Test 1: Dog (Sony ZV-E10, ISO 3200)Īs we begin our head-to-head contests, remember that you can click each crop to see the full-size denoised image.Ĭomparing the two versions of this shot from our Sony ZV-E10 review side by side, it isn't easy to see a lot of difference between the Adobe and DxO result in the dog's face. By eliminating the intermediate file and extra step in your workflow, PhotoLab can save you processing time and disk space (PhotoLab's processed DNGs are routinely about 1/4 smaller in file size than those from Adobe Denoise, should you need to take that route instead of JPEGs). By eliminating the intermediate file and extra step in your workflow, DxO PhotoLab can save you processing time and disk space.īut with PhotoLab, you can also choose to perform noise processing at the same time as lens, exposure and other corrections, outputting straight to JPEGs. Both programs take quite a while to perform their AI-based noise processing, after all, so you won't want to repeat the NR step unless you're actually tweaking its settings. That could be useful if you want to process the same set of images differently for multiple output formats while retaining the same noise reduction. With Lightroom or Camera Raw, Denoise processing must be performed separately from the rest of your image processing it delivers an intermediate, noise-processed DNG file from which you'll then perform the remainder of your processing.ĭxO PhotoLab can do the same thing if you choose to manually output DNGs after performing noise processing alone.

It's worth noting off the bat that Adobe and DxO take a different approach to the processing pipeline, which has some implications for your workflow. Adobe's approach to workflow is a bit less versatile The crops in the remainder of this article come from denoised versions of these five images using both programs' default noise reduction levels, and are shown here as the original out-of-camera JPEGs.

Trees plan view photoshop architecture