DxO DeepPRIME XD vs. Adobe's new Denoise

The reasons on advise to apply AI Denoise early in the workflow are as follow:
AI-driven, image-based features such as Content-Aware Remove and Select Subject can be affected by noise, so it’s best to use those features on a clean starting point. If you do run Denoise on an image that already has Content-Aware Remove settings or AI masks, Denoise will automatically update those spots and masks. It is handy but we have to keep an eye on them. Also Denoise sometimes subtly change the overall tonality of the photo, especially by cleaning up the shadows. If your source photo already had major tonal adjustments, such as with Shadows, Clarity, or Dehaze, you may need to revisit those settings after applying Denoise.
This from Adobe website.

And the reason not to is to be able to delete the generated DNG right after the conversion without losing edits.

I am not advising anybody to apply NR late in the workflow. I just shared my experience.

I have no problem with applying NR later in workflow. Not sure about deleting generated DNG. You are loosing important edit. I keep all my edited RAW files and when I print (myself) I print form LR.

I keep the RAW with the edits, of course.

[deleted]

It looks like the edits are not incorporated into the Denoised DNG, which means you'll have to apply them again. Am I missing something? If I'm right, can you just copy your edits from the RAW and paste them onto the DNG? Can this be done as a batch?

you can trust your eyes for your work - nobody is trying to impose anything on your personal workflow... however if we are to generalize then we can't trust your eyes over the person who was a developer of the said stuff ... that's it

Well, do not generalize then.

I had a tooth and time for testing denoise too. So downloaded Topaz tools, DXO software, and new LR. For some reason, my testing and reading of this comparison leads to opposite conclusion. C1 is a mess in my eyes, Topaz created very ugly artifacts, Lightroom provides awesome balance, and AI denoise is virtually free with the subscription already going, and only DXO doing better job sometimes, but for a cost of more artifacts and less friendly UI. I could support my claims with the images, but as this is highly subjective aporoach, and I have no reason to convince anyone, I wonder what would be the reason for continuing or arguing. Maybe, If I found that I do something wrong.

Anyone willing to go step by step with me to find out what the hell is going on? 😉

Yes, I copied the edits from the RAW file and pasted them on the DNG.

Actually, LrC's AI Denoise does copy processing adjustments and edits made in the Develop module to the new DNG. Part of the process is copying those settings from the NEF to the DNG. That includes any masks applied to the NEF. When complete, those edits are available and adjustable just as they would be in the NEF.

As I've been test-driving the new AI Denoise tool, I've been applying it to photos I've already processed and edited to my liking. I've been applying denoise to the processed/edited NEF. So far, I've not had an instance where that workflow (denoise after processing/editing) results in a file looking noticeably different - other than noise reduction, of course - from the processed/edited NEF.

Of course, being LrC, if that were to occur, one could delete the DNG, make a virtual copy of the NEF, reset the copy, apply AI Denoise, and either copy the processing and edit adjustments from the NEF to the virtual copy, or apply those edits anew. Yup, it'd be as inconvenient as it sounds...which is why I'm glad that hasn't been necessary.

I do recommend LrC users apply AI Denoise to already processed photos to reduce noise. Based on my experience, I doubt it will compromise image quality in any noticeable manner. If it does, it's not going to permanently damage the raw file. That's among the benefits of a non-destructive processing/editing app such as LrC.

I guess applying denoise last could mess with the masks as they say. I rarely use masks however. In the quiz I posted yesterday, the crops on the left are with denoise applied last. They are slightly cleaner than the crops on the right, where I started with denoise. I can speculate why that might be but I prefer to look at the results. So from now on, denoise comes last.

BTW, those crops are shot at ISO 1600 but pushed 2 stops in LR, and the shadows are lifted to +64, WB=2,850.

Many thanks this is great!

I've downloaded the latest Adobe Lightroom update - and it is good - but DXO just wins for me on speed, with more modest graphics cards - especially as DXO only noise reduces the crop of your image in final conversion which if a bigger crop saves I think even more time.

Wont bother with ON1 and Topaz for this. (I do like the Topaz Sharpen AI though)

When I invoke DxO PhotoLab from LrC (raw file transfer), DxO does not apply the crop I did in LrC. I.e., it works on the whole image.
What is your workflow?

Not quite sure whom exactly you are asking, but assuming it is me: I use DxO stand-alone, not as a plug-in for LR. My workflow can include several tools, and LR is only one of them.

In any case, what you describe sounds weird. You either transfer a RAW file, which means the full unedited image, OR you invoke DxO with a crop, which can no longer be a RAW. RAW files cannot be cropped.

If you look at the nesting, it should be evident that I responded to @KevinRA's comment:

It was not clear whether he interfaced with LrC or not.

The quality I'm getting from DeepPRIME XD is wonderful and I don't have to tune anything. Prime got rid of the noise, sometimes at the cost of detail. Adobe's Denoise is smear ware and dose a good job of destroying detail at high ISO. At least that's what I found without tuning and why bother tuning when DeepPRIME XD works automagicly and wonderfuly.

Morris