DXO launches PhotoLab 6 with next-level noise reduction and AI technology

AJ

EOS R
Sep 11, 2010
843
261
It should preserve detail. I dont see how it is is a problem unless it makes up its own details like a healing brush. I am sure the tech will get much better as time goes on.
Preserve intrinsic or introduce external detail? That is the question.
The healing brush is a good example. Traditionally we set an anchor point, and the image editor uses the texture (detail) in that area to fill in the area we stroke. Thus, you only use information from your own photo. You heal a zit by using detail from a skin area unaffected by acne. It's a blended copy-paste-type cloning done within one image.
An AI-powered healing brush should be able to work without an anchor point. It should be able to fill in an area by having been trained on a large external dataset. Here, the AI algorithm will match the area to be filled with data from its training dataset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
745
696
How high do you go for those and on what camera? Curious now.
I photograph a lot of fungi - so I often find myself in at least partial shade needing 8000 - 12800 ISO. At ground level even mini-tripods are unusable at certain angles, and resting on uneven ground doesn't allow the same long shutter time as on a tripod. The EOS R produces excellent images at that range, but in some cases (and it's hard to pick when) the grains get a bit intrusive. DxO noise reduction is - quite frankly - magic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0

David - Sydney

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,556
1,331
www.flickr.com
Correct, but you do own your copy.
Not being able to copy does not negate ownership.
We own plenty of patented items that we are not legally allowed to copy.
We only make an issue of media content and downloaded content because it is so easy to make copies,
You may own any associated media eg the CD, the box etc but technically and legally, you are granted a right-to-use of the SW license. The language is very precise. It is similar when licensing someone to use your photo. The end user never "own" it but you can grant a license to them to use in particular circumstances. As a photographer, it is important to understand this and competitions etc will specify what rights you are granting to them to use it.

As far as SW being able to be patented, then that is a much more complex question and depends on the jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent

From the Adobe general EULA https://www.adobe.com/products/eula/tools/captivate.html
"2.1.1 License Grant. Subject to Customer’s continuous compliance with this Agreement and payment of the applicable license fees, Adobe grants Customer a non-exclusive and limited license to install and use the Software (a) in the territory or region where Customer obtains the Software from Adobe or Adobe’s authorized reseller or as otherwise stated in the Documentation (“Territory”), (b) during the term of such license (“License Term”), (c) within the scope of the License Type and on the Permitted Number of Customer’s Compatible Computers as specified in the Documentation, and (d) in a manner consistent with the terms of this Agreement and applicable Documentation. Unless otherwise defined in this Agreement, in the applicable Documentation, or at the time of purchase, License Term shall be perpetual. Upon the expiration or termination of the License Term, some or all of the Software may cease to operate without prior notice. Upon expiration or termination of the License Term, Customer may not use the Software unless Customer has renewed the license. The license granted herein is supplemented by specific provisions in Section 16 as related to the use of certain applicable products and components that may be included in the Software such as font software, Acrobat, After Effects, Adobe Presenter, Contribute, Flash Player, Flash Builder, Digital Publishing Suite, and Adobe Runtimes."
 
Upvote 0

David - Sydney

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,556
1,331
www.flickr.com
Really depends on the software. DXO is about $200 to get started and if you buy every upgrade its $60-100/yr. I started with PL4, for about $159 IIRC, then bought a $79 upgrade to PL5, and If I buy this update I'll be in for another $99. That's.$340 for 3+ years of use. I think Adobe photo package is $20/month (i could be wrong), so that's $240/yr. Or about $520 for the same length of time. Granted, PL5/6 can't do everything PS can do.
LR subscription by itself is USD10/month. LR+PS is $20/month for the 1TB storage option.
In Australia I am being charged AUD14.29/month which is USD9.30/month for LR+PS.

But the big thing is you don't HAVE to upgrade. I got PL5 because I got a new camera that wasn't supported in the older versions. I don't HAVE to upgrade to PL6 either. So I could stop now and have full access and full functionality for new photos with my current gear forever, without spending another dime. And that's where you'd see a real cost savings. Also nice if you fall on harder times and have to stop your subscription. You can still do stuff with the software if you aren't on a subscription model.
That is very true but for many photographers the cost of USD120/year is cheap compared to a new lens.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

David - Sydney

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,556
1,331
www.flickr.com
Not really correct, no. DXO PL a lightroom alternative, not a PS alternative. Though it has better new camera and new lens support (sooner, better correction profiles), and much better noise handling. It does do masks, presets cloning, repair tool, and other color manipulation. I still just use PS CS6 since i only really have the need for it a couple of times a year. PL5 is fine for everything else. Heavy editors will disagree. It also is a one time cost, so you don't HAVE to upgrade each year. There is no subscription cost. And they can't lock you out if you miss a payment, since you own the usage rights to the copy you bought.
If you miss or cancel your subscription to LR then you can't use the develop module and lose any data in their storage (I don't take advantage of it anyway).
All other features including catalogue, import/export, print etc still work.
I do agree that the profiles for the R5 and the DJI M3P were slow and aren't great but you can create your own profile or pay for a 3rd party one.

