Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
p.2 #1Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I prefer the multiple denoise models and various settings within them that DXO does.
For example I would not use the same model and settings for a human vs. a bird or jaguar.
EBH“Abode?”
1. Have you tried, in more than a passing manner, the Adobe AI Denoise? If not, you should before you make assumptions about its effectiveness.
2. Before that became available, I had become quite adept at pretty sophisticated NR techniques — obviously with varying amount and radius; also using the “mask” function to minimize NR in areas where wasn’t needed; also using various kinds of selections and masks to target different areas for different amounts and types of NR.
Yes, if you are used to applying hard won skills that were absolutely necessary for high quality NR until a few years...Show more →
Dan, I think the important point in the opening post was "...recommended it to all my clients in workshops." The previously recommended app was the old standalone Topaz Denoise, and not Adobe software (and this makes sense to me).
Thus, the question here is not whether Adobe denoise is better or worse than DxO DeepPRIME denoise.
The question is what might be a suitable replacement for Topaz for clients in workshops - the clients who might be a diverse group of some who may or may not want to commit to Adobe subscription.
DxO Photolab (and PureRAW) do not require subscription and conveniently work directly with raw files in user-created directories, without any need to import/ingest the files with another app.
A particular advantage of the DxO software for a workshop is that the clients can use DxO Photolab for 30 days for free - there is no need to make a commitment and purchase the software for that long (unless the workshop should continue past the free-use period).
That kind of photography - birds and wildlife - is IMHO relatively straightforward for processing from raw. While my preference is to do most processing in Capture One, I know from my experience that DxO Photolab works well for birds and wildlife pictures. An average amateur photographer taking casual pictures of some birds, squirrels, etc. in the backyard or a nearby park should be reasonably happy with the results of (mostly auto) processing in DxO Photolab. If you want to see what I mean, download PL9 Elite, and process a bird picture: open the raw file, select among Presets "DxO Optical Corrections Only", then click on DeepPRIME XD3 in "Denoising & Demosaicing". Check whether sharpening is enabled in "Lens Sharpness Optimization." Optionally, adjust exposure and see whether you should like the effect of "DxO Clear View Plus". This is that simple! If you should hate the result - I would be interested in hearing from you.
EB-1 wrote
If you don't compare Abode with the others you don't know what they can do.I prefer the multiple denoise models and various settings within them that DXO does.
For example I would not use the same model and settings for a human vs. a bird or jaguar.
EBH
1. Have you tried, in more than a passing manner, the Adobe AI Denoise? If not, you should before you make assumptions about its effectiveness.
2. Before that became available, I had become quite adept at pretty sophisticated NR techniques — obviously with varying amount and radius; also using the “mask” function to minimize NR in areas where wasn’t needed; also using various kinds of selections and masks to target different areas for different amounts and types of NR.
Yes, if you are used to applying hard won skills that were absolutely necessary for high quality NR until a few years...Show more →
Dan, I think the important point in the opening post was "...recommended it to all my clients in workshops." The previously recommended app was the old standalone Topaz Denoise, and not Adobe software (and this makes sense to me).
Thus, the question here is not whether Adobe denoise is better or worse than DxO DeepPRIME denoise.
The question is what might be a suitable replacement for Topaz for clients in workshops - the clients who might be a diverse group of some who may or may not want to commit to Adobe subscription.
DxO Photolab (and PureRAW) do not require subscription and conveniently work directly with raw files in user-created directories, without any need to import/ingest the files with another app.
A particular advantage of the DxO software for a workshop is that the clients can use DxO Photolab for 30 days for free - there is no need to make a commitment and purchase the software for that long (unless the workshop should continue past the free-use period).
That kind of photography - birds and wildlife - is IMHO relatively straightforward for processing from raw. While my preference is to do most processing in Capture One, I know from my experience that DxO Photolab works well for birds and wildlife pictures. An average amateur photographer taking casual pictures of some birds, squirrels, etc. in the backyard or a nearby park should be reasonably happy with the results of (mostly auto) processing in DxO Photolab. If you want to see what I mean, download PL9 Elite, and process a bird picture: open the raw file, select among Presets "DxO Optical Corrections Only", then click on DeepPRIME XD3 in "Denoising & Demosaicing". Check whether sharpening is enabled in "Lens Sharpness Optimization." Optionally, adjust exposure and see whether you should like the effect of "DxO Clear View Plus". This is that simple! If you should hate the result - I would be interested in hearing from you.
