This is from Lightrooms denoise if anyone’s interested. That creates a DNG like the others but in true Adobe style if you open it in any other program you just get the normal raw.
1 Like
Pray do tell more, and share a sample if possible.
Not much more to tell, it’s only in LR that you see the changes. The DNG from DXO, Topaz etc… you can edit with other raw editors.
Here’s the file. Noise Reduction Testing – Google Drive
Also in this folder I’ve included the results from DXO PureRaw with one of my photos if anyone’s interested. I had the trial a while back. There’s the DNG, the original raw and a DT edit of the DNG which is probably a bit too sharp but it shows what it can do.
Thanks for the sample, this is indeed getting interesting! This is now a brand new Adobe DNG 1.7 spec file that has an additional subimage embedded inside (rather than saving it as the primary image after enhancement like the other tools seem to do):
[SubIFD1] SubfileType : Enhanced image data
[SubIFD1] ImageWidth : 5496
[SubIFD1] ImageHeight : 3670
[SubIFD1] BitsPerSample : 16 16 16
[SubIFD1] Compression : JPEG XL
[SubIFD1] PhotometricInterpretation : Linear Raw
Note also the very new JPEG XL compression used, which is not supported widely either, so I guess it’ll be some time until this gets implemented by 3rd parties…
Can you please also upload a sample to https://raw.pixls.us/ directly (incl. a note it is the DNG 1.7 w/ JPEG XL compression)?
2 Likes
Interesting. I just cancelled my Adobe free trial - and glad for it - so I can’t test that myself. I know that LR/ACR will create a new DNG upon activating their Enhance NR, but can you then export that file to another DNG version that could be read by other applications?
Any rate, I wasn’t particularly impressed with Adobe Enhance. Its nice to have the NR inside the program, but the results are very aggressive with no other controls than strength and the results seemed very waxy to me.
1 Like
Thanks to everyone for chiming in. I’m picking up some great tips from everyone.
Thanks, I think that comes pretty close to my DT attempt without completely distorting the ducks in the background.
That’s pretty clever how you combined the drawn and gradient mask on the duck. I think you have the BG noise controlled pretty well, personally I like to use the D&S surface blur to take care of those black pixels - which I think are more distracting than unrefined luma noise - but my attempt rendered the ducks in the background very poorly.
WRT noise and the resolution - yes, I suppose you’re right about that. However, I reduced the size to comply with the general request to not post large, full scale JPEGs.
I tend to agree, but it seems that with the advent of AI denoise there seems to be an expectation that photos are supposed to be totally noise free. One of the reasons why I started looking more carefully at NR was because of feedback I received from some judged shows.
But I think I mentioned before that I can sometimes tell when someone has taken through a photo through an AI NR program. The images begin to look oversmoothed and plastic. Back in the '90s we called images “Photoshoped”… I wonder if a new term “Topazed” would apply today. 
2 Likes
I can if that’s okay with Dave as it’s his photo?
2 Likes
Just tried it and it’s still the same, the only option is export as a tiff file. Which I did, I think it looks good after diffuse or sharpen in DT.
3 Likes
Its got a little bit of that fine salt and pepper that D&S can introduce… I think… sometimes dropping one iteration will make it disappear… or maybe it grain you left??
I just applied the AA filter preset because that’s what I normally apply. So should be able to get better easy enough.
1 Like
Normally that is fine… So it might just be the state of the image before that. I use that preset often and tweak the iterations up one at a time to see if I can get something sharper when I need it… I usually find much beyond 3 and it starts to add that fine pepper to the image
1 Like
I think this is a very valid point…
There are several good edits, here, and then comes this. It is simply amazing!
3 Likes
I agree…lots of really nice edits… my winner to this point is @Popanz . Wonderful detail recovered esp on that blown area on the leading edge of the wing and the body of the bird nicely preserved and nice contrast against the background water color …
1 Like
They are the denoising as a second layer in the dng. Which isn’t really standard I believe , and the denoised image may be in a non standard pixel layout or other funky encoding.
So the dng you end up with seems to open like a normal dng without any processing applied , because that’s the primary/first image in the file.
what would they know?
you should push some HP5 to 1600 next time and see what they think of that.
1 Like