Thank you Glenn for this video. I've just downloaded a trial version of DXO and tried it on one of my old photos - a Booted Racker-tail Hummingbird. Wow, it has completely transformed how it looks, amazing stuff! Its process is so easy to follow. It is definitely a software worth of having! Thank you again!
Thanks Glen. I have now purchased DXO Pure Raw and am amazed how it handles my R5 images. Previously I was really disappointed with the noise reduction in ACR, DPP and NIK dfine, although the NIK filters sometimes came close to OK. DXO is head and shoulders above all the others. The noise reduction on astro and night photography s truely amazing. One minor comment. I suggest you get a better graphics card. Mine takes about 20 seconds max to process an R5 file.
DXO, amongst other things, applies noise reduction and sharpening, to the RAW file. ACR does nothing to noise reduction or sharpening unless you manually apply it. So I don’t think you are comparing apples with apples. For example, you open an image of the Pacific Wren in ACR, without applying NR or sharpening, and complain about the noise. You then process the RAW file in DXO, which applies NR, and marvel how good the lack of noise is. I would suggest you take the RAW file from LR or PS and process in Topaz DeNoise. Compare this with DXO. My tests showed DXO oversharpened the image. The big disadvantage of DXO is that you cannot fine-tune noise reduction or sharpening, which you can do with Topaz. I’m sticking with Topaz.
To each their own! In my opinion the best final result will come from using DXO to pre-process the RAW file. Then use a normal Adobe workflow. I agree it would be great if you could tweak sharpening settings in DxO.
I am pretty sure Adobe applies sharpening by default. Which would make noise even worse. I know on my computer, raw files look better without processing them in acdsee than any Adobe software. I have watched two or three comparisons of dxo to Adobe. Dxo beats Adobe hands down.
It was a pleasure meeting you in Ecuador Glenn. Thank you for letting us use your set-up. I saw this video when you released it and I downloaded the free trial version. I liked it so much I bought it the first week. Unfortunately I shot all my pictures in Ecuador with my Nikon Z9 and DXO labs so far do not have a firmware update and it wont open my files. Thank you so much. I watch all your videos.
Tried it myself and I have to admit, it’s a lifesaver for high iso images. Not only do you have a cleaner image to begin with, but also the result at final output is much better too. I shoot Sony btw.
Thanks for the video. I agree that DPP is clunky and tedious -- but my biggest problem is my favorite lens is a Sigma ...and DPP does not support it (or any other non-Canon lens). I'm looking forward to seeing if DxO Pure RAW solves the problem. I'm mainly looking for CA mitigation -- the rest I can fix elsewhere.
Finally bought DXO Pro -- It auto-senses which lens I am using, does all the lens corrections, and fixes camera noise. I'm using it at the start of all raw photo editing for all of my lens/camera combos. Fast conversions, ready for my editor.
Wow what a difference! It is really amazing.... used it with a macropicture (1000 iso) taken with the 7DII. Also the butterfly looks sharper... thanks a lot!
Like you said, at the end of the day, its the final result that counts. But perhaps the title of your video is a bit misleading, because you don’t really stop using Lightroom, you just add a workflow at the beginning before importing your image into Lightroom. But I sure am gonna give it a try. Thank you for sharing.
Interesting. I shoot weddings...in all kinds of light and light levels. I've honed in LRCC to work quickly and efficiently...considering I produce over 1,000 images on a two photographer shoot.This software you're promoting does have some nice features where if the client wants an album, I might use this software on 'those' images. It might even open up my creative bug to shoot more images 12,500 ISO and see what I get. Some reception lighting can look real moody and romantic. Thanks for the introduction...nice job.
It looks interesting. I currently use Capture One with Topaz AI photo. I get great results. The nice thing is I can open Topaz from CO and save the edited file right back to CO for more editing. I will give DXO atry because your results looked great.
I've been using DxO Raw2 for a few months. It's excellent in most circumstances on my Sony A7r4 RAWs. Where I've found problems is with long exposures on cloudy skies. I've noticed abrupt/edges on tonal transitions in skies as opposed to the smoother tones rendered in Lightroom. I've tried a number of workarounds but to no avail.
Gleann, I liked the DxO PR, but it seems to oversharpen the images. I clearly see "jagged" lines on some parts of the image. Would be nice if we can control the amount of sharpening that would be applied in a preview window before applying the conversion.
Thanks Glenn - very informative. I share your distain for DPP. I downloaded the demo of the software and gave it a try right after watching your review. I was quite impressed with the RAW files that I could process, but was very disappointed to find out that not all lenses are currently supported (which includes my main bird photography lens - a Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L). I found that DxO does have a webpage where you can "offer suggestions" for support, but that is little consolation unless they act on it...
Surprising they wouldn't support that lens. Although TBH I'm not sure how much profiling a super telephoto really matters. AS long as you can still process the file and get rid of the noise.
Glenn, nice to see you are happy with the results. Now, if this is taking so long for your PC to process this file is may be lacking some processor power and not so much video card power. Great results as usual!
A perfect combination (imo) is DxO's noise reduction, preferably DeepPRIME XD from PhotoLab 6, combined with a handy raw editor like ACR/Lightroom - in that sequence.
Thanks for this info. Still struggling with the best way to handle my RAW files with DXO Pure Raw. I am "still" using the 7D MK2 and DXO is adding a lot of color and contrast to the RAW images. I unticked the lens correction (and the other one) and still not okay. For me ON1 Denoise AI does a much better job on the 7D mk2. Luckily I did not buy DXO, just used the trail version after watching this video.
Glenn, you convinced me but I am confused about workflow. Where do I view and cull my images before sending the keeper RAW files to DXO? I do not believe LR will "export" a RAW file. LR converts exported files to DNG, TIFF, JPEG etc.
While I agree that DPP is terrible to use, as in your last video on the R5, the sample shown using DPP really looks like the software has applied some sort of noise reduction (in the previous vid it looks very heavy, all plastic like). So I'm wondering if DPP is indeed applying some noise treatment, or does it default to an "AUTO" noise treatment in the settings? I just can't see how there would be such a massive difference in the way the files look between DPP and ACR on the exact same Raw file. Seems odd.
It seems like (from my readings on the internet) that Adobe is not profiling the new Canon sensors. Either way it doesn't really matter. The point is you simply can not get good results from Adobe at high ISOs no matter what settings you use. In my opinion at ISO 3200 and above you need to use either DPP or something else. This DxO software works great and allows me to still use my normal Adobe workflow. Cheers!
Hi Glenn, I downloaded the trial DXOl and the difference is amazing with R5 files even though not starting with Topaz. I will check out your setings video next.
I bought a new PC with a Nvidia 3080, 10 seconds for one deep prime process and batch processing very quick. I trialled Topaz and DXO Pure Raw is in a different league
Hi Glenn, I have used DXO Photolab 3 and now 4 to process my best shots after culling in LR for a while now. Fantastic results as you say, but in Photolab you can adjust the amount of sharpening or NR as you wish. In this software it seems to be fixed and my files seem to be over sharp using it. I think I will stick to Photolab, same tech, different workflow
@@mondujar279 Not at the moment, but I think I may give it a try as hopefully it will provide the benefits I am looking for with the control I need. Thank you for your interest and helpful comments.
@@nickshepherd8377 Your welcome. I am keeping photolab as secret from my friends, so I have a way of perfecting images more than they can!it’s that good
Hello Glenn, all you did is run DxO DeepPRIME which is similar to Topaz DeNoise AI. I however am really interested to see how Canon software handled noise, if you could only share any of the raw files from your cannon so i could check for myself?
I heard from Walks on the Wildside that proprietary camera software is superior to any third party software for processing RAW files, because the camera manufacturers understand the structures of native RAW files vs something like Photoshop or DxO which have to reverse engineer how they read raw files or something like that. I've tried it with my Panasonic camera software and it does reduce noise better than Lightroom and Photoshop, but I don't like how it adds some sort of sharpening and artifacts so I don't know how true this claim is. Maybe this is something you'd like to make a video on
The thing about software is that today, more than ever, you really have to regard them as a part of your photographic kit. A piece of software can in effect "upgrade" the function of your camera. If you happily spend 3500$ on a camerabody alone, it makes no sense at all to get cheap on the software. For me, Capture One Pro and Topaz Denoise Ai supplement my camera-system very well. For you it´s DxO Pure Raw. With most software comapnies you get a 30 day free trial as well, you don´t have much to loose when trying a piece of software. Interesting video!
