Processing workflow when using plug-ins

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

How do you folks manage your workflow with different plug-ins like the Topaz denoise AI or Topaz mask AI. Going by the generally accepted approach, it is most optimal to start with noise reduction on the Raw file and then do all the basic adjustments like WB, HSL, Curves, Levels etc. and then perform the sharpening as the last step. This is how i used to work earlier on PS/LR but then, after i started using Topaz plug-ins i am not sure if this approach is correct anymore. Starting with denoise means, every other adjustment must be done on a TIFF file that has to be imported back in to LR from Topaz.

I recently moved from LR to Capture One pro and noted that the basic adjustments like WB, Levels, Curves, DR are more effective on a Raw file than on the TIFF files. The problem with this approach is that i have to keep the denoise/sharpening as the last step.

1. Any best practices or approaches that has worked better for others?
2. Also, there's one thing that bugs me all the time with these plug-ins...it is destructive and i end up having 2 files almost always (the Raw file that i imported first, on which i did all the basic adjustments and then the Topaz TIFF file that i import after denoise/sharpen). There are times when i feel after i import the TIFF file from Topaz, the file needs a bit of adjustment like contrast/ highlights or shadows, so in summary 2 edits for each image. - Is there a more efficient way to manage this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hut
You've highlighted one thing that many people haven't caught on to with Topaz DeNoise. Conventional wisdom for PP is to do NR first and sharpening last. However Topas DeNoise does both. It applies sharpening to recover detail that is affected by the NR process. So now many people are applying sharpening at the front end of PP. Arguably this is no different than applying "capture sharpening" but if set to auto Topaz sharpening does more than traditional capture sharpening and also tends to produce artifacts. For that reason if using DeNoise at the front end it is best to set the sliders manually and turn sharpening way down or off. (BTW I never did buy into the idea of capture sharpening.)

I use DxO PL for NR and lens corrections only. I have found it to be superior to Topaz(retains more detail) and it avoids the sharpening dilemma(though it does do minimal capture sharpening). Unfortunately this results in generating at least three files for most images. 1) the original, unaltered RAW 2) the DNG generated by DxO PL and further adjusted in LR 3) a final TIFF or PSD generated by a layer editing program
 
You've highlighted one thing that many people haven't caught on to with Topaz DeNoise. Conventional wisdom for PP is to do NR first and sharpening last. However Topas DeNoise does both. It applies sharpening to recover detail that is affected by the NR process. So now many people are applying sharpening at the front end of PP. Arguably this is no different than applying "capture sharpening" but if set to auto Topaz sharpening does more than traditional capture sharpening and also tends to produce artifacts. For that reason if using DeNoise at the front end it is best to set the sliders manually and turn sharpening way down or off. (BTW I never did buy into the idea of capture sharpening.)

I use DxO PL for NR and lens corrections only. I have found it to be superior to Topaz(retains more detail) and it avoids the sharpening dilemma(though it does do minimal capture sharpening). Unfortunately this results in generating at least three files for most images. 1) the original, unaltered RAW 2) the DNG generated by DxO PL and further adjusted in LR 3) a final TIFF or PSD generated by a layer editing program
Dan...I have started to use DxO Pure Raw...and I think this is what you are using out of the PL package? It is by far, much better than Topaz Denoise with no artifacts. However, as you mentioned, now I have a step (and additional files) in front of import into LR. Ugh. So far, I have only used it for my birds and mammals in high ISO situations. My work flow has been to import keepers into LR. Determine which ones are worth the DxO effort, pull them from a raw keeper external HD, import into DxO and then import them back into LR (I use date plus location for organization) and add DxO after location so they sit right below the original file in LR. What a lot of work! But worth it when needed. Do you have any tips to share about managing this behemoth of a process?
 
Dan...I have started to use DxO Pure Raw...and I think this is what you are using out of the PL package? It is by far, much better than Topaz Denoise with no artifacts. However, as you mentioned, now I have a step (and additional files) in front of import into LR. Ugh. So far, I have only used it for my birds and mammals in high ISO situations. My work flow has been to import keepers into LR. Determine which ones are worth the DxO effort, pull them from a raw keeper external HD, import into DxO and then import them back into LR (I use date plus location for organization) and add DxO after location so they sit right below the original file in LR. What a lot of work! But worth it when needed. Do you have any tips to share about managing this behemoth of a process?
Yes I use the "deep prime NR" and lens profile corrections in PL. I tested the free trial of Pure RAW when it first came out. I could do the same thing in PL and Pure RAW wasn't integrated quite as well with LR. Not sure if anything has changed since then. It is definitely designed to be the first step in editing. Not sure if they've now changed it to be a plug-in. You might want to make sure whether that's an option because if so it would be simpler than the workflow that you describe. One thing to keep in mind though is that no matter what external NR software is used you end up with an additional file(tiff, dng, or psd). IMO it's worth it when you need it.

