Lightroom Denoise

[Geo C]

Just upgraded to Lightroom Classic 12.3 and there is now a one touch 'DENOISE' button (presume it is new haven't noticed it before). Is this the end of Topaz Denoise?? Or is Topaz still better?

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

All depends on which version you use such as original denoise , denoise AI or the more comprehensive package
PhotoAI including denoise , sharpen and , image resizing. AI versions. All are topaz licensed products and can be implemented
as as an integrated LR app or as a standalone software pa kage. The integrated app is actuated through the one
touch app button you have discoverred or will be replaced with a similar alternate suitably titled button subject to
which topaz app from above that you choose to install.

 

[iamdlewis]

Since I only use lightroom in very specific cases (I find if frustrating) I would prefer that there are still other denoise options. Topaz has said that they are no longer working on DeNoise (and Sharpen and Gigapixel) and just focusing on the Photo AI which has all of those.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Since I only use lightroom in very specific cases (I find if frustrating) I would prefer that there are still other denoise options. Topaz has said that they are no longer working on DeNoise (and Sharpen and Gigapixel) and just focusing on the Photo AI which has all of those.

Topaz I belive are dropping their original denoise and sharpen offerings in favour of their denoise AI and sharpen AI, which are currently available, along with photo AI. All work with both photoshop and lightroom as integrated apps for easy switching between the topaz and lightroom/photoshop products as a more streamlined and smooth work flow proposition.

Overtime and subject to demand for the individual denoise AI and sharpen AI products it is not difficult to imagine that Topaz drop the individual products in favour of the all singing and dancing Photo AI platform with further related functionality development.

 

[Brownie]

Darktable (free) has a pretty amazing denoise that is profiled to each specific camera. It does an excellent job on the A7RIII, just activate the module and it recognizes the camera and ISO, then applies denoise. Only minor adjustments needed, sometimes none. No profile loaded yet for the A7IV, supposed to be out in the next release in June.

 

[Jeff A]

I have been using Lightroom for 2 years and just yesterday used the de-noise function. I have the latest Topaz product as well as Pure RAW2, and use them both. For yesterday's job, I had some minor noise issues and the Lightroom function was quick and easy. For serious noise problems, I will continue to lean on one of the full time products, but using the built in de-noise was a time saver for me.

 

[Jeff A]

I have been using Lightroom for 2 years and just yesterday used the de-noise function. I have the latest Topaz product as well as Pure RAW2, and use them both. For yesterday's job, I had some minor noise issues and the Lightroom function was quick and easy. For serious noise problems, I will continue to lean on one of the full time products, but using the built in de-noise was a time saver for me.

I'll reply to my own post here
There are now MANY reviews on YouTube now comparing the Lightroom De Noise function to the popular after market De Noise programs. Mostly interesting reading.

 

[evacguy]

Just upgraded to Lightroom Classic 12.3 and there is now a one touch 'DENOISE' button (presume it is new haven't noticed it before). Is this the end of Topaz Denoise?? Or is Topaz still better?

I've used the DENOISE option in LR now on a few files, and while I like it, not sure I think the overhead is worth it. So far when I use the DENOISE option it turns a 37 MB file into a 102 MB file and the processing is VERRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYY slow on my PC. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong, but there seems to be a huge processing overhead. I've got a newish PC (about 12 months old), with an excellent CPU and GPU and loads of RAM, but the processing time is getting to the point where I find it to frustrating to use. Perhaps there is a system setup that I'm not aware of? I'll read some reviews of the feature and see if there are any optimisations that I'm not aware of.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Lightroom denoise requires Tiff files and doesn't process Raw files and converts to TIFF files directly ...Tiff files are extraordinarly large and unless you have a PC with the necessary Umph you will find post processing quite slow.......

The same applies for macro file stacking........photoshop does this directly on Raw files(but again if you do not have a high end PC it will
be slow), lightroom does not, nor does Zerene Stacker...Helicon i believe does.

