P: Bring back the ability of Enhance to run in the background. (LrC)

Doing denoise first (if that is indeed the suggestion from Adobe) seems counter intuitive based on the new workflow.

First, i have to denoise (at 50% with no choice of my own).  Then, I have to change the % to what I really want.  Then, if I do any masking/editing, etc to the image after, I have to do that AI Update button again after each change.  How is this better?

Making the exposure/other edits first is how I determine if I even like the photo enough to use it (and even bother with denoise).  I swear it is like the engineers didn't consider the users.   The ONLY thing I like about the new version, is that it can maintain the file # in the name of the file so I can keep it organized.  But honestly, even with the DNG thing, I don't understand how that info couldn't have been maintained in some fashion.

I like the new non-destructive feature. It IS better. But just let it run in the background.

That's all.

@KrishnaMaithreya I understand the GPU-intensive issue. I used to get the fans running when I performed the denoise with the DNG. But then again, it does one at a time. Not together. So what's the difference? If i choose 10 images to denoise, they will start appearing on the fly as they are ready. One by one. Now, if i copy and paste the denoise settings, its' the same. One by one... So what gives?

Also about reflection removal and people removal? They shoud be on a consumer version of bridge or Photoshop Elements.

If you are a professional photographer, and I assume people that need Lightroom and Photoshop make a living doing this, are not going to have the need to remove reflections from a window or people on a turist location.

Not to offend anyone, but at least it's my case...

I think time and effort should be invested into improving workflows for pros.

AI denoise is one of the most amaazing features ever added to LR. Please just let us have a toggle to use it in the background. Some of us have fast computers with GPU's that can handle that and more.

Cheers

@KrishnaMaithreya

So, let me summarize: You have been trading a potential, temporary performance issue for an actual, permanent performance issue due to an absurdly bloated catalog, PLUS a disrupted work flow for many professional photographers...

Honestly, this is beyond my humble understanding. Anyway, let users decide for themselves and make the old, destructive process available optionally in the preferences. And take your users seriously and do something! And do it quick... 

the bottom one seems a little sharper.

But I am "trying" to find a difference.

I think they are identical. I  couldn't see a difference in my work between the DNG and the new Denoise.

I usually go for around 80 on the slider. 

One thing I see before and now is that sometimes the shadows become green after denoise

I honestly don't care. It just seems like you're out to try and debunk people's issues with the new denoise method. If you don't have an issue with the new method then hurrah for you, but a lot of folk have been impacted by this change, and are angry, just let them voice their concerns without trying to tell them they're wrong.

@DHW Photography 

First of all let me say I am a frustrated by the blocking of the entire UI.
I don't like it one byte, is terrible.

This said Denoise algorithm has not been changed, it has merely been "adapted" to run non destructively but it has not been revised.

By layering two Denoise (DNG and Non Destructive) in Photoshop and using "Difference" blend mode shows a totally black screen= no humanly visible difference.

This on a 25600 ISO image.

.

the bottom one seems a little sharper.

@DHW Photography 

@ppdix wrote "I denoise every picked photo I choose to edit. I usually edit only about 10-15 pictures per session but no matter the iso, even at iso 50 and outdoors, I use denoise. Somehow, it provides more detail to the image."

So here is the same deal, but shot at 16000 ISO.

Which is which?

So you're giving us a denoise example of a photo shot at ISO 64? Keep up the good work!