Adobe Lightroom Classic unveiled the new Denoise powered by AI. Topaz Labs has released Denoise AI a while back. Join me for this epic smackdown.
Comparing Topaz Labs Denoise AI and Lightroom Classic Denoise
I denoised a high-ISO Milky Way photo several times, using Lightroom as a platform. First, I reduced the noise twice using Topaz Labs Denoise AI v3.7.2, my go-to denoising software. Then, I compared these two attempts to one instance of the new AI-powered denoising in Lightroom Classic CC, just released in v12.3.
With both Topaz Labs and Lightroom, I was editing the RAW files. Topaz Labs saves the edited photo as a TIFF file. Lightroom Classic saves the edited photo as a DNG file.
Topaz Labs Denoise AI Low Light (moderate setting) vs. Lightroom Classic Denoise
Above: Topaz Labs Denoise AI offers four windows with four different denoising models. Additionally, each of them is adjustable by several parameters.
Comparison: (Left) Topaz Labs Denoise AI at moderate setting of 34 using Low Light Model vs. (Right) Lightroom Classic Denoise (AI-powered) at moderate setting of 30.
Observations in first comparison
I zoomed in at 300%. This was for hardcore pixel-peeping since no one looks at photos at 300% zoom. I noticed that Lightroom Classic’s version is a little brighter. I also noticed that the noise in the dark areas as well as the sky is less at moderate settings. This included the color noise prevalent in the sky.
However, Topaz Labs had retained more of the detail in the stars and leaves of the trees.
For a previous article, I had determined that I liked Lightroom’s Denoise at about 30. After that, it began to look “fake” and “plasticlike.”
Curious to know what Topaz would look like with much higher noise reduction, I set it for 93 — almost the max that it goes.
Topaz Labs Denoise AI Low Light (high setting) vs. Lightroom Classic Denoise
Comparison: (Left) Topaz Labs Denoise AI at high setting of 93 using Low Light Model vs. (Right) Lightroom Classic Denoise (AI-powered) at moderate setting of 30.
Observations in second comparison
Again, zooming in at 300%, I pixel-peeped. As before, the Lightroom version was a little brighter. However, since I used a much higher noise reduction with Topaz Labs, I noticed that the denoising capabilities were closer. However, Lightroom Classic once again had less noise. This included the color noise in the sky.
However, not so fast. I also noticed that Topaz still managed to retain more of the details in the leaves and the trees.
Topaz Labs (moderate setting) vs. Topaz Labs (high setting)
Just for curiosity’s sake, I set up this comparison as well. These are the two Topaz Labs denoising efforts described above, but in direct comparison to each other instead of Lightroom.
Comparison: (Left) Topaz Labs Denoise AI at a moderate setting of 34 using Low Light Model vs. (Right) Topaz Labs Denoise AI at a high setting of 93 using Low Light Model.
Comparison of photos without software image comparison
Just in case you prefer this way or it works better on your device, I’ve placed the three screenshots with denoising applied so you can have a look this way as well. You can also click on these photos to enlarge them, which might make it easier for you to look on our desktop or device.
And the winner is …
In our titanic battle for denoising supremacy, who prevails?
Topaz Labs Denoise AI v3.7.2
- Offers more models and choices for denoising
- Works slightly faster (not really that big of a difference)
- Gives you greater control of detail and retains it better
- Can be used as stand-alone software
- Does batch-processing when used as stand-alone
Lightroom Classic CC AI-powered Denoise v12.3
- Much simpler to use … just one slider!
- Reduced more noise and color noise while not marring detail
- Built in to Lightroom Classic (a bonus only if you already use Lightroom, of course)
If you absolutely must require detail, Topaz Labs appears to be the winner. Or is it?
Here, I need to point out that Lightroom has some fantastic features in the Basic Panel that address detail. This includes Texture, Clarity, Dehaze, and elsewhere, Sharpening. In other words, Lightroom is more than capable of sharpening or creating micro-contrast if needed after denoising.
So who is the winner here?
We are. We all win. It’s beautiful to have tools that just a short while ago would have been unthinkable.
This is but one example. My guess is that as time goes on, we will discover that one is better for certain images or situations, and the other is better at others. And between it all, both will continue releasing new versions that grow increasingly better.