Hope this helps......

 

[evacguy]

Lightroom denoise requires Tiff files and doesn't process Raw files and converts to TIFF files directly ...Tiff files are extraordinarly large and unless you have a PC with the necessary Umph you will find post processing quite slow.......

The same applies for macro file stacking........photoshop does this directly on Raw files(but again if you do not have a high end PC it will
be slow), lightroom does not, nor does Zerene Stacker...Helicon i believe does.

Hope this helps......

I thought my PC was pretty 'top end', it has: CPU - INTEL I7 12700K, GPU - NVIDA RTX 3060 TI and 64 GB RAM. It normally flies through any of my LR processing, but the DENOISE operation just kills it.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

On the question of PC power, lightroom is a means to an end, and will convert Raw to Tiff files for use by Denoise,Photoshop or Styrene stacker.

Photoshop will accept Raw files directly but even so you need a high end PC to minimise workflow time.

I have a PC with 64Gb Ram and 16GB video Ram with an i9 Gen 12 processor and with 100 Tiff files it will take around 15-20 minutes to process,
my previous machine with 32 GB and 8Gb Video Ram would take 30-45 minutes to carry out the same task.

Bottom line, Tiff files have their advantages, but unless you have a high end PC be prepared to spend a good amount of time whistling Dixie while you wait for your output.......

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

It is not my intention to undermine your equipment Ed, but even with 50 Mb files as the Alpha 1 produces with
an i7 PC , the i7 standard being dated back to 2015, you have to expect delay against the current days file sizes
and processing needs.

You say you have 64 GB of Ram on your video card...this seem way high for any video card i have seen,
unless you are into high end Video processing....?

As regards Denoise original , Denoise AI or Photo AI, my machine, integrated as a Topaz App on photoshop fly's through
my image processing needs...can't speak to the details of your machine.

 

[evacguy]

It is not my intention to undermine your equipment Ed, but even with 50 Mb files as the Alpha 1 produces with
an i7 PC , the i7 standard being dated back to 2015, you have to expect delay against the current days file sizes
and processing needs.

You say you have 64 GB of Ram on your video card...this seem way high for any video card i have seen,
unless you are into high end Video processing....?

As regards Denoise original , Denoise AI or Photo AI, my machine, integrated as a Topaz App on photoshop fly's through
my image processing needs...can't speak to the details of your machine.

Not a problem, we're talking tech here, but the I7 is a 12 Gen processor, released in Q4 21, it has 12 cores. Depending on the generation of the I9, it has 8 to 16 cores, with the 13 Gen released in Q2 22. When I purchased my computer (Q1 22), there was not much between the performance of the then available I7 and I9 (on the relevant benchmarks), but a huge price difference - it was a no brainer to go for the I7. Also, my 65 Gb RAM is for the CPU, the GPU has 16 Gb RAM.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Ed as stated in my earlier mail, my PC has an i9 Gen 12 processor released in 2022/23.

Ok, note the clarification of your 64 Gb CPU.....my processor at release, in terms of performance,
in 3rd Qtr 2022 was marginally below the latest Apple M1/M2 processors at the time.

In any event i have no interest in getting into a "i will show you mine if you show me yours " debate....I
addressed what i thought were you concerns related to denoise processing and based upon my prior
I7 performance as against what I realise currently with my I9/Gen 12 as well as the denoise TIFF conversion
in LR.

hopefully the above helps with your expressed concern.....

