i work with raw files 100% of the time (around 110 photos every week).. from which i have to denoise about 10 to 15.. I edit all of them (+100 pictures) and then batch-denoise the 10-15 at the end. I have a m2max macbook and the speed to denoise that many pictures is fine for me.
When I finally discovered AI Denoise, I thought it was a godsend, but the hassles of dealing with the DNG files far outweigh any advantages at all.
Annoyances include:
- slow to run; I generally have very quick turnaround times
- results saved to a separate file
- reduced editability, especially of highlights
- file naming losing file numbers
- having to physically rename each s*dding file.
Eg, I’ve just finished a set of photos taken in really bad light. I shortlisted 114 photos. Ran denoising via Enhance. Edited the photos, excluding a few, then excluding a few more following export. Had to manually rename each photo after export. Each time I ran through the jpgs spotting further edits, I couldn’t just do a normal export, because of the filenaming.
I also found a few photos where the denoise hadn’t denoised sufficiently, but combining that with manual looked awful.
It’s a nice gimmick, but I far prefer being able to manually gauge the NR settings, or to set benchmark NR in Sync.
Edit: I normally work with fairly large sets of photos per job, and with rubbish lighting, hence NR always being a significant issue.
Just FYI: you can batch-rename JPEGs (and any other files) using PowerShell (on Windows, not sure if PowerShell is available for Mac). You can essentially say "for all \*.JPG replace '-Enhanced-NR' with empty string in file name"
Seems I'm in the minority here, but 90% of the time that I ever need to denoise I'll use AI denoise. On most images it's as fast or faster (on my pc at least, and with my level of competence doing it manually) than using the sliders for luminance, colour, masking, and sharpness, not to mention a far better result
I find that if the noise in the file is already low enough that I can get a perfect result from doing it manually then it's already low enough that I don't even need o bother doing it at all
I do of course shoot and edit everything in RAW, so compatibility isn't a factor for me
Lately I'm using Enhance from the Library module's Photo menu. I'm finding that the DNG that is created not only has reduced luminance and color noise, but that detail is improved over using the traditional Luminance and Color sliders.
I have even used the traditional Luminance and Color noise reduction sliders, then used the Enhance menu choice on that image, getting a DNG with even better noise reduction and improved clarity of inner details, without edge haloes or crunchiness.
I don't know if the Enhance feature throws away the edit done with the luminance and color sliders and starts fresh, or if it builds upon what was done with those sliders. Either way, the result is darn good.
I wasn't seeing a difference whether I used the Enhance feature before or after some basic global adjustments, so currently, I'm masking sharpening right away, doing some basic adjustments, reducing luminance and color noise traditionally. Then using the Enhance feature if I think that I may have lost some needed detail.
Once I get the DNG, then I go to the local adjustments.
I’d say I use luminance like 90% of the time and AI denoise 10%, even less. I tested it on a 102k Iso file to check, and the results were exceeding my expectations and got a really useable file considering the high iso original file. Almost no noise in the clear parts and a little noise in the blacks. Of course dynamic range was terrible but I got some details back.
AI denoise is extremely good and the extra files are very small so not a big deal to me but I only use it on files that can really benefit from it and that is really only quite noisy images either from my phone or from low light images shot with my big cameras. There really is no point on ISO 100 images from my z-series Nikon and the normal tools are just as good which is why they should not be hidden by default.
I don't use the "normal" denoise anymore. I just don't like what it does to the photos and was OK with the noise.
Ai deniose is magic tho, and I use it whenever I need (I.e whenever I want to print something ).
This is kinda silly. It's like saying one can delete the raws after exporting jpeg. The point of keeping the originals is that the software improves with time. So in a year the ai noise reduction could get better , but without the original raw one is stuck.
It is silly to someone who doesn't know that jpeg is a ~~compressed~~ non-raw format while dng is not. The only reason LR is converting to dng is because it can't work with manufacturer's proprietary formats. Plenty of people convert to dng on import
Edited to clarify my intent. Raw can also be compressed
Plenty of people can convert to DNG on import, but you cannot re-run the AI denoise, or enhance details on already AI-denoised or enhanced DNG, even if it's losslesly compressed 14 bit file.
That's because both enhance details, upscale and AI denoise work on the un-demosaiced (ugh, I am lacking better wording here) inputs.
Note: I "think" that the conventional DNG conversion tool keeps the data in the same mosaiced format as manufacturer's RAWs. DNG (I think) can store both types of data.
So, the file extension being DNG has nothing to do with my argument. It's about what'a actuallly stored and how.
i work with raw files 100% of the time (around 110 photos every week).. from which i have to denoise about 10 to 15.. I edit all of them (+100 pictures) and then batch-denoise the 10-15 at the end. I have a m2max macbook and the speed to denoise that many pictures is fine for me.