Integrating DxO PL into an LR based workflow as a plug-in is a bit simpler(I'll explain the following in case you discover that Pure RAW can be used as a plug-in). Of course DxO PL has to be set up as a plug-in for LR with the LR plug-in manager. It also needs to be set up to stack the dng with the original when it goes back to LR. I believe you do this in LR preferences/external editing/toggle "stack with original".

Within PL I have set up presets for each of my cameras with the features that I want to use. I turn off everything other than auto vignetting(with DxO optics module), color rendering(with specific camera color profile selected), chromatic aberration, Pure Raw, lens sharpness, and distortion(with DxO optics module). NOTE: I do not do any cropping or horizon adjustment in PL.

When jumping out of LR to PL it is the base RAW file the PL uses without any adjustments that have already been made in LR. HOWEVER, when the dng comes back to LR(via "export to LR" from PL) it can then synch the develop settings from the RAW file and preserve any editing already done in LR including cropping, spot removal, etc. Subject masking will not synch and has to be re-generated on the dng(due to slight geometry adjustments that were done in PL). I point this out because this means that it is not necessary to make the export to DxO as the first step in the workflow. Edits can be made in LR and then only export to DxO the images that you plan to do something with rather than end up with duplicate dng files for every RAW file in the library.

My typical workflow:

1) Import RAW files into LR. I apply a basic preset of adjustments and input basic keywords during import
2) Flag obvious culls as "rejected" and then in bulk "delete rejected/delete from disk"
3) Go back through and flag those that look worthy of additional work on first pass
4) Make some basic lighting adjustments, spot removal, etc. and decide which files warrant additional processing
5) Select multiple files that need NR applied and then "file/plug-in extras/export to DxO PL"
6) in PL photolibrary module select all of the files, apply my preset for the particular camera, export to LR in bulk. Go make some coffee while Deep Prime NR crunches the files.
7) now the dng files with NR and lens corrections are back in LR(stacked with the RAW file) for further editing, export to PS, etc.

NOTE: Historically I have not kept the dng files indefinitely in LR. I make sure that the development settings are synched with the RAW file then after exporting for further editing in PS etc I retain the generated TIFF/PSD file and delete the dng. This because at that point the NR etc is "baked into" the TIFF/PSD and any LR development settings remain with the RAW file(because I've synched it). If I ever need to start again with a base file it is easy enough to run the DxO PL routine again and recreate the dng and synch it back to the develop settings retained with the RAW file. HOWEVER, with the new masking features in LR the dng may now be my "master" file because in many cases there's no need to use levels, content aware cloning, etc. So now depending on how much work I've invested in masking and/or if the dng is my final product I may retain the dng. In those cases I rename it as a cue to myself that is it now the "master" file.
 
Dan and Kim...I have also started to use DxO Photolab and am finding that for some photos, the extra time / workflow is well worth the effort. I do my initial processing in DxO using a linear profile for my Nikon D500, then send the file as a dng with modifications into Lightroom for final processing. I particularly like the spot metering function, deep prime and the lens sharpening controls in DxO. In Lightroom I will make adjustments using the Basic and Tone Curve modules (plus Detail and HSL if needed) then the finished image is exported from Lightroom as a high quality jpeg. I generally don't save the DxO dng files as I can regenerate them later, though I'm now thinking that with ssd memory getting cheaper, I should save the dng files.
I like the Deep Prime results more than the Topaz Denoise and the lens sharpening better that the Topaz Sharpen results, generally speaking.
Any tips on speeding up the workflow will be much appreciated!
Cheers,
Alex
edit...I took too long in typing this and see that Dan has responded!
 
Yes I use the "deep prime NR" and lens profile corrections in PL. I tested the free trial of Pure RAW when it first came out. I could do the same thing in PL and Pure RAW wasn't integrated quite as well with LR. Not sure if anything has changed since then. It is definitely designed to be the first step in editing. Not sure if they've now changed it to be a plug-in. You might want to make sure whether that's an option because if so it would be simpler than the workflow that you describe. One thing to keep in mind though is that no matter what external NR software is used you end up with an additional file(tiff, dng, or psd). IMO it's worth it when you need it.