Another thing I like about DXO, is that it just uses your native file structure. No importing/exporting from a library, but full functional keyword and metadata searching all the same. Still maintains the non-destructive raw editing as well.
LR uses whatever file/folder structure you use on the disk. LR can just "add" from the current location or "move" the photos if from external media into a folder of your choosing. The "importation" is just to add the photos to the catalogue. My catalogue includes folders on my local drive and external drives within the same catalogue. You can choose to have more than one catalogue if you want.
All LR processing is via a side-car file ie non-destructive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,125
1,677
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
Sorry mate, I beg to differ.
For astro and wildlife photos I regularly shoot high ISOs. Not because I want to, but because I have to. DXO PureRaw2 is a game changer compared to Adobe. And the plug-in is almost seamless so its easy to use the great features of LR.
I do the same thing with astro and wildlife images. But what I have found is that IF it requires noise reduction that adobe cannot manage then the image will always be sub par to an image shot in better conditions. I guess it is a bit of a use case but for me, if I need that amount of magic then the image is never going to be good enough to better my good images and it will never be printed large. If it is going on social media than it is almost irrelevant anyway. I am not arguing that adobe is as good as others. It isn't. I am saying that in the end it won't make a lesser image into a first rate one. It may make it 'usable' but not great. Not from my experience anyway from using topaz etc.
These denoise software just change what is defined as 'well lit'. There are plenty of times when you can get a good exposure, just at ISO 25600 or even 51200. I run in to this a lot in nature, or youth field sports. The lights arent pro quality, or there may be no lights on the field, so high iso is required. The image doesn't require 5 stops of shadow pushing or anything, it's just noisy. But noisy no more, with Deep Prime or one of the other 'next gen' noise reducers.


It's really amazing. A tool you don't need all the time, but amazing when you do. It's really worth it, IMO. It's a tool, not a crutch.

Really depends on the software. DXO is about $200 to get started and if you buy every upgrade its $60-100/yr. I started with PL4, for about $159 IIRC, then bought a $79 upgrade to PL5, and If I buy this update I'll be in for another $99. That's.$340 for 3+ years of use. I think Adobe photo package is $20/month (i could be wrong), so that's $240/yr. Or about $520 for the same length of time. Granted, PL5/6 can't do everything PS can do.

But the big thing is you don't HAVE to upgrade. I got PL5 because I got a new camera that wasn't supported in the older versions. I don't HAVE to upgrade to PL6 either. So I could stop now and have full access and full functionality for new photos with my current gear forever, without spending another dime. And that's where you'd see a real cost savings. Also nice if you fall on harder times and have to stop your subscription. You can still do stuff with the software if you aren't on a subscription model.

-Brian
they don't change what is 'well lit'. They simply mean you can get a less noise in a poorly lit image. But noise or lack thereof is not what defines a well lit image. It has nothing to do with the quality of lit or the micro contrast etc. And for me if I can't get those qualities then having no noise is not going to make the image great
Wouldn't that literally be the point of AI to make fixes with less compromise. I feel like your logic is old school. "AI" is the future. I will try this out soon and hopefully it works as good as promised.
What I am saying is that removing more noise from a poorly lit image does not improve the quality of that image in any regards other than noise. It is still a poorly lit image. I can see it helping with things like astro etc but not really with wildlife images etc as the quality of the image will remain low in all other aspects. Finding better light will do waay more for your image than any software. I am not questioning whether these programs work or not. They do. They are much better at removing noise than adobe. They just never improved my photos much. If they were mediocre shots prior to AI magic then they remained mediocre shots after the AI magic was applied because the quality of the light cannot be improved
 