 

[Jeff A]

I've used the DENOISE option in LR now on a few files, and while I like it, not sure I think the overhead is worth it. So far when I use the DENOISE option it turns a 37 MB file into a 102 MB file and the processing is VERRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYY slow on my PC. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong, but there seems to be a huge processing overhead. I've got a newish PC (about 12 months old), with an excellent CPU and GPU and loads of RAM, but the processing time is getting to the point where I find it to frustrating to use. Perhaps there is a system se

I've used the DENOISE option in LR now on a few files, and while I like it, not sure I think the overhead is worth it. So far when I use the DENOISE option it turns a 37 MB file into a 102 MB file and the processing is VERRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYY slow on my PC. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong, but there seems to be a huge processing overhead. I've got a newish PC (about 12 months old), with an excellent CPU and GPU and loads of RAM, but the processing time is getting to the point where I find it to frustrating to use. Perhaps there is a system setup that I'm not aware of? I'll read some reviews of the feature and see if there are any optimisations that I'm not aware of.

tup that I'm not aware of? I'll read some reviews of the feature and see if there are any optimisations that I'm not aware of

As I mentioned previously,I recently tested the new De Noise feature in Lightroom. I shot 72 photographs of cars in a showroom (for a test that had nothing to do with De Noise) and processed them in Lightroom and they required some noise reduction due to poor lighting. I shot one group of photos at one dealership that had very poor lighting and another group at a dealership that had adequate lighting. After reading your post, I looked at the file sizes of my Exported to Jpeg files. The first group of photos (where the light was really bad), most photos were below 20mb, with some as high as 30mb. These were shot with my A7 IV and none of the photos were cropped. I don't use any compression in my camera for shooting Raw files.

In the second group, where the lighting was better, the exported file sizes were all below 20mb. Some of the last group of photos were cropped, and these files are in the 12mb range. I experienced none of the slowdowns that you did, but although my PC is nearly 3 years old, it has 32mb of Ram and a strong NVIDIA Graphics adapter. I guess it's safe to say that our experiences were different. I have the photos in a non-public album on Flickr if you would like to see them, let me know and I'll post a link. They are pretty boring, just a test I wanted to do because I'm going to shoot an indoor auto show next weekend.

 

[Jeff A]

On the question of PC power, lightroom is a means to an end, and will convert Raw to Tiff files for use by Denoise,Photoshop or Styrene stacker.

Photoshop will accept Raw files directly but even so you need a high end PC to minimise workflow time.

I have a PC with 64Gb Ram and 16GB video Ram with an i9 Gen 12 processor and with 100 Tiff files it will take around 15-20 minutes to process,
my previous machine with 32 GB and 8Gb Video Ram would take 30-45 minutes to carry out the same task.

Bottom line, Tiff files have their advantages, but unless you have a high end PC be prepared to spend a good amount of time whistling Dixie while you wait for your output.......

The new included De Noise App in Lightroom is written by Adobe and it produces DNG files, thankfully. I don't recall, if Tiff is an option.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

If that is the case Jeff, then maybe Ed's problem is solved........I essentially use Topaz myself.

 

[evacguy]

Hi Ed as stated in my earlier mail, my PC has an i9 Gen 12 processor released in 2022/23.

Ok, note the clarification of your 64 Gb CPU.....my processor at release, in terms of performance,
in 3rd Qtr 2022 was marginally below the latest Apple M1/M2 processors at the time.

In any event i have no interest in getting into a "i will show you mine if you show me yours " debate....I
addressed what i thought were you concerns related to denoise processing and based upon my prior
I7 performance as against what I realise currently with my I9/Gen 12 as well as the denoise TIFF conversion
in LR.

hopefully the above helps with your expressed concern.....

Hi Ray (and Jeff), not a problem, but please note our (useful) conversation is not intended to be a 'mine is bigger than yours' exchange, but hopefully a discussion to inform, clarify and learn. As a newbie without any formal photography training, I find these type of discussions to be very useful, even explaining my problem helps me to better understand what I'm doing.

I would very much like to know what is going on with the new DENOISE feature in LR and if there is something I can do to optimise the performance. If the I7 12 Gen CPU and NVIDA RTX 3060 Ti GPU does not have enough muscle to process the images then I suspect the vast majority of LR users will not be able to utilise the feature. I can't believe that this is the case, so I must be doing something wrong or my system is not set up right or my workflow is not right.