This hits on the exact point someone else was making (elsewhere). Thousands of photographers are tossing $90 at superfluous hardware accessories because, well, it's only $90 and might make my pics better. But $90 for something I can download in 5 minutes and be using it even for every pic I took before I bought it? Something fishy and over priced about that. LOL.
Be sure to check if your camera is supported. After downloading the trial version, I was saddened to find out my cameras were not supported. These are multiple months old, so I was very surprised. BTW, Topaz DeNoiseAi supports their raw files. Just bed sure before spending your hard earned money.
I was actually stunned to find my Canon Powershot SX50 HS is recognized. That's an old bridge camera so I wasn't expecting it to be included. I've yet to install the trial but if PureRaw can salvage some CR2's I have put aside just because I like the compositions but not the IQ, bonus.
Thank you kindly, I appreciate all the information…. I’m confused though, how are you previewing your photos first? Which software do you use to weed through all of your photos? Then are you importing them somewhere first since you are dragging the file in? Thanks!
Thank you for making me aware of PureRAW. It is amazing. Maybe the results are a bit oversharpened, but now I need not shy away from ISO 1600 as I did before.
Great video Glenn, what about for images shot at base ISO on the R5 is there any advantage to first run them through DXO or in this case just fo straight into ACR / LRC
I've been using DxO's PhotoLab (formerly called OpticsPro) for the last six years, which is their answer to Lightroom. PureRaw is just the RAW file interpreter of PhotoLab that was recently spun off as a separate module for those who prefer to work in PhotoShop or Lightroom. I adopted DxO's software on the basis of a comparison done by Ron Martinson back then, showing the different color rendition of the same Canon RAW file by DPP, Adobe Camera RAW, DxO OpticsPro (as it was called then) and a few others. I hated DPP because at that point in time you had to maintain multiple versions of it for RAW files from different camera bodies - at least they stopped that nonsense. DPP does do optical corrections, but only for their own lenses, while DxO corrects third-party lenses as well (they are a testing house, after all). It was clear from the images in his post that DxO's color rendition was the closest to DPP's, so I said goodbye to Lightroom (and its catalog system!). DxO's tweaks to a file are in outboard files, allowing nondestructive editing. They also build excellent noise reduction into their PhotoLab, and it is also included in PureRAW. Importantly, I discovered that if I wanted to keep DxO's good color rendition, I should not export to Lightroom and Photoshop in DNG - which would have to go through ACR and have Adobe's color rendition override DxO's - but as a TIFF, which would go directly into Lightroom and Photoshop, preserving Canon's colors. It appears that PureRAW does not offer TIFF export, so if Canon-type color is as important to you as it is to me, I would suggest using PhotoLab instead of PureRAW for exporting to Adobe's products. I've got an order in for an R7 and I've been hoping DxO adds support for it by the time it arrives.
I have a very similar background to Philip with regards to DxO - I've used it for years and whilst it could be frustrating waiting for new camera profiles they were always better than the Adobe offering when they arrived I use the full version of DxO's PhotoLab to process my RAW files but still use Lightroom, PhotoShop and NiK (now also DxO). I am thinking about dropping Lightroom but that would be a big step as I'm so used to it now.
FUJi users have the same problem but I use DXO photolab 6 elite which has the same denoise processor as Pure Raw. My workflow is to batch process all the files I am keeping with a preset in PL6 to apply Deep Prime XD which is what is also used in pure raw. Photos I really liked were further processed in PL6 and then everything was batch saved to a processed file. I thought I would enhance these in LR because of their very good masking but for some reason LR applied a profile I didn't like and I ended up deleting all the LR versions.
Gleen A request for clarification and a couple of additional points 1 Am a right in thinking that you are applying topaz denoise after importing a DXO converted file intoo Camera Raw? If s,o is this necessary and are there any benefits from sequentially putting the file through 2 different denoise routines? 2 I use DXO photolab 4 elite rather than DXO pure raw. My understanding is that the use of lens profiles and Deeep prime noise reduction is the same, but the advantage for me is that I can do all of my raw adjustments in DXO, bypass adobe raw completely and export a 16 bit tiff directly into my existing copy of Photoshop CS5. Hence I avoid needing to use DNG converter or taking out an adobe subscription in order to process my files from newer cameras not supported by CS5 3 As a bird photographer you appear to be mainly using long lenses (certainly in the examples you show) these do not fully demonstrate the advantages of the lens correction profiles DXO use which give excellent correction of lens distortions which would be more apparent in images taken with wider angle lenses.
1 - Yes - DxO - ACR conversion - Photoshop where I use Topaz. 2 - I believe you are correct. I'm not a fan of the interface and prefer to use Pure Raw and then back to Adobe. 3 - I agree.
I think DXO PhotoLab 4 Deep Prime is a better because you have control over the luminance slider o sometimes go from 40 to 55 to remove background noise.
I probably agree in some cases. My issue is it then adds in an extra step with too much additional input of time on my end. I rank it somewhere between Pure RAW and DPP for my particular workflow. Cheers!
I see what you're saying and I can see the results, but having to use 3 different programs for each image would be a pain. If DXO allowed some basic features such as brightness, sharpening and colour adjustment then I'd be sold.
Very cool Glenn, I've just tried it with some recent pics from my 7Dii basically it's witchcraft ! Unfortunately it's extremely slow too on my old 2013 macbook pro and topaz is as well. It took about 12 hours to process 53 raw files. Perhaps if I choose the medium setting without the anti aliasing program ?
Insane difference.. Cant really believe it. Only downside is the file size but you probably delete the DNG processed bu Dxo after you Edited the image and keep the original raw file? Thanks alot for this!
Great video Glenn. I have seen other reviews where photographers have spoken about experiencing variation in the noise performance of the r5. With sometimes iso 800 being noisy, when other times iso 6400 was clean. Have you noticed this at all?
Just depends in your exposure. I've had ISO 3200 shots look cleaner than ISO 400 on 1DXIII even, if you expose poorly and have to raise later. Always exposing as far right as you can/towards highlights will produce the cleanest images. I also try to even shoot ISO 50 on R5 when I can, since it gets like 1 stop more DR vs. ISO 100. ISO 200 is cleaner than iso 100 from charts I've seen or better DR. I think ISO 320 maybe is even better than ISO 200.
@@upendrawerake5991 Honestly I'm quite happy/surprised with the R5. I tested alot against the 1DX. Pushing the files really hard sometimes on purpose. Really the R5 was close/not far off from the 1DX. Or at least, I didn't think it was night and day personally. I mean, the 1DX IS cleaner... but... you are at
@@mattli911 Cool, because I currently shoot with the canon 7d ii, which is great as it provides reach, but suffers when I am on safari before the sun is up. It is good to hear that the r5 has the best of both worlds.
@@upendrawerake5991 Yeah I shot 7dII for 6-7 years, and 1DX for a bit, but now R5. R5 is yes, basically best of both really. 1DX has it's place in a way/some things above R5. But R5 with much smaller/lighter body, flip screen, Eye AF, 45MP/IBIS and so on... it's really quite nice... Also 1DX is so loud with mechanical vs. r5 mechanical or silent 20FPS.
New wannabe wildlife photographer here, is this best: shoot raw, upload to DXO to denoise/correct and then move to Lightroom to edit and then save photos directly from Lightroom?
Thank you very much for the review. After watching, I did download a trial but must admit that although the results are excellent, I found the images over sharpened with some haloing. Did you find this?
@@GlennBartley various ISO’s used but as you implied, worse at low ISO’s. I feel sure that at some stage they will provide a sharpening control. Hope so!
I photograph birds too. I am trying out the trial version of PureRaw. I find the sharpening applied to my olympus raw files to be so over the top it makes the subjects and detail so fake, unrealistic and ugly looking even though PureRaw did an excellent job removing noise. The extreme oversharpening puts me off buying this. Hopefully they add in an option to select the sharpening level or to turn it off completely (right now, we have to de-select modules which also turns off optical corrections which isn't ideal).
I agree it would be nice if you could throttle the sharpening. But with a super telephoto I just turn off the optical corrections if over sharpened. Seems to work well.
Hi I have tried about 6 raw processing softwares. In my hands Capture One works best. May be I dont know to use the rest but I am going to stick to Cap1. At the end of the day its not what is good or bad but only what works ( or does not work ) for you. Sorry to be nit picking but the audio and picture clarity leave a lot to be desired. Stay safe take care. Chidu
Hasn’t dxo had more processing done before it opens? Not sure it’s that easy to compare, yes both raw files, but dxo has added processing like Adobe camera raw does but more of it.
