At least I think they are.
Canon 7DII; Sigma 150-600 at 600 mm; 1/1000 f6.3; ISO 1000
Hi Allen:
I have, and use Topaz Denoise AI on some images. For many things, I think it works well, for others, it’s “AI” isn’t very good. I don’t know what the original looked like so this is some speculation. The red areas I circled seem to have no detail. Somehow I’m guessing AI saw or assumed it was “smoother” than other areas as was aggressive in NR. That algorithm makes sense for skies and other smooth areas (these are really low frequency areas, we humans just see them as smoother). That low frequency calculation is a similar concept to the masking option in the Detail Panel in LightRoom for sharpening. If indeed those areas had any detail, they don’t now. I always look at the results and mask in PS to resolve areas that it misses. It’s a fine piece of software, but VERY slow. Curious what the original looked like.
Thanks, Keith. Here’s the original RAW file, unedited. The areas you marked were the areas I was referring to in my comment. Looking at the RAW file, I guess there was more detail than I originally thought, but even in LR minimal NR seems to soften the feathers considerably.
I can’t comment on the software as I don’t have it but I do like the image in general. Nice capture of the pair and the setting is very nice. Love the duckweed.
OK, now that I’ve seen the original, there is a bit more detail in the areas I suspected. But… Why run NR at all on an image like this. I don’t see that there is any visible difference between your original post and the untouched raw. This is one of those images that noise would be very hard to see anyway.
Good point. Though at 100%, it is noticeable, but not at the lower versions. I need to continue to explore the use of Denoise, though I did like the sharpening. The eye is sharper in the posted version compared to the raw version. Thanks again for your input here as well as with others.
Allen, I am just enjoying the duplicate pose of these youngsters.
Hi Allen
I looked at the raw at what maybe 100% and there is some visible noise, but there is also some very fine detail in the back and tail feathers. maybe you could use a mask to just sharpen the eyes. Anyway I really like the photograph.
Peter
A nice image, regardless of the issues with those very smooth feathers, Allen. I do think that the Topaz Denoise AI has uses, but I hate to mess with a product that takes so much time (and is such a huge program to download on my very slow internet) when it’s only marginally better than much simpler stuff and sometimes worse.
Excellent job in getting both in focus. Enjoyable environment. I use Topaz DeNoise but typically create a duplicate layer before running the software. I then erase the areas where detail has been virtually altered. I find this occurs frequently with DeNoise. Yes, it is getting better over time.
The other use for DeNoise is to reduce sharpening or overly sharp plumage on birds with heavily textured feathers.
Really like the duplicate poses. Impressive detail you were able to get out of the ducklings, but especially the rear one. Background is a little busy but not too bad.
Thanks for the suggestion, David. I take it, then, that you are using Denoise in PS and not LR (which is where I used it).
I use topaz DeNoise in Photoshop exclusively. I have never used the ad on in Lightroom. I feel I have more control in Photoshop. In the past, I have discussed some of the issues with topaz AI Products in some of my posts. As I stated previously, I have seen these issues before, the smearing, and as a result I always do the duplicate layer just in case .
Sorry, I can’t comment on the software Keith mentioned but I do like the image. They are almost a mirror image of each other. The setting with all of the duck weed is really nice too. Don’t think I’ve ever seen baby wood ducks. Well done!
Nice that you got both birds in identical poses. Also it looks like focus was on front bird but still lots of detail and sharpness on back bird. I am glad you asked that question about noise. An interesting discussion.
