Raw File Optimization - Part 2

Terry A. McDonald – www.luxBorealis.com

Framed Print Resolution (4800x3600px or 17.3mp)

To best approximate viewing distance for actual prints, these larger les were evaluated on-screen at 50%. Again, judging at 100% is simply not realistic as only photographers and internet pixel-peepers, not buyers, view prints this close.

Despite the larger size (17mp vs 11mp), the results of these comparisons closely mirror the results of the previous files, but as expected, the fine differences start to reveal themselves.

Once again, the LrEnhNR and DxO versions are the best, but not my far. The ON1 and Topaz versions are equally good, but each suffers as they did previously from colour shift and artefacts respectively. I’d like to work out these problems as the sharpness and three-dimensionality are excellent.

High ISO Photos

The last two of the six photos I examined were shot at very high ISOs of 6400 and 12800. I now know that my previous scepticism is unwarranted and I’m proven wrong, again—the results are phenomenal, across the board. Web-sized JPEGs are virtually indistinguishable across the five treatments. At 4K size, the OMW file drops out of the running. Even upsized to 4800 pixels, the detail, colour balance and exposure are amazing and very printable amongst the LrEnhNR, DxO, ON1 and TPZ les. The LrEnhNR appears more naturally sharp with the others appearing more hyper-realistic, easily tamed by dialling down the Texture
adjustment in Lightroom to –30 to –50. This is something I will discuss further in my conclusions.

Like the photos in Part 1, click to open each file to view them at full size.

One surprise was the quality of the LrBase photo of Junior at ISO 6400. I printed it to 4×6 as an ArtCard and you would never know it was shot at ISO 6400. This is something we as photographers easily lose sight of when pixel-peeping becomes the norm. Most prints on a lustre baryta or matte paper will not show the noise to the same extent as is shown at 100% on screen.

Conclusions & Discussion

I would love to say that one treatment stood out head-and-shoulders above the rest and was a clear winner, but I can’t. They all produce excellent results. There may be differences at the pixel level when viewed at 200%, but as I’ve made a point of saying, that 200% is an unrealistic yard stick to use.

Lightroom’s own Enhanced Noise Reduction is excellent throughout the ISO range, providing very natural-looking sharpness and micro-contrast while maintaining smoothness of skies and excellent overall three-dimensionality. DxO Pure Raw seems like the best of the raw optimizing apps, with Topaz and ON1 being equally good, but with a couple of artefacts that need more investigation. OM Workspace was disappointing in its ability to create clean, sharp images, particularly at higher ISOs.

Natural versus Hyper-realistic ‘Look’

One thing I kept noticing with all the photos is the very natural-looking, clean sharpness and presence of the LrEnhNR files, which contrasts with what I see as the hyper-realistic sharpness and smoothness of the DxO, ON1 and Topaz versions. The initial appeal of JPEGs from them is captivating, but to me they seem too real, the birds and lion looking more like museum specimens prepared for exhibit. They look great to the untrained eye, but to someone who knows nature, they appear, perhaps, too perfect. As a former ‘film guy’, maybe I’m just more tolerant of a more natural look, and less tolerant of the plasticky smoothness associated with these treatments. It’s like they are trying to emulate something that doesn’t really exist in nature.

My concern is that this is the way photography is going due to large sensors and this pixel-peeping drive towards minute, clean detail—detail and perfection at a level which one would never see in nature without the proverbial bird in the hand. Perhaps it’s the generative AI aspects of the algorithms, creating pixel-level detail that is not normally seen. Or, maybe it’s just me. Having been involved with nature interpretation for decades, the look comes across as a bit hyper-real, perhaps in an effort to make nature look glossy and catch attention, rather than show nature as it is. But, as I said, this is only my perception, a feeling I have.

Final Assessment

Overall, you can’t go wrong with Lightroom Enhanced Noise Reduction, DxO Pure Raw, ON1 No Noise, and Topaz Photo AI Raw Denoise and Sharpening for demosaicing, denoising and sharpening raw files. If you’re looking for a clear winner, you won’t find one. They all perform brilliantly and, save for the Topaz and ON1 artefacts which are being looked into, any differences highlighted here are only noticeable upon direct comparison, which in itself, is unrealistic. Differences may be more or less noticeable depending on the raw files you start with and your personal workflow.

I realize these results may be different from what internet bloggers and vloggers have found, and I did not rank one above the other by unnecessarily splitting hairs—but I have no skin in the game either. I do not represent any of these companies, nor do I make a commission from links or profits from clicks. I am only reporting what I see and for the vast majority of photographs, any one of the apps, other than OM Workspace, does a superb job of cleaning up noise while maintaining and sharpening the fine details of foliage, fur and feathers, with the noted caveat of glossy perfection.

For me, I will continue to use Lightroom’s Enhanced NR and am building into my regular workflow both DxO and ON1. I will also be spending more time making some prints to see which versions look better on baryta and matte papers.

Up next in this series:

How well can Topaz PhotoAI and ON1 No Noise ’rescue’ images that are slightly sub-standard due to camera or subject motion? — Stay tuned!

Elevate Your Vision

Join our community of passionate photographers.

Access our extensive knowledge archive.

Master the art of landscape and beyond.

Your Email *

Select list(s) to subscribe to

Example: Yes, I would like to receive emails from Luminous Landscape. (You can unsubscribe anytime)

Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.

---

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The Luminous Landscape Inc. https://luminous-landscape.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the  SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact.

By subscribing I agree with Terms and Conditions

Do it later