Pushing your camera's ISO is often a necessary evil in photography. Whether capturing the ambiance of a dimly lit wedding reception, the sprawl of the Milky Way, or the split-second action of wildlife, higher ISOs let you get the shot. The trade-off, however, is digital noise—that grainy, color-speckled texture that can obscure fine details and degrade the overall quality of your images. There are now several contenders vying for a spot in your noise reduction workflow, but which one truly delivers the cleanest results without introducing new problems?
I put the most prominent AI noise reduction tools through real-world testing, using raw files from a variety of popular cameras, including Sony, Nikon, Fuji, and even DJI drones. I evaluated DxO's newly released PureRAW 5, Adobe's Enhance Details feature within Lightroom and Camera Raw, ON1 NoNoise AI, and Topaz Photo AI. My goal was to see how they stack up not just in noise removal, but also in detail preservation, processing speed, artifact control, and overall usability.
DxO PureRAW 5
DxO has carved out a niche for itself with software focused on getting the absolute best image quality from RAW files, and PureRAW is the prime example. Rather than being a full-fledged editor, it acts as a specialized pre-processor. You feed it your raw files, and it applies your choice of demosaicing, optical corrections, and powerful AI noise reduction before round-tripping raw-like DNG files back into Lightroom.
PureRAW 5 offers photographers several flavors of its DeepPRIME noise reduction technology. DeepPRIME XD2s, carried over from the previous version, remains the champion in my tests for sheer image quality across most cameras. It works the best to remove noise while holding onto fine textures and details, producing remarkably clean and natural-looking results, even in challenging high-ISO scenarios. It’s not the fastest, but the quality is undeniable.
XD2s is still king, with this comparison between default ACR processing and DxO's results showing just how much detail can be recovered.
New in PureRAW 5 is DeepPRIME 3, which offers a slightly different balance. It processes images noticeably faster (around 20–25% in my tests) and is perhaps a touch less aggressive by default, preserving detail while leaving a hint more noise than XD2s. It also handles chromatic aberrations well, even before specific optical corrections are applied. For batch processing large volumes of images, like a wedding or event, DeepPRIME 3 strikes an excellent balance between speed and outstanding quality.
A specialty addition is the new DeepPRIME XD3 X-Trans Beta. Fujifilm photographers have long dealt with the potential issues from software misinterpreting X-Trans sensor data, sometimes leading to "wormy" artifacts or false color. This new, specialized algorithm in PureRAW 5 looks to address those files with a bespoke Fuji-specific approach. My testing on Fuji files showed a dramatic improvement over all other methods, including previous DxO versions and Adobe Enhance. Fine details were rendered with better sharpness and accuracy, while false color issues were virtually eliminated. It’s genuinely transformative for Fuji shooters. While PureRAW is a separate purchase (around $119.99 new, with upgrades available), its DNG-based workflow integrates smoothly into Adobe-centric workflows, and for those prioritizing ultimate image quality—particularly Fuji users—it leads the pack.
Note the better color and greatly reduced color fringing, particularly visible on the white and black windows in the middle of the frame.
Adobe Enhance Details
For everyone already paying the Adobe ecosystem toll via a Creative Cloud subscription, the most accessible AI noise reduction is built right into Lightroom Classic, Lightroom CC, and Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). Accessed via the "Enhance" menu, Adobe's AI-powered Denoise feature was a massive leap forward from their traditional noise reduction sliders when it was introduced.
While it’s not the noise reduction king, it does a commendable job cleaning up noisy images, offering a simple slider to control the intensity. For many users, the results are perfectly acceptable and dramatically better than what was possible just a few years ago.
The primary advantage here is undeniable convenience. There’s no need to purchase separate software, learn a new interface, or add extra steps to your workflow. You simply apply it directly within your familiar editing environment.