Upvote 0

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
745
696
What I am saying is that removing more noise from a poorly lit image does not improve the quality of that image in any regards other than noise. It is still a poorly lit image. I can see it helping with things like astro etc but not really with wildlife images etc as the quality of the image will remain low in all other aspects. Finding better light will do waay more for your image than any software. I am not questioning whether these programs work or not. They do. They are much better at removing noise than adobe. They just never improved my photos much. If they were mediocre shots prior to AI magic then they remained mediocre shots after the AI magic was applied because the quality of the light cannot be improved
No doubt that's true, but there are occasions where you can't just 'find better light' - you have to do the best with what you have. DxO also has some fancy 'intelligent' lighting presets, which I tend to try out (sometimes they work really well, other times not so much). It depends (of course) on the type of photo you have, and what you're looking for, but as a salvage operation, it can be invaluable. I tend to use it that way, rather than as a normal part of the processing flow.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,125
1,677
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
No doubt that's true, but there are occasions where you can't just 'find better light' - you have to do the best with what you have. DxO also has some fancy 'intelligent' lighting presets, which I tend to try out (sometimes they work really well, other times not so much). It depends (of course) on the type of photo you have, and what you're looking for, but as a salvage operation, it can be invaluable. I tend to use it that way, rather than as a normal part of the processing flow.
Totally agree. And I do shoot in such conditions. But what I am alluding to is that in those conditions when you simply cannot avoid the noise, while topaz etc will undoubtedly give you a cleaner image, it will never be 'that' image. As I said. It can make them usable but never brilliant. If I can't print an image using adobe software than I will never print it period, regardless of the software I do use if you understand what I am trying to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Birdshooter

R3 and R5
Oct 14, 2019
28
34
Totally agree. And I do shoot in such conditions. But what I am alluding to is that in those conditions when you simply cannot avoid the noise, while topaz etc will undoubtedly give you a cleaner image, it will never be 'that' image. As I said. It can make them usable but never brilliant. If I can't print an image using adobe software than I will never print it period, regardless of the software I do use if you understand what I am trying to say.
As a wildlife photographer, there are many times in the past were I wished for better noise reduction software, and now we have many choice's to choose from.
Either in a software package like DXO or with plugins like Topaz DeNoise AI.

You complain about the quality of light and that you would never print one. Seems a bit weird, as there are many time's that I will crank the ISO with the R3 and R5 to get the image I want. Like early morning when the light is sweet but low, and I need to use a fast shutter speed for movement. I still have nice light, but I need that fast shutter speed to avoid out of focus images due to the slow shutter speed.
Topaz does a fantastic job and with some tweaking in PS you can still have good printable images. I am not saying they would be your best prints but I would at least get the shot, where the guy worried about raising his/her ISO would not have anything to try to edit. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

SHAMwow

EOS R5
CR Pro
Sep 7, 2020
129
204
I photograph a lot of fungi - so I often find myself in at least partial shade needing 8000 - 12800 ISO. At ground level even mini-tripods are unusable at certain angles, and resting on uneven ground doesn't allow the same long shutter time as on a tripod. The EOS R produces excellent images at that range, but in some cases (and it's hard to pick when) the grains get a bit intrusive. DxO noise reduction is - quite frankly - magic.
Makes sense, thank you for the explanation. So many different sub-genres and use cases of photography, I love it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,125
1,677
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
As a wildlife photographer, there are many times in the past were I wished for better noise reduction software, and now we have many choice's to choose from.
Either in a software package like DXO or with plugins like Topaz DeNoise AI.

You complain about the quality of light and that you would never print one. Seems a bit weird, as there are many time's that I will crank the ISO with the R3 and R5 to get the image I want. Like early morning when the light is sweet but low, and I need to use a fast shutter speed for movement. I still have nice light, but I need that fast shutter speed to avoid out of focus images due to the slow shutter speed.
Topaz does a fantastic job and with some tweaking in PS you can still have good printable images. I am not saying they would be your best prints but I would at least get the shot, where the guy worried about raising his/her ISO would not have anything to try to edit. :)
Well. Your last sentence pretty much agrees with what I am saying. They would be usable but not you best prints. Unless an image is better than something I have printed before then I won't print it.
 
Upvote 0

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,487
1,037
I’m sure it’s pretty good, I’ve an older version but tend to stick to Photoshop/Lightroom. I use Nik Software a lot - Dxo did a good job preserving them. For Denise I use Topaz denoise. That and Topaz sharpen I find excellent. They can’t save every image but they can make a big difference. Overall I’ve no issue with the subscription model. Adobe have surpassed my expectations by actually continuing to develop the product.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
520
468
I tried it with photos that a very noisy and I am not very impressed with the results. It gets rid of pretty much all the noise, but the details are still lost. So it is not the same as taking a photo with low ISO in the first place. The results look like they were taken with an iPhone or worse.

I will prefer my old method with layer masks. Duplicate the layer, then apply heavy conventional noise reduction on one of the layers and the use a mask. I do the same with sharpening. That is much more work, but it allows me to sharpen the details without introducing additional noise.

That AI noise reduction loses a lot of resolution. So it only works well if you only need a low resolution image. So if you need a photo for Instagram, that AI noise reduction will help you a lot.

This example photo was taken with ISO 10000:
 

Attachments

  • F57R7102_DxO.jpg
    F57R7102_DxO.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 17
Upvote 0

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,878
5,175
I tried it with photos that a very noisy and I am not very impressed with the results. It gets rid of pretty much all the noise, but the details are still lost. So it is not the same as taking a photo with low ISO in the first place. The results look like they were taken with an iPhone or worse.