Aug 18, 2026 at 12:04 PM
p.2 #2Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
I am just an amateur who likes to take photos and print them. That said, here is my two cents...
I now use DxO PureRaw 6. The raw files for all my images that I edit go through it without exception regardless of ISO. I used to use DxO Photolab but did not use any of the features other than as a raw developer, and for noise reduction.
I did extensive personal testing of just about every program (made use of free trials) to test what was best for me for raw development and denoise (I did not test Capture 1). Most of them do a good job on noise, but in my opinion none equaled PureRaw. The closest I found to DxO PureRaw for me was Lightroom. The noise reduction is comparable with a little work. I feel the optical corrections and demosaicing in PureRaw give a level of image sharpness better at the pixel level relative to any of the others. I can see it at 50% in Photoshop in direct comparison on my 4K monitor. Yes with some added work I can get close in LR, but PureRaw is awesome as it is! Oh, and yes I can even see a difference at base ISO! At this point, I use whatever ISO is needed to get well exposed images with my R5 and R7, at the aperture and shutter speed needed for the shot, and do not worry about ISO at all. One less thing!
PureRaw 6 is fast too! I just ran 12 full size Canon R5 files in a batch through it in less than 20 seconds (round trip from Lightroom). That will vary depending on your computer of course. Also, the compressed DNG files it produces are much smaller saving lots of space! I am seriously considering sending all my raw files through it at import and keeping just the compressed DNGs from PureRaw.
Also, it is a perpetual license software, although that doesn't really matter to me. Any software with a reasonable monthly fee will be cheaper than the legal purchase/upgrade path if you want to stay current. In this case I am not sure what they could do to PureRaw to make me want to upgrade!
I now use DxO PureRaw 6. The raw files for all my images that I edit go through it without exception regardless of ISO. I used to use DxO Photolab but did not use any of the features other than as a raw developer, and for noise reduction.
I did extensive personal testing of just about every program (made use of free trials) to test what was best for me for raw development and denoise (I did not test Capture 1). Most of them do a good job on noise, but in my opinion none equaled PureRaw. The closest I found to DxO PureRaw for me was Lightroom. The noise reduction is comparable with a little work. I feel the optical corrections and demosaicing in PureRaw give a level of image sharpness better at the pixel level relative to any of the others. I can see it at 50% in Photoshop in direct comparison on my 4K monitor. Yes with some added work I can get close in LR, but PureRaw is awesome as it is! Oh, and yes I can even see a difference at base ISO! At this point, I use whatever ISO is needed to get well exposed images with my R5 and R7, at the aperture and shutter speed needed for the shot, and do not worry about ISO at all. One less thing!
PureRaw 6 is fast too! I just ran 12 full size Canon R5 files in a batch through it in less than 20 seconds (round trip from Lightroom). That will vary depending on your computer of course. Also, the compressed DNG files it produces are much smaller saving lots of space! I am seriously considering sending all my raw files through it at import and keeping just the compressed DNGs from PureRaw.
Also, it is a perpetual license software, although that doesn't really matter to me. Any software with a reasonable monthly fee will be cheaper than the legal purchase/upgrade path if you want to stay current. In this case I am not sure what they could do to PureRaw to make me want to upgrade!
Aug 18, 2026 at 12:07 PM
p.2 #3Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
EB-1 wrote:
Yes, I have the PS CC since November. ACR is the only practical away to denoise the ridiculous new format of Sony compressed files.
I did quite a lot of testing of R5/R5 II and Sony a7RV files on various platforms, NVidia 3060Ti, 4060, 4070Ti and 5080, Intel iGPUs (4) of three generations, AMD iGPUs (2 kinds) and three generations of DXO vs. the 2025 and 2026 Adobe ACR on the more recent ones. I'm not seeing any granular controls of the ACR for denoising; it's just strength and sharpening. Am I missing something? I used to do plenty of 2...Show more →
There are no granular controls for AI Denoise in ACR, aside from being able to adjust the intensity of the effect on a percentage scale.
The granular controls (assuming I understand what you imply by the term) for sharpening in ACR are pretty robust, plus you can do some additional stuff using the powerful ACR masking tools… and in the occasional really complicated situation you can do additional sharpening in photoshop, even bringing multiple iterations of the raw file into separate layers that can be sharpened independently and masked.