Integrating DxO PL into an LR based workflow as a plug-in is a bit simpler(I'll explain the following in case you discover that Pure RAW can be used as a plug-in). Of course DxO PL has to be set up as a plug-in for LR with the LR plug-in manager. It also needs to be set up to stack the dng with the original when it goes back to LR. I believe you do this in LR preferences/external editing/toggle "stack with original".

Within PL I have set up presets for each of my cameras with the features that I want to use. I turn off everything other than auto vignetting(with DxO optics module), color rendering(with specific camera color profile selected), chromatic aberration, Pure Raw, lens sharpness, and distortion(with DxO optics module). NOTE: I do not do any cropping or horizon adjustment in PL.

When jumping out of LR to PL it is the base RAW file the PL uses without any adjustments that have already been made in LR. HOWEVER, when the dng comes back to LR(via "export to LR" from PL) it can then synch the develop settings from the RAW file and preserve any editing already done in LR including cropping, spot removal, etc. Subject masking will not synch and has to be re-generated on the dng(due to slight geometry adjustments that were done in PL). I point this out because this means that it is not necessary to make the export to DxO as the first step in the workflow. Edits can be made in LR and then only export to DxO the images that you plan to do something with rather than end up with duplicate dng files for every RAW file in the library.

My typical workflow:

1) Import RAW files into LR. I apply a basic preset of adjustments and input basic keywords during import
2) Flag obvious culls as "rejected" and then in bulk "delete rejected/delete from disk"
3) Go back through and flag those that look worthy of additional work on first pass
4) Make some basic lighting adjustments, spot removal, etc. and decide which files warrant additional processing
5) Select multiple files that need NR applied and then "file/plug-in extras/export to DxO PL"
6) in PL photolibrary module select all of the files, apply my preset for the particular camera, export to LR in bulk. Go make some coffee while Deep Prime NR crunches the files.
7) now the dng files with NR and lens corrections are back in LR(stacked with the RAW file) for further editing, export to PS, etc.

NOTE: Historically I have not kept the dng files indefinitely in LR. I make sure that the development settings are synched with the RAW file then after exporting for further editing in PS etc I retain the generated TIFF/PSD file and delete the dng. This because at that point the NR etc is "baked into" the TIFF/PSD and any LR development settings remain with the RAW file(because I've synched it). If I ever need to start again with a base file it is easy enough to run the DxO PL routine again and recreate the dng and synch it back to the develop settings retained with the RAW file. HOWEVER, with the new masking features in LR the dng may now be my "master" file because in many cases there's no need to use levels, content aware cloning, etc. So now depending on how much work I've invested in masking and/or if the dng is my final product I may retain the dng. In those cases I rename it as a cue to myself that is it now the "master" file.
So much here Dan! Thanks. I will read and try to assimilate to see what I can learn and improve. So...I am getting that the DxO PL CAN function as a plug-in to LR. If yes, this IS the work around I was hoping for. The question for me is what is the difference in the Deep Prime in the PL package vs. the PureRaw in the stand alone I am using?? Same, same?

Thanks!
 
Dan and Kim...I have also started to use DxO Photolab and am finding that for some photos, the extra time / workflow is well worth the effort. I do my initial processing in DxO using a linear profile for my Nikon D500, then send the file as a dng with modifications into Lightroom for final processing. I particularly like the spot metering function, deep prime and the lens sharpening controls in DxO. In Lightroom I will make adjustments using the Basic and Tone Curve modules (plus Detail and HSL if needed) then the finished image is exported from Lightroom as a high quality jpeg. I generally don't save the DxO dng files as I can regenerate them later, though I'm now thinking that with ssd memory getting cheaper, I should save the dng files.
I like the Deep Prime results more than the Topaz Denoise and the lens sharpening better that the Topaz Sharpen results, generally speaking.
Any tips on speeding up the workflow will be much appreciated!
Cheers,
Alex
edit...I took too long in typing this and see that Dan has responded!
Thanks for your post Alex! I asked Dan if he knew what the difference was between Deep Prime in the PL package vs. stand alone PureRaw that I am currently using as a stand alone program...that does not function as a plug -in to LR. Do you know?? Thanks!
 
So...I am getting that the DxO PL CAN function as a plug-in to LR.
Yes most definitely. The plug-in is actually a routine that "exports" your image to PL. Then you have to export the result back to LR. So not a typical plug-in but it is a seamless process.
The question for me is what is the difference in the Deep Prime in the PL package vs. the PureRaw in the stand alone I am using?? Same, same?
As far as I could tell it is the same algorithm. PureRaw is a black box while PL allows you to manually control if desired. Also PL is a full RAW processor/editor if so desired. Many people like the "control point" method of selective editing. I'm ambivalent about it and like to keep all of my RAW editing in LR(for now at least). I already had PL when PureRaw came out and didn't see the need for both. Plus I'm not a fan of "black box" software. I at least like the illusion of control :)
 
edit: I can never type fast enough to beat Dan!