Also, not sure where the TIFF files come into it, unless that is happening behind the scenes and the user doesn't see it, or the user needs to specifically request a TIFF output file (which I haven't). As I mentioned in my original post, my original SONY RAW out of camera files start of as a 37 MB ARW file (I'm now using L lossless compression hence the smaller size) and after the LR AI DENOISE process a new 102 MB DNG file is created - so I now have two files after the LR processing, your original SONY RAW 37 MB ARW file and the LR AI DENOISED 102 MB DNG file - not a TIFF file in sight. Actually, I have three files, as I then produce the JPG file which comes in at 3.6 MB. Jeff, I've now done this a few times with original files taken in different ambient lighting conditions (noise) and they all come out at about the same size.

Perhaps its my workflow that is contributing to the very slow performance? My workflow is:
1) Import SONY ARG file into LR
2) Crop ARW image to desired size
3) AI DENOISE image, creating the very large DNG file. This process is a little slow but tolerable
4) Edit AI DENOISED image which includes adding masks to touch up various parts of the image. This is the painfully slow part of the process. Working with the AI DENOISED image is painfully slow to the point of not being useable.
5) Export final image as jpg. Exporting from the edited DNG file is painfully slow (in comparison to exporting from the edited ARW), but tolerable.

I should also say that I tried optimising my LR catelogue just in case this is what is slowing down the system, but this does not help.

Perhaps I need to do all my editing first and then apply the AI DENOISE i.e., interchange steps 3 and 4 and do the editing on the ARG file? Swapping steps 3 and 4 will definitely make the editing faster (as I'm not working with the AI DENOISED file), but I would still have the issue with the large additional DNG file and the slow (but tolerable) JPG generation from the DNG file. However, I can live with these two issues.

I think I'll try this next, but it seems to make sense to apply AI DENOISE first before I start my post processing.
Any comments welcome, especially about the workflow.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Ray (and Jeff), not a problem, but please note our (useful) conversation is not intended to be a 'mine is bigger than yours' exchange, but hopefully a discussion to inform, clarify and learn. As a newbie without any formal photography training, I find these type of discussions to be very useful, even explaining my problem helps me to better understand what I'm doing.

I would very much like to know what is going on with the new DENOISE feature in LR and if there is something I can do to optimise the performance. If the I7 12 Gen CPU and NVIDA RTX 3060 Ti GPU does not have enough muscle to process the images then I suspect the vast majority of LR users will not be able to utilise the feature. I can't believe that this is the case, so I must be doing something wrong or my system is not set up right or my workflow is not right.

Also, not sure where the TIFF files come into it, unless that is happening behind the scenes and the user doesn't see it, or the user needs to specifically request a TIFF output file (which I haven't). As I mentioned in my original post, my original SONY RAW out of camera files start of as a 37 MB ARG file (I'm now using L lossless compression hence the smaller size) and after the LR AI DENOISE process a new 102 MB DNG file is created - so I now have two files after the LR processing, your original SONY RAW 37 MB ARG file and the LR AI DENOISED 102 MB DNG file - not a TIFF file in sight. Actually, I have three files, as I then produce the JPG file which comes in at 3.6 MB. Jeff, I've now done this a few times with original files taken in different ambient lighting conditions (noise) and they all come out at about the same size.

Perhaps its my workflow that is contributing to the very slow performance? My workflow is:
1) Import SONY ARG file into LR
2) Crop ARG image to desired size
3) AI DENOISE image, creating the very large DNG file. This process is a little slow but tolerable
4) Edit AI DENOISED image which includes adding masks to touch up various parts of the image. This is the painfully slow part of the process. Working with the AI DENOISED image is painfully slow to the point of not being useable.
5) Export final image as jpg. Exporting from the edited DNG file is painfully slow (in comparison to exporting from the edited ARG), but tolerable.

I should also say that I tried optimising my LR catelogue just in case this is what is slowing down the system, but this does not help.

