DxO Pure RAW Reviewed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лип 2024
- On the 14th of April, 2021, DxO launched a new RAW converter. The product is called DxO PureRAW, and in this video, I will explain how it works and how it can enhance your existing workflow. As well as explaining DxO PureRAW, I’ll be looking at some of the results to see if it lives up to expectations. Want to know about possible problems when using DxO PureRAW? I’ll be sharing what I’ve found during my testing.
** If you own DxO PhotoLab 4 Elite or later, you don't need to buy DxO PureRAW. Instead, follow the steps in this video to achieve the same results: • Replacing DxO PureRAW ... **
Download a DxO PureRAW trial: tidd.ly/3Forg5P (affiliate link)
Link to Iridient X-Transformer for Fuji XT users: www.iridientdigital.com/produ...
DxO PhotoLab video: • How and why I use DxO ...
I have not been paid to release this video, and the content reflects my personal views of the products mentioned.
Images used in this video are from Death Valley, Malham and the National Trust living history exhibition at Dunham Massey.
FREE BOOK
Don't forget to join my free monthly newsletter to get your free copy of my book "6 Steps to Shooting Brilliant Landscape Photography". bit.ly/3GbtmE9
PHOTOGRAPHY & PHOTO EDITING BOOKS
Make learning easy with my collection of books: lenscraft.co.uk/books-by-robi...
#robinwhalley #lenscraft #lenscraftphotography - Навчання та стиль
Thanks Robin - very helpful as I contemplate adding this to my DxO arsenal!
Glad it was helpful! Thank you
Hi Robin, I downloaded the free trial version after watching your video. It is amazing, got some excellent results on my trials so thank you!
That's great to hear. Thank you
Hi Robin, VERY interesting! This could be just what I've been looking for. I now have a ready supply of test images to compare PR with from my ongoing assessment of DXO PL 4 - I've already started working through them. Thank you so much for this review/ demonstration - and your advice to me, which have all been very helpful!
Glad it was helpful! Thank you
@@RobinWhalley Well, the final conclusion? - I bought DxO PL4. PureRAW was very good, producing excellent results on the majority of images I threw at it, but there were a few exceptions where I needed more control and this, along with my adjustment twiddling fetish, left me wanting the full PL4. Then DxO offered me a 30% discount on PL4 and that was that. I'm now using a workflow of LR (initial image weeding) -> PL4 (via plug-in for most processing -> LR/PS (tweaking) -> Topaz (as needed) -> LR (export/ cataloguing). (I'm also working through your videos for guidance and tips on getting the best from PL4 - very helpful!). So far, so good - cheers once again...
Over-sharpening I believe is caused by Lightroom/ACR adding default sharpening in the Detail Tab. When you set the Detail sliders (Sharpening and Noise) to the left it is a much better starting point and I have no problem with PureRAW results. I am going to create a preset for PureRAW files and only add sharpening and noise adjustments as I need to, usually targeted, in LR/ACR or PS. I applaud DXO for keeping it simple and minimizing settings. It is not an editor, just a RAW preprocessor. That's what I like about it. LR/ACR does not give you a "pure" starting point with detail or color. And its lens corrections are not as good. Or so it seems to me..... Great video!!!
It's a good thought about the sharpening but that shouldn't happen. The PureRAW software sets the flag in the DNG file to prevent Lightroom from applying any sharpening or noise reduction. If that's not happening now then something has changed/gone wrong as it used to be the case. I agree that it's a great piece of software though.
Tried it for my high ISO images. The images with 3200 ISO turned out absolutely clean and crisp. As if they were clicked at 100 ISO. This is such a boon for night photography, pros and beginners alike.
Thanks for sharing
Excellent detailed and helpful review.
Glad it was helpful! Thank you.
i was ready to buy this since it performs so well on your samples. Unfortunately, I have decided not to do so because of the lack of controls or toggles you mentioned near the end. I feel this is a deal killer for me because I want the ability to fine-tune to my taste. Thanks for a very useful video Robin - I hope that DxO will rectify this issue soon.
The results are great but I would prefer some options as well. I'm fortunate that I can do pretty much the same in PhotoLab (with more control) and use it to send a DNG file to Lightroom.
This is a game changer for entry level camera users.
That's a good way of putting it.
Thanks for this. I tried it with Capture One 21 on my iMac running Big Sur and it was seamless . From inside C1 with an image, I created a new variant for this test, in my Catalog, I use Open With, choose DxO Pure Raw and the Raw NEF file opens in Pure Raw. After processing I then export the processed image back into CI which opens the import dialog box with a dng file which I can then import into my catalog.