Thanks for your post Alex! I asked Dan if he knew what the difference was between Deep Prime in the PL package vs. stand alone PureRaw that I am currently using as a stand alone program...that does not function as a plug -in to LR. Do you know?? Thanks!
Hi Kim...the short and honest answer is I don't know - I've always assumed that the Deep Prime function is the same in either version as it seems odd to have two different versions of this module. I think the main differences between Photolab and Pure Raw are the ability to apply more corrections and export them via Photolab, plus Photolab comes with a plugin module - which it installs - for Lightroom. That's why I bought it rather than Pure Raw when they were on sale last month.
From Google...
DxO info.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


I have no difficulty in going from Photolab to Lightroom for some finishing touches sending the DxO file as a dng with the all corrections applied option, though sometimes I have to modify the dng file in lightroom by changing the profile to linear D500 and remove any adjustments in the Basic panel. It's a bit annoying, but easily remedied. I'm still learning the finer points of Photolab, but I really like it when coupled with Lightroom. If I want to make my life even more complicated, I can send my file from Photolab to Lightroom to Affinity, but have not done this yet! I haven't used either Topaz DeNoise or Sharpen since I got Photolab and am now wondering whether I should renew my annual subscription to Topaz, even at the discounted rate that they've just offered...
trouble, trouble!!
 
Yes most definitely. The plug-in is actually a routine that "exports" your image to PL. Then you have to export the result back to LR. So not a typical plug-in but it is a seamless process.

As far as I could tell it is the same algorithm. PureRaw is a black box while PL allows you to manually control if desired. Also PL is a full RAW processor/editor if so desired. Many people like the "control point" method of selective editing. I'm ambivalent about it and like to keep all of my RAW editing in LR(for now at least). I already had PL when PureRaw came out and didn't see the need for both. Plus I'm not a fan of "black box" software. I at least like the illusion of control :)
Ahhh, control. Yes. Except sadly, sometimes the software seems to know what is best for me. Well, I guess I will zip off an inquiry to DXO and see if they will answer this question. Regardless, it still seems worth it to move to PL for its plug in capability. Going back to pull a list of files off an external and then importing same is such a pain.
 
edit: I can never type fast enough to beat Dan!


Hi Kim...the short and honest answer is I don't know - I've always assumed that the Deep Prime function is the same in either version as it seems odd to have two different versions of this module. I think the main differences between Photolab and Pure Raw are the ability to apply more corrections and export them via Photolab, plus Photolab comes with a plugin module - which it installs - for Lightroom. That's why I bought it rather than Pure Raw when they were on sale last month.
From Google...
View attachment 28905

I have no difficulty in going from Photolab to Lightroom for some finishing touches sending the DxO file as a dng with the all corrections applied option, though sometimes I have to modify the dng file in lightroom by changing the profile to linear D500 and remove any adjustments in the Basic panel. It's a bit annoying, but easily remedied. I'm still learning the finer points of Photolab, but I really like it when coupled with Lightroom. If I want to make my life even more complicated, I can send my file from Photolab to Lightroom to Affinity, but have not done this yet! I haven't used either Topaz DeNoise or Sharpen since I got Photolab and am now wondering whether I should renew my annual subscription to Topaz, even at the discounted rate that they've just offered...
trouble, trouble!!
You bring up a good point...keep Topaz, or not. I think not. Im only using it when I dont want to do the dxo goat rodeo and the image needs more than what LR can do.

Well, so many thanks to you and Dan for sharing! It really helps!
 
Ahhh, control. Yes. Except sadly, sometimes the software seems to know what is best for me. Well, I guess I will zip off an inquiry to DXO and see if they will answer this question. Regardless, it still seems worth it to move to PL for its plug in capability. Going back to pull a list of files off an external and then importing same is such a pain.
Please share if you get an answer from DxO.

Yes it is certainly a lot simpler than what you originally described above. There is one annoying quirk to the process. When DxO exports back to LR it creates a collection set inside LR with a collection for each date that you run the interface. So eventually you end up with a long list of collections to get rid of. Not a big thing but annoying. PL also creates its own proprietary sidecar files that accompany the dng. They are on a few kb in size but don't get deleted if you delete the dng using LR or your operating system. So they have to be cleaned up now and then.
 