Yes, I have the PS CC since November. ACR is the only practical away to denoise the ridiculous new format of Sony compressed files.
I did quite a lot of testing of R5/R5 II and Sony a7RV files on various platforms, NVidia 3060Ti, 4060, 4070Ti and 5080, Intel iGPUs (4) of three generations, AMD iGPUs (2 kinds) and three generations of DXO vs. the 2025 and 2026 Adobe ACR on the more recent ones. I'm not seeing any granular controls of the ACR for denoising; it's just strength and sharpening. Am I missing something? I used to do plenty of 2...Show more →
There are no granular controls for AI Denoise in ACR, aside from being able to adjust the intensity of the effect on a percentage scale.
The granular controls (assuming I understand what you imply by the term) for sharpening in ACR are pretty robust, plus you can do some additional stuff using the powerful ACR masking tools… and in the occasional really complicated situation you can do additional sharpening in photoshop, even bringing multiple iterations of the raw file into separate layers that can be sharpened independently and masked.
Aug 18, 2026 at 02:46 PM
p.2 #4Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
Perhaps like you, I remember way back in the ancient days when we pretty much needed to use third-party plugin sharpening tools in Photoshop. It has been long enouugh that I’ve forgotten if that was because PS didn’t supply them or because they were bad. But I do remember people doing crazy stuff like creating edge masks, adjusting their width, and then applying some kind of sharpening that way.
But, thank god, those days are way behind us now.
In my view, if you really understand how sharpening works and what the various sharpening controls do, Adobe’s sharpening has been pretty darned good for years now. While I used to use those plugins back in the day, I have not needed them for years. But at first it was hard to give up those other tools, and I think that may be the case for some people who still think they need the third party stuff to do effective sharpening.
If giving those up was hard, I can just imagine how difficult it is for some of us who mastered how to sharpen using the built-in tools in our software when AI Denoise just sort of… does as well or better with hardly any intervention from us. I’ll admit that I almost felt a little… guilty when I first saw what it could do without all of my careful input.
So, in some ways, I think that the best recommendation that folks might make to workshop participants is to first try AI Denoise, assuming they use Adobe products, and see if you actually still need anything else beyond what is already built into teh software.
Of course, all bets are off for people who don’t have an Adobe subscription… who will, indeed, need something else.
YMMV.
ruthenium wrote:
I prefer the multiple denoise models and various settings within them that DXO does.
For example I would not use the same model and settings for a human vs. a bird or jaguar.
EBH“Abode?”
1. Have you tried, in more than a passing manner, the Adobe AI Denoise? If not, you should before you make assumptions about its effectiveness.
2. Before that became available, I had become quite adept at pretty sophisticated NR techniques — obviously with varying amount and radius; also using the “mask” function to minimize NR in areas where wasn’t needed; also using various kinds of selections and masks to target different areas for different amounts and types of NR.
Yes, if you are used to applying hard won skills that were absolutely necessary for high quality NR until a few years ago it is disorienting to work with a solution that doesn’t require those skills yet is so effective.
But, seriously, if you use Adobe tools you should give this a try before making assumptions about it.Dan, I think the important point in the opening post was "...recommended it to all my clients in workshops." The previously recommended app was the old standalone Topaz Denoise, and not Adobe software (and this makes sense to me).
Thus, the question here is not whether Adobe denoise is better or worse than DxO DeepPRIME denoise.
The question is what might be a suitable replacement for Topaz for clients in workshops - the clients who might be a diverse group of some who may or may not want to commit to Adobe subscription.
DxO Photolab (and PureRAW) do not require subscription and...Show more →
But, thank god, those days are way behind us now.
In my view, if you really understand how sharpening works and what the various sharpening controls do, Adobe’s sharpening has been pretty darned good for years now. While I used to use those plugins back in the day, I have not needed them for years. But at first it was hard to give up those other tools, and I think that may be the case for some people who still think they need the third party stuff to do effective sharpening.
If giving those up was hard, I can just imagine how difficult it is for some of us who mastered how to sharpen using the built-in tools in our software when AI Denoise just sort of… does as well or better with hardly any intervention from us. I’ll admit that I almost felt a little… guilty when I first saw what it could do without all of my careful input.
