AI noise removal is still not that good
I end up with a lot of super-noisy photos because I do social dance photography. The light in the room is dim, and I need a fast shutter speed because people are moving quickly, so I'm letting in even less light. This is terrible for noise.
Unfortunately, it seems that the best AI noise removal tools are still not that good! I am surprised.
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.
Ben Weinstein-Raun
in reply to kip • •kip likes this.
Kevin Gibbons
in reply to kip • •I hear good things about Lightroom's denoise - do you have a way you could try that? The random online tools are often pretty far behind state of the art, if that's what you've tried so far.
reddit.com/r/photography/comme…
kip likes this.
kip
in reply to Kevin Gibbons • •Oh cool! I can try Lightroom and this DxO thing (haven't heard of it). I think I may have already tried Photoshop's denoise feature -- maybe that's the same as whatever Lightroom is doing.
Topaz was what I tried in the screenshot. It seemed like it was supposed to be one of the best options, but I'm glad that top comment says it's actually far behind others
kip
in reply to kip • •Further attempts:
According to someone on the thread that Kevin linked, Topaz works better if you're using raw files instead of JPGs. Indeed, it does!
Not sure it's good enough that I'd actually want to use it. I'll think about it.
Looks like I did try de-noising in Lightroom already -- I cancelled my Adobe subscription so I can't redo it, but it's still on there when I open Lightroom. It's kind of impressive, but also still looks pretty unnatural in a lot of ways. (Some things too blurry, some things too crisp.) Looks like some poorly-stylized digital painting rather than a photo. (At least for the photo I tried. I can't share it because it's not a very flattering shot of the person pictured.)
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.