Anyone else finds Denoise AI is horrible?

[mastix]

Denoise Demystified | Adobe Blog

I read all the article about the new Denoise tool. And seeing the examples I am truly horrified how bad the results are compared to the manual denoise. Again the terrible plastic unreal look that so many people like.

It reminds me of the time of those HDR programs that did all those garish overcooked unnatural over saturated High dynamic images that so many amateur photographers were raving about and were truly ugly. Same with interpolation. Other programs churn out very bad results that people cheer about. In this case I think the 4x interpolation of Adobe at least is natural and much much better than the other AI competition.

Now again with denoise following other programs that have the same bad results that now Adobe mimics. Those plastic bark trees looks like trees from Jupiter or Mars (if there were trees there) but not from planet earth

Rant over. The important thing is that Adobe maintains the manual controls for those of us that want natural organic results.

[dj_paige]

Not only am I not "truly horrified", I think the tool does an excellent job on almost every picture I have tried.

[mastix]

Good for you. I have only seen the samples shown in the Adobe blog article and find them horrible, artificial to the max. I will try by myself, maybe with less strength and see how it goes.

[Keith Reeder]

Probably should have done that before posting, don't you think?

It's obvious that people are happy with the image quality of Denoise, or this forum would be full of posts complaining about it - and it just isn't.

[mastix]

No, I should not. I saw an article by Adobe with underwhelming results and wanted to know what the community with their images think.

If you don't want to, you don't need to intervene. Just move onto the next post.

[Keith Reeder]

Firstly, you don't get to choose who replies to your posts.

Secondly, the first thing I'd do if I saw (what I considered to be) sub-optimal results from a new feature, is check it out for myself, rather than whine about without even having tried it first.

You lay yourself open to absolutely justifiable ridicule that way.

[mastix]

You can answer or you cannot. Your prerogative. The same as me. Lecturing others to think about what and when to post is rude and of bad education.

Maybe it's you that should think twice before you elaborate an answer. And I think the only one here making a fool and rude person, it's you. And I say it again. Please move along. Not interested in your replies. You can surely post you knowledge in other posts.

[TheDigitalDog]

No, I should not. I saw an article by Adobe with underwhelming results and wanted to know what the community with their images think.

By @mastix

“The only source of knowledge is experience”. Albert Einstein

It has been a game changer for the images I've tested that have a lot of noise due to underexposure. From multiple camera systems. 

[mastix]

Remember that what you experience might not be the same perception of my experience even on the same subject.

As I previously you might think that an AI interpolation, sharpening or in this case noise reduction does an absolute wonderful job and I might think it's the opposite. 

But I agree that one should try the features always, as what is shown might bot be replicated on real life. It is usually the case that products show the best case scenario. As Adobe showed some samples i was wary that this might be again another AI failure , I have seen too many so far. But another poster showed an amazing image with that new feature that is really helpful because I first trust my eyes and not what another photographer tells me by their experience, specially nowadays where everyone calls himself a photographer.

When I have the time, I will put under stress this new feature. In the meantime, I appreciate those that in a polite way have aired their opinions , specially those that have provided samples to back up their words.

[TheDigitalDog]

Remember that what you experience might not be the same perception of my experience even on the same subject.

As I previously you might think that an AI interpolation, sharpening or in this case noise reduction does an absolute wonderful job and I might think it's the opposite. 

By @mastix

In the time wasted here, you could have tried the new feature on your own images and started to form an educated opinion.

You asked a question and got several answers based on actual user experience.

Rant over.
By @mastix

Is it? Was it ever based on user experience? Nope. Thank you for confirming a strong opinion on a topic you’ve clearly illustrated you haven't tried. 

[mastix]

As I see you like quotes : "Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others.”

― Otto von Bismarck

Have a nice day.

[TheDigitalDog]

As I see you like quotes : "Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others.”

― Otto von Bismarck

Have a nice day.

By @mastix

"A fool despises good counsel, but a wise man takes it to heart." -Confucius

Many have provided good counsel, based on our own experience. Give it a try.

[mastix]

You are correct. Many have given me good counsel on the matter, and I have already provided feedback about their help. Unfortunately, yours was not among them.

The need to be always right is the sign of a vulgar mind.

- Albert Camus

[FSt0p · Accepted solution]

It's obvious that people are happy with the image quality of Denoise, or this forum would be full of posts complaining about it - and it just isn't.