So, in some ways, I think that the best recommendation that folks might make to workshop participants is to first try AI Denoise, assuming they use Adobe products, and see if you actually still need anything else beyond what is already built into teh software.
Of course, all bets are off for people who don’t have an Adobe subscription… who will, indeed, need something else.
YMMV.
ruthenium wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
If you don't compare Abode with the others you don't know what they can do.I prefer the multiple denoise models and various settings within them that DXO does.
For example I would not use the same model and settings for a human vs. a bird or jaguar.
EBH
1. Have you tried, in more than a passing manner, the Adobe AI Denoise? If not, you should before you make assumptions about its effectiveness.
2. Before that became available, I had become quite adept at pretty sophisticated NR techniques — obviously with varying amount and radius; also using the “mask” function to minimize NR in areas where wasn’t needed; also using various kinds of selections and masks to target different areas for different amounts and types of NR.
Yes, if you are used to applying hard won skills that were absolutely necessary for high quality NR until a few years ago it is disorienting to work with a solution that doesn’t require those skills yet is so effective.
But, seriously, if you use Adobe tools you should give this a try before making assumptions about it.
Thus, the question here is not whether Adobe denoise is better or worse than DxO DeepPRIME denoise.
The question is what might be a suitable replacement for Topaz for clients in workshops - the clients who might be a diverse group of some who may or may not want to commit to Adobe subscription.
DxO Photolab (and PureRAW) do not require subscription and...Show more →
Aug 18, 2026 at 02:55 PM
p.2 #5Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
ruthenium wrote:
...I think the important point in the opening post was "...recommended it to all my clients in workshops." The previously recommended app was the old standalone Topaz Denoise, and not Adobe software (and this makes sense to me).
Thus, the question here is not whether Adobe denoise is better or worse than DxO DeepPRIME denoise.
The question is what might be a suitable replacement for Topaz for clients in workshops - the clients who might be a diverse group of some who may or may not want to commit to Adobe subscription.
What Topaz did reasonably well was denoise TIFF files. At the time I thought they would get even better.
Everyone does not have a RAW or hours of work were done on images or composites of images.
What are we doing, still all that masking stuff for TIFFs? What about film scans?
EBH
...I think the important point in the opening post was "...recommended it to all my clients in workshops." The previously recommended app was the old standalone Topaz Denoise, and not Adobe software (and this makes sense to me).
Thus, the question here is not whether Adobe denoise is better or worse than DxO DeepPRIME denoise.
The question is what might be a suitable replacement for Topaz for clients in workshops - the clients who might be a diverse group of some who may or may not want to commit to Adobe subscription.
What Topaz did reasonably well was denoise TIFF files. At the time I thought they would get even better.
Everyone does not have a RAW or hours of work were done on images or composites of images.
What are we doing, still all that masking stuff for TIFFs? What about film scans?
EBH
Aug 18, 2026 at 05:56 PM
p.2 #6Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
Like Dan, I am now pretty much relying 100% on AI NR in ACR -- it simply stated does an incredible job.
That said, I have been encouraged to try DXO PL by a member I respect, so that's my next stop. Just waiting to get some more telephoto images before I initiate my 30-day trial.
That said, I have been encouraged to try DXO PL by a member I respect, so that's my next stop. Just waiting to get some more telephoto images before I initiate my 30-day trial.
Aug 18, 2026 at 08:25 PM
p.2 #7Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
If you want to give DXO PureRaw a try, there is unfortunately a bug that prevents the latest version from starting. I downloaded the free trial and installed it earlier today but could not get it to startup; sent DXO a message about the problem, they responded within 2 hours and said they expect to release a fix "early this week". DXO support seems to be very responsive, which is in contrast to Adobe who is reluctant to acknowledge bugs and even more reluctant to promise quick fixes. Of course, not starting at all is a pretty big bug! Regardless, it may be a day or two before you can give their PureRAW free trial a try.
I am very happy with the NR in LrC, but it has been years since I used the DXO noise reduction, so I thought I would test the latest version as a LrC plugin or as an alternative to ACR in PS. It should integrate into the work flow well and if it produces good results it may be worth keeping as an alternative.
I am very happy with the NR in LrC, but it has been years since I used the DXO noise reduction, so I thought I would test the latest version as a LrC plugin or as an alternative to ACR in PS. It should integrate into the work flow well and if it produces good results it may be worth keeping as an alternative.