However, convenience comes with a slight quality trade-off compared to the specialized leader. In my direct comparisons, while Adobe Enhance was good, it consistently trailed behind DxO's DeepPRIME XD2s and DeepPRIME 3 in preserving the finest details and maintaining clarity, especially in very noisy files. It also proved to be surprisingly slow in my testing, taking significantly longer to process images than even DxO's most intensive algorithm. Nonetheless, for its seamless integration and solid performance, it remains a strong and practical choice for many photographers.
ON1 NoNoise AI
ON1 aims to offer powerful AI features, including noise reduction, often at a more competitive price point than some rivals. ON1 NoNoise AI can function as a standalone application or integrate as a plugin with software like Lightroom and Photoshop.
In my tests, ON1 NoNoise AI processed images relatively quickly, putting it in the same ballpark as DxO's faster DeepPRIME 3 method.
It certainly reduced noise more effectively than traditional, non-AI sliders. However, the quality of the results was less impressive. I observed noticeable blotchy artifacts, particularly in smooth gradient areas like skies, which detracted from the image's natural appearance. Furthermore, it struggled with chromatic aberration, sometimes leaving behind unpleasant color fringing around high-contrast edges and fine details.
The purple fringing around the wrought iron in the ON1 sample showed how it lagged the DxO and Adobe methods in keeping the details clean.
While its speed and lower price ($49.99 at the time of publication) might seem appealing, the image quality issues placed it behind Adobe Enhance Details in my rankings. If you already have access to Adobe's tools, Enhance generally provides a better result.
Topaz Photo AI
Topaz Labs offers a suite of AI-powered image enhancement tools bundled into their Photo AI application, which includes modules for noise reduction, sharpening, and upscaling. On paper, it sounds like a comprehensive solution.
Unfortunately, my experience with Topaz Photo AI's noise reduction was fraught with problems. While it reduced noise levels, the AI was overly aggressive and prone to "hallucinations."
In dark areas, like between these two barrels, white speckles are added—these are absent in all other processed versions of this file.
The most glaring example was its tendency to invent details that simply weren't there. For example, it was creating fake stars in night sky photos and then bizarrely replicating these phantom stars onto dark foreground elements like trees or the ground.
While a bit tough to see reproduced here, the roofline was significantly darkened by Topaz's method.
It also made significant, often unwanted, global contrast adjustments that fundamentally changed the look and feel of the image. Consider the example above, where it forced the building’s roofline to be darker, almost trying to make it a part of the sky.
Even setting aside issues in the darkest areas, midtones could take on a smeared or blotchy appearance.
Compounding these issues was the slow processing speed, hampered by a lengthy analysis phase required for each image, and the trial version's inability to export files, making pre-purchase evaluation difficult. While Topaz's tools might excel in other areas, the unpredictable and often destructive nature of its noise reduction in my tests makes it impossible to recommend for NR applications.
Ranking the Noise Reduction Tools
After extensive side-by-side comparisons across numerous images and camera types, a clear hierarchy emerged based on the quality of the noise reduction and detail preservation:
-
DxO PureRAW 5 (DeepPRIME XD2s / XD3 X-Trans Beta): The undisputed champion for image quality. XD2s delivers the best overall results for most cameras, while the XD3 X-Trans Beta algorithm provides impressive, class-leading results for Fujifilm files, significantly outperforming everything else in my view.
-
DxO PureRAW 5 (DeepPRIME 3): A very close second to XD2s in quality, but faster. A good choice for balancing top-tier results with workflow efficiency, especially for batch processing, but probably not worth the upgrade for PureRAW 4 users who don't need the speedup.
-
Adobe Enhance Details (Lightroom/ACR): A solid and capable performer, offering significant improvements over non-AI methods. Its main drawback is lagging slightly behind DxO in ultimate detail preservation and being comparatively slow, but its seamless integration with industry-standard Lightroom is a huge plus.