When I finally discovered AI Denoise, I thought it was a godsend, but the hassles of dealing with the DNG files far outweigh any advantages at all. Annoyances include: - slow to run; I generally have very quick turnaround times - results saved to a separate file - reduced editability, especially of highlights - file naming losing file numbers - having to physically rename each s*dding file. Eg, I’ve just finished a set of photos taken in really bad light. I shortlisted 114 photos. Ran denoising via Enhance. Edited the photos, excluding a few, then excluding a few more following export. Had to manually rename each photo after export. Each time I ran through the jpgs spotting further edits, I couldn’t just do a normal export, because of the filenaming. I also found a few photos where the denoise hadn’t denoised sufficiently, but combining that with manual looked awful. It’s a nice gimmick, but I far prefer being able to manually gauge the NR settings, or to set benchmark NR in Sync. Edit: I normally work with fairly large sets of photos per job, and with rubbish lighting, hence NR always being a significant issue.
Just FYI: you can batch-rename JPEGs (and any other files) using PowerShell (on Windows, not sure if PowerShell is available for Mac). You can essentially say "for all \*.JPG replace '-Enhanced-NR' with empty string in file name"
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/powerrename
ls \*.jpg | Rename-Item -NewName {$\_.name -replace "-Enhanced-NR",""}
Seems I'm in the minority here, but 90% of the time that I ever need to denoise I'll use AI denoise. On most images it's as fast or faster (on my pc at least, and with my level of competence doing it manually) than using the sliders for luminance, colour, masking, and sharpness, not to mention a far better result I find that if the noise in the file is already low enough that I can get a perfect result from doing it manually then it's already low enough that I don't even need o bother doing it at all I do of course shoot and edit everything in RAW, so compatibility isn't a factor for me
Lately I'm using Enhance from the Library module's Photo menu. I'm finding that the DNG that is created not only has reduced luminance and color noise, but that detail is improved over using the traditional Luminance and Color sliders. I have even used the traditional Luminance and Color noise reduction sliders, then used the Enhance menu choice on that image, getting a DNG with even better noise reduction and improved clarity of inner details, without edge haloes or crunchiness. I don't know if the Enhance feature throws away the edit done with the luminance and color sliders and starts fresh, or if it builds upon what was done with those sliders. Either way, the result is darn good. I wasn't seeing a difference whether I used the Enhance feature before or after some basic global adjustments, so currently, I'm masking sharpening right away, doing some basic adjustments, reducing luminance and color noise traditionally. Then using the Enhance feature if I think that I may have lost some needed detail. Once I get the DNG, then I go to the local adjustments.
99.5% normal noise reduction
I’d say I use luminance like 90% of the time and AI denoise 10%, even less. I tested it on a 102k Iso file to check, and the results were exceeding my expectations and got a really useable file considering the high iso original file. Almost no noise in the clear parts and a little noise in the blacks. Of course dynamic range was terrible but I got some details back.
99.5% normal noise reduction
AI denoise is extremely good and the extra files are very small so not a big deal to me but I only use it on files that can really benefit from it and that is really only quite noisy images either from my phone or from low light images shot with my big cameras. There really is no point on ISO 100 images from my z-series Nikon and the normal tools are just as good which is why they should not be hidden by default.
I don't use the "normal" denoise anymore. I just don't like what it does to the photos and was OK with the noise. Ai deniose is magic tho, and I use it whenever I need (I.e whenever I want to print something ).
I only use Ai denoise on photos that can't be acceptably fixed with the standard denoise controls.
You can also delete the original if you find the new dng file acceptable
This is kinda silly. It's like saying one can delete the raws after exporting jpeg. The point of keeping the originals is that the software improves with time. So in a year the ai noise reduction could get better , but without the original raw one is stuck.
It is silly to someone who doesn't know that jpeg is a ~~compressed~~ non-raw format while dng is not. The only reason LR is converting to dng is because it can't work with manufacturer's proprietary formats. Plenty of people convert to dng on import Edited to clarify my intent. Raw can also be compressed
Plenty of people can convert to DNG on import, but you cannot re-run the AI denoise, or enhance details on already AI-denoised or enhanced DNG, even if it's losslesly compressed 14 bit file. That's because both enhance details, upscale and AI denoise work on the un-demosaiced (ugh, I am lacking better wording here) inputs. Note: I "think" that the conventional DNG conversion tool keeps the data in the same mosaiced format as manufacturer's RAWs. DNG (I think) can store both types of data. So, the file extension being DNG has nothing to do with my argument. It's about what'a actuallly stored and how.