Aug 18, 2026 at 09:53 PM
p.2 #8Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
dclark wrote:
If you want to give DXO PureRaw a try, there is unfortunately a bug that prevents the latest version from starting. I downloaded the free trial and installed it earlier today but could not get it to startup; sent DXO a message about the problem, they responded within 2 hours and said they expect to release a fix "early this week". DXO support seems to be very responsive, which is in contrast to Adobe who is reluctant to acknowledge bugs and even more reluctant to promise quick fixes. Of course, not starting at all is a pretty big bug! Regardless,...Show more →
Good to know, thanks for the info. Good thing I decided to wait.
If you want to give DXO PureRaw a try, there is unfortunately a bug that prevents the latest version from starting. I downloaded the free trial and installed it earlier today but could not get it to startup; sent DXO a message about the problem, they responded within 2 hours and said they expect to release a fix "early this week". DXO support seems to be very responsive, which is in contrast to Adobe who is reluctant to acknowledge bugs and even more reluctant to promise quick fixes. Of course, not starting at all is a pretty big bug! Regardless,...Show more →
Good to know, thanks for the info. Good thing I decided to wait.
Aug 18, 2026 at 10:07 PM
p.2 #9Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
It appears the 6.5.1 patched release is out now. 👊🏼
Aug 19, 2026 at 05:36 AM
|
p.2 #10Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
Yes, I received an email from DXO at 2:45am stating the bug has been fixed. That was ~8 hours after their email stating a fix would be issued soon.
Aug 19, 2026 at 09:33 AM
p.2 #11Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
Just got an email from Topaz touting Denoise Max . . . is it something new? in Topaz Photo (versus the existing denoise in the app). Anybody try it?
Here's what Topaz said:
Remove unwanted noise without affecting already-sharp detail in the toughest images. Denoise Max is an aggressive, high-strength noise reduction with intelligent object detection. This helps the model actually understand the content of photos so it can differentiate details and noise. It’s tuned for high-quality images, and works great on low-light shots and old, damaged photos where other denoise models may fall short. Start using Denoise Max now in Topaz Photo.
Here's what Topaz said:
Remove unwanted noise without affecting already-sharp detail in the toughest images. Denoise Max is an aggressive, high-strength noise reduction with intelligent object detection. This helps the model actually understand the content of photos so it can differentiate details and noise. It’s tuned for high-quality images, and works great on low-light shots and old, damaged photos where other denoise models may fall short. Start using Denoise Max now in Topaz Photo.
Aug 19, 2026 at 12:54 PM
p.2 #12Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
Kind of tragic that so many of us ride on a merry-go-round of sorts, when it comes to editing & noise reduction. Like so many of you, I've gone from LRC/PS slider days, to C1, to Topaz, and now I am back to LRC. A couple years ago Adobe sucked, but they've taken some big steps forward, and IMO they are the best bang for the buck. I find the new AI version of noise reduction in LRC works pretty well for my needs.
Aug 20, 2026 at 07:56 AM
p.2 #13Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
For me there are so many negatives to LR that I'd never use it regardless of the NR capabilities. I think Photoshop's NR should be enough.
The good news is that AI NR is advancing and although a few advanced companies like DXO or Adobe will continue to excel, many others will reach more than adequate levels.
EBH
The good news is that AI NR is advancing and although a few advanced companies like DXO or Adobe will continue to excel, many others will reach more than adequate levels.
EBH
Aug 21, 2026 at 07:59 AM
p.2 #14Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
Apparently, the upcoming NoNoise AI 2027 from On1 has settings for film so I assume it will work with tiff files.
EB-1 wrote:
Thus, the question here is not whether Adobe denoise is better or worse than DxO DeepPRIME denoise.
The question is what might be a suitable replacement for Topaz for clients in workshops - the clients who might be a diverse group of some who may or may not want to commit to Adobe subscription.What Topaz did reasonably well was denoise TIFF files. At the time I thought they would get even better.
Everyone does not have a RAW or hours of work were done on images or composites of images.
What are we doing, still all that masking stuff for TIFFs? What about film scans?