Perhaps I need to do all my editing first and then apply the AI DENOISE i.e., interchange steps 3 and 4 and do the editing on the ARG file? Swapping steps 3 and 4 will definitely make the editing faster (as I'm not working with the AI DENOISED file), but I would still have the issue with the large additional DNG file and the slow (but tolerable) JPG generation from the DNG file. However, I can live with these two issues.

I think I'll try this next, but it seems to make sense to apply AI DENOISE first before I start my post processing.
Any comments welcome, especially about the workflow.

Hi Ed just to be clear the denoise you are using in lightroom is not the topaz licensed denoise AI and is the denoise app feature within LR....is this correct?

On the issue of workflow, in general it is advisable not to do any processing of your image,save for exposure adjustment only should it be necessary...functions such as texture,clarity and dehaze should definitely be done post denoise as they tend to introduce noise and can result in artifacts on your image.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Ed just to be clear the denoise you are using in lightroom is not the topaz licensed denoise AI and is the denoise app feature within LR....is this correct?

On the issue of workflow, in general it is advisable not to do any processing of your image,save for exposure adjustment only should it be necessary...functions such as texture,clarity and dehaze should definitely be done post denoise as they tend to introduce noise and can result in artifacts on your image.

As regards your file size issue I believe you need to update camera raw in LR and check your camera is supported and if not adobe provide a convertor for converting raw files to dng.....this may be happening when you try to import raw files but I cannot explain the size of your dng files....the only files where such a file size increase occurs that I am aware of is in converting to TIFF files as mentioned and I have had to do this for file handling issues on stacker software.

This may have something to do with your case and I understand the other workaround for raw files is to update your version of LR(or update photoshop for those who use camera raw in photoshop).

 

[evacguy]

Hi Ed just to be clear the denoise you are using in lightroom is not the topaz licensed denoise AI and is the denoise app feature within LR....is this correct?

On the issue of workflow, in general it is advisable not to do any processing of your image,save for exposure adjustment only should it be necessary...functions such as texture,clarity and dehaze should definitely be done post denoise as they tend to introduce noise and can result in artifacts on your image.

Hi Ray, thanks for coming back. I don't have TOPAZ software, just the LR Classic. So the AI DENOISE I am talking about is the new feature in LR. I have the entire ADOBE suite on my plan, which is provided as part of my work.

On the workflow issue, I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Are you suggesting it is best to do all the editing I want to do first, and then apply the LR AI DENOISE? This is not what I'm currently doing, but is what I suggested to try in my last comment.

Concerning the CAMERA RAW, I am using the latest version from LR. I have never had a problem with this in LR. I have always successfully imported the native SONY RAW ARW files into LR and always been able to work with them. It is only since using the new LR feature AI DENOISE that LR converts my ARW files to DNG files.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Ray, thanks for coming back. I don't have TOPAZ software, just the LR Classic. So the AI DENOISE I am talking about is the new feature in LR. I have the entire ADOBE suite on my plan, which is provided as part of my work.

On the workflow issue, I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Are you suggesting it is best to do all the editing I want to do first, and then apply the LR AI DENOISE? This is not what I'm currently doing, but is what I suggested to try in my last comment.

Concerning the CAMERA RAW, I am using the latest version from LR. I have never had a problem with this in LR. I have always successfully imported the native SONY RAW ARW files into LR and always been able to work with them. It is only since using the new LR feature AI DENOISE that LR converts my ARW files to DNG files.

Hi Ed,
Maybe I wasn't clear, but yes limit any processing to the raw file (exposure adjustment is ok) and then apply denoise followed by your further processing adjustments as required. If you have any underexposed images the exposure adjustment may be required so you can see the changes during denoise application......if you don't need it then leave exposure adjustment also until after denoise application.

I can't give you a definitive answer, as I use topaz, but from what I have read ensuring you have the latest versions of Camera Raw and/or lightroom in your
Case is required.......this is the reason Adobe have included a Raw to Dng convertor for those who do not have the latest versions.

