glyndewis]

the test was to show what the default settings provide as with Adobe DeNoise there are no other settings to change other than amount. As for how DXO compares … about £150 difference as that’s what DxO costs as a one-off payment or 3 instalments over 3 months. The results from Adobe are very good indeed so don’t think I’ll be turning to others from now on.

[@fenwick329]

Our 5d mk4 raw files take 15 mins per file on average in adobe raw. But I'm just letting it go overnight and the results are great.

[@gazdyer2732]

Excellent Glyn,thanks.

[@Strodav]

Thank you for the excellent comparison. I use the Adobe suite as well as the Topaz suite and see similar results with wildlife photos, mainly water birds. I still like Topaz Sharpen AI better than LrC's sharpen, but I'll bet Adobe will catch up in a future release. So, the question is: How long will Topaz be around?

[@alkrevit4755]

Yes, very impressive. I am glad its in camera raw as I don't use LR.

[@anettejohansson1994]

I use LR on macmini (16gb)and it crashes every time I try to use noise red.

[@sbudambele1603]

I love the fact that you didn't include a floating face of yourself in the video🎉 And I loved everything else about the video also 😅

[@marcgreco1]

Thanks for the video Glyn 🙂

[@rayzalaf8988]

I bought DXO 7 days before the LR update, I feel a little bit cheated but when I try them both sometimes one works better than the other. Having said that if I'd known about LR update I probably wouldn't have spent the money. I'm running an 8 year old laptop, it still works with it all but it is slowing down.

[@janfrederikwille7526]

Me too, but I do not regret it. It runs more fluid on my 6 year old Laptop, especially since I use a D800 with 36MP Pictures

[@vidyanandagiretheren53]

I have Topas, LR and DXO 7. When it comes to denoising and keeping the detail out of the RAW file, DXO 7 is a very satisfying product. All my ISO 3200 shots look as clean as IOS 200s. Because I'm so impressed, I'm having a lot of fun developing all my old photos and I'm very happy about it.

[@AnysiaC]

I've used both Topaz Denoise AI, and ON1 PhotoRaw NoNoise, or NoNoise and DeNoise as PS plugin. Some photos do better in one or the other. I've had photographs that I just could not get noise out without some sort of 'artifacts' showing up, but process it in the other program, and results are great.

[@justinholding02]

Strange, I get much better results with Topaz, but it does need tweaking sometimes. But in your examples here, I honestly prefer the original RAW file!

[@mongini1]

exactly my thought, just wrote a large comment on that ^^

[@glyndewis]

Good job we all have different tastes then huh 😉

[@HR-wd6cw]

Thanks for the comparison. I have wondered about how DXO PR3 vs Lightroom worked (I currently have Photolab 5 which has the older PureRAW 2 engine I guess, and it does an OK job but doing some close comparisons, I can see what you mean about it being "too sharp"). Now, I shoot mostly landscapes so sharpness is usually not a concern in this regard, and in some cases, I feel that Lightroom loses detail in my landscape shopts, while getting similar results using similar settings in DXO. The only concern I have with DXO is with possible halos from more aggressive sharpening, whereas LIghtroom seems to address and mitigate this more (but possibly at a cost of a bit of sharpness lost around edges with considerable contrast). I'll keep both and likely just keep using PL5 and Lightroom's Denoise. I think for situations where there is more noise, I might use DXO, and less noise reduction, I'll stick to Adobe and have found that anywhere from 30-60 works fine in most cases (30 for lower ISO images with a bit of noise in shadow areas, and 60 for higher ISO images where more NR is needed, but I really don't like taking it above 60 as it starts to lose considerable amounts of detail in favor of less or no noise). I have Topaz, but since I didn't sign up for their subscription, I have a slightly older version (from 2021 I think) which seems to have the issue with creating DNGs that Lightroom can actually read, so I can only re-import into LR using a TIFF so for me, that's a bit of a loss for Topaz (I think it was fixed in newer versions but I don't care to pay the subscription fee, and since using DXO, I have little reason to bother upgrading to the latest version of Topaz anyway). Some of their other tools are useful like Sharpen AI and Adjust AI, but for me, the DeNoise program was a bit disappointing I guess. It got rid of noise in most cases, but also fine detail (more so than LR).