You need to think of it this way.... Try whatever software you want to use and try to get the best possible final result. Use whatever settings are available to you in that software. Then compare the results. In my opinion Adobe can not touch the files (pre) processed in Dxo.
I thought this was going to be a serious review until he made a mis-statement just a couple of minutes in. He said that Adobe doesn’t use camera and lens profiles. That just isn’t true. Lightroom and Adobe both use camera and lens specific profiles in the raw processing.
Thanks for this video. But in cases where we are taking stacked images in landscape then i think it is better to process them in ACR. DxO pure RAW cannot handle presently the stacked raw files. For single shots perhaps yes.
Hi Glenn Most informative and thanks - a polite point of note, please check youor sound recording system, it was very difficult to hear, similar to many of your other videos. thanks again as well as for your kind assistance in Fremantle.
@@GlennBartley If you haven't already, once your video is on UA-cam, start it playing, right click anywhere on the video to open an information panel. The bottom option "Stats for Nerds" will reveal your audio level. See Volume/Normalized values especially Content Loudness. This clip is "-14.2 dB" which means it's way below what's allowed. You want to get that dB kissing up near 0. Even -6 dB would be decent. Adjust that in your editing software, post some short samples until you get your workflow dialed in for your particular system. The microphone is not the problem. As a consolation I watched someone else's video that was Content Loudness -22 dB and it was brutal when the ads come on. Blew my eardrums out because the tutorial narration required my speaker volume cranked.
Hi Glenn, thanks for the video. However, I am not clear if DXO Pure Raw is any better than the Topaz Denoise AI, specially since the latest version of Denoise allows us to export DNG file , just like Pure Raw. Keen to know your thoughts.
I havent done a complete side by side comparison....But in my experience DXO does a better job with high ISO RAW files. I then also use topaz as kind of a second pass as you have a bit more control. When used in combination the results are pretty amazing. With the R5 I can use up to ISO 25,600 now :-)
@@GlennBartley Thanks for your revert. I have heard that DXO Pure Raw is better than DeNoise for photos shot at ISO12800 and above. Have you had a similar experience with that ? If so how much of a difference do you think it is , in your experience? Finally, if one is to buy just one of them for noise reduction ,which one would you recommend?
Hi I am thinking of buying the DXO Pure Raw but I have Nikon cameras - Nikon Z6II and an old D750 plus a couple of film cameras. How do you rate the DxO for these? TY
DxO Pure Raw is definitely the way to go even with lower ISO files. It's a difference of night and day. I have found that VERY noisy files do get some funky artifacts from time to time, but overall, much better results using DxO. BTW, DPP is not slow or laggy in the least. That's your computer, but I definitely agree that it's a terrible user interface. Couple thoughts for your video though. (Constructive criticism) First, you really need to record audio with a microphone that is close to you. Either a lapel mic, a handheld recorder, or preferably a $50-$100 professional microphone with a $100 USB interface into a DAW. Second, that weird film effect needs to go. It was worse for me, since I watch all these videos at 2x, and it was practically going to give me a seizure with all that light flashing. Last, I'm not sure if it's your video output or if it's the way UA-cam handled your file format, but the compression and resolution looked awful. You have an R5, so you can definitely make nicer looking videos! :)
Contrary to what you state, Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) does use camera/lens profiles; it shows whenever you load a raw file in ACR. And no, Adobe doesn't hate Canon. The difference in noise you're seeing is because of the default sharpening/noise reduction in the various processing software. And what you're seeing is a jpeg representation of the raw data. You can't really see raw - files since they're nothing more than linear monochrome luminance values that have not had gamma correction, other light curves, demosaicing, etc. applied. When the data is converted to RGB using demosaicing certain settings such as gamma, contrast, color balance and temperature, saturation, etc. are applied. I see you open your raw file in ACR choosing RGB (???) ... choose ProPhoto color space. It's the largest space available so why restrict yourself to RGB? Second, learn to master the sharpen/noise module in ACR or Lightroom and your prints will look as good or even better than in DxO.
@@GlennBartley Well, actually, they're not thoughts ... but facts. Also, using Topaz in your PS workflow is quite strange since it doesn't do a very good job in the first place. ACR, when mastered right, will take care of all the pre sharpening/noise reduction one needs to compensate for when shooting raw. In PS you can then move on to localized sharpening/noise before soft proofing and sharpening for print. Don't know if you ever read Schewe and Fraser (Real World image sharpening) but I can highly recommend it. They developped the ACR sharpen/noise mudule and their workflow is imo uncontested. One thing ... I never judge a sharp, noiseless image on screen, it should be done on the print ... because in the end, that's all that matters.
Hi Glenn, I'm not sure if I understand it right - you process CR§ files first with DxO Pure RAW, than go with generated DNG file into Adobe Camera RAW and then first step ist use Topaz denoise? What is your workflow now, with the new Adobe profiles for R5? And why do you not use the detail slider for sharpening/ Noise reduction in ACR?
So I'm going to try pure raw. I'm just curious that you use topaz 1st step afterwards, but it looks to me like pure raw is doing AI type noise reduction when it does the initial processing. I reckon topaz is extremely over rated so I'm hoping what pure raw does will be enough. A side effect of how topaz works is that it blatantly reduces resolution in areas of fine feather detail. Everything renders looking like a repetitive brickwork sort of pattern because it clumps groups of pixels together. And then there's all the other random artefacts it produces. So I'm hoping dxo will do enough on its own. Thanks for the vid, was very helpful.
@@GlennBartley just/still curious though, how does topaz still come into play here? I mean is there an added benefit of using it still next to DxO? I have a hard time finding out why it would if DxO also does noise reduction. Or does topaz let you tweak the actual noise reduction more precisely? Thanks for answering (I should have gotten DxO last week during BF!)
Thanks for sharing the information on this new software. Did you run the ACR examples through Topaz DeNoise also or just the DXO ones? I would think it would only be a fair comparison if both were ran through Topaz. Or ideally, none were run through Topaz. I thought DXO PureRaw and Topaz DeNoise were basically competing products trying to achieve similar things. I didn't realize they should be used in tandem? It is no secret that ACR/LR NR is subpar on higher ISO files but this has always been the case. I haven't noticed any difference between R5 files and previous Canon files. It is true that Adobe doesn't have camera matching color profiles for Canon cameras anymore but those typically don't have any bearing on noise/sharpening.
@@GlennBartley Thanks. Currently I'm using LR (ie ACR engine) with all Sharpening and Luminance NR set to Off. I then run that through Topaz DeNoise (usually the AI Clear option). I will download the DXO trial and see how it goes as you certainly demonstrated a noticeable difference.
The results are really amazing... but the file size is just gigantic :-( a 31 MB picture uses 160 MB after processing. This means that its not something I would add to my workflow, but only perform on selected few photos. I was hoping I could just process my photos from the camera and then save them in LR.
Unfortunately there is a problem here. DPP4 is as you say very clunky, but the colour profile is stunning. If using DXO pure raw, you are still left with the colour profile problem. I did an experiment processing the same image through Dpp4 and then Pure raw.....The DXO handles noise beautifully, but how do you then apply the Canon colour profile to the image. In effect, with DXO, you are left with a cleaner image to then process in photoshop but with the terrible colour profile of Adobe. I have tried 3rd party colour profiles that are all no where near the canon profile..... A question for you....how do you get around the colour profile issue of not using DPP4, which is the only reason why i use DPP4.
You are correct....I have started using the color fidelity profiles and find them quite good. I describe my entire new workflow here if you are interested - www.glennbartley.com/ProcessWithMe9Ebook.html
I have a Canon EOS R6 and spent a week testing PureRAW. I do not work for them. After running my photos through this, I concluded I had to purchase for $89. And with still other photos, I experimented with starting off with PureRAW, then dragging the Dx) folder filled with processed DNGs to Adobe Bridge and then to Adobe Camera Raw and then ENHANCE. THEN I loaded those DNGs into Lightroom for any additional processing. So, I've added something to the start of my workflow. I'm very good with this!
Just a thought Glenn - it maybe worthwhile to first check the RAW file processing of Capture One (a trial?) before committing to DXO? Then you have exhausted just about all available options. in the meantime, DXO does appear to lead the pack over all others tested.
Hi Glen I've just watched your video! I'm not very good at editing my photos but I have been using DXO Pure Raw with images from my Canon 7dmk2. i have recently bought a R7 but the raw files coming from there, CR3 are not loading on my DXO. It is saying they've already gone through the DXO or they are corrupt! :( Any ideas? I see the files you are uploading are CR3, what am i doing wrong? Please help
Just found this video. Any idea when DxO will update their software for the Z9, not sure what the delay is? Still have to use Z7II for low light wildlife photos. Cheers from Australia.
