Just asking (Page 3): I am a proponent of using the right tools for the job. If you need a tool once a year or less, rent it. If you need it more, buy it. When I got my first backhoe I...

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I am a proponent of using the right tools for the job. If you need a tool once a year or less, rent it. If you need it more, buy it.

When I got my first backhoe I found all sorts of things that it could do that it was never designed for.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

ecobin wrote:

If you keep your iso to 1600 or less then the denoise filters in any postprocessing program should suffice. But when you crank up the iso then you'll see a significant improvement using Topaz or DxO compared to the standard filter.
Get a free trial version and test it for yourself.

That is an important distinction! Thank you for posting that.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Rongnongno wrote:

Every add-on does what LR or PS CC do. The only difference is the need for knowledge. Add-ons take your hand and appear to do a great job. The same thing can be done IF you learn how to use the original software.

The real differences? $$$ and time to learn.

Needless to say that I am not a fan of add-ons.

Wrong-no-go strikes again. Every add-on does NOT do what LR & PS do. I don’t often use Topaz Denoise with my Z7 raw files but almost everything from my RX10MIV with its 1” sensor does. Especially since I’m often shooting at 88-1600 ISO. I could spend hours in LR and not get close to what I get with Denoise. Although more recently I’ve been using DXO Pure Raw 2.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Wrong-no-go strikes again. Every add-on does NOT do what LR & PS do. I don’t often use Topaz Denoise with my Z7 raw files but almost everything from my RX10MIV with its 1” sensor does. Especially since I’m often shooting at 88-1600 ISO. I could spend hours in LR and not get close to what I get with Denoise. Although more recently I’ve been using DXO Pure Raw 2.

Does the Topaz or DXO tool work as a LR plug in or is it a stand alone tool?

Where do you usually use it? At the beginning or at the end of the process?

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

JD750 wrote:

Does the Topaz or DXO tool work as a LR plug in or is it a stand alone tool?

Where do you usually use it? At the beginning or at the end of the process?

Both work as plug-ins but differently. Topaz has a raw process that’s a little cumbersome on a PC but easy on the Mac, (I have a PC), that gives you a DNG. Using the regular plug-in process you can choose either a copy or a copy with LR changes and it creates a TIFF. For DXO Pure Raw instead of right-clicking and choosing from the plug-ins you click on the File menu and choose Plug-In Extras. There are no options for processing choices with DXO except choosing whether to use lens corrections or not, but it hasn’t been a problem. One option it has is where to save the resulting DNG. A tutorial suggested setting up an auto-import folder. I find it better to just save it back to the same folder and it automatically shows up in LR right next to the original.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

rmalarz wrote:

Exactly!!! Everything add-ons can do, one can do with Lr or Ps. Add-ons are the "lazy" route to accomplishment.
--Bob

That’s me! Like the song says But I like it!

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

fredpnm wrote:

Get a trial version and decide for yourself.

Your reply is like a stranger asks you for directions to a nearby town and you say "go buy a roadmap and find your own way"

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

RodeoMan wrote:

Your reply is like a stranger asks you for directions to a nearby town and you say "go buy a roadmap and find your own way"

Well, now we have had people extol the virtues of Topaz AI and others do a complete dump on it. So you can't depend on the experience of others.

There's no substitute for personal experience. Everyone has their own needs and approach to a problem. I'm in favor of the trial period (although you need to do it when you have plenty of time and no other distractions to give it your best evaluation).

Klickitatdave Loc: Seattle Washington

From my experience Topaz DeNoise does a much superior job at correcting excessive noise than my playing around with PS sliders. Yes, I can accomplish the same end within PS but the process is more labor intensive and hard on my 71 year old eyes. Call that lazy, but it works for me. For me, Topaz DeNoise was worth the expense but whether that holds for you is an individual decision. The suggestion that one would benefit from downloading and trying the trial version is a good suggestion That way you can do a comparison between a PS denoise example and the same photo processed with Topaz DeNoise. And if the results are in your estimation equal in cleaning up noise then was the effort spent denoising the photos in PS time intensive enough that Topaz is a better option for you.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Klickitatdave wrote:

From my experience Topaz DeNoise does a much super... (show quote)

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Gillett invented the razor because he was too lazy to us a clamshell

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I tried a clamshell once. Even after sharpening, the results were less than encouraging.

Sometimes technology produces positive progress.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

ELNikkor

When I have tried PS & LR, it seemed to take a long time and I was often poking around looking for something that made sense. With Topaz Denoise etc., I just made a few obvious clicks and in seconds, had the results I was after.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

ELNikkor wrote:

When I have tried PS & LR, it seemed to take a long time and I was often poking around looking for something that made sense. With Topaz Denoise etc., I just made a few obvious clicks and in seconds, had the results I was after.

Have you considered the ideas in these posts?

Basics of noise processing

Basics of Lightroom Sharpening