Topaz Denoise and extra Tif files

Tried out the Topaz Denoise AI trial today and it does a good job. What I'm concerned about is the 117mb files that are created. I want to keep my raw files, then add these too, making each photo taking up 143mb from the 26mb raw files I currently use to. I don't know if I can justify it. It is a 5 fold increase in storage requirements, which isn't a big deal true but money is tight for me and I don't want to upgrade to very large drives and also upgrade my external storage backup.

As I said, I'd rather not lose my original raw and also be able to tweak the file and re-export it later. Anyone encounter this and have some kind of solution that I might be missing?

I just keep raws and a final processed JPG, and if I ever need more at a future date, I just go back to the raw and do things again. In many cases, the tools I use are upgraded time to time and work even better the next time I use them on raw output.

Short of working with jpegs, you'll never get back down to the file size of a raw file.

TIFFs are inherently big. If you start adding layers to them, they get really big, really fast. PSD files are a touch smaller, if size is your main concern.

Topaz can also be run on a raw file and output as a DNG that can be used in raw editors. It needs to be done before any raw editing is done and the DNG file is about the same size as a TIFF.

There are 2 different schools of thought about when to apply Topaz corrections: before raw editing or after. I'm in the after school. I get my raw file looking like I want it in a raw editor, then send that to Topaz as a TIFF, if necessary. I may do a little after editing touchup on the TIFF, but if the image needs more than that, I'll delete the TIFF and go back and work the raw file.

Your premise is correct, though. Any conversion to an editable format will increase file sizes 3-5x or more. That's one of the reasons I use these products judiciously. I have no qualms about using them when needed, but I don't use them for every image that comes out of the camera.

iroctd wrote in post #19390636
Tried out the Topaz Denoise AI trial today and it does a good job. What I'm concerned about is the 117mb files that are created. I want to keep my raw files, then add these too, making each photo taking up 143mb from the 26mb raw files I currently use to. I don't know if I can justify it. It is a 5 fold increase in storage requirements, which isn't a big deal true but money is tight for me and I don't want to upgrade to very large drives and also upgrade my external storage backup.

As I said, I'd rather not lose my original raw and also be able to tweak the file and re-export it later. Anyone encounter this and have some kind of solution that I might be missing?

How do you mainly edit your files? The Topaz products are non-destructive and don't directly modify the original files; so, you should be able to edit without having to convert to TIFF first outside of some usages (I do it because there's no direct integration between my main editor/DAM and Topaz, so I have to use those as external editors).

drsilver wrote in post #19390666
Short of working with jpegs, you'll never get back down to the file size of a raw file.

TIFFs are inherently big. If you start adding layers to them, they get really big, really fast. PSD files are a touch smaller, if size is your main concern.

Topaz can also be run on a raw file and output as a DNG that can be used in raw editors. It needs to be done before any raw editing is done and the DNG file is about the same size as a TIFF.

There are 2 different schools of thought about when to apply Topaz corrections: before raw editing or after. I'm in the after school. I get my raw file looking like I want it in a raw editor, then send that to Topaz as a TIFF, if necessary. I may do a little after editing touchup on the TIFF, but if the image needs more than that, I'll delete the TIFF and go back and work the raw file.

Your premise is correct, though. Any conversion to an editable format will increase file sizes 3-5x or more. That's one of the reasons I use these products judiciously. I have no qualms about using them when needed, but I don't use them for every image that comes out of the camera.

I hadn't thought about using Topaz after. Sounds like a viable option especially to convert the tiff to jpg and get rid of the large tiff. Must do a bit of testing...

I've gone this long without using anything besides LR NR so I'm considering if it is worth the money. I also noticed some of the output has that over used 'luminance' look which I'm not quite a fan of.

Snydremark wrote in post #19390670
How do you mainly edit your files? The Topaz products are non-destructive and don't directly modify the original files; so, you should be able to edit without having to convert to TIFF first outside of some usages (I do it because there's no direct integration between my main editor/DAM and Topaz, so I have to use those as external editors).

The majority of my PP is in LR. Am I correct that you are also saying to edit first in LR then apply Topaz after?

drsilver wrote in post #19390666
...I'm in the after school. I get my raw file looking like I want it in a raw editor, then send that to Topaz as a TIFF, if necessary. I may do a little after editing touchup on the TIFF, but if the image needs more than that, I'll delete the TIFF and go back and work the raw file.

Your premise is correct, though. Any conversion to an editable format will increase file sizes 3-5x or more. That's one of the reasons I use these products judiciously. I have no qualms about using them when needed, but I don't use them for every image that comes out of the camera.

This is the approach I've adopted as well.

iroctd wrote in post #19390673
The majority of my PP is in LR. Am I correct that you are also saying to edit first in LR then apply Topaz after?

For the most part, yes. Sometimes, if noise is particularly bad and impacting the image heavily at the viewing level (zoom to fit) in my editor, I'll apply DeNoise before other edits; but, 99% of the time I do my normal edits first and just use DeNoise/Sharpen as part of my finishing steps.

Snydremark wrote in post #19390678
For the most part, yes. Sometimes, if noise is particularly bad and impacting the image heavily at the viewing level (zoom to fit) in my editor, I'll apply DeNoise before other edits; but, 99% of the time I do my normal edits first and just use DeNoise/Sharpen as part of my finishing steps.

This is good news. I looked at On1's NoNoise and it was mentioned to avoid some LR tools like contrast, dehaze and clarity prior to applying NoNoise. But I did some quick testing and it is still an improvement from what I had done with no negatives that I can see.

I treat my Topazzed tiffs only slightly more reverently than I'd treat a jpeg. I consider them both as disposable presentation layers that can be recreated at will from the raw file.

iroctd wrote in post #19390680
This is good news. I looked at On1's NoNoise and it was mentioned to avoid some LR tools like contrast, dehaze and clarity prior to applying NoNoise. But I did some quick testing and it is still an improvement from what I had done with no negatives that I can see.

I would suggest being a ‘little’ cautious if applying things like Clarity in conjunction with Topaz, depending on the strength of the effects being used. I’ve encountered some odd, black artifacts if the combinations are too strong.

This is where using the TIFFs as the final canvas is nice, though. As msilver says, you can just nuke the janky edit and go again with a lighter hand.

Good to hear, something I'll have to watch out for.

You typically take care of noise first and foremost. If you apply layers of edits to an image file and do things like contrast, sharpening, etc, these almost always have the effect of strengthening the noise to the point that noise reduction algorithms have a much larger task at hand.

My own process is to process the raw to a good JPEG, then noise reduction in layers (color channel processing, then rgb as a whole), then I apply various stages of USM (some to sharpen, some to add contrast), and a few other filters. If the noise has come back a bit after all of this, I then will apply a very anemic run of noise reduction on the final result.

IE. You don't want to sharpen or add contrast to the noise you have in your image files...

I'll post here since this is the most recent thread about this software. I watched the most recent video from David Kelly about the latest version (3.7). He has a coupon code: DAVIDKELLY to get 15% off. I decided to give it shot since mine expired last month. And it worked! Excited because I tried another code a week ago for the renewal and it was rejected. Here is his affiliate link.