Hi Glenn, does it still make sense to run Topaz denoise after the DXO DeepPrime ?? I believed both were serving the same purpose .. By watching this video only half a year after it was made, I'm getting the impression you teached Jan about DXO PureRAW, and he maybe teached you how bring the audio and resolution of your video closer to the excellent level of your content 😛
I still use it as part of my regular PS workflow. It doesn't have to work very hard any more but provides a nice amount of capture sharpening. Yes we are sharing secrets!
@@GlennBartley Thanks for this interesting insight. I recall Jan found DXO actually to be over-sharpening, but that was when using its lens correction settings. But DXO doesn't have the correct correction for his 600mm plus extender. For my old Tamron 16-300 the correction do wonders, for my Canon L glass the corrections are much less visible (of course) Because today in Europe the R5 and R6 cost exactly the 'same' (meaning 100Euro per megapixel 😛), I have just upgrade my 70D to the R6. And with the bad lighting these weeks, images at high ISO still look amazing on the camera .. and on the PC the noise (after DXO) is no concern, but they clearly lack sharpness. And I clearly miss the APS-C range. The first thing I should do is lower my shutterspeed to stay in lower ISO. But I was also wondering whether adding Topaz Gigapixel or other Topaz stuff to my DXO Photolab flow should improve things ..
Above ISO 3200 I think you will see advantages. Obviously I dont use that camera so can't say 100%. Grab the free trial and give it a go! FREE TRIAL HERE - tidd.ly/3dzAxdH
I'll have to do more tests, but in my initial comparison, on an ISO 3200 photo in rain/bad light, it looks pretty damn good vs. LR + Topaz as I normally do. Like you said, going straight from LR/PS into Topaz, it was looking pretty mushy/rough in comparison in my example. The DXO one looked much cleaner/smoother or more detailed. I honestly don't even need to sharpen/touch Topaz in this one test, since it's already good enough.
@@GlennBartley Overall it's been as good/better than Topaz yet I think. Sometimes maybe it's a tad too aggressive in NR, but not sure if you can adjust that or not? But I still do find it produces less artifacts generally vs. Topaz.
I am guessing that the new cameras, with their giant file sizes, various software, including Adobe, have been trying to find ways to have the picture appear as quick as possible - and Adobe are currently generating a lower res display file for display and then modelling off that. And then when the user-changes are being processed, Adobe is 'getting confused' so to speak? Educated guess, but the huge file formats we see now are certainly geared at the likes of latest GPUs on PCs and the new apple-chip performance. Thoughts? Comments?
That could be. But if it is I think it's a really bad choice by adobe. Basically after 1 shoot on the R5 I knew I had to find a different solution to Adobe for processing RAW files.
Great info. I just looked through there website, it doesn’t say if this is a one time purchase or an annual subscription. Do you know which one it is? I’m assuming one time purchase, but pay for updates I’m guessing.
I'm not 100% sure. But I'm 99% sure its not subscription based. I would guess one time payment and future updates (at least for a period of time) are also free.
@@GlennBartley That is the normal DxO model. They don't do subscriptions. New camera/lens combos are regularly added and are free of charge. They will charge if there is a major update to the software.
@@GlennBartley Indeed it is. I've been amazed on what it did to some of my old 7D files...and a few 7D Mk II ones where I had to go higher than I would have liked with ISO. Remarkable. And with my R6 it is sublime.
I feel like they are kind of different animals. I think if I was to have just one it would be Topaz. But with the newer Canon cameras (e.g. the R5) it is really worth having Dxo for anything shot over ISO 1600.
Is it better to get the full photo lab or is pure lab and viewpoint sufficient ? I’m mainly going to use it to photograph my art, so the most important feature other than other correction features is to fix distortions easily.
Hey, Glenn. Really appreciate the advice and don't like to offer criticism, but it would be a lot easier to watch your videos if you invested in a good quality microphone. It's the one thing that keeps me watching and is a small investment for a huge payback. I'll be back when you've done that.
How come you bringing g in PS file? I would think your demo would be more meaningful if you were importing the Canon raw file as it came off of he camera. I'm not trying to bust you chops but your importing an Adobe format file while saying Adobe is sub par for R5 processing. Bill
I'm not sure I follow? We want to compare the converted file from DXO to the converted file from ACR. DXO spits out a dng file. We could certainly compare that DNG to the original RAW I guess? But I just wanted to take it one step further in to photoshop because that is what I would actually do. Cheers!
@@GlennBartley I believe the confusion may be in the icon used to represent RAW files, in your video your computer has associated the blue "Ps" logo to RAW (CR3 at least) files, look around 4:43 for example. On first glance it might appear you are opening PSDs, not Canon raw.
![Does applying noise reduction to RAW files really make a difference? [Topaz Photo AI Tutorial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/G369prGk7O0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you Glenn for this video. I've just downloaded a trial version of DXO and tried it on one of my old photos - a Booted Racker-tail Hummingbird. Wow, it has completely transformed how it looks, amazing stuff! Its process is so easy to follow. It is definitely a software worth of having! Thank you again!
Cheers!
Thank you, also DPP does not work in the newer Macs. I appreciate. I was very disappointed in the R5 noise handling, not anymore.
Amazing. Glad you found it useful!
Glenn, it's amazing, I just tested it on an R5 file and the result was much better using DxO. hugs from Brazil and thanks for sharing.
Great to hear!
Thanks Glen. I have now purchased DXO Pure Raw and am amazed how it handles my R5 images. Previously I was really disappointed with the noise reduction in ACR, DPP and NIK dfine, although the NIK filters sometimes came close to OK. DXO is head and shoulders above all the others. The noise reduction on astro and night photography s truely amazing. One minor comment. I suggest you get a better graphics card. Mine takes about 20 seconds max to process an R5 file.
Glad I could help!
And I just upgraded my whole PC. Just setting it up now. Cant wait to save time!
DXO, amongst other things, applies noise reduction and sharpening, to the RAW file. ACR does nothing to noise reduction or sharpening unless you manually apply it. So I don’t think you are comparing apples with apples.
For example, you open an image of the Pacific Wren in ACR, without applying NR or sharpening, and complain about the noise. You then process the RAW file in DXO, which applies NR, and marvel how good the lack of noise is.
I would suggest you take the RAW file from LR or PS and process in Topaz DeNoise. Compare this with DXO. My tests showed DXO oversharpened the image.
The big disadvantage of DXO is that you cannot fine-tune noise reduction or sharpening, which you can do with Topaz.
I’m sticking with Topaz.
To each their own!
In my opinion the best final result will come from using DXO to pre-process the RAW file. Then use a normal Adobe workflow.
I agree it would be great if you could tweak sharpening settings in DxO.
ACR carries out both sharpening and noise reduction by default.
I am pretty sure Adobe applies sharpening by default. Which would make noise even worse. I know on my computer, raw files look better without processing them in acdsee than any Adobe software. I have watched two or three comparisons of dxo to Adobe. Dxo beats Adobe hands down.
It was a pleasure meeting you in Ecuador Glenn. Thank you for letting us use your set-up. I saw this video when you released it and I downloaded the free trial version. I liked it so much I bought it the first week. Unfortunately I shot all my pictures in Ecuador with my Nikon Z9 and DXO labs so far do not have a firmware update and it wont open my files. Thank you so much. I watch all your videos.
Hopefully they will support the Z9 soon. Nice to meet you!
Tried it myself and I have to admit, it’s a lifesaver for high iso images. Not only do you have a cleaner image to begin with, but also the result at final output is much better too. I shoot Sony btw.
Good to hear from a happy Sony shooter too!
Thanks for the video. I agree that DPP is clunky and tedious -- but my biggest problem is my favorite lens is a Sigma ...and DPP does not support it (or any other non-Canon lens). I'm looking forward to seeing if DxO Pure RAW solves the problem. I'm mainly looking for CA mitigation -- the rest I can fix elsewhere.
Finally bought DXO Pro -- It auto-senses which lens I am using, does all the lens corrections, and fixes camera noise. I'm using it at the start of all raw photo editing for all of my lens/camera combos. Fast conversions, ready for my editor.
Wow what a difference! It is really amazing.... used it with a macropicture (1000 iso) taken with the 7DII. Also the butterfly looks sharper... thanks a lot!