If you are generating dng files automatically I can only assume you have some sort of settings issue.......just check this for completeness is what I would suggest and maybe check on youtube for help on this problem, unless someone else on the Forum can assist.....

 

[evacguy]

Hi Ed,
Maybe I wasn't clear, but yes limit any processing to the raw file (exposure adjustment is ok) and then apply denoise followed by your further processing adjustments as required. If you have any underexposed images the exposure adjustment may be required so you can see the changes during denoise application......if you don't need it then leave exposure adjustment also until after denoise application.

I can't give you a definitive answer, as I use topaz, but from what I have read ensuring you have the latest versions of Camera Raw and/or lightroom in your
Case is required.......this is the reason Adobe have included a Raw to Dng convertor for those who do not have the latest versions.

If you are generating dng files automatically I can only assume you have some sort of settings issue.......just check this for completeness is what I would suggest and maybe check on youtube for help on this problem, unless someone else on the Forum can assist.....

Just watched a video on youtube about this, and they are suggesting to do what I have already done i.e., denoise first then edit - which is a bit confusing as this clearly does not work for me. They also have said that ADOBE are aware of the overhead of creating a second (large) file and are working on an update that does not need to create a new file. So I'm not much further on. I guess I'll look at some more videos.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Seems strange Adobe have released the app with such an obvious bug.......anyways seems you are getting nearer to a solution at some point in time when Adobe issue a patch......

 

[AlphaWorld]

Interesting to see this thread today.

I shot an image on Sunday that required some extreme processing (heavy lifting of shadows on an image at high ISO). I use Photoshop rather than Lightroom, but I believe both use Adobe Camera RAW - it's just that the ACR step is explicit when using Photoshop.

I've looked at the de-noise processing in ACR before and was unimpressed - it felt not much better than a "blur". I've used DxO PhotoLab and DeepPrime de-noise instead. I am still on DxO 5, so I don't have the latest DeepPrime XD (or whatever it's called - after using Sony for some years, all the X this and X that acronyms blur together!).

This time around (I think I installed an ACR update a few days ago), I was offered a choice between "manual" de-noise (which I guess was the old one?) and "AI" de-noise. I thought I'd try the AI version, and it showed me a preview, which looked not bad, so I let it go. It took a bit over 20 seconds on an M1 Max chip in a Mac Studio with 64GB of RAM shared between the CPU cores and the GPU cores (on the M1 there's just one pool of RAM) to process my one image. The output from ACR (which does take an ARW file as input) was a DNG, but it loaded happily into Photoshop. The results were very good, especially given how far I'd lifted the shadows in the image.

So if it takes that long on a single image, I imagine it takes quite a while to process an entire shoot. Fortunately for me, I only process a small number of images from a shoot, so even if it took a minute to process, it wouldn't perturb me.

. . . . . . . . . .

In a moment of cynicism, I wonder if Adobe has developed this new de-noise software to help Apple sell the next generation of their CPUs? Maybe we'll need M3 MegaUltraSupercalifragilistic chips to be able to run the next de-noise software?

Then again, if I read one of the blurbs on the new software correctly, Adobe offer the chance to offload the de-noising to their own hardware (probably for a "nominal fee") so you won't have to have your own machine do the work.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Just watched a video on youtube about this, and they are suggesting to do what I have already done i.e., denoise first then edit - which is a bit confusing as this clearly does not work for me. They also have said that ADOBE are aware of the overhead of creating a second (large) file and are working on an update that does not need to create a new file. So I'm not much further on. I guess I'll look at some more videos.

Saw this after posting my comment about using the de-noise.

I started with a 99MB ARW file, did some adjustments in ACR, pushed it through the de-noise processing, got a 314MB DNG, then saved it as a 360MB PSD - no cropping, so each of those files was the full resolution of the A7RV. I'm accustomed to the size of the PSD files, but yeah, that DNG is a sizeable file. Still, I can delete it after I save the PSD. Actually, I have two PSDs, because I processed the file without de-noise, too, just to see the difference. I like the de-noised version a lot, so I'll delete the un-de-noised version. Still, it amuses me that at least temporarily I have over a gigabyte of files representing just one image.

