Canisdirus

Lightroom isn't actually Photoshop 'lite'.
Yes, it does some processing (some)...but it's strength is the organizational end of it...which compliments working with all the other adobe products.

If you want pixel level manipulation...photoshop.
Topaz can clean up and sharpen an image better than photoshop...

Joexx

Yes, it is the wrong thread ( mine..), but I fully understand your frustration. if Ctl/alt/del did not get you task manager, and the computer is completely locked up, it is likely a driver or hardware problem. Another thing to check is to run task manager BEFORE it is locked up. It could be that you are running out of RAM (memory). I noticed that just in the past several weeks PS & LR have required lots more memory. I have been using 32gb without any issues. I usually used well below that. but recently I have been hitting over 30gb in use & some wierd things have been happening. added another 32gb & issue resolved. I guess that adobe's recent updates are 'pigs' when it comes to memory use.

Joexx

"Topaz can clean up and sharpen an image better than photoshop". Please give me specific examples. You may be correct, but I have not been able to find any. Faster, sometimes, but better ??? if you can give me specific examples, this is exactly what I am looking for...Thanks

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

I consider myself an intermediate PS user. I prefer using Topaz DeNoise AI and Sharpen AI because I am not a pixel peeper. My maximum print size is 8x10 and I don't wish to spend extra time in PS when all I have to do is push a couple of keys to get more than adequate processing for my needs.

Canisdirus

Check out some Anthony Morganti videos on the topic.
He's well worth watching to learn the discussed software...all of them.

Topaz has an edge...and is way faster.

DaveJ Loc: NE Missouri

I'm always appreciate your posts. What other noise option would you recommend. I use DeNoise and get good results(most times). I don't like the time it sometimes takes process a large file sometimes.

Canisdirus

Video card and processor makes all the difference.
My 5 year old comp (which was no slouch at the time of purchase) did major sharpening in no less than 5 minutes in Topaz. Usually more than that.

Comp processor finally gave way (212 temp reading on two cores...that'll do it).
Picked up a good deal on an Alienware.
Now it never takes longer than 1.5 minutes....usually 30 seconds.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You might find other results from google = digital noise software 2021

This list in my results includes all the usual suspects, including both Adobe products at / near the top. I run only circa 2016 LR6 that probably performs better in 2021 via ongoing subscription updates (and equally old Topaz DeNoise v6). Noise Ninja was a popular title back around 2015 when I was last buying software. It's still on the lists.

https://capturetheatlas.com/noise-reduction-software/

Markag

I'm a Z7 shooter and seldom or maybe never, shot above ISO1600. I've copied and processed a dozen NEF files using just adobe and then Topaz for noise. I honestly can't tell the difference. So much so I figured I must be doing something wrong but try as I might, Topaz doesn't do it for me. Also, off topic certainly, but I'm the hog that would like to replace Adobe products altogether because of what it does to my PC. I've downloaded and compared many products but I always come back to Adobe. Capture One seems to come the closest but they want you to purchase additional plug-ins to perform functions, (focus stacking), that Adobe already does.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Could not be said better, but I would add-to/expand Curmudgeon's succinct comment. The photo editor is regardless of manufacturer a vehicle for plugin tools. That being the case, PS is a waste of "rent" money when you can purchase an editor such as Paintshop Pro at a reasonable price or even the excellent pseudo-PS, GIMP, for free. Topaz Studio II is also an environment having its goal being the effective use of Topaz plugins.

PS Elements is in format, menus, and tools close to PS but limited in scope; for many old PS users, it is comfortable. PSE can for only $12, be expanded in its ability by adding "Elements Plus."

The best advice ever from a Topaz Webinar was to do the sliders moving far right extreme, backing off and then backing off a tad more, thus preventing the over-processed look.

Printing and displaying 8x10 photos is my typical choice. One can display clusters of photos to show them off to visitors and store them easily; the image impresses, not the size. large Prints may be required if submitted to a club for a photo exhibit.

Regardless, plugins and now plugins with a mind, AI have made our lives easy compared to the first digital editors.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Markag, this is probably the start of a separate topic, but here's a quick example to address your post above.

I'd think you should be confident in shooting to ISO-6400 with a more modern Z7 than my EOS 5DIII that I try to limit to ISO-5000. The attachment below was developed from Lightroom v6 and PSE-10 using a recent image posted to Flickr from last weekend in Chicago, but not used in any posts to UHH.

What I wanted to show was LR's default processing when any RAW file is imported. There's a default total sharpening amount applied and a default Color Noise Reduction (with zero Luminance NR). My own experience with Sony and Canon EOS RAW files is that images in the range ISO-100 to say ISO-1600 need mostly Luminance NR rather than Color NR, and total NR much less severe than LR's default values applied to all RAW imports.

In the attachment below, I exported uncropped full-resolution images using history steps and then cropped a 500x500 pixel box of the same location of each image version, merging onto the top of the crop size of final version of this image (1709x1069px, down from the original 5706x3840).

