Any Interest in DXO's PureRaw?

Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,771
Location
France
PhotoLab 4 Elite's DeepPRIME has changed my attitude about ISO settings. For most work, I just set my Olympus cameras to auto, and then process the raw files in PL with DeepPRIME. Then it's out to a TIF for additional work. But now DxO PureRAW offers another choice.
What does PureRaw offer that you cannot do with PhotoLab?
 

Ranger Rick

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
620
Location
Tempe, AZ
Real Name
Rick
Here's something useful I learned from Dennis Mook (thewanderinglensman.com):

"What I did was identify RAW images by ISO already in my Lightroom Classic catalog then, right clicking on the image (I have a Windows machine), then clicking “Show in Explorer” in the drop down box, I was taken directly to my identified image file in Explorer which appeared on my monitor highlighted in blue. I then copied the image file along with the XMP Sidecar file and pasted it in a newly created folder in which I was placing all of my test images.

After accumulating a number of images of various ISOs, I opened PureRAW, imported the images (the XMP files are not visible in PureRAW), processed them and then exported the processed files to Lightroom. After importing in Lightroom, the DXO processed files automatically applied the edit data found in the XMP files. "
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
893
Location
Springfield, Illinois
What does PureRaw offer that you cannot do with PhotoLab?
Not having to buy Photolab 4. So that you can integrate it into your existing workflow. For some (me, in particular) that is important. I don't think PL4 offers me enough to change the entire workflow for the convenience of automatic lens correction, and slightly better noise control. I want those two features, but not at the cost of changing EVERYTHING.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
123
Location
Northwest Arkansas, USA
Real Name
Mike
Not having to buy Photolab 4. So that you can integrate it into your existing workflow. For some (me, in particular) that is important. I don't think PL4 offers me enough to change the entire workflow for the convenience of automatic lens correction, and slightly better noise control. I want those two features, but not at the cost of changing EVERYTHING.
It takes no more time to use PL4 to export DeepPRIME denoise + lens corrections to DNG (if you set up a profile for that) than it does to use PureRAW for the same.

So it's really just the cost differential and if you're okay with the processing settings DxO has baked into PureRAW.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,771
Location
France
Not having to buy Photolab 4. So that you can integrate it into your existing workflow. For some (me, in particular) that is important. I don't think PL4 offers me enough to change the entire workflow for the convenience of automatic lens correction, and slightly better noise control. I want those two features, but not at the cost of changing EVERYTHING.
Photolab is designed to do both, as you prefer (full workflow, or partial workflow using DNG export)
It's working great with DNG export.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,480
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
I downloaded the trial and tried it on an image from the EM10.2 (my "backup" camera). A shot at ISO 400 taken in bad light that needed a lot of shadow pushing (+93 in LR). Here's the LR rendering uploaded to Flickr:

50418323251_edcb17aaec_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Stag Bellowing by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

And here's the view in LR of the DxO Prime vs the base raw - both with the same LR processing:

StagComp1.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


And here's the 1:1 comparison:

StagComp2.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I think the DxO processing is really OTT. I can't find any controls to tone down its behaviour. Based on this test, I won't be splashing out on it!
 

RichardC

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,554
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
Buying software it's quite a balancing act. The bottom line is that all of these companies need to make a profit to survive. If they don't survive, there is no more new software.

Subscriptions are manageable as long as they are not too much money. Fixed price software is a one off fee - until it needs updating or is 'improved' as they all are, some more frequently than others. The updates aren't free.

I have both sorts. I only have a problem when companies want you to pay for an update consisting of mostly bug fixes.

They've got you. You could wait a year in case something much better comes out, but on that basis, you would never buy anything.
 

RichardC

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,554
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
I downloaded the trial and tried it on an image from the EM10.2 (my "backup" camera). A shot at ISO 400 taken in bad light that needed a lot of shadow pushing (+93 in LR). Here's the LR rendering uploaded to Flickr:

View attachment 885861
Stag Bellowing by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

And here's the view in LR of the DxO Prime vs the base raw - both with the same LR processing:

View attachment 885859

And here's the 1:1 comparison:

View attachment 885860

I think the DxO processing is really OTT. I can't find any controls to tone down its behaviour. Based on this test, I won't be splashing out on it!

Download the Photolab 4 Elite trial. The discount code works on that too. Just run a raw file through DeepPrime only (switch everything else off, except maybe smartlighting) - be aware the result is not visible on a preview except in the little box top right.

https://www.dxo.com/dxo-photolab/download/
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
893
Location
Springfield, Illinois
It takes no more time to use PL4 to export DeepPRIME denoise + lens corrections to DNG (if you set up a profile for that) than it does to use PureRAW for the same.

