I think the JPEG and smaller size hides the noise, which one needs to see it at full size. It's not something I would have correct, especially for posting on the web, but it was the only thing I had handy, for a "noisy" shot.
Here is a dropbox link to the TIFFs, A being the original.
You can see the improvements on the wall, but other than the slight color differences, they were very close.
I noticed some differences in the writing on the glass, and the back edge of the mouse in the foreground. I tried to make those two the best I could with the adjustment knobs of the tools.
Again, subjective, and based on my (lack of?) skills with adjusting noisy images.
Sure! I added the original NEF file to the dropbox folder...Paul,
I thought I'd make a quick comparison but as I expected, you can't activate the superior noise reduction Prime on a tiff file.
I wasn't sure because I never work with tiff's.
Best way to proceed, I think, is to work with the NEF file. Both in DxO - using Prime - and in C1. Creating an output in whatever format you prefer and comparing these output files.
If you want, you can provide the NEF file and I'll make a comparison as well. Only noise reduction, no white balance, straightening or anything else.
Sure! I added the original NEF file to the dropbox folder...
Thanks for the comparison! I like the zoomed in side by side. It look slike the DXO version is better in this comparison.first a look at a detail at 100% without Noise Reduction:
definitely noise visible at this level.
View attachment 1666735
In DxO PL, HQ (Fast) as Noise Reduction:
View attachment 1666736
Next, I created a jpg at 100% quality with DxO PL - Prime and with Capture One.
Nothing else changed or corrected and both software using the default settings. Which are not really far apart.
I opened both jpg files and zoomed in to actual size and placed them next to each other:
View attachment 1666737
Now to get an idea of the impact of this, viewed full screen next to each other:
View attachment 1666739
For me, neither is 100% "perfect" and both still have room to be tweaked.
My vote is on the DxO PL though. An impartial vote I hope since I have and use both softwares.
Noise Reduction will always be a compromise between suppressing noise and keeping detail.
One software might have an idea about the best compromise and another software can have another goal.
The user is in the driver seat however
Actually, I'm wrong. The DXO was lighter and had less noise!Thanks for the comparison! I like the zoomed in side by side. It look slike the DXO version is better in this comparison.
I got different results, with Capture One, with it being lighter and seeming less grainy, but maybe I altered the settings. Wondering if it would make a difference if, instead of defaults, the best settings are applied to each?
The comment about grain made me smile. Makes sense, how you handle the different cameras. I’m still trying to get used to the D750, which is really great at high iso from what I see so far.I'm sure each program could get better results tweaking the settings, @NEF Said.
After all, I don't think there is one setting that really fits all images perfectly.
The question is, how much energy and time are you willing to spend to obtain the absolute best result.
I don't have all that much high iso images and I'm perfectly happy with the result from DxO.
On the other hand, I do still use a camera that does not do well with higher iso and there as well, the results from DxO work wonders.
For that camera, I activate Prime on much lower iso levels than I do for the Df.
For the Df, I activate Prime for anything higher than 6400. For the other camera, Prime for anything above 1600.
I use C1 for a b&w only camera and any noise is looking more like grain so, I never worried about the noise reduction capabilities of C1.
In the last update of C1 a lot of attention was given to better noise reduction capabilities and then I did have to make a comparison of course
They mentioned something about making a backup of the catalog, if you want to keep backward compatible one. When I had opened LR, I created a new catalog, and so when I opened LR Classic, I told it to upgrade only that catalog. Was just surprised that the newly created LR catalog was not compatible with the LR Classic one.I cannot remember whether LR CC Classic will copy your catalogs and upgrade the copies. You can always make your own copy before upgrading just to be safe.
The LR CC (not Classic) is their “cloud” version and is different. It is designed to work primarily in the Creative Cloud ecosystem if I recall correctly. I honestly have never looked into it, but I think that is how it works. As you discovered, LR CC also has fewer features. To support those limited features and the Creative Cloud workflow, the storage format differs from the Classic database. Migrating from LR CC to LR CC Classic requires upgrading the database to support the additional features LR CC Classic offers (like your red eye reduction, etc) and different working model.They mentioned something about making a backup of the catalog, if you want to keep backward compatible one. When I had opened LR, I created a new catalog, and so when I opened LR Classic, I told it to upgrade only that catalog. Was just surprised that the newly created LR catalog was not compatible with the LR Classic one.