Topaz Denoise 5 software for photoshop. (1 Viewer)

Hi

I have just been trying Topaz denoise 5s 30 day trial & so far I think its the best one I have used.

Has anyone else tried it? if so what do you think of it?

Heres a couple of video links for it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3QeDswRaWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMfCVfKhHzo

Cashie said:

Has anyone else tried it?

Click to expand...

Yep...

hello Keith

I liked it so much after using it for a few days I've now bought it.

I got it 0n the 31st which was the last day & saved $30.

Been using it from V2.

Good move, Paul.

I started using Denoise at v.4 - got a good deal on the price then too - as a result of a brief discussion/recommendation on another site: I'd tried it previously without seeing any advantage over Neat Image, but in v.4 I could see clear - subtle but clear - advantages over NI and Noise Ninja.

V.5 is noticeably faster, and (not that this is a problem with my cameras, but I've tested it with high ISO 5D Mk II files) comes with remarkably effective debanding functionality.

I started with V. 3, and have seen big improvements with each version...5 is certainly the best yet, and excellent for dealing with very high ISO noise, both lumi and chroma, with the best detail retention I've seen from any NR software.

I downloaded the trial version of Denoise 5 last night and have been experimenting with it. So far I am extremely impressed. It seems to be very effective and easy to use. I think I will probably end up buying it.

I notice that I have just missed a special offer of 30 dollars off. Does anybody know if this was a one off or if there are regular discounts on it? I couldn't find any current discount voucher codes on the web.

Ron

The discount deals come out now and again - I got v.4 at a discount, and I know that wasn't the first time they'd done it for that version, so it's reasonable to assume that there'll be further deals for r.5, I reckon.

Thanks Keith. The full list price is not too bad but I will wait until the end of the trial period to see if any discounts crop up.

Ron

Get onto the mailing list Ron, then you won't miss your chance.

I was curious if anyone has compared Denoise 5 to Lightroom 3 noise reduction. I've seen couple reviews that mentioned Lightroom 3 is just as good or better.

I have Lightroom 3 and may just try to 30 day trial if it would seem to give a better noise reduction option.

Thanks

That's a really hard question to answer, as it is very workflow dependent. I'm not even really sure you can make a direct comparison between the two (not sure I can, anyway) - they serve different functions from my point of view, and have different purposes.

Yes, that sounds daft! I'll try to explain what I mean.

I use the NR in Lr 3 (which is excellent, by the way) to produce a high quality "starting point" for subsequent post processing: the conversion stage is - for me - a discrete - part of the workflow, and what I'm doing at that stage is getting the foundations right. So Lr is used to remove some of the noise (which actually means that I don't always apply Luma NR at the conversion stage. Typically though I'll leave the Chroma at default, with Luma at about 6 or 7. This usually being a 400 ISO Canon 7D file), correct the WB, exposure, highlights/shadows and so on. Speaking personally, I know that I'm going to see things I can further "improve" at the PP stage, which is why I consider conversion only to be a starting point.

(I should add that I have used Lr 3 as a "one stop shop" - a lot of folk say that thanks to Lr 3 they hardly need a separate image editor any more, and I've explored that - but I've never been completely persuaded by the results I've achieved).

The post processing stage is when I use the Topaz product. The thing about using DeNoise at this stage is that I've got far more flexibility in how I apply it: I usually apply it selectively (you can apply processes selectively in Lr 3 too, but it's much easier in Photoshop/Paint Shop Pro/Elements/The Gimp, IMHO) and routinely use it for "creative" purposes - such as approximating a shallow DOF - rather than just for noise reduction per se.

Nevertheless, when I start PPing a conversion from Lr 3 I've deliberately not removed every last hint of noise at the conversion stage, because I get more control - and a better sense of what I'll end up with - from applying "finishing" NR at the PP stage. In fact, I approach NR exactly like I approach sharpening: many of us apply capture sharpening at the conversion stage, and then deal with creative (and output) sharpening at the PP stage. Well I use Lr 3 to apply capture NR, and apply creative NR in PP.

I do know though, that with this workflow, DeNoise gives me a more appealing end result than either Neat Image or Noise Ninja: but Lr 3 vs. Topaz? I'd need to completely rework my workflow to come up with a test for that. It'd be doable, but - hand on heart - I'm so within my comfort zone with this workflow that I'd always doubt that any "straight from Lr 3" test result would have been optimally treated, which wouldn't be fair to Lr's NR.

And having said all that: thinking about it some more, the Lr 3-only images I've made still looked pretty good, really: noise certainly wasn't a problem in any of 'em, and many were well north of 400 ISO. Had I not been spoiled by Neat Image and now DeNoise, I'm sure I'd have been very happy with them.

7D, 100-400mm @ 400mm, 800 ISO - a dull day. Very slight crop.