So it's really just the cost differential and if you're okay with the processing settings DxO has baked into PureRAW.
I'm not talking about the time involved, I'm talking about the workflow overall. I don't want to give up the high degree of manual control I would lose going to Photolab4 or PureRaw.

But for me, it's a moot point anyway, the more I test with it, the less enthusiastic I am about it. Like Photolab 4, there are some nice things about it, but is it better, overall, than my ACDSee/Topaz workflow? I don't think so. They are a flashy set of products, but in the end, they offer no more than anyone else.

I suspect the value returned for the amount of money spent is not enough for me.
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
893
Location
Springfield, Illinois
I downloaded the trial and tried it on an image from the EM10.2 (my "backup" camera). A shot at ISO 400 taken in bad light that needed a lot of shadow pushing (+93 in LR). Here's the LR rendering uploaded to Flickr:

View attachment 885861
Stag Bellowing by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

And here's the view in LR of the DxO Prime vs the base raw - both with the same LR processing:

View attachment 885859

And here's the 1:1 comparison:

View attachment 885860

I think the DxO processing is really OTT. I can't find any controls to tone down its behaviour. Based on this test, I won't be splashing out on it!
DXO is 'flashy', but in the end, there isn't enough 'meat' on those bones.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,771
Location
France
I'm not talking about the time involved, I'm talking about the workflow overall. I don't want to give up the high degree of manual control I would lose going to Photolab4 or PureRaw.

But for me, it's a moot point anyway, the more I test with it, the less enthusiastic I am about it. Like Photolab 4, there are some nice things about it, but is it better, overall, than my ACDSee/Topaz workflow? I don't think so. They are a flashy set of products, but in the end, they offer no more than anyone else.

I suspect the value returned for the amount of money spent is not enough for me.

It's not meant to replace ACDSee in your workflow, but probably the Topaz part.
RAW -> DxO -> DNG -> ACDSee -> Final image

Topaz probably already does a pretty good job for noise reduction, so maybe there's no added value to your workflow.
It's a personal decision, there is no absolute best workflow :)

What I appreciate the most in DeepPrime is not the noise reduction but the way colors are preserved.
With an underexposed high ISO image in Lightroom, the noise reductions kills some of the colors, so the image can look washed out and weird, even when reduced or printed.
The same image, processed in DxO as a DNG, then processed in Lightroom, has much better colors.
I couldn't have the same results if I sent a TIFF from Lightroom to another program to reduce the noise.
For me, it makes sense to do this with the purest possible source which is the RAW.

I wouldn't use PureRaw though, as the excessive sharpening ruins everything.
 

mcasan

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
1,771
Location
Atlanta
If you think Pure Photo is overdoing the sharpening....what about a bit of minus Clarity to soften things a bit?
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
893
Location
Springfield, Illinois
If you think Pure Photo is overdoing the sharpening....what about a bit of minus Clarity to soften things a bit?
Clarity isn't a sharpening tool, it is a mid tone contrast tool. What that means is it Anchors the points where shadow areas start on the left, and where the highlights end on the right. Moving the clarity slider then shifts everything between those two points either left or right on the histogram.

This doesn't sharpen or soften the image, though it can SOMETIMES give that effect. What it is doing, is changing the contrast globally between those two points without regard to lines and edges of shapes or to the relative luminosity of those shapes. When you adjust clarity to a negative position, you are making midtones less contrasty while keeping the absolute distance between the darkest darks and the brightest lights the same.

The result is an original level of contrast between the extremes of the shadows and the highlights, but a reduced contrast between everything else. That means you will lose detail in lines and edges that are NOT at the two extremes. Losing detail is NOT the goal of sharpening. You aren't scaling back sharpness, you are destroying the lines and edges on which the sharpening was performed.

It is FAR more preferable to sharpen to the exact right amount rather than try to undo the sharpening you have.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
1,888
Location
North Carolina, USA
Disclaimer: my vision is pretty bad, so please take the following with a large grain of salt. DxO Sharpening: in my (non-expert) experience: PL2 default sharpening was much too much, (and depended on lens used, I think). I normally moved the slider almost all the way to the left. In PL4, however, the default setting usually still oversharpens but much less than PL2 did, and sometimes I leave it at the default ("0") but more often reduce it more or less depending on the lens and image.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,771
Location
France
PureRAW sharpening is WAY more than PhotoLab "0" lens sharpening (which doesn't mean no sharpening, but default value)
It seems that it depends on the body, and that for Olympus bodies, it's way too much. It may be a bug.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom