#Photoshop topaz denoise iso

So much of what has been said on this thread is over my head. I must first say that I'm not very good at the post processing, or using the computer in general.

I too have downloaded the Topaz denoise 5, but have really struggled to use it in my workflow.

#Photoshop topaz denoise iso

Had I not been spoiled by Neat Image and now DeNoise, I'm sure I'd have been very happy with them.Д§D, 100-400mm 400mm, 800 ISO - a dull day. It'd be doable, but - hand on heart - I'm so within my comfort zone with this workflow that I'd always doubt that any 'straight from Lr 3' test result would have been optimally treated, which wouldn't be fair to Lr's NR.ДЄnd having said all that: thinking about it some more, the Lr 3-only images I've made still looked pretty good, really: noise certainly wasn't a problem in any of 'em, and many were well north of 400 ISO. Topaz? I'd need to completely rework my workflow to come up with a test for that. I do know though, that with this workflow, DeNoise gives me a more appealing end result than either Neat Image or Noise Ninja: but Lr 3 vs. Well I use Lr 3 to apply capture NR, and apply creative NR in PP. In fact, I approach NR exactly like I approach sharpening: many of us apply capture sharpening at the conversion stage, and then deal with creative (and output) sharpening at the PP stage.

Nevertheless, when I start PPing a conversion from Lr 3 I've deliberately not removed every last hint of noise at the conversion stage, because I get more control - and a better sense of what I'll end up with - from applying 'finishing' NR at the PP stage. The thing about using DeNoise at this stage is that I've got far more flexibility in how I apply it: I usually apply it selectively (you can apply processes selectively in Lr 3 too, but it's much easier in Photoshop/Paint Shop Pro/Elements/The Gimp, IMHO) and routinely use it for 'creative' purposes - such as approximating a shallow DOF - rather than just for noise reduction per se. The post processing stage is when I use the Topaz product.

(I should add that I have used Lr 3 as a 'one stop shop' - a lot of folk say that thanks to Lr 3 they hardly need a separate image editor any more, and I've explored that - but I've never been completely persuaded by the results I've achieved). Speaking personally, I know that I'm going to see things I can further 'improve' at the PP stage, which is why I consider conversion only to be a starting point. This usually being a 400 ISO Canon 7D file), correct the WB, exposure, highlights/shadows and so on. Typically though I'll leave the Chroma at default, with Luma at about 6 or 7. So Lr is used to remove some of the noise (which actually means that I don't always apply Luma NR at the conversion stage. I use the NR in Lr 3 (which is excellent, by the way) to produce a high quality 'starting point' for subsequent post processing: the conversion stage is - for me - a discrete - part of the workflow, and what I'm doing at that stage is getting the foundations right. Yes, that sounds daft! I'll try to explain what I mean. I'm not even really sure you can make a direct comparison between the two (not sure I can, anyway) - they serve different functions from my point of view, and have different purposes.

That's a really hard question to answer, as it is very workflow dependent.