Lr only:


With DeNoise too:


Not much in it at this resolution.

I'm impressed, Topaz's software has just got me out of a hole that LR3's NR was struggling with.
Note to self: don't show clients images on the back of the camera without first checking they aren't a pile of doggy doo :-O

Good to know, Paul.

One other thing I've mentioned before but which bears repeating: you know the fuss that folk made about the "pattern noise" banding that was prevalent in some 40D/50D/5D Mk II etc. high ISO images? Well the debanding tool in DeNoise does a fantastic job of dealing with it.

I downloaded the violinist from the bottom of this page: http://cyberphotographer.com/megapixelmyth/ - it's a 12,800 ISO (underexposed and pushed) image from a 1Ds Mk III - and the pattern noise/banding is very clear in yer man's sleeve and in parts of the BG.

The Debanding tool entirely removes the linear aspect of the noise, leaving a completely uniform - and not at all disagreeable - noise pattern, without touching detail or texture anywhere else in the image. It's very impressive.

I too have downloaded the Topaz denoise 5, but have really struggled to use it in my workflow. I must first say that I'm not very good at the post processing, or using the computer in general. So much of what has been said on this thread is over my head. My main problem is that Topaz doesn't appear to have a brush tool like noise ninja, so applies NR to the whole of the image; and in trying to create a smooth background I end up removing some of the detail on the subject. Do I have to go back to using the lassoo tool and layers in PSE, or is there another dodge that I don't know about.

I've really avoided using layers (the selection tool is my biggest problem really) by using the control points in Nikon NX, then the brush in noise ninja. When I used layers it took me ages, and I'm really not good at using the selection tools.

I only really work from ISO400 to 800. With 400 I can manage, but I can't seem to rid myself of any trace of noise in the background at 800 with certain shots (like the Downey Emerald one in this months comp.). I'm okay for the birdguides stuff at 640 res, but with 900 res. for BF, the noise is still apparent.

I'm a processing numpty, so your patience is appreciated, and any advice will be gratefully received.

Thanks for the reply Keith. I'm reading Kelby's book on both Lightroom 3 and CS5. I'm new to post production. I haven't really used Photoshop before. Ideally I like to stay in Lightroom. However it seems like to do certain things like remove noise from background only, remove unwanted objects and possibly apply more specialized sharpening I'll need to move the file to Photoshop.

Lots to learn.

Helios said:

My main problem is that Topaz doesn't appear to have a brush tool like noise ninja, so applies NR to the whole of the image; and in trying to create a smooth background I end up removing some of the detail on the subject.

Click to expand...

Yep, that'd happen.

Do I have to go back to using the lassoo tool and layers in PSE, or is there another dodge that I don't know about.

Click to expand...

What I do is really easy, and I'm sure you can do it in PSE.

With the image open in your editor, create a Duplicate Layer - nothing fancy, just a duplicate.

Apply DeNoise to the whole Duplicate layer.

Toggle the background layer's visibility off ("Background copy" on top, click on the "eye" icon of "Background" in the Layer palette) then use the Eraser brush at a suitable size to quickly rub out the layer from over the bird and anything else you don't want the NR on.

The beauty of this is that there's no need at all for precision: getting the brush close to the edges of the bird is accurate enough.

Things should look something like the attached image.

When you're done with the brush, click the eye icon again, merge the visible layers, and you're done.

It's easier to do than to write down!

And... you can do exactly the same thing to selectively sharpen: the only difference is that where you use the Eraser brush on (say) the bird when you're removing the NR, you'll use it on everything but the bird when you're applying the sharpening.

And again, no need for pixel-perfect placement of the Eraser brush: if it goes a little bit over the edge of the bird, it doesn't hurt anything.

It really is dead easy, this approach - and it means no need whatsoever to faff about with selection tools, lassoes, control points and whatnot.

Hi BodyResults,

I'm very much a Luddite myself when it comes to PP - I've always refused to get so bogged down in it that it becomes an end in itself, but this approach is dead easy, and as long as your editor supports plugins and duplicate layers, you're good to go.

There is a way to selectively process in NR, by brushing on a mask and then applying the effect to the painted area. You can't apply NR this way, but you can fake it by applying a high negative value for Sharpen, and/or a high negative value for Clarity (Local Contrast).

It's easier my way!



Lr is pretty good at removing items though, with the Clone/Heal brush: but again, I prefer doing this in Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro - it's just much more intuitive, I find.

Thanks Keith for your detailed response. I still find it easier using the brush in noise ninja than in photoshop for some reason, but perhaps with practise..

I do agree however that Topaz produces a better quality background than noise ninja. I'll probably reprocess my offending shot once the competition is over, although I did look at the same shot on an LCD screen at work and it looked much better.

Heads up, folks - 20% off DeNoise at the moment: http://www.topazlabs.com/denoise/