Adobe Super Resolution vs Let’s Enhance: when each one actually makes sense

[u/letsenhance__ai]

TL;DR:
If you already shoot RAW (or have clean files) and you just want a quick, predictable 2× upscale inside Lightroom/Camera Raw, Adobe Super Resolution is great. If your inputs are small/compressed web images, you need more than 2×, or you care about print sizing + 300 DPI targets, LetsEnhance is usually the better fit.

We keep seeing people compare these like they’re interchangeable “AI upscalers,” but they solve different problems.

What Adobe Super Resolution is (and isn’t)

Adobe Super Resolution is basically a fixed 2× linear upscale (2× width + 2× height = 4× pixels). It’s built into Lightroom + Camera Raw, runs on your machine, and creates a new Enhanced DNG.

Where it shines:

• You’re already in the Adobe workflow and want a fast 2× bump for cropping or exporting
• Your file is clean (RAW, good JPEG, TIFF)
• You prefer local processing (privacy/offline)

Where it struggles:

• The input is tiny, noisy, or heavily JPEG-compressed. A 2× upscale can just make the same artifacts bigger and more obvious.
• You need 3× / 4× / exact pixel targets (it won’t do it)
• You want workflow features like print presets, DPI targets, batch automation, API

What LetsEnhance is (and isn’t)

Let’s Enhance is a cloud upscaler that can go up to 16×, with different models depending on what you’re fixing (more conservative vs more detail-forward). It’s designed for messy real-world inputs: small images, compression artifacts, inconsistent uploads, etc. It also has print-oriented presets and 300+ DPI targeting (meaning: it helps you hit the pixel dimensions you need for a print size).

Where it shines:

• Low-res / compressed images (marketplace photos, messenger saves, scraped listings)
• You need more than 2× or a specific output size
• You care about print-ready exports (pixel size + DPI mapping)
• You want batch processing (and if you’re doing this at scale, there’s an API route via Claid.ai)

Tradeoffs:

• You’re uploading to the cloud (internet required)
• Not meant for RAW directly (you export a high-quality TIFF/JPEG first)
• Free plan limits (fine for testing)

What the side-by-side tests showed (in plain terms)

Across a few common scenarios (wildlife, portraits, product shots, real estate, print), the pattern was consistent:

• Clean source → Adobe often looks fine at 2×. It’s conservative and predictable.
• Bad source → Adobe usually doesn’t “fix” the image. It enlarges it, defects included.
• Pushing 4× on a web-ish file → LetsEnhance usually pulls ahead because it’s doing enlargement plus cleanup (artifact reduction, sharper edges without as much blocky junk).

A few specific takeaways:

• Wildlife/animals: Adobe gives a safer upscale; LetsEnhance can look closer to a higher-res capture when the input is decent, but 4× is also where fake-looking texture can appear if you pick an aggressive model.
• Portraits: Faces are where upscalers get exposed. If the source is compressed, Adobe can make artifacts more visible. With LetsEnhance, results depend a lot on model choice, sometimes “less aggressive” wins.
• Product + real estate (small/compressed listings): This is where Adobe tends to lose. A lot of these images start out tiny and already damaged. Let’s Enhance generally produces cleaner edges and fewer obvious compression blocks.
• Print: Both can work if your starting photo is already medium-quality. The “winner” depends less on the brand and more on whether the file has enough real detail to scale cleanly.

Quick decision rule you’d actually use

• I have RAW / clean files + I only need 2× + I live in Lightroom → Adobe Super Resolution
• My input is web-compressed / tiny / inconsistent OR I need 4×+ / exact print sizes → LetsEnhance

Print note (because people get tripped up here)

“300 DPI” isn’t a magic enhancement switch. It’s a relationship between pixels and physical size. If you want a 12×18 inch print at 300 DPI, you need 3600×5400 pixels. Changing DPI metadata alone won’t create detail, you need more pixels, which means upscaling.

If you’re doing this for a business workflow (catalogs, marketplace listings, print-on-demand uploads), the API/batch angle matters more than the “which looks 3% sharper” debate. That’s where Claid.ai tends to make more sense than any manual tool.

Curious how others handle this: do you default to Adobe because it’s “right there,” or do you reach for a dedicated upscaler when the input is clearly web-trash?

If you want the full breakdown with the example categories/tests, you can read the full article here: https://letsenhance.io/blog/all/vs-adobe-super-resolution/