-
ON1 NoNoise AI: While fast enough, it fell short due to noticeable artifacts like blotchiness in skies and poor handling of chromatic aberrations or details. It reduced noise but compromised image quality compared to Adobe and DxO.
-
Topaz Photo AI: Landed at the bottom due to its propensity for generating artifacts, hallucinating details, and making undesirable global image changes. The potential for damaging image integrity outweighed its noise reduction capabilities in my tests.
DxO did the best job of cleaning up this available-light, handheld shot, retaining the most detail while cleaning up the sky.
Choosing Your AI Noise Reduction Tool
AI noise reduction, in combination with ever-better sensor performance, has fundamentally improved our ability to capture clean images in challenging conditions. I know I’ve started shooting in conditions that I never would’ve considered—going handheld at over ISO 6,400 or taking my drone up well into night to capture new perspectives, confident that noise reduction will supplement what I captured.
If your primary goal is achieving the absolute best image quality possible from your raw files, with maximum detail retention and minimal artifacts, DxO PureRAW 5 stands out as the clear leader in my opinion. Its DeepPRIME algorithms, particularly XD2s for general use and XD3 X-Trans Beta for Fuji shooters, deliver unparalleled results. It requires an extra step in the workflow and a separate purchase, but for professionals and enthusiasts demanding uncompromising quality, the investment is worth it. For photographers already having access to XD2s via PureRAW 4, the upgrade is a bit less compelling and only worth it if you need processing for Fuji cameras or big shoots like weddings.
For those who are already in the Adobe ecosystem, Adobe Enhance Details is a solid choice. It delivers good, reliable results directly within Lightroom or Camera Raw, representing a massive upgrade from non-AI NR techniques. It may not reach the pinnacle of quality set by DxO, but its accessibility and ease of use should make it the default choice for many.
Based on my testing, ON1 NoNoise AI introduced too many image quality compromises to recommend over the top two. Topaz Photo AI's tendency to invent and distort details instantly disqualified it for my use, and while testing the other AI-powered features was outside the scope of this review, it’s at the bottom of my noise reduction tier list.
Ultimately, evaluate your needs and budget. Download trials where possible and test them on your own high-ISO images. But as it stands now, DxO PureRAW 5 leads the pack, with Adobe Enhance providing a solid, convenient alternative for the masses.
wow... you might have sold me on DxO, the cost is not so bad, I do find that Topaz which I use extensively for a couple years now, seems to go back and forth on quality depending on the case and photograph. They keep trying to improve and compete, but yes it does often produce substandard results.
Yeah, give it a try!
I think what is most intriguing is that Topaz has really priced themselves out of the market for what they deliver. Sure, they are adding a bunch of bells and whistles though these are largely extraneous and they have neglected the core mission.
Topaz's greatest advantage now I think is the 'Remove-Feature' with generative AI. Cost seems competitive to me, compared to the subscription models that you end up paying for other services. But but... The one time purchase only gives you one-year of free upgrades now. I think I've paid twice in my time with topaz. I have felt it has been worth it.
I'm glad to hear that you appreciate it's value though it's difficult for me to reconcile how you're obtaining the software at reduced cost. Since they released the product, it has become essentially a subscription model on par with the cost for the full featured LR/PS which has superior AI object removal and a host of added abilities. Photo AI dipped its toes in extraneous features, doesn't replace other RAW editors, and importantly as the author has demonstrated, its NR isn't that great.
About it being a essentially a subscription model now. Your absolutely right: I did a little digging in 4/19/23 I paid $159 then I paid $199 in 11/03/24, which will auto-renew in november of 25 for $99. If I didn't renew, the software wouldn't die, but it wouldn't allow upgrades. I'm not worried about 'RAW-Editors' since I use so many different tools in conjunction in TIFF mode. But I've always rejected the cost of some other software because of how much budget to keep dropping, but in the end, did I already shell out more then if I had just started with Adobe?