[@davidecomba5429]

Very interesting Glyn, I just hope we can extend it to other formats in the near future!👽

[@arxoalex]

there s definitely some sort of software issue with camera raw ai denoise, i have gpu acceleration enabled i get 10-14 minutes est. time (ryzen 5 3600, 16gb ram, rtx3060 12gb). Using lightroom i get 10 seconds....then using the task manager i realized camera raw does not use gpu with ai denoise thus the 10-14 minutes

[@TonySmithUK]

Hi Glyn, move the dialog box and you’ll see the area of the image that’s shown in the preview. Click anywhere on the main image to move the focus - no need to zoom out//in 😂. I find it takes 6-8 mins with Nikon Z6 raw files.

[@jensgaethje8555]

This seems to be true for Camera Raw (Bridge) but it does not work in LR Classic on MAC ....

[@TonySmithUK]

@@jensgaethje8555 You are right - I discovered this 'feature' in PS/Camera RAW after trying Denoise in LrC and assumed they would be the same. Wrong, LrC Windows does not allow clicking on the image 😉!

[@markdemarte6744]

Thank you, Glyn. This was enlightening and will make me rethink what I want to do at year end when Topaz hits me with their renewal fees. Actuallly Glyn, could you help with a further step in this direction? Do I really need Topaz Sharpen anymore? Or is ACR sharpen just as good? If it is, then I would also cancel Topaz Photo and the only product left that I would want to renew would be Gigapixel. Renewing just that one product would cut my Topaz invoice in half or less. That cut in expenses would surely mean a better Christmas present for my wife. 😇

[@zoranpucarevic2816]

Finally, I use Topaz but for the portraits it's not so good. Maybe for the landscape and bird photographer, now I try in ACR denoise, it's a different story

[@REMY.C.]

Comparison is not relevant without tweaking the denoising for every program. Keeping the base parameters is the best way to have the worse results. "AI" or rather machine learning is not smart, it can't see or know what's best. I didn't try the new Lightroom feature but DXO is doing wonders with Fuji files when tweaking the settings. I'm pretty sure every program can do better than what you shown. Thanks for the video though. It encourages me to test other things.

[@glyndewis]

Sort of agree, but Adobe DeNoise uses AI / Machine Learning and is producing some really good results without any further tweaks

[@REMY.C.]

@@glyndewis yeah seems like it, but those 25 30 seconds seem way too long for me, I'm not used to wait for such an eternity anymore 😂

[@eng.yasserarafat3281]

Please do the editing on your mobile Lr

[@erichearduga]

what if he doesn't use the Mobile LR... I know I don't, in fact I no longer have a tablet.

[@stellanewman4514]

Thanks for this useful video, Glyn. And for amateur photographers who can't afford or justify paying for lots of extra software in addition to the Adobe subscription, it's great to have this extra tool within LRC. :)

[@formattester6]

very informative!

[@ziv2liv]

Yes, but you still have to pay that damn subscription 😀

[@JohnKorvell]

Also, if you keep your files off line in a stand-alone hard drive, the hard drive must be plugged into your lap top to work. Otherwise, LR denoise does not recognize the smart preview files.

[@geraldmonger1921]

Has anybody any ideas 😂as to why my Apple iMac with it’s M1 chip and extra memory takes sometimes up to almost 2 mins to process my Sony a1 raw files in DeNoise? I know that they are 50mp files but Topaz does it in seconds. Is there something that I am missing?

[@JACKnJESUS]

I have the full Topaz suite...and it is great. However, I have had similar results with Adobe. I know use it primarily. I did several dozens cross checks...and Adobe won them all. I don't bother now...just use Adobe. Will run out my sub with topaz to see if anything changes.