To describe a bit further,

Box 1 is the LR export with the import defaults for sharpening and Color NR. The background canvas is the same #1 image
Box 2 is an LR virtual copy with the Sharpening and Color NR set to zero. The difference is subtle, the difference is visual when I turn the layers off and on in PSE, although you likely can't see an obvious difference between boxes 1 & 2 (I can't).
Box 3 is the edited version of the image I posted to Flickr after just LR processing. This image was nothing 'special' and I didn't take the addition effort to run it through Topaz DeNoise.
Box 4 This is the Topaz DeNoise v6 result of the same position as boxes 1,2,3. I'll probably replace the LR version in Flickr with this improved version.

What I find with Topaz is the DeNoise software is much better at cleaning the background details than LR. Therefore, my approach is edit as normal in LR, including sharpening and NR, either to completion of the image, or using the same settings 'as complete' and then process the uncropped image with the LR edits in Topaz DeNoise. I tweak the DeNoise settings to focus the de-noise effort on the background. There's a Topaz 'slider' for highlights that I set to minimum. I re-apply the final crop when re-importing the Topaz results back into LR.

Hopefully, the difference in box 4 is obvious compared to the other three crops. You should be seeing the same / similar in your work. When you say you don't, we'd really need to look at specific images, both original NEFs and your edited results, something that is definitely it's separate discussion and likely to need a dropbox for the file sharing.

To 'see' the details you need to launch the attachment into a new browser window, or download to your computer. Then, you need to click to the 1:1 pixel level details. At the 1:1 pixel level details is how you should be reviewing your Topaz results too.

(Download)

Joexx

yes, I have watched most of his videos. He usually does a good job. Having said that,his evaluation of Topaz vs PS was a little superficial. He just used some basic PS functions to sharpen and de-noise. I am not sure if he knows the more sophisticated methods, or just choose to keep it simple. PS has many ways to sharpen or remove noise that may take 5-20 steps. It can get rather complicated. I have 5 or so different processes set up as automated Actions so all I need to do is start one and wait a minute or so and it automatically change the photo. I can try several different processes in a few minutes and see what I like best. It is pretty easy, and gives great results. I just copied the different processes from some online tutorials on sharpening & de-noise that I have seen over the past several years.
It ends up very similar to using the 4 or so options with Topaz. As for removing noise, it also seems that you can get as good results (and sometimes better) using PS and using some masking. I am not "beating up" on Topaz, I am just looking for someone to give me specific examples of something it can do that PS & LR cannot.
So far no one has done this.
Again (for the nth time) Topaz is a good product, I am just looking for any benefits within these specific parameters.

Joexx

Just so I understand what you posted (I may not). You are setting the LR: color noise reduction, luminance noise reduction, and sharpening all to zero and comparing it to Topaz and saying that Topaz has better results?

I would like to add. LR sharpening is very poor. Kind of like using a 3 wide inch paint brush to try and draw a detailed diagram. PS (& Topaz) does much better than LR for sharpening. This was not my original question, but I am trying to understand your comment, because I do not.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

No, I'm saying LR applies default settings to all RAW imports. Most LR novices don't recognize nor refine these at-import defaults. This example image isn't particularly noisy being ETTR in a bright light at ISO-1000.

Box 1 and the background canvas are an unedited image at ISO-1000 with the LR defaults. Box 2 is zeroing-out those LR default settings for an example version of the original RAW from the camera (alas, box 2 is really no visual difference vs box 1 in this section of blue sky). Box 3 is the fully edited image, but just a 500x500 crop of a darker section with Luminance and Color noise remaining in the sky. Box 4 is that same image from Box 3 run through Topaz to further clean-up the sky. For this example, the relevant comparison is boxes 3 and 4, but one needs also a view of the start-point (boxes 1 / 2). My point of these examples was to respond to a comment saying they failed to note a difference from Topaz, where I wanted to show even for an image that is relatively clean, Topaz does a great and noticeable job in the background details where noise hides in larger prints and / or higher resolution posts.

You can disparage LR sharpening, but that disparagement leaves me concerned you're not using the tool properly. The LR import defaults are insufficient and have no consideration of the masking nor image details. One needs to test for the pixel resolution of their camera(s) and the sharpness of their lenses, and they can find relatively general parameters, unique to their images, that are much more effective where they're sharpening the image details rather than the image noise.

Joexx

First, thanks for commenting that you feel that I may not be using LR sharpening correctly. A very reasonable comment, (and I am taking it as well meaning). But, I am pretty sure I am using the capabilities of LR sharpening fairly well. I have read/listened to 10-15 tutorials over the past several years on the topic. I still think it is a rather crude function when compared to what I can do in PS. I do use it is LR, but only when I just need basic sharpening. If I am wrong & missing some LR capability, that would actually be good because that would improve my skill set.

I will be reading the rest of your response in a little while and respond to it. I want to give it some thought. Thanks,