![topaz denoise ai vs dxo deep prime topaz denoise ai vs dxo deep prime](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/video_thumbnail/s3/media-youtube/_Jqp7lmRVG0.jpg)
#Topaz denoise ai vs dxo deep prime professional#
In other words your wonderful product is simply not usable for real professional work.
![topaz denoise ai vs dxo deep prime topaz denoise ai vs dxo deep prime](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/full/s3/comment/2019/04/23/photoshop_2019-04-23_13-08-02.png)
As it stands now I can only use DeNoise AI with that unique shot or two. But it is my decision – not yours if I want to batch process them all with a “light setting” of my choice. Yes, every photo might have varying requirement. While Topaz was thoughtful enough to include “save as DNG” option you are shooting yourself in the foot with that lack of batch processing.ĭo you think I have time to process 300 files one by one using DeNoise AI? DxO takes place at first stage of my workflow for their prime noise removal (from raw original to DNG file). I am an event photographer who typically has to process about 300 high-ISO photos per event. And no, I completely disagree with that statement (whomever wrote it – doesn’t really understand customer requirement). But there is one huge missing point as of now : batch processing function. In the past I had used DXO PL just to get Deep Prime noise reduction and optical corrections. Pure RAW 2 did not, For this one image I found that Pure RAW 2 did a better job than Topaz Denoise. The day I first tried Denoise AI it was very clear that it had no competition. For this one image taken in low light with the Z9, 500 f4 G and 20 TCIII (1000mm) the Topaz Denoise produced artifacts in the noisy area. I’m repeating my concern here (that I conveyed to your support team twice – no concrete date given yet).