Awesome! You are welcome 😎
Like you said, at the end of the day, its the final result that counts. But perhaps the title of your video is a bit misleading, because you don’t really stop using Lightroom, you just add a workflow at the beginning before importing your image into Lightroom. But I sure am gonna give it a try. Thank you for sharing.
Ya gotta sensationalize the title to get those views :-)
@@GlennBartley Hahaha. SHAME.
Interesting. I shoot weddings...in all kinds of light and light levels. I've honed in LRCC to work quickly and efficiently...considering I produce over 1,000 images on a two photographer shoot.This software you're promoting does have some nice features where if the client wants an album, I might use this software on 'those' images. It might even open up my creative bug to shoot more images 12,500 ISO and see what I get. Some reception lighting can look real moody and romantic. Thanks for the introduction...nice job.
It looks interesting. I currently use Capture One with Topaz AI photo. I get great results. The nice thing is I can open Topaz from CO and save the edited file right back to CO for more editing. I will give DXO atry because your results looked great.
I've been using DxO Raw2 for a few months. It's excellent in most circumstances on my Sony A7r4 RAWs. Where I've found problems is with long exposures on cloudy skies. I've noticed abrupt/edges on tonal transitions in skies as opposed to the smoother tones rendered in Lightroom. I've tried a number of workarounds but to no avail.
Gleann, I liked the DxO PR, but it seems to oversharpen the images. I clearly see "jagged" lines on some parts of the image. Would be nice if we can control the amount of sharpening that would be applied in a preview window before applying the conversion.
I agree a sharpen slider would be fantastic.
Far too sharp at well defined edges...I will wait for an upgrade which hopefully will incorporate some degree of control. Pity...
@@nickshepherd8377, I'll do the same.
Thanks Glenn - very informative. I share your distain for DPP. I downloaded the demo of the software and gave it a try right after watching your review. I was quite impressed with the RAW files that I could process, but was very disappointed to find out that not all lenses are currently supported (which includes my main bird photography lens - a Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L). I found that DxO does have a webpage where you can "offer suggestions" for support, but that is little consolation unless they act on it...
Surprising they wouldn't support that lens. Although TBH I'm not sure how much profiling a super telephoto really matters. AS long as you can still process the file and get rid of the noise.
@@GlennBartley With a little playing around, it seems using the profile for an EF 400mm f/4 DO II + 2x Extender III works fine
Glenn, nice to see you are happy with the results. Now, if this is taking so long for your PC to process this file is may be lacking some processor power and not so much video card power. Great results as usual!
Yes I have a pretty old computer. I'm sure most people's would work faster.
For comparison, I've tried on my notebook with a Rtx 2060 and it takes 16 seconds to process 7D Mark II RAWs.
A perfect combination (imo) is DxO's noise reduction, preferably DeepPRIME XD from PhotoLab 6, combined with a handy raw editor like ACR/Lightroom - in that sequence.
Thanks for this info. Still struggling with the best way to handle my RAW files with DXO Pure Raw. I am "still" using the 7D MK2 and DXO is adding a lot of color and contrast to the RAW images. I unticked the lens correction (and the other one) and still not okay. For me ON1 Denoise AI does a much better job on the 7D mk2. Luckily I did not buy DXO, just used the trail version after watching this video.
Glenn, you convinced me but I am confused about workflow. Where do I view and cull my images before sending the keeper RAW files to DXO? I do not believe LR will "export" a RAW file. LR converts exported files to DNG, TIFF, JPEG etc.
I use Breezebrowser for all of my culling.
Mindblown
Considering this vid was from its first version
Btw which one is faster
Topaz or this?
While I agree that DPP is terrible to use, as in your last video on the R5, the sample shown using DPP really looks like the software has applied some sort of noise reduction (in the previous vid it looks very heavy, all plastic like). So I'm wondering if DPP is indeed applying some noise treatment, or does it default to an "AUTO" noise treatment in the settings? I just can't see how there would be such a massive difference in the way the files look between DPP and ACR on the exact same Raw file. Seems odd.
It seems like (from my readings on the internet) that Adobe is not profiling the new Canon sensors. Either way it doesn't really matter. The point is you simply can not get good results from Adobe at high ISOs no matter what settings you use. In my opinion at ISO 3200 and above you need to use either DPP or something else. This DxO software works great and allows me to still use my normal Adobe workflow. Cheers!
Hi Glenn, I downloaded the trial DXOl and the difference is amazing with R5 files even though not starting with Topaz. I will check out your setings video next.
Glad its working for you.
I just tried on some 1DX3 files and it does such a better job than Topaz! Thank you for sharing this with use Glenn!
You're welcome!
Wow!!!
This is an amazing video. Thanks for your efforts in making such a useful video.
You are most welcome
I bought a new PC with a Nvidia 3080, 10 seconds for one deep prime process and batch processing very quick. I trialled Topaz and DXO Pure Raw is in a different league
Nice! Ya I need a new computer so badly. But it will have to wait a bit I'm afraid...
Saving money for this, amazing 👏
Hi Glenn, I have used DXO Photolab 3 and now 4 to process my best shots after culling in LR for a while now. Fantastic results as you say, but in Photolab you can adjust the amount of sharpening or NR as you wish. In this software it seems to be fixed and my files seem to be over sharp using it. I think I will stick to Photolab, same tech, different workflow
Yes I think that is a great alternative!
Totally agree Andrew...very good but over sharpened with some haloing. A pity!
@@nickshepherd8377 Hi Nick, yes a pity. But Photolab solves it. Do you use it?
@@mondujar279 Not at the moment, but I think I may give it a try as hopefully it will provide the benefits I am looking for with the control I need. Thank you for your interest and helpful comments.
@@nickshepherd8377 Your welcome. I am keeping photolab as secret from my friends, so I have a way of perfecting images more than they can!it’s that good
Hello Glenn, all you did is run DxO DeepPRIME which is similar to Topaz DeNoise AI.
I however am really interested to see how Canon software handled noise, if you could only share any of the raw files from your cannon so i could check for myself?
I heard from Walks on the Wildside that proprietary camera software is superior to any third party software for processing RAW files, because the camera manufacturers understand the structures of native RAW files vs something like Photoshop or DxO which have to reverse engineer how they read raw files or something like that. I've tried it with my Panasonic camera software and it does reduce noise better than Lightroom and Photoshop, but I don't like how it adds some sort of sharpening and artifacts so I don't know how true this claim is.
Maybe this is something you'd like to make a video on
The thing about software is that today, more than ever, you really have to regard them as a part of your photographic kit. A piece of software can in effect "upgrade" the function of your camera. If you happily spend 3500$ on a camerabody alone, it makes no sense at all to get cheap on the software. For me, Capture One Pro and Topaz Denoise Ai supplement my camera-system very well. For you it´s DxO Pure Raw. With most software comapnies you get a 30 day free trial as well, you don´t have much to loose when trying a piece of software.
Interesting video!
I could not agree more with everything you just said :-)
This hits on the exact point someone else was making (elsewhere). Thousands of photographers are tossing $90 at superfluous hardware accessories because, well, it's only $90 and might make my pics better. But $90 for something I can download in 5 minutes and be using it even for every pic I took before I bought it? Something fishy and over priced about that. LOL.
Be sure to check if your camera is supported. After downloading the trial version, I was saddened to find out my cameras were not supported. These are multiple months old, so I was very surprised. BTW, Topaz DeNoiseAi supports their raw files. Just bed sure before spending your hard earned money.
Yes always good to check!
I was actually stunned to find my Canon Powershot SX50 HS is recognized. That's an old bridge camera so I wasn't expecting it to be included. I've yet to install the trial but if PureRaw can salvage some CR2's I have put aside just because I like the compositions but not the IQ, bonus.
Thank you kindly, I appreciate all the information…. I’m confused though, how are you previewing your photos first? Which software do you use to weed through all of your photos? Then are you importing them somewhere first since you are dragging the file in? Thanks!
For previewing and culling I use breeze browser. Great program.
@@GlennBartley will Breeze browser show thumbnails/previews of raw files?
Thank you for making me aware of PureRAW. It is amazing. Maybe the results are a bit oversharpened, but now I need not shy away from ISO 1600 as I did before.
Glad to hear you found the video useful.
Great video Glenn, what about for images shot at base ISO on the R5 is there any advantage to first run them through DXO or in this case just fo straight into ACR / LRC
I think blow 1600 is not needed...
I've been using DxO's PhotoLab (formerly called OpticsPro) for the last six years, which is their answer to Lightroom. PureRaw is just the RAW file interpreter of PhotoLab that was recently spun off as a separate module for those who prefer to work in PhotoShop or Lightroom.
I adopted DxO's software on the basis of a comparison done by Ron Martinson back then, showing the different color rendition of the same Canon RAW file by DPP, Adobe Camera RAW, DxO OpticsPro (as it was called then) and a few others.
I hated DPP because at that point in time you had to maintain multiple versions of it for RAW files from different camera bodies - at least they stopped that nonsense. DPP does do optical corrections, but only for their own lenses, while DxO corrects third-party lenses as well (they are a testing house, after all).
It was clear from the images in his post that DxO's color rendition was the closest to DPP's, so I said goodbye to Lightroom (and its catalog system!). DxO's tweaks to a file are in outboard files, allowing nondestructive editing. They also build excellent noise reduction into their PhotoLab, and it is also included in PureRAW.
Importantly, I discovered that if I wanted to keep DxO's good color rendition, I should not export to Lightroom and Photoshop in DNG - which would have to go through ACR and have Adobe's color rendition override DxO's - but as a TIFF, which would go directly into Lightroom and Photoshop, preserving Canon's colors.
It appears that PureRAW does not offer TIFF export, so if Canon-type color is as important to you as it is to me, I would suggest using PhotoLab instead of PureRAW for exporting to Adobe's products.
I've got an order in for an R7 and I've been hoping DxO adds support for it by the time it arrives.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on all of this!
I have a very similar background to Philip with regards to DxO - I've used it for years and whilst it could be frustrating waiting for new camera profiles they were always better than the Adobe offering when they arrived I use the full version of DxO's PhotoLab to process my RAW files but still use Lightroom, PhotoShop and NiK (now also DxO). I am thinking about dropping Lightroom but that would be a big step as I'm so used to it now.
FUJi users have the same problem but I use DXO photolab 6 elite which has the same denoise processor as Pure Raw. My workflow is to batch process all the files I am keeping with a preset in PL6 to apply Deep Prime XD which is what is also used in pure raw. Photos I really liked were further processed in PL6 and then everything was batch saved to a processed file. I thought I would enhance these in LR because of their very good masking but for some reason LR applied a profile I didn't like and I ended up deleting all the LR versions.
Thanks for sharing your workflow...
Gleen
A request for clarification and a couple of additional points
1 Am a right in thinking that you are applying topaz denoise after importing a DXO converted file intoo Camera Raw? If s,o is this necessary and are there any benefits from sequentially putting the file through 2 different denoise routines?
2 I use DXO photolab 4 elite rather than DXO pure raw. My understanding is that the use of lens profiles and Deeep prime noise reduction is the same, but the advantage for me is that I can do all of my raw adjustments in DXO, bypass adobe raw completely and export a 16 bit tiff directly into my existing copy of Photoshop CS5. Hence I avoid needing to use DNG converter or taking out an adobe subscription in order to process my files from newer cameras not supported by CS5
3 As a bird photographer you appear to be mainly using long lenses (certainly in the examples you show) these do not fully demonstrate the advantages of the lens correction profiles DXO use which give excellent correction of lens distortions which would be more apparent in images taken with wider angle lenses.
1 - Yes - DxO - ACR conversion - Photoshop where I use Topaz.
2 - I believe you are correct. I'm not a fan of the interface and prefer to use Pure Raw and then back to Adobe.
3 - I agree.
I think DXO PhotoLab 4 Deep Prime is a better because you have control over the luminance slider o sometimes go from 40 to 55 to remove background noise.
I probably agree in some cases. My issue is it then adds in an extra step with too much additional input of time on my end. I rank it somewhere between Pure RAW and DPP for my particular workflow.
Cheers!
I see what you're saying and I can see the results, but having to use 3 different programs for each image would be a pain. If DXO allowed some basic features such as brightness, sharpening and colour adjustment then I'd be sold.
dxo photolab is what you wanted
Has Lightroom now improved when processing R5 files? If not I'll try DXO.
I have this program and I must say that it is really fantástic !!
It is isn't it!
Not perfect... But what is?
Thanks, I will definitely add this software in my workflow: as you said "almost magical"...
Enjoy!
Very cool Glenn, I've just tried it with some recent pics from my 7Dii basically it's witchcraft !
Unfortunately it's extremely slow too on my old 2013 macbook pro and topaz is as well. It took about 12 hours to process 53 raw files. Perhaps if I choose the medium setting without the anti aliasing program ?
Very interesting comparison. With Topaz, do you use the denoise as the first step before doing general edits?
Insane difference.. Cant really believe it. Only downside is the file size but you probably delete the DNG processed bu Dxo after you Edited the image and keep the original raw file? Thanks alot for this!
Great video Glenn. I have seen other reviews where photographers have spoken about experiencing variation in the noise performance of the r5. With sometimes iso 800 being noisy, when other times iso 6400 was clean. Have you noticed this at all?
Just depends in your exposure. I've had ISO 3200 shots look cleaner than ISO 400 on 1DXIII even, if you expose poorly and have to raise later.
Always exposing as far right as you can/towards highlights will produce the cleanest images.
I also try to even shoot ISO 50 on R5 when I can, since it gets like 1 stop more DR vs. ISO 100. ISO 200 is cleaner than iso 100 from charts I've seen or better DR. I think ISO 320 maybe is even better than ISO 200.
@@mattli911 thanks for the reply Matt, how did you find the high iso performance of the r5 vs 1dx iii?
@@upendrawerake5991 Honestly I'm quite happy/surprised with the R5. I tested alot against the 1DX. Pushing the files really hard sometimes on purpose.
Really the R5 was close/not far off from the 1DX. Or at least, I didn't think it was night and day personally. I mean, the 1DX IS cleaner... but... you are at
@@mattli911 Cool, because I currently shoot with the canon 7d ii, which is great as it provides reach, but suffers when I am on safari before the sun is up. It is good to hear that the r5 has the best of both worlds.
@@upendrawerake5991 Yeah I shot 7dII for 6-7 years, and 1DX for a bit, but now R5. R5 is yes, basically best of both really. 1DX has it's place in a way/some things above R5. But R5 with much smaller/lighter body, flip screen, Eye AF, 45MP/IBIS and so on... it's really quite nice... Also 1DX is so loud with mechanical vs. r5 mechanical or silent 20FPS.
Very good review. And very true what you are saying.... Thank you. 🙂
Glad it was helpful!
New wannabe wildlife photographer here, is this best: shoot raw, upload to DXO to denoise/correct and then move to Lightroom to edit and then save photos directly from Lightroom?
yes that sounds good!
Thank you very much for the review. After watching, I did download a trial but must admit that although the results are excellent, I found the images over sharpened with some haloing. Did you find this?
Every once in a while I find one gets over-sharpened. But I dont find it to be the norm.
Were you running higher ISO images through? like ISO 3200 +
@@GlennBartley various ISO’s used but as you implied, worse at low ISO’s. I feel sure that at some stage they will provide a sharpening control. Hope so!
Glenn, do you make any changes to your R5 import settings in Lightroom if you use DxO first?
I do not use Lightroom. I use ACR. The settings I use are in my R5 setup guide here - www.glennbartley.com/purchase.htm
I photograph birds too. I am trying out the trial version of PureRaw. I find the sharpening applied to my olympus raw files to be so over the top it makes the subjects and detail so fake, unrealistic and ugly looking even though PureRaw did an excellent job removing noise. The extreme oversharpening puts me off buying this. Hopefully they add in an option to select the sharpening level or to turn it off completely (right now, we have to de-select modules which also turns off optical corrections which isn't ideal).
I agree it would be nice if you could throttle the sharpening.
But with a super telephoto I just turn off the optical corrections if over sharpened. Seems to work well.
Hi
I have tried about 6 raw processing softwares. In my hands Capture One works best. May be I dont know to use the rest but I am going to stick to Cap1. At the end of the day its not what is good or bad but only what works ( or does not work ) for you.
Sorry to be nit picking but the audio and picture clarity leave a lot to be desired.
Stay safe take care.
Chidu
I totally agree. It's all about trying options and finding a workflow that works for you. 100% correct!
And yes...I need a mic! :-)
You are waiting for long time periods in DXO. The smarter choice is DPP4.
I definitely disagree. What DXO can do for you is worth the wait.
Hasn’t dxo had more processing done before it opens? Not sure it’s that easy to compare, yes both raw files, but dxo has added processing like Adobe camera raw does but more of it.
You need to think of it this way.... Try whatever software you want to use and try to get the best possible final result. Use whatever settings are available to you in that software. Then compare the results. In my opinion Adobe can not touch the files (pre) processed in Dxo.