It is just sad that Adobe has not updated their AI noise reduction algorithm since April 2023. Overall, they are big on introducing various features, but not on really maintaining them.
PS, when reviewing noise reduction application, scaling down every image to such a small size, greatly diminishes the usefulness of including images. It is like when a site reviews a 100-200 megapixel medium format camera, and boasts about the detail, while posting a sample photo that was scaled down to 1 megapixel or less as an example of what the camera can do.
Yeah, Adobe hasn't updated it much, but it's still performing pretty well.
For the comparisons, you can right click and open the image to see them 1:1.
No, I'm not able to click on images to get 1:1. If i right-click and download the image, it's still a cropped image, but I am actually able then to blow-up the image and figure out what your talking about for comparisons. To speak to Naruto's point Fstoppers does soften and downsize images in general. Alex's 390 house comparison shot comes out to 1390x1134 pixels as an example when downloaded, on the webscreen, the display is completely dependent on your browser experience. It appears no matter where I download pictures from Fstoppers, this one-thousandish size is about where files are being sized to.
For clarification, if you right click and open the roofline/night sky shot under "Ranking the Noise Reduction Tools", for instance, you will get a 3800x1700ish image. Each "slice" of the image in that picture is a 1:1 crop of the various NR programs.
The full-size images are not served inline in the articles, but are accessible. It's a little cumbersome, but it's the best way to make these comparisons available in our CMS.
Yes the roofline one does come out that big. (after right-click download) However after closer inspection. Now I might say that your favorite one on the left might be too-cartoony-looking, I'd have to see more. A more middle ground might be preferred, like the Prime3 or PureRaw4. Topaz is not here, or not marked correctly. Oddly you said what the comparison image included, but this is what it says at the bottom of the images. It says: "XD2, Prime3, PureRaw4, On1, EnhanceDetails-9 (adobe I assume)" So I think your confusing people with your graphic there.
Topaz isn't there because the artifacts and image quality issues entirely disqualified it in my opinion (plus I was running out of space for this side by side). I chose to show only the contenders plus the base image, then show Topaz's artifacts in their dedicated section.
I was just following the article where you say "a clear hierarchy emerges..." and you go 1, 2, 3 and that is directly follows that comparison picture. It was confusing to me. Only when I blew up the image can you see those little text at the bottom.
Regarding the speed of DeepPRIME 3, it's hard to tell what "It processes images noticeably faster (around 20–25% in my tests)" is comparing, so I'll share my results:
On an M1 Max Mac Studio, DP3 is 8% faster than the earlier DP, 3x faster than DP XD2s, and 6x faster than Adobe's AI Denoise. Some Wintel users have reported greater acceleration from DP3 over DP.
Personally, I think they all do a great job. I tried the trial version of DXO and it's nice. However, I currently use LRC and it has it built in and I don't see the need or any difference really to pay for another software application that does the same thing. But that's my 2 cents on the subject.
I largely agree and given all of the new and high quality features LR/PS have added, there is little need to go chasing anything else.
I have both Adobe Lightroom and DXO PureRaw and use them for theatre production photography. I use Lightroom on old Olympus E1 files as DXO does not support the Raw files. On cameras PureRaw does work with it is definitely better if you want to retain the maximum amount of detail. Its lens corrections are also in a totally different league to Lightroom. Topaz Photo AI I will not give hard drive space to. It messes up far too much, does not retain colour accurately, randomly tries to sharpen areas which are not the focus point, misses areas out for no reason and onto of that then end result is never that great. You are basically paying to be a beta tester for Topaz, the software has so many problems.
The only other plug in I generally use with LRC is the ON1 Skyswapp app. It does a really good job when I want to replace the sky. I did try Topaz a couple of years ago and and decided not to use that. I guess if it ain't broke, don't go looking for a fix. LOL
Tip LR denoise is best at 40%
I don't like using multiple programs and moving photos back and forwards.Because I shoot gfx , they are noisy , especially about 1000 iso
LR Has improved significantly.