I will prefer my old method with layer masks. Duplicate the layer, then apply heavy conventional noise reduction on one of the layers and the use a mask. I do the same with sharpening. That is much more work, but it allows me to sharpen the details without introducing additional noise.

That AI noise reduction loses a lot of resolution. So it only works well if you only need a low resolution image. So if you need a photo for Instagram, that AI noise reduction will help you a lot.

This example photo was taken with ISO 10000:
This photo was taken today at ISO 4000 - with crop camera (Nikon D500). Where is the lost detail? It's all about the speed you have under your hand (for the wild life...) I don't take photos of the type you do and may be (or most probably) you are right for that scenarios. For me the noise reduction improvement in the last programs (well, at least some of them) is rather big gain in the available speed (it's what we can change, not the light coming from above - humanity is still not that powerful:)). I'm going to venture further with the ISO - just to find the limit for my camera (the not acceptable lost of detail and overall IQ).

DSC_8727_DxO.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,337
16,811
This photo was taken today at ISO 4000 - with crop camera (Nikon D500). Where is the lost detail? It's all about the speed you have under your hand (for the wild life...) I don't take photos of the type you do and may be (or most probably) you are right for that scenarios. For me the noise reduction improvement in the last programs (well, at least some of them) is rather big gain in the available speed (it's what we can change, not the light coming from above - humanity is still not that powerful:)). I'm going to venture further with the ISO - just to find the limit for my camera (the not acceptable lost of detail and overall IQ).

View attachment 205876
I’ve been using various methods of removing noise for many years and agree with you 100%. Just as for you it’s mainly for bird photography where loss of detail is very noticeable because feathers have very fine detail. DxO Prime and Deepprime have been the best until now with the latest development certainly as good. I simply cannot understand @Skyscraperfan ’s findings.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
520
468
The problem with all computational photography using AI is that it was trained with existing images. So if the AI fills out what it does not know, it does that based on other images. So can you be sure that those pixels really come from the bird you photographed or could they come from other birds? The results could look very bad if you take photos of something the AI was not trained on enough. That leads me to think that IF it was trained enough, it just fills in what it "thinks" would fit there.

I wonder if people already have done experiments to check that. They could take photos of the same bird at ISO 100 and ISO 10000. Of course that would only work in very good light, but then every feather could be checked on if it is real of just created by the AI.

AIs are even worth when it comes to upscaling photos. The only way to come from a photo where you can't really make out individual hairs to one where you can is just filling the photo with fake hairs that make it believable. But is that still a real photo of the person then? I watched the Google Pixel 7 series presentation one or two weeks ago and Google showed a new sharpening tool for old blurry images there. The results in that video of course looked impressive, but of course they would not show us results where it did not really work. And the results where it worked might be quite fake.

Perhaps I overdid it and therefore it looked that bad. I tried it with ISO 10,000 or ISO 12,800 photos. Maybe it works better for making an ISO 1600 photo look like ISO 400 or so.

Those three photos where taken with ISO 3,200, ISO 12,800 and ISO 51,200 and I tried quite an aggressive noise reduction with DxO Photolab 6 on it. The problems with higher ISO become noticeable. The results look more and more like a painting:
 

Attachments

  • F57R0121_DxO.jpg
    F57R0121_DxO.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 13
  • F57R0123_DxO.jpg
    F57R0123_DxO.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 13
  • F57R0125_DxO.jpg
    F57R0125_DxO.jpg
    2.8 MB · Views: 13
Upvote 0

LovePhotography

Texas Not Taxes.
Aug 24, 2014
251
8
I have 5D R and many L glass, and I end up using my iPhone because of the ability to immediately do ultra-reality editing in under 20 seconds. It is discouraging. I just want software that I can do hyper-reality editing like those Hawaiian art gallery paintings. Yes, I love all the other feature, but, what is the best software to do like these photos. It seems incredible to import a Canon 50 MP photo into your iPhone for easy editing. :((
HEEEELP. :((
 

Attachments

  • 9CFDD552-70DF-4DCB-AAC3-14332658601F.jpeg
    9CFDD552-70DF-4DCB-AAC3-14332658601F.jpeg
    2.1 MB · Views: 7
  • 7AD2D1D1-99F5-4B8A-AE6B-B7D3A7CC3346.jpeg
    7AD2D1D1-99F5-4B8A-AE6B-B7D3A7CC3346.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 7
  • 0E05F4F1-E46F-454B-A283-9F866A574108.jpeg
    0E05F4F1-E46F-454B-A283-9F866A574108.jpeg
    676.7 KB · Views: 7
Upvote 0