Very curious to see the PL6. I use the PL5 quite a bit. Should be nice hopefully.
-Tracy
Aspen Wedding Photographer
-Tracy
Aspen Wedding Photographer
Upvote
0
Preserve intrinsic or introduce external detail? That is the question.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.
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.How high do you go for those and on what camera? Curious now.
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.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,
LR subscription by itself is USD10/month. LR+PS is $20/month for the 1TB storage option.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.
That is very true but for many photographers the cost of USD120/year is cheap compared to a new lens.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.
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).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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 greatThese 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
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 improvedWouldn'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.
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
Makes sense, thank you for the explanation. So many different sub-genres and use cases of photography, I love it.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.
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.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.
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).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:
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.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 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. (
£69, as opposed to £44.50 last year. I might give it a miss this year.The $99 upgrade price is now down to $69. Not as much of a discount as last year (it went down 50%), but probably as low as it is going to go ...