By @Keith Reeder

Ok, I'll post just to show opposite point of view.

It's not obvious.

First: there are number of complaints for specific cameras here.

Second: the fact that people doesn't complaint does not necessarily mean they are happy - they just may have previous experience that their complaints will not change anything and is therefore pointless and a waste of time.

For me, I've used Denoise AI on 8 images from Canon camera with portraits of a girl with freckles on her cheeks and found that on 2 images Denoise AI created false details that looks like worm-looking patterns which are very obvious on a face. Other 6 photos was processed fine and I find resulds more than good on them, just don't crank the slider up to 100.

I can't provide sample images, so posting a complaint is pointless - thus I did not.

That's just one example.

[Keith Reeder]

Riiiight... So we're to conclude that one mediocre experience on your part completely negates the idea that if there were ubiquitous image quality problems with Denoise, we'd have heard about them?

Sure...

"just don't crank the slider up to 100."

Well duuuh... This is my whole point: try Denoise, and learn to use it properly, rather than concluding from one set of examples that it's hopeless, as the OP did.

A ridiculous way to make decisions - it's about as informative as deciding what a car would be like to drive, by looking at a picture of it.

[TheDigitalDog]

Not only am I not "truly horrified", I think the tool does an excellent job on almost every picture I have tried.

By @dj_paige

My experience as well. 

[DdeGannes]

The new Denoise AI feature works just fine for me, with my Olympus OM-D E-M1 files.

[Keith Reeder]

I'm a wildlife/bird photographer, and I'm often in low-light situations. I can guarantee that natural-looking, highly-detailed results are at least as important to me as they are to you, and Denoise is excellent, in my experience. 

Note that what you're seeing in these responses is actual experience talking: unlike you we're not looking at random examples of its use "out there" and concluding that it's rubbish, we're actually using it. Properly. Maybe if you did likewise, you could have saved yourself the rant.  

[mastix]

--

[D Fosse]

The important thing is that Adobe maintains the manual controls for those of us that want natural organic results.

By @mastix

You do know you can set the strength/amount?

Like any radical new tool, Denoise tends to be overused and abused. I've seen people here who want to run all their files through it, on a routine basis. That is obviously a ridiculous idea.

Denoise is for those relatively few shots taken under particularly impossible conditions, where you may need to push ISO to 10 000 or more. In those cases, what you have is a very powerful new tool at your disposal. You don't have to use it, indeed in some cases the noise is an integral part of the story of the image - but it's there if you need it.

[mastix]

I will give it a go for sure. I was surprised by the bad samples given in the blog article. But I will see what I can get in my shots and playing with all the strength setting.

Thanks for your answer

[Jao vdL]

Really surprised by this comment. I think the results are absolutely outstanding. Very natural and definitely not out of this world. Far better than any other AI denoise I have worked with. I mostly photograph landscapes and wildlife and know the plastic look you are referring to and I would be very unhappy if I got that result. I definitely get nothing remotely like what you describe.

[mastix]

Thank you for your input. It seems so far opinions here are happy with the results. As i have a big retouch season in front of me after shooting 100k+ image the last 40 days all over Italy I will have time to put it to the test. My first opinion was based on the blog with samples that Adobe posted where natural textures like the trees trunks looked very artificial.

[Keith Reeder]

Seeing a trend yet?

"natural textures like the trees trunks looked very artificial."

Those tree bark crops could be at 200% for all we know - absolutely useless for making informed decisions about the quality of Denoise. They're simply demonstrating the denoising: but to try and judge image quality at anything but the image level, is a fool's errand.

[Jao vdL]

Interesting. I had never looked at that post from Eric I now realize and you are right that bark example looks horrendous. Very ugly. I have never seen anything like that from my images and I am surprised Eric put that up as an example of good denoise. Do realize that the image is zoomed in more than 100% which does tend to make images look more artificial in almost any case. I only want to use it on a small subset of images but when I do it is amazing. I looked a bit for a bark example and below is one. You have to zoom  to 100% to see it. This is a detail on an image of a mother owl on her nest. I had to convert the screenshot to sRGB jpeg in order for it to be uploaded on the forum as the original screenshot was too big. This was just the default setting of 50 on the slider. Image was taken at dawn at ISO 5000, 680nm, f/8, 1/800s. Develop settings are identical on the two images. Bark looks very natural as do the feathers. Much more actual detail in the denoised image (left) and no plasticky look. Never seen the plasticky look myself.