[@footrotdog]

Guess I'm not going to bother with buying Topaz at the next Black Friday sales. :) Thanks, Glyn! Great video. Really appreciate it!

[@martincregg]

Brilliant!

[@Anna-gv7vo]

Hi Glyn, do you always denoise your photos in the beginning? I mean, before the new Adobe Denoise, because with Adobe we must do it in the first CR adjustments. I compare Topaz with the new Adobe and with no doubt, Adobe wins! Thank you so much for your great vídeos!

[@bySterling]

Def wish Adobe made this avail forJPGs as all my photos are from my iPhone 14 pro max and the only other program I have is Luminar Neo which has really ticked me off the last year because all of their useful additional useful updates are extra paid versions

[@MikeBurnsArrangedAccidents]

The Denoiser in Topaz is surprisingly bad considering how great the rest of Photo Ai is. It denoises alright but turns the pic into a cartoon.

[@TheBigBlueMarble]

Since noise in an image is fairly uniform across the entire image, AI noise reduction works by identifying patterns that exist across the entire photo. Any uniform pattern is assumed to be noise and to some extent will be removed. In the case of your portrait, the pattern in the canvas covers a large percentage of the photo so is likely to be viewed by the program as noise...more by some programs than others. This is one of the main reasons that AI noise reduction seems to destroy detail more in some photos than others The more uniform the image (e.g. the canvas background), the more detail will be destroyed.

[@joseramos-dq4sg]

Evoto Ai is best of all 100% .👌🏼

[@johnmcnairn6822]

Personally I think Adobe still has some way to go, it's way too slow compared to Topaz....it estimated an image at 5 mins though only took 4, Topaz took about 10 seconds on the same image with better results. However I suspect Adobe will catch up and the results are good, so for those who don't have external noise reduction then it's a great tool. Good vid Glyn

[@technor007]

So true - some of my shots taken on R5 clock 55 mins to Denoise - phew! While Topaz takes maybe min or more at best. Thats gotta mean something.

[@image7d]

Hi Glyn. Love your videos however, this wasn't fair on Topaz because the other image quality apps were the latest versions, in particular DXO Deep Prime 3, Topaz DeNoise on the other hand hasn't been updated in several months. Topaz stated over a year ago they were no longer concentrating on DeNoise, GigaPixel and Sharpen AI except for minor updates and bug fixes. Instead they going to concentrate all their efforts and development on Topaz Photo AI as well as Topaz Video AI, and the fact that their long term goal is to have Topaz Photo AI replace all of the functionality of the individual apps. Thank you for your time and excellent content

[@glyndewis]

This was the latest version I download AND paid for the day before I did the video

[@ryancooper3629]

My biggest complaint about the feature is that you can't batch it. It works great but if I want to Denoise 300 images having to go through them one by one and click "denoise" is tedious. I get that processing might take a while but we should be able to just queue up all 300 shots and then go for a walk or do some chores or whatever and just let the computer do its thing.

[@BrunoTigerFx]

So, you want a zx spectrum to load 300 images, then processing everything at 48k capacity and let it rip at it ... Meanwhile, you grab a sandwich, listen to a couple of albuns, have dinner, and when you go check it, it has a error message. Ok, just messing up with you, but, i think it will get there, eventually, they need more data to build better models and provide the AI more stability to process the data of 300 diferent pics with diferent requirements.

[@ryancooper3629]

@@BrunoTigerFx I just want it to do 300 or 3000 photos on after another with the same settings exactly the same as if I did it manually but without me having to sit there and click over and over. If it errors, so be it, though they could easily add resiliency to suppress the error message, skip that photo and move on then give me a summary at the end.

