noise reduction compared to rawtherapee


(Shreedhar Inamdar) #21

Here is what I could do with RT 5.5
IMG_1652-1.jpg.out.pp3 (12.0 KB)

(Morgan Hardwood) #22

RawTherapee 5.5

IMG_1652.jpg.out.pp3 (11.2 KB)


Ooooh! Well done, @Morgan_Hardwood!

Claes in Lund, Sweden


I would left some of the noise for this photo, maybe too much.
dcb+vng4 and slight sharpening in g’mic with inverse diffusion

IMG_1652.CR2.pp3 (11.8 KB)

(Gustavo Adolfo) #25

Ahahah! Whooo…??

This is the volleyball team where my son plays (but he doesn’t show in the pic)

Oh, I see you’ve fixed Senhor (not Señor), well done, Brazilians thank you for that. :grinning:

(Peter) #26

I made photos for profiling my GX7 and @Andreas made a denoise profile (thanks once again), but when I try to denoise my photos, I get similar effects @Thomas_Do got with DT on this sample. I made a quick edit in DT 2.4.4 and LR 5.7.1 and comparing the results put me down. Even above RT edits (in my opinion) can’t beat what is doing LR. Either I have to get back to basics and learn how to use denoising or process photos in DT and (some how) do denoise only in LR.

(Gustavo Adolfo) #27

@Gobo Would you mind editing the volleyball pic (or @mabod’s one, as you wish) with LR and show it here?
I’m curious.
EDIT: It wouldn’t be the first time here, but I guess it’s always useful to see what commercial software is doing, my opinion.

(Peter) #28

Sure, this is only denoise done in LR. Compare arms and face of player No 2, shoes (black parts) of player No 5., face (around eyes) of the young player.

(Ingo Weyrich) #29

No, that’s denoised and downsized

(Peter) #30

Sorry, forgot to change from last export.

(Ingo Weyrich) #31

That looks really good imho!!!


Yes, it is quite good. Looks like their raw processing capabilities have improved.

(Mabod) #33

I gave it a try in RT as well. With just one slider “Luminace noise = 40” I already get a decent result similar to Bill’s Nr. 3 - High ISO. This is really amazing.

(Alberto) #34

I’ve never used lightroom myself, but I have a hard time believing it is very far from the state of the art. Sure, there might be specific things that some other tool does better, but on average I would assume that Lr is pretty good. And, in this specific case, it does show indeed.

Here’s the best I could do to emulate Lr’s rendering:

Still not quite as good, but reasonably close IMHO. Though I personally prefer a “grittier” look:


Could you share the .pp3?

(Alberto) #36


I’m afraid not, sorry. But here’s one way to do it:

  • open in RT, apply neutral + auto lens correction + noise reduction like this: RGB mode aggressive, auto chroma, 50 luminance and 50 detail

  • go to GIMP (I exported in linear gamma, ACESp0), apply G’MIC guided smoothing with default settings, but only to chroma (I used YIQ chroma IIRC)

  • now G’MIC guided smoothing again, radius 1, smoothness around 75, luminance only

  • a gentle S-curve

  • and finally a bit of G’MIC grain (kodak T-MAX 400, scale 0.8)

Not exactly identical, but in the same ballpark:


I say that because the LR result looks nicer than I remember it to be. That might be due to the sharpening it does by default but it is still better than before. FLOSS isn’t doing bad either. :stuck_out_tongue: Thanks to you and countless others. :slight_smile:


Here is a quick attempt using darktable 2.4.4.
I used denoise bilateral filter (which is very powerful on high ISO picture, if you set the red green and blue values while looking at the red blue and green channels separately using the channel mixer), and a little bit of equalizer and that’s all.


Here’s what the commercial DxO PhotoLab2 (with PRIME NR on) did with this:


Well, I have Lr/ACR too and I am sure that they are not better than RT or DxO.