And i'm more than comfortable using it in my professional workflow
I will also add texture and clarity back into people's faces.If i'm using it with people in it.
FYI, round-tripping images from Lightroom Classic to DxO PhotoLab and back is super-easy, thanks to DxO's Lightroom plug-in. I select in LRC, send to PL for RAW processing, then export JPEGs or DNGs back to Lightroom, where they appear right next to the RAWs in the same folder (if I so choose). Sending from LRC to PL takes maybe 15 seconds, even with hundreds of images. And, by doing my noise reduction in PL rather than LRC, I save hours of processing time with big batches.
Might sound easy but when you've shot 1000 photos for an event it's not easy and some of them don't then don't need it as well. I just prefer to do everything in one spot. It's quicker it's faster. It's more efficient. I really find I get great results out of Lightroom. Maybe that other program is slightly better but I'm not interested. I don't use Lightroom classic I use the standard Lightroom and I find it's very efficient and works well, but thank you for the tip.
Yeah I'm sure it's not that difficult but it's an extra cost as well. I'm happy just to pay for Lightroom. My professional workflow has been built around. Lightroom and I don't fix what isn't broken
Sounds about right. For me, the time savings on noise reduction processing for a single job is worth the cost of PhotoLab. And, my clients appreciate the quick turnaround. You do nice work, BTW.
I notice the 'speckling' on Topaz Sharpen AI, enough that I avoid using it now. The Denoise had less of that effect. (I'm still using the stand-alones).
I trust my prints... I use a GFX camera and typically while they are great for dynamic range they can produce a little bit of noise and I have printed 1.5 m across by 700 mm down and honestly I trust the Lightroom noise really well so if I have software that I trust I don't change. I don't care if something is allegedly is better. I just trust what I know.
Does Lightroom do AI Denoise on GFX files? DxO has a new beta version of DeepPRIME for X-Trans. It was mentioned in the article above, but I'm not sure you saw that.
The AI denoise in Adobe so far seems to work on every raw format supported by ACR, including those from the GFX camera, it also works really well with raw files from the X-Trans sensor.
Though there is one annoying issue, sometimes the AI denoise will cause some artifacts with certain textures, and even though there has been many updates over the years, they have only been to expand GPU acceleration and not to improve the algorithm, thus if you were to test it out on some of the test chart images from DPreview you will see that the latest version of ACR and lightroom have the same exact artifacts as the ones showed on their forums when Adobe first introduced the feature. Overall, nothing was done to fix any of the artifacts.
Beyond that, for most images, it is able to reduce noise with no visible artifacts, but for some textures, it just falls apart.
It works well around 75%+ of the time, but when it doesn't the results are terrible and it is unrelated to the camera or sensor, and instead the contents of the image where things like certain clothing textures will cause artifacts, as well as certain other materials.
The good news is that with a reasonably modern GPU, if none of the acceleration features for your card are missing from their whitelist, then the AI noise reduction is around a 5-10 second process on a 100 megapixel image (and significantly shorter with a higher end GPU), thus you do not lose too much from trial and error.
Yeah I have a new M4 max MacBook so it is superfast. I decided to upgrade my MacBook as I really needed a new computer as the M1 was a bit slow but yes it does. De-noise. GFX files really fast about 20 seconds.
Sharpen in Topaz, lately has been doing weird over sharpening, where it causes... yes for lack of a better term 'speckling'. If I'm going to try to use Topaz for sharpening, sometimes you have to manually use the dials, but yes, I wonder if I need to lodge another complaint. There probably is already a big one on their forums. I used to be on the Topaz forums a lot.
Good review regarding DXO. Exactly my conclusions and why I have not upgraded from PR4 to PR5. PR5 does add a new interface and additional tools to allow separating Lens Correction and Sharpening (to '0') if desired. Still not enough to upgrade.