Is Topaz Denoise that good? (Page 2): I agree. I use it from time to time and find it very good. But free trial downloads are available. Try it before you buy it. Can't go wrong. :D...

infocus Loc: Australia

wolfman wrote:

I use it occasionally and it does a good job at removing the noise without over softening the image.
You should download the trial version and try it out.

Bob

I agree. I use it from time to time and find it very good. But free trial downloads are available. Try it before you buy it. Can't go wrong. :D

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

I notice the samples are taken from the Topaz screen. I have noticed on my own system that what you see after the image is reopened in photoshop seems a bit decreased in effect. I have noticed this with other Topaz plugins too, I have compensated by over doing the plugin, then the "dilution" effect makes it look right. Especially with the Topaz Star Filter. It really makes the rays intense looking on the plugin screen, but when it opens back in photoshop the rays are about half as intense. Has anyone else noticed this?

OddJobber wrote:

Bob's advice is best. 30-day trial is free.

I never shoot over ISO 1600, but here are some screen shots with a D800 at ISO 3200.

The full frame is visible in the upper right corner, so this is zoomed way in.

In the right hand column (second picture), note that this is at 20% strength, about as high as I ever need to go.

lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

Dear Will, its not only good, its excellent, as I find all the Topaz, software to be.....

twillsol wrote:

I have seen a lot of posts on here about Topaz den... (show quote)

twillsol Loc: St. Louis, MO

I want to thank all of you for you advice. I will try the 30 day trial. I appreciate your help.

Will

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

twillsol wrote:

I have seen a lot of posts on here about Topaz den... (show quote)

This may be a case of the blind leading the blind because I would ask the same question. I'll probably download and evaluate a copy of Topaz Denoise when it goes on sale.

But I can suggest also trying out Raw Therapee. It is a free download and the most recent version introduced a wavelet denoise feature that seems to work quite well. I seem to recall that it is a preliminary version of the feature so perhaps it will improve as time goes on.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

twillsol wrote:

I want to thank all of you for you advice. I will try the 30 day trial. I appreciate your help.

Will

DXO also offers a free, fully functional 30 day trial.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Gene51 wrote:

I use or have used Dfine, DeNoise, Ninja, etc - bu... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I also use DxO Optics Pro Elite version with Prime Noise Removal. It is absolutely outstanding. I also have the NIK and Topaz collections and they cannot begin to compare to DxO Prime Noise removal.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

twillsol wrote:

I have seen a lot of posts on here about Topaz den... (show quote)

I have the Topaz Suite (usually cheaper to buy the whole 13 or 14 program suite at once together), but since I shoot at high ISO so rarely I have not tried Denoise. Also in general, shoot in RAW and adjust or correct any excess noise with ACR before running full Ps or Lr. Note, I have not tried or think you can run Topaz from ACR.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Regis wrote:

I use this program and it does a great job with little effort and great results while keeping the image fairly sharp.

:thumbup: :thumbup: best in PS as a new layer so you can mask out areas that do not need as much noise reduction

RRS Loc: Not sure

Gene51 wrote:

I use or have used Dfine, DeNoise, Ninja, etc - bu... (show quote)

Gene, nice detail as always. Question on shot detail. You shot it with an f/2.8 24-70, how did you come up with 105mm?? A 1.4 TC would take it to 98mm. Just thinking...Ron

Bill Gordon

You may have had the ISO set as indicated, but you had enough light to create a very strong shadow. This may have contributed to the high quality of the photo's detail. Or, perhaps I am in error on this. What say others?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

RRS wrote:

Gene, nice detail as always. Question on shot detail. You shot it with an f/2.8 24-70, how did you come up with 105mm?? A 1.4 TC would take it to 98mm. Just thinking...Ron

Ah, I grabbed the wrong image - this one was done with an 80-200 F2.8, the one I thought I had grabbed was with the 24-70. Good catch. And yes, the exif data said it was done at 105mm. Sorry about that . . . :)

Thanks for the catch and the nice comments.

I have not come across a better noise reduction program than DXO's Prime. As you can see, there is no loss of detail. In fact, as you can see from the unprocessed jpeg, it seems to "add" some detail.

Interesting thing is that the D800 is often criticized for poor noise performance - but the "unprocessed" jpeg looks pretty good in that department.

(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Bill Gordon wrote:

You may have had the ISO set as indicated, but you had enough light to create a very strong shadow. This may have contributed to the high quality of the photo's detail. Or, perhaps I am in error on this. What say others?

True, the light was contrasty, but even the shadow on the dark side of the raccoon on the bluestone is pretty clean. The only cameras I have tried that do better than this is the D3S and the D4 - I haven't used the D810 or the D4S extensively in low light, but the reviews I have read tend to agree that they are somewhat better, maybe even up to one stop better. But the nose texture, and the small hairs around the snout would be lost with aggressive denoising with any of the pixel-based programs.

emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

OddJobber wrote:

Bob's advice is best. 30-day trial is free.

I never shoot over ISO 1600, but here are some screen shots with a D800 at ISO 3200.

The full frame is visible in the upper right corner, so this is zoomed way in.

In the right hand column (second picture), note that this is at 20% strength, about as high as I ever need to go.

Excellent example.

Jean Chang Loc: Massachusetts

I like Topaz Denoise a lot. Here is a comparison of Lightroom processing vs using DeNoise and PS. It is an extreme case, because the ISO was 4000. D800 camera, 300mm f/4 lens. It still shows some noise at 100%, but doesn't look bad just to view on screen. I think the DeNoise does a better job when you have a lot of noise, though.

Using Only LR Post Processing

(Download)

Using DeNoise and Photoshop

(Download)