EBH
EB-1 wrote:
ruthenium wrote
...I think the important point in the opening post was "...recommended it to all my clients in workshops." The previously recommended app was the old standalone Topaz Denoise, and not Adobe software (and this makes sense to me).Thus, the question here is not whether Adobe denoise is better or worse than DxO DeepPRIME denoise.
The question is what might be a suitable replacement for Topaz for clients in workshops - the clients who might be a diverse group of some who may or may not want to commit to Adobe subscription.
Everyone does not have a RAW or hours of work were done on images or composites of images.
What are we doing, still all that masking stuff for TIFFs? What about film scans?
EBH
Aug 21, 2026 at 08:27 AM
p.2 #15Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
GeofFX wrote:
Kind of tragic that so many of us ride on a merry-go-round of sorts, when it comes to editing & noise reduction. Like so many of you, I've gone from LRC/PS slider days, to C1, to Topaz, and now I am back to LRC. A couple years ago Adobe sucked, but they've taken some big steps forward, and IMO they are the best bang for the buck. I find the new AI version of noise reduction in LRC works pretty well for my needs.
I think one of the problems is that people start thinking that their current product “sucks” and that some other thing that they aren’t as deeply familiar with is way better. It is an old story — the familiar starts to look, well, familiar and we don’t appreciate what it does well… while the new thing looks shiny and sexy and we believe the marketing… and the claims of all the new users who are enamored with the new, sexy thing they just bought.
(It isn’t just about photography. It seems more like basic human nature.)
But we forget that one of the advantages of sticking with a solid though less sexy and maybe not quite perfect product (in the end, what product IS perfect?) is that we know it really, really well, to the point that its use becomes intuitive. The nuts and bolts stuff starts to become more invisible and we can focus on the actual imagery instead of the tech.
Musical instruments are a decent analogy. Imagine that you always wanted to play the trumpet. You got a trumpet, started taking lessons, practiced a lot, and became quite good at it. Then you heard the French horn. It has more valves than the trumpet, arguably a larger range, gets some really great orchestral solos, and has those beautiful curves. So you switch. At first you can’t play the French horn as well as you played the trumpet — it seems kind of awkward — but you persevere, and eventually you become just as good at making music on the French horn as you were on the trumpet. And you like it about as much as you liked the trumpet before you switched.
Then, one day, you hear about the oboe… ;-)
Kind of tragic that so many of us ride on a merry-go-round of sorts, when it comes to editing & noise reduction. Like so many of you, I've gone from LRC/PS slider days, to C1, to Topaz, and now I am back to LRC. A couple years ago Adobe sucked, but they've taken some big steps forward, and IMO they are the best bang for the buck. I find the new AI version of noise reduction in LRC works pretty well for my needs.
I think one of the problems is that people start thinking that their current product “sucks” and that some other thing that they aren’t as deeply familiar with is way better. It is an old story — the familiar starts to look, well, familiar and we don’t appreciate what it does well… while the new thing looks shiny and sexy and we believe the marketing… and the claims of all the new users who are enamored with the new, sexy thing they just bought.
(It isn’t just about photography. It seems more like basic human nature.)
But we forget that one of the advantages of sticking with a solid though less sexy and maybe not quite perfect product (in the end, what product IS perfect?) is that we know it really, really well, to the point that its use becomes intuitive. The nuts and bolts stuff starts to become more invisible and we can focus on the actual imagery instead of the tech.
Musical instruments are a decent analogy. Imagine that you always wanted to play the trumpet. You got a trumpet, started taking lessons, practiced a lot, and became quite good at it. Then you heard the French horn. It has more valves than the trumpet, arguably a larger range, gets some really great orchestral solos, and has those beautiful curves. So you switch. At first you can’t play the French horn as well as you played the trumpet — it seems kind of awkward — but you persevere, and eventually you become just as good at making music on the French horn as you were on the trumpet. And you like it about as much as you liked the trumpet before you switched.
Then, one day, you hear about the oboe… ;-)
Aug 21, 2026 at 09:28 AM
p.2 #16Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
I was really impressed with LR Classic on a recent shoot. I was shooting 12k ISO and the files cleaned up really well.
Aug 22, 2026 at 09:04 AM
p.2 #17Noise Reduction - What is your favorite plugin/technique ?
I left Adobe for DXO. It works standalone and as a plugin. I never used Topaz, so I don't know what features your clients will leave behind or have to find a new way to effectuate.
Aug 24, 2026 at 10:07 PM