DxO PureRAW 5

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).

Member's gallery
Unscript said:
From what I just saw when I tested both, PureRAW is very basic: just lens correction and denoising. Though it can export to DNG, which isn't common. It's really meant to be used for batch processing all your photos (by default, it doesn't even show the traditional panel with the processing tools, I had to search for it).

In comparison, PhotoLab has more processing tools to crop, rotate, change the perspective, adjust the colours, retouch the photos, etc. It even allows to mask the part of the image to process. But it's not a fully-fledged image processing tool like Affinity Photo or, I guess, Photoshop (e.g. you can't draw, use layers, etc).
Click to expand...
PL is a full post processing program. DXO is primarily a denoising program that is to be used in conjunction with your chosen PE. DXO PureRaw5 looks like it will add some more options--but not a full blown PE. From AI response '.....
Key points about DxO's leadership:
  • Lens correction:
    DxO is widely recognized for its extensive database of camera and lens profiles, allowing for precise correction of lens distortions, vignetting, and chromatic aberration.

  • Noise reduction:
    Their "DeepPRIME" technology is considered one of the best in the industry for effectively reducing noise in images, especially at high ISO settings.
 
Member's gallery
jbk2forum said:
PL is a full post processing program. DXO is primarily a denoising program that is to be used in conjunction with your chosen PE. DXO PureRaw5 looks like it will add some more options--but not a full blown PE. From AI response '.....
Key points about DxO's leadership:
  • Lens correction:
    DxO is widely recognized for its extensive database of camera and lens profiles, allowing for precise correction of lens distortions, vignetting, and chromatic aberration.

  • Noise reduction:
    Their "DeepPRIME" technology is considered one of the best in the industry for effectively reducing noise in images, especially at high ISO settings.
Click to expand...
The question was not mine - I actually answered it; it was @Hooligans Imagery's. :)

PS: I wouldn't trust AI-generated answers in general; they're notoriously unreliable.
 
Member's gallery
I use DxO PureRAW4 with DeepPrime XD as a plug-in for Lightroom. It’s recommended by some to run it first before any other processing, but I prefer to use it more selectively after making some adjustments in LR, depending on if I think the photo will benefit from denoising. The resulting (DNG) files can be quite large (similar to Topaz and Lightroom AI, apparently they all use a similar demosaicing technique), so I don’t use it on every photo. When you run PureRAW from LR, the file looks like the original RAW file (no edits), but when it is imported back into LR all my edits are applied to the DNG.

I’ve also used Topaz DeNoise (older version), but found that images with a smooth background are often blotchy (subtle, but definitely noticeable). I’ve also used Lightroom AI as recommended by Steve, but found the process to be too fiddly. I prefer the ease-of-use with PureRAW and only use LR if I don’t like the results from PureRAW (very rare for me).

I like the idea of having local adjustments in the new version of PureRAW. Definitely worth checking out.
 
Member's gallery
tegel said:
I use DxO PureRAW4 with DeepPrime XD as a plug-in for Lightroom. It’s recommended by some to run it first before any other processing, but I prefer to use it more selectively after making some adjustments in LR, depending on if I think the photo will benefit from denoising. The resulting (DNG) files can be quite large (similar to Topaz and Lightroom AI, apparently they all use a similar demosaicing technique), so I don’t use it on every photo. When you run PureRAW from LR, the file looks like the original RAW file (no edits), but when it is imported back into LR all my edits are applied to the DNG.

I’ve also used Topaz DeNoise (older version), but found that images with a smooth background are often blotchy (subtle, but definitely noticeable). I’ve also used Lightroom AI as recommended by Steve, but found the process to be too fiddly. I prefer the ease-of-use with PureRAW and only use LR if I don’t like the results from PureRAW (very rare for me).

I like the idea of having local adjustments in the new version of PureRAW. Definitely worth checking out.
Click to expand...
Tom, I wish that DXO would work out a similar plug in process for CP1 as in LR.
 