Thanks for this. I also have been testing Topaz deNoise models and the new LR denoise feature. First, I found that the Topaz RAW module seems to be better than any of the other Topaz models (that are exported from LR). So my comparison between LR and Topaz is using the RAW processor of the latter. Here’s what I found: The first, huge, difference is that Topaz processes my 50Mb RAW files in 40 seconds. LR took SIX minutes to process the same files. Topaz exports a finished DNG at 291MB (!!!) vs LR’s processed DNG at 121Mb. As you… Read more »
Thanks for your comment, Steve. It’s different for each computer. Topaz and LR processed my image in approximately the same amount of time, with Topaz being nominally faster by approximately five seconds. I’m using an mid-2017 iMac with i7 and 40G RAM. Topaz appears to sometimes do a marginally better job at retaining detail, but also appears to be more prone to artifacts, as you mentioned. IF I had to wait 6 minutes for one program and 40 seconds for the other and both programs were reasonably close in quality, the choice would be clear. If there is batch-processing for… Read more »
It’s very simple to batch process in Lightroom. You simply highlight the images that you want and then in the development panel have sync turned on at the bottom right. And it will “Denoise”, all the images in your selection.
Cool. I just hadn’t tested it using Denoise and didn’t want to say for certain that it batch-processed. So you’ve already done it this way? Thanks!
If you select multiple images in the library module and go through the right click menu, you’ll notice it changes the words in the denoise/enhance window to plural and will neatly stack the images for you as it processes, which by itself is almost a nice enough time-saving feature for me to pull me from DxO PureRaw. Performance wise, on my M1, I was looking at about 60 seconds per RAW from my Olympus E-M5 Mk3 in LrC, DxO PureRaw was giving a slightly better result (my opinion) using Deep Prime (not the latest Deep Prime XD) in about 7… Read more »
You must have a slow machine, as in photoshop and lightroom, my rig spits the results from adobe denoise in much less than a minute. Tried it several times and its just as fast or faster than having to open up Topaz. I really like Topaz, and think Adobe’s first iteration is great.
The graphics card may make a difference as well. Mine was typically at about 35-40 seconds processing time with a mid-2017 iMac with 4.2GHz i7 chips and 40 G RAM using a Radeon Pro 580 8 GB graphics card. So I don’t have anything that is state-of-the-art, but managed to get 35-40 second processing with both Topaz Denoise and Lightroom Classic Denoise.
Very disappointed that you chose not to publish my comments. This IS being discussed on the LR forums and elsewhere.
Some of us live in different time zones from you. Some of us are busy. Some of us are sick. Or it might be a combination of all three.
You do realize that only 1 hour and 20 minutes elapsed before you wrote that you are disappointed that I chose not to publish your comments, yes?
Some performance numbers against Topaz Denoise AI and DXO DeepPrime using a RAW from a1 (50mb). MacBook Pro with M2 Pro 10 CPU cores and 19 GPU cores, 16GB LR Denoise: ~1 minute (clearly not optimized for Apple silicon) Topaz: ~7 seconds DXO: ~20s Windows PC with RTX 4070 Ti LR Denoise: ~14s Topaz: ~6s DXO: ~14s Batch of 14 on 4070Ti, 2min57s, so an average of 12.86s. GPU memory started from 4GB and climbed close to 8GB. Total 12GB on the card. Another run and the memory consumption is going further up so clearly some memory leaks. Avoid running large… Read more »
Thanks for the analysis Ken. I still can’t get the denoise quality on the AI version of Topaz that I can with my manual settings on the terminal release of the non-AI version. I spent hours developing baseline settings with my sky photos from my camera at the ISO settings I most frequently use. I don’t have to do a lot of adjustments off the baseline to get excellent denoise results. But it does require that I understand how noise works since there is a slider for all types in the non-AI version of Topaz. People ask how I got… Read more »
Interesting. I’m thinking that AI is going to be around for a long time, for better and worse.
Interesting comparison and I appreciate you taking the time to put that together. By any chance have you evaluated DXO’s photo lab 6 deepPrime AI noise removal? I have been using both DeepPrime and Topaz Denoise for a year and a half and I find DeepPrime (which only works on either the Raw file or on a Dng that was created in Adobe LR from a DXO supported camera’s Raw file). I find DXO DeepPrime to be easier to use with cleaner results and no loss of details. I find topaz sharpen and gigapixel very valuable. And, if I’m dealing… Read more »
Thanks. I just barely finished this and the other LR article.
No, sorry, I don’t have that!
Topaz adds sharpening, most likely what your noticing. Sharpening should be the last step, so maybe Adobe got it right not adding sharpening and to sharpen after other adjustments are made first.
Yeah, I point that out at the end of the article. I typically use sharpening as the last step. But regardless, initially, LR might appear slightly “softer”, but that’s because Topaz adds sharpening at most of their settings, but LR does not. I also pointed out that LR has more sharpening and detail features than Topaz Denoise AI would, which might offer the user a better result.
I looked at those 100% screenshots and did not spot any difference worth mentioning. Zooming in (that’s about 300% or so), i see an awful amount of color noise in the sky still. Sorry, but from this article I conclude that I do not need to spend 200€ on another software. Lightroom Classic does all I need.