That's great to hear. I couldn't get the import to start automatically for me. I will have to try it again.
I tested this on some very noisy daytime shots (ISO 4000) and this cleaned them right up. I evaluated PL4 but decided to go a different route. I will purchase this product.
Thanks for sharing. I think PureRAW will suit some people but not everyone.
Thank you. I think I'll wait until some updates can be made before purchasing. I may give the trial a run. Again, thanks for sharing
You're welcome.
Thanks for this excellent overview! I value all of your clear & objective product reviews. I just have 1 question: Since I already have the DxO PL4 (w/deep prime) & I have the optics module, is there any added value to this Pure Raw, aside from the workflow benefit?
Thank you. I do try to be objective so I appreciate the feedback. I don't think there is any benefit to PureRAW if you already have and use PhotoLab. In fact PhotoLab has quite nice integration with other applications like Lightroom and I keep forgetting about that.
Same (good) noise reduction technology as Photolab but a different productization. DxO marketing continues to mix up the pieces and bring out new “products”. Confuses me, for one. I have little confidence in the direction the company is taking their offerings and that makes me reluctant to incorporate them into my regular workflow.
Thanks Robin, for keeping us up-to-date so promptly!
You're welcome. It's nice to know the updates are appreciated.
another thing I would like to ask you, what would you suggest, get a raw file through pure-raw first and then through adobe/gigapixel or the other way around? if there is no definitive answer, in which case would you do one thing and in which would you do the other?
Thanks Robin. Of course one of the questions that those who have newer cameras might ask is if the program would improve the Raw conversion in ACR or LR from the latest mirrorless full frame Canon or Nikon cameras. In addition, Phase One has just started to offer the new "Pro Profiles" for many of their supported cameras in Capture One. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the RAW conversion in the programs mentioned and see if DxO Pure Raw improves the results.
Thanks. I tend to use the RAW files from the cameras I personally shoot with. The reason I keep going back to the older cameras is because they show much more noise than modern cameras which makes it easier to see the results on the video. When I was shooting with Nikon and Canon my experience was that Lightroom tended to make a much better job with those RAW files than the likes of Sony or Olympus. DxO on the other hand makes an excellent job of processing any RAW files where the camera and lens module is correctly identified by the software. It's those "plugin" modules that seem to make the difference in the processing quality. It's also worth looking at the DxO website as they do have some examples from newer, higher end cameras.
@@RobinWhalley Thanks.
Thanks for the review Robin. When I use uncompressed raw on the Sony A7R series of cameras I convert to DNG to reduce the file size. Given the output of this is demosaiced it will be interesting to see the effect on file size.
This is one of the potential drawbacks of PureRAW that I didn't highlight in the video. The DNG looks to be around 4 times larger. For me it's not a problem as I only convert the best images and space isn't an issue but I'm sure that's not the case for everyone.
Ah that’s useful to know, thank you!
Be sure to check the supported cameras. I downloaded the trial version, only to find out my cameras are not yet supported. Topaz Denoise has no issue supporting those cameras!
Yes, it's a very good point. You can't assume your camera is compatible. Do remember though with Topaz that whilst your camera RAW data can be translated it doesn't apply any optical corrections.
I downloaded a trial of this product. It's very interesting, but I think it REALLY needs let you choose how much sharpening to apply. If used on an already sharp image, the default sharpening is way over the top. I opened the .dng in Capture One, and had to add negative clarity and negative structure to get it within reason.
Yes, I can understand. I know some people do find the sharpening too much with their RAW files. Hopefully they will enhance it by addition processing options.
I've just tested Pure Raw on two old Raw files of some of my wildlife shots, one from a Nikon D4S + 300mm f2.8 prime (at ISO 25600) and the other from a Z7+300mm F2.8 (at ISO14400). I must say that it really does work wonders, so much so that I decided to get them printed on canvass at 80x60cm and there's no or, at worst, very little noise in the prints and the sharpening is just right.
Fantastic. I always though Lightroom did a good job with Nikon and that PureRAW may not make a big difference but then I've never tried high ISO Nik RAW files. This is great to know. Thank you.
Hi Robin
A great video as usual. Having watched your video on DXO Pure Raw I downloaded the trial version. I found it a mixed bag of results with some images such as birds, hairy animals and portraits ending up with over sharp images. Certainly landscapes and similar images are great. As I have DXO Photolab 4 where I can have control on RAW processing I will stick with it. However I note that Noise reduction, included as as an integral part of Pure Raw seems to be faster by some 60% compared with DXO Photolab 4, is this an upgrade to DeepPrime noise reduction, either as a better software or does it make use of the graphics card better? If either then I hope DXO Photolab 4 gets an upgrade.
Yes, I can understand that. Your point about the processing speed is interesting. I haven't seen much difference between the two but then I think PhotoLab updated recently for my Mac. If you are using Windows, there sometimes seems to be a delay between versions in the two systems.
Great video Robin. There is another gotcha with PureRaw that you didn't mention and that's file space. The dng files generated by the software are 4x larger than the original raw file. If you use cloud backup like many do, this will be very problematic. There is a partial solution. If you use the Lightroom "convert to DNG" process (under the library function in the library module) and check off lossy compression, the files are drastically reduced in size. So, you could adopt a workflow of sending everything through DxO PureRaw and then compressing your rejects. Or, you can use Lightroom first to sort and select your keepers and only put them through DxO PureRaw. In any case, the keeper files are going to be 4x larger than the original raw file, so bear that in mind.
Yes, it's another good point. Thanks for highlighting this.
I’m sure others know more about this than I. It is my understanding that a DNG file saves the red, green and blue channels separately ( I use Nikon), which is what triples or quadruples the size. Please correct me, but my Nikon NEF (Z6) files are 24 - 28 MB, which Photolab 4 makes into DNGs which are 3 times the size. It is my understanding that native 24MB DNG files are much larger than 24- 28 MB (Sony?)
@@georgecharpentier6043 That's not quite true. Raw files have a single number that represents the luminance value of each pixel of your camera. The raw converter understands whether that pixel was under a red, green or blue filter inside the camera and uses that information to convert the file into RGB values for each pixel. If you use Lightroom to convert your raw file to DNG, it still uses a single number for each pixel. It essentially creates a DNG file that is still raw. Every time you open that file in LR, it will re-convert it. However, DxO takes the Raw file and converts it into a different type of DNG file, one that has three numbers for each pixel. That's why the file sizes inflate. That way, LR doesn't re-convert the DNG file. It accepts the conversion that DxO has done. However, DxO does not apply a colour profile to the DNG file, so LR can still apply any of its profiles (e.g. Adobe Color, Adobe Landscape etc).
@@huwmorgan51 Thank you for the clarification.
Hi Robin, just curious if after creating the .DNG with PureRaw and it’s been imported in to Lightroom are you still able to change the profile from Adobe Colour to one of the camera matching profiles? Or are these no longer available as it’s no longer a .ORF (or whatever the raw file was before it was processed in PureRaw).
Thanks for all your really helpful videos. It really does make a difference 👍🏻
Yes, you can still change the profile once you have the DNG file in Lightroom. And by change the profile I mean to any of the camera RAW profiles. I'm not just talking about the pseudo effects profiles. Lightroom treats the DNG just like editing a RAW file from your camera.
@@RobinWhalley as always thanks for your help Robin.
Looks like a good move from DxO, leveraging their excellent raw converter technology to another group of potential users. If you already have PL4 you don't need it.
I think it's a good move. I love and use PhotoLab but I do most of my commerical work in Lightroom and use Lightroom to manage my images. I'm quite excited about PureRAW because I don't need to keep switching to PhotoLab.
@@RobinWhalley true, it certainly suits your workflow. I'm a Lightroom refusenik!
@@stevehallam0850 I like Lightroom for managing images and I think the processing tools are good to use. It's the image quality that sucks with most of my cameras. It was always great with my Canon and Nikon files but not the rest.
There is that saying "Your results may vary" so I instead of a sweeping statement that PureRaw does a great job, I can only pass on my results on shots that are closest in nature to those white bowls on the table. I shoot many sculptures of completely white or completely black polished marble. They are typically 500 mm in any dimension. I am relegated to using a Canon Powershot SX50HS which was passable for website scale after some retouching but colour fringing and noise on those smooth polished surfaces was obvious up close. Running the Canon .CR2 files through PureRAW feels like it has bought me some time to stick with the SX50HS until the income from the clients is commensurate with the demand for higher image quality. It did a very satisfactory job of noise reduction and edge definition. My work mode has enough time spent doing other retouching tasks that I didn't want to add learning to tinker for who knows how long with noise reduction. Now I'm hoping to catch the next time DXO runs a price special.
Thanks for sharing your results. It's good to hear about cameras and situations where the software works well. There are so many variables that are often overlooked. The saying "Your results may vary" is probably the most accurate thing we can say.
In DXO Photolab you need an AUTO button that once pressed is equivalent to PureRAW, like AUTO from Lightroom.
You can do this in PhotoLab as well. There is an option to make the export to Lightroom which will add the new DNG processed file to the Lightroom catalog.
Cheers for your handy videos Robin. Is this raw processor meant for use prior to programs other than DXO Photolab? What if we use DXO Photolab anyway? I’m guessing this step is unnecessary?
Yes, it's to be used before the RAW converter. If you're already using DxO PhotoLab you get the same adjustments and don't need PureRAW. Just make sure you have the right corrections turned on in PhotoLab for best performance.
@@RobinWhalley thanks so much Robin 🙏🤓
This is interesting. As a PL4 owner, there is no desperate need for me to use this at the moment, but I have found that I use PL4 mostly for the optical corrections and the noise reduction. The question would be when PL5 comes out, am I better switching to PureRAW than upgrading to PL5? Plenty to think about, some of my decision will be informed by the cost differential between the two.
It's a good point. I'm similar in what I like about PL4 although the Smart Lighting and ClearView options are also useful as are the colour profiles. It's a tough one.
@@RobinWhalley Another thought for me is why DxO would offer this product - particularly if they were looking to increase their customer base. While there is certainly logic behind it to attract those who might not be interested in PL's full capability, there is a risk that existing PL customers might just move over to PureRAW instead and PL sales will fall.
@@andyhughes073 Hmm. I'm not sure how many PL users would be tempted over to PureRAW but I could be proven wrong. Even if they were, they would still make a sale of PureRAW where they might not sell a PL upgrade. I'm sure they have worked it all out in their strategy. Personally, I'm pleased about the new product.
Great review. By the way export to Capture One 20 works ok on my Win 10 PC providing I don't try to export the original raw file at the same time.
Thanks and thanks for the info. Someone else said that it works for them. I will need to try it again.
Thank you David, C1 user here, took the step from dx0 a year ago but miss prime denoise from time to time. Will get PR as well, a bargain it seems.
@@RobinWhalley just noticed that it only works when exporting one image at a time
Hi mate, you said you were gonna link to another video you did about your settings in DXO instead of pure raw, can you confirm the link? Great vid as always, thanks a lot Jim.
Thanks for pointing this out. I updated the link the other day and it doesn't seem to have saved the change. I've just added it to the description.
@@RobinWhalley thanks mate!
What about the native files, for instance, Hasselblad 3F or PhaseOne CCD sensor files, which are the most susceptible to noise?
I checked and they aren't on the list of supported cameras (www.dxo.com/supported-cameras/). I also can't imagine DxO adding them, although I could be wrong. I suspect there are a lot more Fuji users and those numbers don't make it viable for DxO to add Fuji XT support.
Is it possible to adjust deep PRIME ?
I have PL4 , and in most cases I think the default value 40 is a little bit to much. 25-30 is plenty for me.
You can't adjust any of the settings in PureRAW. DeepPRIME is an all or nothing setting currently. It's the same with the sharpening and lens correctsions. Personally I would like to see a few more options to tweak the settings to suit different cameras.
Thanks for drawing our attention to the new program from DxO. Have you tried comparing Pure Raw to opening the same raws in DxO Photo Lab, applying lens correction and Deep Prime NR and then exporting as a DNG? There is an export option to export as DNG with just lens corrections and noise reduction applied, no other development settings. Sounds a lot like Pure Raw! I tried it and the resulting DNGs looked nearly identical. I could see no reason to spend another $90 on Pure Raw (I was using the Trial version).
It would seem that for anyone who already has the latest DxO Photo Lab, Pure Raw is redundant, as Photo Lab will do the same thing as best I can tell, and Pure Raw is simply a module extracted out of Photo Lab to sell separately. However, for anyone who doesn't have Photo Lab, Pure Raw is a cheaper and easy way to make use of their very good Deep Prime noise reduction and DxO's lens correction library. Though the first lens I tried it with, the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 AF was not in it.
There's no need for PureRAW if you already have PhotoLab. I think the software is really aimed at people who use Lightroom and who won't switch to another RAW converter. I believe that's around 90% of the photography community. I think DxO is making a smart decision to target them and it also allows them to take advantage of potentially better image quality.
Since Dx0 converts the file to a DNG, can you use any of the older version of LR to process the DNG file and not have to buy into the Adobe monthly LR/LR Classic programs. In other words, can you process the DNG files with say LR5 etc.?
Sorry I don't know. I do know the DNG format has changed over the years so you may find you need to convert the output from PureRAW before old versions of Lightroom can read it. Then again it might work, I really don't know.
@@RobinWhalley Thanks. I am going to try the 30 day trial and see how it goes.
Hi Robin,
I don't see a trial version for DxO Pure Raw. Nevetheless, If it does not work well with C1...
There's a button on the home page that says "Free Trial". I don't understand your comment about it not working well with Capture One. When you import the processed files in C1 they look great. If you are refering to my comment about the import process, there isn't the same level of automation that you see in Lightroom but that's a limitation of C1. You just right click on the folder and select Synchronise. It's the same thing you would need to do with any other files that are added to a folder after it's been imported.
@@RobinWhalley Thanks so much Robin. I got it now !!. On my imac late 2015, the rendering 1:1 is extremely slow. Nevertheless, I must admit it does a fantastic job as far as sharpness, noise, chromatic aberrations and lens corrections. Spectacular !!!
Already using PL4 just for optical corrections and noise reduction and exporting DNG's back for retouching. If I didn't have PL4, I could see a use.
Yes, PL4 is great and there's no point also buying PureRAW unless it's to change your workflow.
@@RobinWhalley Although it does bypass the library, which I refuse to use. And which is why I use ACR and not LR. Downloaded the trial and the workflow is certainly much easier.
@@stevemckenzie4731 I guess it really depends on how you would use both products. I also found the workflow easy with PureRAW.
Does this DXO Pure Raw program support Fujifilm now.
No. This is one of the drawbacks I highligh in the video.
Hi Robin, I tried a tried a trail version today, Pure RAW denoise was great, but the sharpening introduced haloing on all the RAW files I tested regardless of the type of photo (architecture, landscape etc. ) , the camera (APSC Sensor) and lens combination. The software definitely needs an option to dial back the sharpening. It's really obvious at zoom factors over 100%. No question great denoise results but the haloing is a show stopper. For many users that don't print in large format that might not be an issue. I also saw great results on the removal of hot pixels on long exposure shots. I only have an older version of Photo Lab that didn't allow a DNG export, so I'm keen to see how the latest version with Deep Prime and no sharpening compares. Keep up the great work.
I agree about needing options. I haven't seen problems with Halos but I do know some people find PhotoLab will oversharpen their RAW files. I'm sure PureRAW is using the default settigns from PhotoLab with the optical corrections.
DxO website says this:
Exporting to Lightroom
After you have corrected your image in DxO PhotoLab, the next step is to send it back into Lightroom. Since your corrections to RAW files in DxO PhotoLab are neither compatible nor visible in Lightroom, you will have to exit the pure RAW stream and export your image in another format:
TIFF: This universally-used format allows you to make additional corrections, particularly in external editors such as Photoshop or the equivalent, while maintaining maximum quality.
JPEG: This format offers the advantage of smaller files and universality. You should choose this if you plan to use the image immediately (that is, for sharing, publishing, etc.).
DNG: This is the linear, less universal, flow-centric DNG with Adobe solutions that is just as suitable as TIFF for further editing and correction.
Export the selected file without processing: Returns the original file to Lightroom, without applying any modifications or corrections made in DxO PhotoLab.
Note
Caution: the rendering of linear DNGs in DxO PhotoLab is slightly different from that of TIFF.
To export to Lightroom:
1. Select the file or files that you just processed in DxO PhotoLab.
2. Click on Export to Lightroom on the right side of the toolbar in the Image Browser.
3. In the dialogue box that appears, select the output format as well as any associated options (compression, depth, ICC profile, etc.).
4. Click on Export......
And so on...
Is all this video about this???
No. I demonstrate how PureRAW works and don't cover PhotoLab. I also share my thoughts about the PureRAW software as well as problems I've found.
@@RobinWhalley The title is DxO PureRaw Review and you say you do not cover DxO Photolab. First I looked up for PureRaw at DxO website. That's why I had a quote from their website.
Robin, I like to watch your videos and I did not mean to stand you corrected. It was just my storm-like interest in the term of PureRaw I have not heard of yet. Regards, Milan
@@Milan_Kostek It's not a problem. I haven't looked at the website yet as this is a new product that has just launched this afternoon. What I know is that PhotoLab is different although it uses the same RAW engine as PureRAW. I describe the operation of PureRAW in the video how I've been using it.
@@RobinWhalley Thank you, Robin. Now I get it. Milan
@@Milan_Kostek Great. Thanks
for people with a M1 mac, verison 1.2 does not work well, it is not native M1 app so it works via Rosetta and this is giving problems with the processing. If you have an Intel mac it is working very well.
I believe DxO is working on M1 support.
@@RobinWhalley well it is working... sometimes but most of the times it will not process the files.
Anyone manage to get fuji RAF files working, im getting a unsupported message on the compressed RAF?
They aren't supported - compressed or uncompressed.
I've just tried the trial version with an underexposed landscape then increased the exposure levels in On1. It looked a total mess.
Works fine for me. It's possibly the type of RAW file as there are different sensor approaches to handling shadows and highlights. Some allow lots of recovery from highlights whilst others favour shadow recovery.
Hi Robin, Great video, I downloaded, can you help, how can I stop my my photo's going straight to DXO pureRaw, its so annoying trying to open my EOS then they go straight to this software
This isn't something that I've seen but it sounds like you have the file extension for your EOS camera associated with the software. When software automatically opens a file it’s a function of the computers operating system. I'm not aware of any file type association being made in the software installation so I can only think it’s happened after installation. I’d suggest googling how to change file associations for your operating system. You should then be able to figure out how to correct it. If that doesn’t fix the problem try raising it on the DxO Forums.
@@RobinWhalley Many thanks Robin.
Is this product not doing the same as Topaz Sharpener Ai. Topaz sharpener works perfectly with Fujifilm XTs
No it isn't. It's doing some of the processing that you might want to do with PhotoLab. It's main purpose is to demosaic the RAW file and apply optical corrections which may include noise reduction and some sharpening.
@@RobinWhalley Thanks
If you export a DNG from DXO photo lab... is it the same thing?
Yes although you hae more control over the results in PhotoLab. If you haven't seen it watch this video ua-cam.com/video/xCSF9kfCrRk/v-deo.html where I explain more.
@@RobinWhalley Thanks Robin! Yeah I just bought Photo Lab but still find myself back in LR a lot, so I probably only needed pure raw all along. Oh well.
would you need this if you already have DXO PHOTOLAB 4??
According to the DxO channel everything in PureRAW is in PL4Elite.
No. If you have PhotoLab 4 Elite you have all the quality benefits of PureRAW.
DXO Modules is still not perfect. I have found problem with my a7RIII with 20mm f/1.8 G as well. it adds vignettes to my original raw file. I did contact the DXO support and sent them the RAW file to prove. they had still insisted that it is my technical fault somehow. Very disappointed with this support team. Hopefully they have accepted the faulty of this modules and fix it behind the scene as they could see the truth of my problem.
Just my recommendation , if you don't wanna get over-sharpening by DXO, try not to click "DXO modules" and you will see the different in this regard.
As I said in the video, the level of sharpening is really personal taste and also varies between camera and lens combination. Not ticking the DxO Modules causes all lens correction to be disabled so I wouldn't recommend that. If you find your files are consistely too sharp then it's probably not the product for you.
Not sure what this offers that DxO Photolab 4 doesn't. PL4 has Deep Prime, an adjustable Lens sharpness tool and can export DNG files directly into Lightroom. there seems to be no gain for any PL4 users,
It's not intended for PhotoLab users. It's aimed at people who use other RAW converters.
Doesn't work with GoPro 9, DJI Mini 2 or Ricoh Theta Z1 photos.
That's right but then those aren't listed as supported cameras www.dxo.com/supported-cameras/
REally did not find any improvement to my ARW (Sony A6400) raw files...
Same with my Sony A7R files but it's because the correct lens module wasn't recognised and loaded. When I use it on my Sony RX10 RAW files the improvement is excellent. It's the same with some old Sony RX100 files and NEX5 files. They are all moch better in PureRAW. It's worth checking if your lens module is correctly recognised and downloaded. At a minimum I would expect you to see the enforced crop around the edge of the frame vanish. Most RAW converters crop ARW files around the edge but DxO doesn't.
Not so good on ISO12,800 ARW files,I was able to get better results from Lr. Normally I love Deep Prime,not this time though.
Interesting. Have you checked the camera and lens combination was correctly identified. My performance isn't good when that happens but otherwise its been excellent on ARW files.
@@RobinWhalley downloaded the A9 and 70-200G Master profile. The result wasn't as good as expected. Artifacting was more than I could accept. Fine up to 6400 though. Though it must be said that the Sony itself is pretty good to around 8000 ISO. More use on other files to follow.
@@garys639 I can imagine some of the newer cameras not needing this type of conversion as much. Thanks for sharing. I love to file away information like this in the back of my head.
hello, its me again, could you please try this program on pentax pixel-shift files? if you do not have a pentax or a friend with a pentax (that would be so unfortunate), I can shoot a few pics with pixel-shift and send them to you via a file sharing website.
also, I can send you some raw files from my leica dlux6 camera so you can try them with this and maybe with adobe's/gigapixel enhancements.
thanks!
I'm sorry but I don't have the space in my work schedule to test out different files for people. I have tried it with RAW files using Pixel Shift from a Panasonic G9. The results look pretty impressive.
RAW Auto processing from DXO PureRaw need to integrate in DXO Photolab.
DXO Photolab has no auto processing like Adobe Lightroom.
PureRAW only does what PhotoLab can do but in a stripped-down way with less features. I’m not sure what you mean that it hasn’t got any automated processing like Lightroom or how that would be fixed by integrating PureRAW.
At 7:57, it looked like you compared the DNG processed in PureRAW with sharpening and noise reduction applied to a raw file in Lightroom with no sharpening and no color or luminance noise reduction applied (file type is ORF and all 3 sliders are at zero), then stated that the PureRaw file was spectacularly sharp and noise free. How is that a fair comparison? It seems that you should be comparing to a Lightroom image with at least the default sharpening and color noise reduction applied, but really with optimized sharpening and noise reduction since that is what PureRaw is providing. Maybe PureRaw really is superior, but your comparison does not demonstrate that. Please show a fair comparison with equivalent settings.
When I make these videos, I record the sound track separately to the video capture before editing the two together. If I have shown something which you think is wrong, it could well be a mistake during video editing. What’s important is that I stand by everything I said in the video. PureRAW produced much better results than Lightroom on the image files I tested it with.
Great Product. Too expensive. They could at least add some sort of manual controls. And ad Jpeg and Tiff support. Specially for that price. Or, make the base price at 80€
By JPEG and TIFF support I assume you are referring to the processing of those files. If so, I doubt that will happen. I think it can only work its magic using RAW files. It's the same restriction with PhotoLab. Whilst that can process TIFF and JPEG files it can't apply the lens corrections and DeepPRIME processing. This is very much a RAW file pre-processor.
@@RobinWhalley
Actually I beg to differ. Photolab 4 do apply lens and softness corrections on Jpeg and Tiff, provided that, the Jpeg /tiff came from supported camera and lenses.
I agree with DeepPRIME on raw only part.
For the price, a manual Distortion control and NR control would be more ethical.
@@Light_Camera_Story You're right, that's my mistake.
I would probably say that image is restored to a near perfect state....
I must, I'm pretty impressed by what I've seen.
Hmmm. I admit I don't like the results. It seems to me the first landscape foreground is "crunchy” rather than sharp and the hanging shed shot looks smeared as did the books in the bookshelf. Also, to my eyes, it didn't actually remove the fringeing in the white bowl.
I don’t know if these are just the consequences of pixel - peeping on older, small -sensor cameras or not but it's not selling it to me.
I'm also not keen on the idea of being told by a computer how my image should look without any way of adjusting it and my fear is that DXO will not provide controls for this in the future as they will want to hook users and then reel them in to spend a bit more on software. It’s the way Adobe have speared so many including you as you say yourself to invest so much time in their data management software you’re more or less stuck with them. You then have to go around buying other stuff to perform basic adjustments which a monster company like Adobe should be providing as standard.
I will probably have to try it myself to be sure as it might be my screen or computer or something but initially it’s a big fat no from me.
The results often don't look good on the video. I think it's the video compression that's applied on top of the compression I used. I'm starting to experiment with other options. I would recommend trying out the software with your own RAW files to check the results.
I find it amazing. At least 90% of the time I'm totally happy.
I have turned some horrible fz330 photos into nice ones.
I can shoot at 6400 on my Gx9 and get nice results if you don't pixel peep.
I process them and send to lightroom, sharpen ai sometimes too(not needed most of the time)
Only been using it 2 weeks but it's well worth the money to me.
@@letni9506 It's like having a new camera
Doesn't work with Fuji files. Don't know why DxO doesn't make Photolab and this new product for us Fuji guys
Unfortunately the Fuji market is too small in comparison to others and may not justify their cost. They also don't have any of the Fuji cameras and lenses in theri database so that's a lot of testing they would need to do. If you want something similar take a look at Iridiant X-Transformer.
@@RobinWhalley well at least there’s Nik
I just can't understand the obsession with image noise. Photos are now so smooth, punchy, totally saturated colours and "noise free" that they look unreal. What's wrong with some noise or "grain" as we called them with analogue silver halide films. Indeed some of my best work are with Kodak Tri-X where the punchy grain gives the images a character that modern noise free photos cannot provide. Enjoy taking photos and use grain, flare, soft destaurated colours carefully and considerately and you will become a better photographer. After all photography is an art form.
Because digital noise and film grain are two quite different things. Ultimately I want to avoid the noise and produce sharp images because the stock libraries I work with demand that. As for film grain, you can do all sorts of things to manipulate it from switching film, to developer to have you agitate during development. Yes, I do shoot and develop film and have for over 20 years and I agree it looks wonderful (unlike digital noise). HP5 pushed 3 stops and developed in Rodinal - wow!
no support fuji camera.
No there isn't
@@RobinWhalley it a duplicate of the Dxo photolab 4.. so if yu have it,, !!!!
Is a very slow app
That's not my experience. It's just as fast if not faster than a RAW converter on my computer. An old 10MPixel RAW file took 5 seconds to process, Panasonic G9 20Mpixel is around 14 seconds and 36Mpixel Nikon and Sony around 30-40 seconds.
DxO really need to get their act together and support Fujifilm, they are the laughing stock of RAW converters.
I would really like to see them support Fuji XT files. I can imagine the reults would be excellent.
As usual with DXO it's too expensive.
As I said in the video everyone needs to make their own decision about the cost.
Poor rabbıts!
Tasty though.
Good Review... but I tried it... ITS TERRIBLE....WAIT ....Its GREAT when it works!!!! BUT...... this program is full glitches and crashes constantly! I have the latest and greatest Video Card/overpriced GPU and Ryzen 9 processor. Adobe will do for now until they clean it up.
Wow! I haven't had any problems with it. But then my Mac is a few years oid (although it has an upgraded graphics card). Software can be a tricky thing with all the variations.
@@RobinWhalley agreed... I really would love this to work well. I am sure in the next few months all the kinks will be out.
some people find killing rabbits and hanging them upside down wrong and distasteful. Unsubscribe. Goodbye 👋
Guess you didn't read the information about where the image was from. It was part of a National Trust living history exhibition. Anyway I respect your opinion but wanted to let you know the image source.
Of all the photos you could have chosen to demonstrate this program you chose 2 dead rabbits hanging upside down over 2 bowls which is so insensitive and in such bad taste, I am sure you had thousands of other photos you could have used to demonstrate your point. It was enough for me to stop watching!!!
You might think it was bad taste but this was a living history exhibition by the National Trust for schools. The photo had problems that needed to be corrected. Sorry it caused you offence.
Totally incomplete.. I'm surprised at you
I think you had better explain yourself
Another BS tool because people rely on automatic crap on their high end cameras. Just because you can afford a high end DSLR does not mean you know anything about proper photography skills. If you require this tool you are in the wrong business.
I don’t think you understand what it does. Like it or not the quality of the RAW processing is a key component of image quality. You can use the best lens and have great skill but achieve poor results because of you RAW converter.
@@RobinWhalley DNG is a bullshit excuse to convert to a format that you cannot go back to Raw, this is 101 raw digital info!!! This is why Adobe conned people with this BS DNG crap. Once you go to DNG you lost your Raw file workflow. I edit raw files just with the basic Photoshop CS2 importer and can get better looks than DXO. A good camera is useless without a good pair of eyes. I don’t use DNG, TIFFS only.
@@danfuerthgillis4483 You carry on being angry and I’ll carry on earning a living as a photographer.
@@RobinWhalley I don’t do Photography for a living, people bring me pictures from their “Photographers” hired for their weddings and ask me to clean up the shots. Obviously the Photographer just sends the files trough their “Scripts” Lightroom and don’t even look 5 or 10 pictures deep to see how to average them out. I have my own custom LUT’s if the people want to go that far. This is a side thing and only do this on weekends. I worked in a photo lab for 7 years on film and then digital so I am no slouch in Photography.
@@danfuerthgillis4483 I’ve been tacking photos for 40 years and seriously for 21 and using Photoshop since 1996. I agree a lot of photographers are probably “lazy” but for serious fine art work, preprocessing with the likes of PureRAW or PhotoLab does improve the results. It’s mainly down to the DeepPRIME and lens modules. They do make a difference. BUT for the likes of Canon and Nikon Photoshop and Lightroom works great. Try processing the likes of Fuji, Olympus and even Sony and the results are far better in other software.