Please share if you get an answer from DxO.

Yes it is certainly a lot simpler than what you originally described above. There is one annoying quirk to the process. When DxO exports back to LR it creates a collection set inside LR with a collection for each date that you run the interface. So eventually you end up with a long list of collections to get rid of. Not a big thing but annoying. PL also creates its own proprietary sidecar files that accompany the dng. They are on a few kb in size but don't get deleted if you delete the dng using LR or your operating system. So they have to be cleaned up now and then.
Ohhh, well nothings perfect? Why dont they ask end users??? Again, many thanks and will post if I get a response.
 
My typical workflow:

1) Import RAW files into LR. I apply a basic preset of adjustments and input basic keywords during import
2) Flag obvious culls as "rejected" and then in bulk "delete rejected/delete from disk"
3) Go back through and flag those that look worthy of additional work on first pass
4) Make some basic lighting adjustments, spot removal, etc. and decide which files warrant additional processing
5) Select multiple files that need NR applied and then "file/plug-in extras/export to DxO PL"
6) in PL photolibrary module select all of the files, apply my preset for the particular camera, export to LR in bulk. Go make some coffee while Deep Prime NR crunches the files.
7) now the dng files with NR and lens corrections are back in LR(stacked with the RAW file) for further editing, export to PS, etc.

My workflow is very similar if I am going denoise in PL, but if I do, I use PL before making LR corrections. In my experience exporting to PL did not include any LR corrections, but those corrections were applied to the DNG on the return trip. (cropping was an obvious difference) I then wondered if my LR corrections might be slightly different as they were no longer working on the same original file. I'm not sure how much difference that makes in the end, but just a thought. (I hope this makes sense)

I also HATE HATE HATE those DXO collections! :)
 
My workflow is very similar if I am going denoise in PL, but if I do, I use PL before making LR corrections. In my experience exporting to PL did not include any LR corrections, but those corrections were applied to the DNG on the return trip. (cropping was an obvious difference)
I forgot to mention that. Yes you can make development settings in LR prior to jumping out to PL and when the dng file is imported back into LR all of the development settings of the RAW file will automatically show up in the development panel for the dng file as well. Including the crop so best not to fiddle with the crop in PL. This is another little nuance to the workflow because it's a slight veer from the philosophy of applying NR as the first step of editing. Editing can be done to the RAW file prior to doing the Deep Prime NR routine and the edits will be retained and layered on top of the denoised dng file.
I then wondered if my LR corrections might be slightly different as they were no longer working on the same original file. I'm not sure how much difference that makes in the end, but just a thought. (I hope this makes sense)
If no lighting changes were made in PL then the only difference in the dng vs the RAW file will be slight color differences in the way PL renders color vs LR. However if colors or lighting are altered in PL then those changes will be "cooked in" on the dng.
 
I found this on the DXO website - it would appear there is no difference between PR and PL using the denoise feature...only a plug in option is available with PL if you have a newer version.. Wish they had made that clear when I was purchasing same.

DxO PhotoLab 4 & 5 ELITE Edition users already have access to DeepPRIME, so purchasing the additional software is not necessary unless you wish to have the denoising capabilities available in its own software. For users of DxO PhotoLab ESSENTIAL Edition, DxO PureRAW will allow you to use the newest DxO Labs denoising algorithm, but it may be more beneficial to you to just upgrade in your customer account to DxO PhotoLab 5 ELITE Edition.
 
I found this on the DXO website - it would appear there is no difference between PR and PL using the denoise feature...only a plug in option is available with PL if you have a newer version.. Wish they had made that clear when I was purchasing same.

DxO PhotoLab 4 & 5 ELITE Edition users already have access to DeepPRIME, so purchasing the additional software is not necessary unless you wish to have the denoising capabilities available in its own software. For users of DxO PhotoLab ESSENTIAL Edition, DxO PureRAW will allow you to use the newest DxO Labs denoising algorithm, but it may be more beneficial to you to just upgrade in your customer account to DxO PhotoLab 5 ELITE Edition.
Thanks Kim....as I suspected, but you're right, they could/should have made this info available in the description.
I see that DxO is offering a 30% discount - perhaps you could get a special upgrade price to go from Pure Raw to PL5?
Cheers...
 
Thanks Kim....as I suspected, but you're right, they could/should have made this info available in the description.
I see that DxO is offering a 30% discount - perhaps you could get a special upgrade price to go from Pure Raw to PL5?
Cheers...
Exactly...and I did send a request asking for that along with better marketing information. We will see but not holding my breath.
 
Back
Top