 

[iamdlewis]

Just for comparison I tested the same file with LrC DeNoise and Topaz DeNoise. Overall Topaz was much quicker with it taking about half the time which I included the loading time of the file into DeNoise. Time was 12 seconds for Topaz and 26 seconds for LrC, plus no extra stupidly large file.

Overall I would say that the Topaz is the superior option because:
1. Much faster (probably because you can set it to just use the graphics card for all the processing)
2. Topaz's auto selection is so good that you don't need to do anything more than let it select the best slider values
3. Batch processing
4. No extra stupidly large file

For anyone wondering why Adobe released this with this large file "bug" you should see the develop through support case work they do with other tools of theirs.

Examples files have no processing other than the denoise. LrC denoise set at the default 50. Topaz denoise set to auto.

Topaz:

• ILCE-1
• FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 640

LrC DeNoise

• ILCE-1
• FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 640

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Agreed David,
as a user of Topaz Photo Ai wherein they have recently reintroduced their lens, and motion blur options as well as the Denoise/Sharpen and resize tools and based on my past experience of Photoshop, LR Denoise i find Topaz very fast comparatively...the role of photoshop as the best post processing tool again remains my software of choice. Topaz who are currently working through a development process for all their AI packages, since first release, and are actively seeking/providing customer feedback and associated bug resolution and have been issuing weekly updates for the past many weeks.

Some may consider the investment in these packages to be high cost but in terms of efficiency, post processing workflow speed and image quality I haven't come across anything else to best this tool combination.

In previous posts from from Ed and Tony we have discussed the PC power for driving the denoise and related processes and fundamentally from my experience find a i7-i9 Gen 10-13 machine with between 32-64 Gb Ram and 8-16 Gb on the graphics card should provide the necessary processing power to give fast processing speed. Anything lower than this may tend to be a drag on the processing speed of these high end packages particularily for high
batch processing of high resolution images at 25-60Mb

 

[iamdlewis]

In previous posts from from Ed and Tony we have discussed the PC power for driving the denoise and related processes and fundamentally from my experience find a i7-i9 Gen 10-13 machine with between 32-64 Gb Ram and 8-16 Gb on the graphics card should provide the necessary processing power to give fast processing speed. Anything lower than this may tend to be a drag on the processing speed of these high end packages particularily for high batch processing of high resolution images at 25-60Mb

I am using a Ryzen 9 5000 series 12-core, which is like the i9 with 32GB (at I believe 3200) with a Radeon RX 6800 XT card with 16GB. So it has some muscle. The fun thing with this setup is that I can actually hear when the graphics card is doing the majority of the processing in tools like CaptureOne, Topaz DeNoise and MS ICE but I never hear when I use the Adobe stuff. I think this is because you cannot adjust the handling of the processing in the Adobe tools like you can in the others. So unless Adobe modifies this Topaz will always be faster for those with non-integrated graphics cards if you set Topaz to process through the card.

 

[evacguy]

I am using a Ryzen 9 5000 series 12-core, which is like the i9 with 32GB (at I believe 3200) with a Radeon RX 6800 XT card with 16GB. So it has some muscle. The fun thing with this setup is that I can actually hear when the graphics card is doing the majority of the processing in tools like CaptureOne, Topaz DeNoise and MS ICE but I never hear when I use the Adobe stuff. I think this is because you cannot adjust the handling of the processing in the Adobe tools like you can in the others. So unless Adobe modifies this Topaz will always be faster for those with non-integrated graphics cards if you set Topaz to process through the card.

David, not sure I agree with your statement concerning the GPU and ADOBE. I can hear my GPU kickoff when LR needs it, especially when processing the AI DENOISE.