Running the free trail, it does a very nice job reducing the noise but that over sharpening though ..
Try not using their lens modules....I find it helps a lot
@@GlennBartley I will try that, thank you Glenn!
I thought this was going to be a serious review until he made a mis-statement just a couple of minutes in. He said that Adobe doesn’t use camera and lens profiles. That just isn’t true. Lightroom and Adobe both use camera and lens specific profiles in the raw processing.
Good for you. Keep using Adobe and enjoying those great results .
Thank you for the review dear Glenn, DXO is very good and much cheaper than a new Camera :)
Very true!
I am amazed at how good it is!
Thanks for this video. But in cases where we are taking stacked images in landscape then i think it is better to process them in ACR. DxO pure RAW cannot handle presently the stacked raw files. For single shots perhaps yes.
Perhaps. That is a very specific scenario that I have no experience with. I'll take your word for it!
Hi Glenn
Most informative and thanks - a polite point of note, please check youor sound recording system, it was very difficult to hear, similar to many of your other videos.
thanks again as well as for your kind assistance in Fremantle.
I just got a new mic so hopefully things will start sounding better :-)
@@GlennBartley If you haven't already, once your video is on UA-cam, start it playing, right click anywhere on the video to open an information panel. The bottom option "Stats for Nerds" will reveal your audio level. See Volume/Normalized values especially Content Loudness. This clip is "-14.2 dB" which means it's way below what's allowed. You want to get that dB kissing up near 0. Even -6 dB would be decent. Adjust that in your editing software, post some short samples until you get your workflow dialed in for your particular system. The microphone is not the problem.
As a consolation I watched someone else's video that was Content Loudness -22 dB and it was brutal when the ads come on. Blew my eardrums out because the tutorial narration required my speaker volume cranked.
Hi Glenn, thanks for the video. However, I am not clear if DXO Pure Raw is any better than the Topaz Denoise AI, specially since the latest version of Denoise allows us to export DNG file , just like Pure Raw. Keen to know your thoughts.
I havent done a complete side by side comparison....But in my experience DXO does a better job with high ISO RAW files. I then also use topaz as kind of a second pass as you have a bit more control. When used in combination the results are pretty amazing. With the R5 I can use up to ISO 25,600 now :-)
@@GlennBartley Thanks for your revert. I have heard that DXO Pure Raw is better than DeNoise for photos shot at ISO12800 and above. Have you had a similar experience with that ? If so how much of a difference do you think it is , in your experience? Finally, if one is to buy just one of them for noise reduction ,which one would you recommend?
Hello Glenn, greetings from Brazil, thanks for the excellent video! Does this also apply to 7D Mark II RAW files?
Sorry, just noticed you showed a 7D Mark II file in the video.
Yes absolutely. Grab the trial version from the link above and give it a go!
Really difficult to get a feel for how good it works when the video quality is bad.
I guess you'll just have to take my word for it then...
Hi I am thinking of buying the DXO Pure Raw but I have Nikon cameras - Nikon Z6II and an old D750 plus a couple of film cameras. How do you rate the DxO for these? TY
DxO Pure Raw is definitely the way to go even with lower ISO files. It's a difference of night and day. I have found that VERY noisy files do get some funky artifacts from time to time, but overall, much better results using DxO. BTW, DPP is not slow or laggy in the least. That's your computer, but I definitely agree that it's a terrible user interface.
Couple thoughts for your video though. (Constructive criticism) First, you really need to record audio with a microphone that is close to you. Either a lapel mic, a handheld recorder, or preferably a $50-$100 professional microphone with a $100 USB interface into a DAW. Second, that weird film effect needs to go. It was worse for me, since I watch all these videos at 2x, and it was practically going to give me a seizure with all that light flashing. Last, I'm not sure if it's your video output or if it's the way UA-cam handled your file format, but the compression and resolution looked awful. You have an R5, so you can definitely make nicer looking videos! :)
Cheers. Thanks for the feedback.
Contrary to what you state, Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) does use camera/lens profiles; it shows whenever you load a raw file in ACR. And no, Adobe doesn't hate Canon.
The difference in noise you're seeing is because of the default sharpening/noise reduction in the various processing software. And what you're seeing is a jpeg representation of the raw data.
You can't really see raw - files since they're nothing more than linear monochrome luminance values that have not had gamma correction, other light curves, demosaicing, etc. applied. When the data is converted to RGB using demosaicing certain settings such as gamma, contrast, color balance and temperature, saturation, etc. are applied.
I see you open your raw file in ACR choosing RGB (???) ... choose ProPhoto color space. It's the largest space available so why restrict yourself to RGB?
Second, learn to master the sharpen/noise module in ACR or Lightroom and your prints will look as good or even better than in DxO.
Cheers for the thoughts 👍
@@GlennBartley Well, actually, they're not thoughts ... but facts.
Also, using Topaz in your PS workflow is quite strange since it doesn't do a very good job in the first place.
ACR, when mastered right, will take care of all the pre sharpening/noise reduction one needs to compensate for when shooting raw.
In PS you can then move on to localized sharpening/noise before soft proofing and sharpening for print.
Don't know if you ever read Schewe and Fraser (Real World image sharpening) but I can highly recommend it. They developped the ACR sharpen/noise mudule and their workflow is imo uncontested.
One thing ... I never judge a sharp, noiseless image on screen, it should be done on the print ... because in the end, that's all that matters.
Just passed on the sale of this because of uncontrollable sharpening. Hope they fix it sometime but for now it's a deal breaker.
Did you try it with the modules turned off? Works great that way.
Hi Glenn, I'm not sure if I understand it right - you process CR§ files first with DxO Pure RAW, than go with generated DNG file into Adobe Camera RAW and then first step ist use Topaz denoise?
What is your workflow now, with the new Adobe profiles for R5? And why do you not use the detail slider for sharpening/ Noise reduction in ACR?
Correct
Fantastic info Glenn. Exactly what I wanted to know.
Glad to be of assistance :-)
Do you recommend DXO even for a Canon 80D or do you think that Adobe is best for this camera?
I think it will benefit any images from any camera shot at high iso
So you have no control over noise removal in PureRaw? For example, is there a way to just get rid of the chroma noise?
It's pretty much just click and go.
Does a great job
Can I process raw files from Nikon D500 in dxo pure raw2?
So I'm going to try pure raw. I'm just curious that you use topaz 1st step afterwards, but it looks to me like pure raw is doing AI type noise reduction when it does the initial processing. I reckon topaz is extremely over rated so I'm hoping what pure raw does will be enough. A side effect of how topaz works is that it blatantly reduces resolution in areas of fine feather detail. Everything renders looking like a repetitive brickwork sort of pattern because it clumps groups of pixels together. And then there's all the other random artefacts it produces. So I'm hoping dxo will do enough on its own. Thanks for the vid, was very helpful.
DXO definitely does a great job.
And I still think Topaz has its uses as well.
@@GlennBartley just/still curious though, how does topaz still come into play here? I mean is there an added benefit of using it still next to DxO? I have a hard time finding out why it would if DxO also does noise reduction. Or does topaz let you tweak the actual noise reduction more precisely? Thanks for answering (I should have gotten DxO last week during BF!)
Thanks for sharing the information on this new software. Did you run the ACR examples through Topaz DeNoise also or just the DXO ones? I would think it would only be a fair comparison if both were ran through Topaz. Or ideally, none were run through Topaz. I thought DXO PureRaw and Topaz DeNoise were basically competing products trying to achieve similar things. I didn't realize they should be used in tandem? It is no secret that ACR/LR NR is subpar on higher ISO files but this has always been the case. I haven't noticed any difference between R5 files and previous Canon files. It is true that Adobe doesn't have camera matching color profiles for Canon cameras anymore but those typically don't have any bearing on noise/sharpening.
Hi Geoff. Yes both went through Topaz.
In my experience DxO Pure Raw and then also Topaz Denoise did fantastic work!
@@GlennBartley Thanks. Currently I'm using LR (ie ACR engine) with all Sharpening and Luminance NR set to Off. I then run that through Topaz DeNoise (usually the AI Clear option). I will download the DXO trial and see how it goes as you certainly demonstrated a noticeable difference.
The results are really amazing... but the file size is just gigantic :-( a 31 MB picture uses 160 MB after processing. This means that its not something I would add to my workflow, but only perform on selected few photos. I was hoping I could just process my photos from the camera and then save them in LR.
Or just convert to the DNG and then edit it and save it back as a usual sized TIF.
