Comparison of Lr, DxO, OMW, ON1, and Topaz for Raw File Optimization

[luxBorealis-TerryMcDonald]

Thought some might be interested in some extensive testing of the major players that demosaic, denoise and sharpen raw files by testing 6 different ‘treatments’ using 6 different photos. I’m providing an overview of the results here, but if you’re interested in the details, you can read about it in depth HERE. The article is simply too long to post in this format.

The results were analyzed NOT by pixel peeping, but by examining real-life uses of photos. My personal belief is that the pixel-peeping frenzy is driven by finding a difference, even if it completely irrelevant in actual-use scenarios. The ones I looked at were:

1. as 1500x1125px social media and HD projected images;
2. as 3840x2880px 4K TV and desktop/wallpaper images and for 9x12” prints;
3. as 4800x3600px 12x16” prints (i.e. photo competition size for mounting on/matting to 16x20”)

I’ve been using Lightroom for my processing since it came out (and Photoshop before that), and wanted to see if it was doing the best job possible, so I tested it using Lr Enhanced NR against DxO Pure Raw, ON1 No Noise, OM Workspace, and Topaz PhotoAI.

I realize similar comparisons have been done before, but I was unable to find the direct comparisons with all five options with ORF files. Note: Capture 1 and Affinity Photo were not used as I was specifically examining treatments I could integrate with my Lightroom workflow. Each treatment was processed directly from an ORF (not a TIFF made within Lr) and was exported as a DNG (or a TIFF from OMW).

Surprising, even to me, was that, except for OMW, which couldn’t keep up, the differences were so minuscule as to be irrelevant for actual-use scenarios outlined. Pixel peeping them may have turned up differences, but pixel peeping is not a realistic way of looking at and appreciating photographs.

I’ve attached a few comparison photos. In each case, the first panel is the LrBase with not treatment beyond my standard editing. Note, the original of ’Junior’ is not included due to the 5 photo limit.

Cheers,

Terry

[MJ224]

Interesting. Oddly, there is a dark spot on Junior's beak on the ON1 processed shot. This spot is not present on the other processed images.

Also the same goes for at least one pair of images in the article.

But the article concludes that there are no "winners", and all process's produce good results...

[luxBorealis-TerryMcDonald]

I agree about the bit on the bill on the ON1 image of Junior. I noticed that, too, and common edged on it in my original (much longer) article, but not in the versions that was eventually published. Sorry about that. to me, it looks like a seed husk from sunflower seeds. But it is an artefact.

And, yes, there are ‘no clear winners’. Each looks great in different situations, with different photos. As I said in the blog version:
“ Lightroom’s own Enhanced Noise Reduction is excellent throughout the ISO range, providing very natural-looking sharpness and micro-contrast while maintaining smoothness of skies and excellent overall three-dimensionality. DxO Pure Raw seems like the best of the raw optimizing apps, with Topaz and ON1 being equally good, but with a couple of artefacts that need more investigation.”

It’s important to keep in mind my preferred method of analysis, which is viewing photographs at sizes and in scenarios as they are normally used and viewed, e.g. not pixel-peeping. Just because we can, doesn’t mean it gives us information that is helpful. Other than the obvious artefacts, which I pointed out, the differences that may show up at 200%, do not show in prints or publications, and certainly not when sized for online use

I hope this helps clarify what, perhaps, I could have made more clear in the post above.

Terry.

[Ian]

There is something called the Law of Diminishing Returns

I'm quite sure there used to be major differences in achievable post-processed image quality. But over time, these differences get smaller and smaller. So you can pay more (not just money, but the inconvenience of switching platforms) to gain ever smaller advantages,

for me, personally, LIghtroom manages my library of tens of thousands of images, is fast and versatile, end keeps getting better. The image quality i get is more than adequate from what I can see. It would be an incredibly hard job for me to move my catalogues to something else.

I'm sure it's a similar story for those invested in other packages, who might consider switching to Lightroom.

Ian

[luxBorealis-TerryMcDonald]

What a great perspective, and one I agree with. It’s one of the reasons I’ve been more than happy with Lightroom over the years and have not drifted to other apps. I think my tests confirm it, too, though many may disagree with my perspective on the ‘natural sharpness’ of Li Enhanced NR vs the ‘hyper-real’ sharpness of DxO, ON1 and Topaz, which I go into more depth on in my blog post.

[Growltiger]

Thank you, that is an interesting study.
The only deficiency is that all your photos are so good.
If you had some poor quality photos that you still wanted to use because of their special content, I suspect you would see more differences between the tools.

[luxBorealis-TerryMcDonald]

Thank you, that is an interesting study.
The only deficiency is that all your photos are so good.
If you had some poor quality photos that you still wanted to use because of their special content, I suspect you would see more differences between the tools.

Thanks for the compliment. To be honest, I rarely bother with ‘poor photos’. The closest to a poor photo I would take the time to work on is the ISO 12800 “Dad” male cardinal and even that I would never use outside of this context.

That being said, my next article will be ‘rescuing’ photos that have slight subject/camera movement. Stay tuned.

Cheers,

Terry