[@jensgaethje8555]

Don't understand the complaint 🤔It does batch Denoise, both in LR and ACR, just highlight multiple images and press enhance, it will say "enhance ... images" images at the button right. LR seems to get stuck on my Mac when its done, but I can reload the catalogue and the images are stacked to their originals.

[@stevewaycott]

I've been using Topaz DeNoise for a couple of years now to clean up images that Lightroom just couldn't handle, so I will admit I'm a bit biased toward that product. I'm surprised by the terrible job it did on your image, as it tends to work very well for me. But there's no doubt at all that LR Denoise did a much better job in your test. Can't wait to do some testing of my own now.

[@GenilsonOficial]

They could release something for video.

[@paulg3388]

I don’t suppose you know why Adobe won’t allow you to Denoise Lightroom CC converted .ARW Sony files? DNGs work perfectly but with CC it converts Sony RAW files automatically whereas in Classic this wouldn’t be an issue. Any help would be appreciated from you or whether your audience have the same issue? Thanks in advance

[@BrunoTigerFx]

I think Sony is at play here, since the format of the RAW file is been always a issue sometimes, from what i hear ... I always heard that Sony only allows to read the format and when goes to edit you always have to convert it to DNG ( maybe it's different , don't own a sony camera ). Maybe, because this is still new, they have to reach out to Sony and wait for them to give some type of information or data, since LRC is offline, maybe Sony prioritizes that over CC because, they want to control the data imput ... Just a wild guess.

[@paulg3388]

@@BrunoTigerFx thanks for a great explanation that’s really helpful and sounds totally feasible! I’m going to convert my files to DNG I think before import then at least I can use Denoise as Glyn’s review clearly confirms how great it is ! Thanks again for the response

[@grawek2774]

Kupić właściwy sprzęt do robienia zdjęć i umieć go używać. Będzie szybciej i prościej...

[@garyrowe58]

Yes, lrc can do a better job on some images, but ive yet to see topaz denoise get it as wrong as lrc can sometimes, when all you can do is gawp at it and wonder what the eff it was thinking! Just like its 'enhance' can bring in weirdness to a shot sometimes.

[@garreswe]

I have DxO Photolab 6 and I'm quite disappointed with it. The denoising features are at most "fine" and it takes ages for it to render on my laptop with integrated graphics. I don't understand how people get good results with it, I've tried many different settings and I'm rarely satisfied. Affinity Photo is the photo editor I use and its denoise function is awesome. It's super fast, the results are great and it works perfectly on both my desktop and laptop.

[@gavthane]

Yeah strange, you’re like… literally the only person I’ve seen who has said they don’t get good results with DxO..

[@jonasweiss5817]

You need tweaks and options for various shots. No setting fixes all. Topaz DeNoise hands down. Using it on AUTO is silly. No one does that. Frankly, you don't tweak any of these, and it's a waste of time to watch the conclusion.

[@ryancooper3629]

Well yes and no. I think that is part of the story if Adobe can do it with minimal fuss while the others require attention and adjusting precise settings to get good results.

[@glyndewis]

Disagree. This was done as it was because there are no tweaks you can do in Adobe DeNoise other than the amount and the results I get are consistently good, so … yeah disagree

[@barbarianatgate2000]

Another great video. This is an outstanding head to head comparison, but I'm curious about something. I tend to try some things out and then pick the overall best software or plugin to use. Do you have so many programs on your system so that you can show a comparison, or do you find that certain programs work better for certain images and keep them all for use? I'm simply asking because there's a lot of cash tied up unless you're working all in trial versions. But those don't usually let you save or export and I didn't notice that being the case here. I'm just wondering if I'm missing out by being a little too tight fisted? I therefore ask cordially, but emphatically, what gives?

[@grantosborne3062]

Well done Glyn. Always love your content. The non Adobe companies must be worried now as this removes their point of difference. What a great product Adobe now is for photographers.

[@Leicashootr]

Pixel peeping is becoming a illness

[@JEDINITE30]

Adobe is about to make all third party software go out of business unless they step their game up!