Playing devils advocate... can you take advantage of the 30 day trial for the foreseeable futue...
Unfortunately there is a problem here. DPP4 is as you say very clunky, but the colour profile is stunning. If using DXO pure raw, you are still left with the colour profile problem. I did an experiment processing the same image through Dpp4 and then Pure raw.....The DXO handles noise beautifully, but how do you then apply the Canon colour profile to the image. In effect, with DXO, you are left with a cleaner image to then process in photoshop but with the terrible colour profile of Adobe. I have tried 3rd party colour profiles that are all no where near the canon profile..... A question for you....how do you get around the colour profile issue of not using DPP4, which is the only reason why i use DPP4.
You are correct....I have started using the color fidelity profiles and find them quite good.
I describe my entire new workflow here if you are interested - www.glennbartley.com/ProcessWithMe9Ebook.html
Thanks Glenn... top software 👍
Very welcome
I have a Canon EOS R6 and spent a week testing PureRAW. I do not work for them. After running my photos through this, I concluded I had to purchase for $89. And with still other photos, I experimented with starting off with PureRAW, then dragging the Dx) folder filled with processed DNGs to Adobe Bridge and then to Adobe Camera Raw and then ENHANCE. THEN I loaded those DNGs into Lightroom for any additional processing. So, I've added something to the start of my workflow. I'm very good with this!
Awesome. Thanks for sharing.
Is this unique to Canon, or are Nikon/Sony/etc also affected?
DXO will benefit all camera models and high ISO images.
Just a thought Glenn - it maybe worthwhile to first check the RAW file processing of Capture One (a trial?) before committing to DXO? Then you have exhausted just about all available options. in the meantime, DXO does appear to lead the pack over all others tested.
Yes I might do that. But I sure like this Dxo. Thanks for the thought!
Good advice. I’m very glad I tried the Capture One trial before making a big mistake by buying it.
Hi Glen I've just watched your video! I'm not very good at editing my photos but I have been using DXO Pure Raw with images from my Canon 7dmk2. i have recently bought a R7 but the raw files coming from there, CR3 are not loading on my DXO. It is saying they've already gone through the DXO or they are corrupt! :( Any ideas? I see the files you are uploading are CR3, what am i doing wrong? Please help
Which gpu u had in this video? thanks
I have Adobe Elements 11 I don't think it would plug-in with that.
Perhaps not...you'd have to check with DXO
Just found this video. Any idea when DxO will update their software for the Z9, not sure what the delay is? Still have to use Z7II for low light wildlife photos. Cheers from Australia.
I'm not sure. They do seem a bit slow on the updates though!
Glenn, do you know if there’s the same issue with processing raw in Adobe for the EOS R? Thanks Kim
I am not 100%...but if you google which cameras are supported by ACR you should find an answer.
Hi Glenn, does it still make sense to run Topaz denoise after the DXO DeepPrime ?? I believed both were serving the same purpose ..
By watching this video only half a year after it was made, I'm getting the impression you teached Jan about DXO PureRAW, and he maybe teached you how bring the audio and resolution of your video closer to the excellent level of your content 😛
I still use it as part of my regular PS workflow. It doesn't have to work very hard any more but provides a nice amount of capture sharpening.
Yes we are sharing secrets!
@@GlennBartley Thanks for this interesting insight. I recall Jan found DXO actually to be over-sharpening, but that was when using its lens correction settings. But DXO doesn't have the correct correction for his 600mm plus extender. For my old Tamron 16-300 the correction do wonders, for my Canon L glass the corrections are much less visible (of course)
Because today in Europe the R5 and R6 cost exactly the 'same' (meaning 100Euro per megapixel 😛), I have just upgrade my 70D to the R6. And with the bad lighting these weeks, images at high ISO still look amazing on the camera .. and on the PC the noise (after DXO) is no concern, but they clearly lack sharpness. And I clearly miss the APS-C range.
The first thing I should do is lower my shutterspeed to stay in lower ISO.
But I was also wondering whether adding Topaz Gigapixel or other Topaz stuff to my DXO Photolab flow should improve things ..
Love my DXO!!!
It is magic!
Should this be better than PS, LR and TopazDenoise, if I use a Nikon D500 and the 200-500 lens?
Above ISO 3200 I think you will see advantages. Obviously I dont use that camera so can't say 100%. Grab the free trial and give it a go!
FREE TRIAL HERE - tidd.ly/3dzAxdH
I'll have to do more tests, but in my initial comparison, on an ISO 3200 photo in rain/bad light, it looks pretty damn good vs. LR + Topaz as I normally do.
Like you said, going straight from LR/PS into Topaz, it was looking pretty mushy/rough in comparison in my example. The DXO one looked much cleaner/smoother or more detailed.
I honestly don't even need to sharpen/touch Topaz in this one test, since it's already good enough.
Pretty amazing isn't it! Thanks for adding your findings.
@@GlennBartley Overall it's been as good/better than Topaz yet I think. Sometimes maybe it's a tad too aggressive in NR, but not sure if you can adjust that or not? But I still do find it produces less artifacts generally vs. Topaz.
This seems like a painful process. Is DxO only required with Cannon files?
Its not painful at all. Drag and drop. Will help with any high ISO files. Its amazing!
DxO doesn’t work with Fuji RAF files. Capture One, OTOH, does. And, it does Luminosity Masking.
Good to know!
@@GlennBartley Cheers, mate.
I am guessing that the new cameras, with their giant file sizes, various software, including Adobe, have been trying to find ways to have the picture appear as quick as possible - and Adobe are currently generating a lower res display file for display and then modelling off that. And then when the user-changes are being processed, Adobe is 'getting confused' so to speak? Educated guess, but the huge file formats we see now are certainly geared at the likes of latest GPUs on PCs and the new apple-chip performance. Thoughts? Comments?
That could be. But if it is I think it's a really bad choice by adobe. Basically after 1 shoot on the R5 I knew I had to find a different solution to Adobe for processing RAW files.
Great info. I just looked through there website, it doesn’t say if this is a one time purchase or an annual subscription. Do you know which one it is? I’m assuming one time purchase, but pay for updates I’m guessing.
I'm not 100% sure. But I'm 99% sure its not subscription based. I would guess one time payment and future updates (at least for a period of time) are also free.
@@GlennBartley That is the normal DxO model. They don't do subscriptions. New camera/lens combos are regularly added and are free of charge. They will charge if there is a major update to the software.
Thanks for this Glenn! Testing it now...it's remarkable!
Very welcome. It is pretty amazing eh?
@@GlennBartley Indeed it is. I've been amazed on what it did to some of my old 7D files...and a few 7D Mk II ones where I had to go higher than I would have liked with ISO. Remarkable. And with my R6 it is sublime.
Whats better if i can afford one dxo or topaz?
If you are happy with your RAW files in Adobe then go for Topaz. Otherwise DXO.
In your opinion Glenn, is it better Dxo or Topaz Ai? thanks
I feel like they are kind of different animals. I think if I was to have just one it would be Topaz. But with the newer Canon cameras (e.g. the R5) it is really worth having Dxo for anything shot over ISO 1600.
As a side comment, Topaz has the advantage of denoising Jpegs as well. The DXO product works on raw files only.
Is it better to get the full photo lab or is pure lab and viewpoint sufficient ? I’m mainly going to use it to photograph my art, so the most important feature other than other correction features is to fix distortions easily.
I only use DXO for noise. If I were you I'd start there and see if it does what you need.
Hey, Glenn. Really appreciate the advice and don't like to offer criticism, but it would be a lot easier to watch your videos if you invested in a good quality microphone. It's the one thing that keeps me watching and is a small investment for a huge payback. I'll be back when you've done that.
I agree. I need to step up the quality and am going to do so.
How come you bringing g in PS file? I would think your demo would be more meaningful if you were importing the Canon raw file as it came off of he camera.
I'm not trying to bust you chops but your importing an Adobe format file while saying Adobe is sub par for R5 processing.
Bill
I'm not sure I follow? We want to compare the converted file from DXO to the converted file from ACR. DXO spits out a dng file. We could certainly compare that DNG to the original RAW I guess? But I just wanted to take it one step further in to photoshop because that is what I would actually do. Cheers!
@@GlennBartley I believe the confusion may be in the icon used to represent RAW files, in your video your computer has associated the blue "Ps" logo to RAW (CR3 at least) files, look around 4:43 for example. On first glance it might appear you are opening PSDs, not Canon raw.
Wow. Thanks for this video. I'll have to check it out.
Ya its really amazing software!