What is the best order for workflow?

Well, that's certainly going to rattle the post-processing cage 😀

I don't know if it's the best but this definitely works for me.

1. Import raw files into my DAM and after culling, catalogue them.
2. Open in ACR, assign appropriate color profile and make global adjustments to get an image as close as possible to being documentary.
3. Export to a 16 bit tif.
4. Import 16 bit tif into Topaz Denoise and/or Topaz Sharpen and denoise/sharpen as required.
5. Save denoised/sharpened images to a 16 bit tif.
6. Open the edited tif's in Photoshop Elements + Elements XXL plugin.
7. Make global and/or local edits to fine tune the image to make as true as possible documentary version.
8. Save the final image, with its PSE layers, as a PSD file into the DAM catalogue.

If you’re working totally within ACR/Lightroom, the Adobe engineering team recommends Denoise be your first step. Beyond that they claim order of operations doesn’t matter.

In LR first I crop. Next is brightness, highlights, shadows, etc. Then comes noise control and finally sharpen. That just works for me Alan. Everyone might have a different way though.

Danny.

Nothing better to kill passion than to repeat the same gestures day after day. 😩
For me, each photograph requires a different approach. 😀

I first use PL5 on the raw file, luminance balance, etc, followed by any perspective or noise correction -- and save as16-bit tiff.

Then see if Topaz Sharpen AI improves the result or makes it worse. If better, I save this as tiff, otherwise I use the tiff from the first stage above.

Then in Photoshop I resize and "unsharp mask". Save as jpeg, usually maximum quality.

Both PL5 and Photoshop allow me to retrace my steps if I dont like the final result.

David

If denoise can operate over raw data (before demosaicking), it goes first (like input sharpening).

My general approach is to deal with noise with the raw file first. I use m43 cameras so noise is a regular issue. Before Adobe offered this new noise reduction option, that meant taking the raw file into the Topaz or OnOne noise reduction programs first. Now I find to my great joy that I like the Adobe version better than both of them in most cases, so I can deal with it inside LR. The Adobe version, if used judiciously, seems to leave more detail and less artifacts.

I then proceed through cropping and geometry issues, then move on to local and global brightening or darkening, contrast, color correction, etc. Then if a trip through photoshop is needed for things LR is clumsy with or can't do, I go there and round-trip back to LR. I usually don't sharpen more than the initial preset until/unless I am wanting to print. For my photography style, intensive sharpening is usually not a need. (If anything I am removing sharpness). I prefer to use the NIK sharpener plug in within PS for any pre-print sharpening .

My workflow is changing with the new AI based tools that are coming forth, as I find new uses for them that I've never imagined. So far, all of it for me still involves working in PS, as application of the new tools I've tried seems best if applied differentially to specific areas with a tablet and pen.

In Lr and ACR, the program is going to use the order of operations that it thinks best regardless of when you move the sliders. So it boils down to what's best for the person doing the editing. I do WB and cropping first, then global moves, them moves through masks.

I am going to reiterate that I have “Adobe engineers recommend applying the new noise correction first” straight from the source.

Do what you will with that information.

Reference? Context? Which engineer? Eric? That would be a change from the Adobe Lr philosophy of hiding the implementation from the user.

It was a change in recommendation brought forth by the release of the new NR module. My source is Rikk Flohr, Quality Engineer-Customer Advocate for Adobe Photography Products. He cited the development team’s recommendations in a verbal presentation to the Crosstown Camera Club (Edina, MN) on April 20th. I believe that he also alluded to this upcoming change in an earlier “briefing” I attended — but at the time that was off-the record.

As I said, do what you will.

So, some unnamed developer, to Flohr, to you, to me. What are the consequences of ignoring the recommendation? How do you know what noise reduction needs doing until you've done with your shadow moves?

I don’t know shit. I was sharing information passed on to me by an official Adobe representative acting in his official capacity. I don’t use LR or ACR and I don’t have a dog in this race.

They qualify that statement. It is necessary if you apply masking and healing. Since Denoise and DxO generate a new file from raw, the previous changes get reapplied and the previous selections may not fit the new raw file.

Eric Chan wrote this on the new Denoise technology:

Order matters. I recommend applying Denoise early in the workflow, before healing and masking. 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. This is handy, but be aware that the content of those spots and masks may change unexpectedly, so it’s best to review the results carefully.

I'll buy that. But I'll still get the shadow luminance right before applying denoise. And Eric is an extremely credible source.