Member's gallery
Hooligans Imagery said:
Can the PureRaw users here tell me why they choose PureRaw over PhotoLab 8? I feel like I am in GroundHogDay where I keep asking myself this question over the years.
Do you process all your images with Pure Raw first? Only the keepers? You use other programs for editing?
I find their website hard to sort through the differences other than the PhotoLab Elite vs Essential. Seems like PureRaw 5 will have their latest tech so expect a PhotoLab 9 after that?
Click to expand...
Never tried PhotoLab8. And I process very few images through PureRaw3 (my version), mainly because it takes four or five minutes to run one file. My main editor is Photoshop Elements 2022 but when I got a Nikon Z8 it did not support RAW files from that new camera. (Since Elements is a one time purchase and not a subscription, you cannot update to support new releases, even though someone on this site tried to explain to me via email how to do it, I couldn't get it to work). So my personal reason for using PureRaw is to process select few raw files that I want to use for enlargements or similar and get them in a form I can further refine in Elements. (And yes I am aware I could use a DNG converter to get the files into Elements, but I do like the way PureRaw processes the noise and shaprness).
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
this makes sense about the format, but makes less sense programs would fail to support the full suite of cameras that use that format, especially if they aren’t brand new 🤔
Click to expand...
Since Nikon doesn’t share its RAW image format details it’s up to third parties to decode them on their own. Once completed for a given Nikon Z camera it would seem to be a good bit easier to do so for other Z cameras. But that’s just a guess on my part.
 
Member's gallery
That's so weird to have different headers & footers for those HE files, but the world is a weird place. :D

jbk2forum said:
If you knew about DXO, then you would know that this AI answer is on target. At lest for this answer.
Click to expand...

I know about both programs since, as I just said, I just tested them. But the AI didn't answer the question at all; it seems to come from a DXO ad that must have been fed to the neural net during its training.

The question was "why choose PureRAW over PhotoLab?" - in other words, "what's the difference?"

More to the point, I suppose you're implying that my answer about the differences was wrong. If that's the case, please don't hesitate to tell what was wrong so that the person who asked isn't misled. I'm not a DXO expert, so I may have missed something.


PS: Since you're talking about the knowledge of both programs, it seems from your earlier post that you're only using Capture One and DXO PureRAW, not DXO PhotoLab, so I'm even more confused by your post.
jbk2forum said:
I'm no expert so I can't comment on other editors..just Capture One and DXO PureRaw.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
Unscript said:
That's so weird to have different headers & footers for those HE files, but the world is a weird place. :D
Click to expand...
well there’s the actual image and the data that describes the exif data and such. that said, i would assume the difference in that data is extremely small, like maybe even just a few bytes different to describe z8 instead of z9 and any delta in the exif data based on the differences between cameras and i would expect those changes would be pretty easy to figure out 🤷
 
Member's gallery
Ralph said:
Yes. The upgrade version is $80 dollars. So I get it for $30. The upgrade version of PureRaW is the full version. If you wanted to buy DXO PureRaw 5 for the first time it would cost you $120.
Click to expand...
I purchased at Black Friday for $89 and am very annoyed I to need to cough up $79 for version 5 just 90 days later. The ‘customer‘ service rep wouldn’t do anything at all. @Ralph when did you purchase it? The website says any time after Feb 4 is a free upgrade.
 
Member's gallery
bills_pix said:
I purchased at Black Friday for $89 and am very annoyed I to need to cough up $79 for version 5 just 90 days later. The ‘customer‘ service rep wouldn’t do anything at all. @Ralph when did you purchase it? The website says any time after Feb 4 is a free upgrade.
Click to expand...
This is why I never buy anything from DXO unless it is within a couple months of a new release. I got burned by them in the past. I'm amazed they even offered a coupon!
 
Member's gallery
bills_pix said:
I purchased at Black Friday for $89 and am very annoyed I to need to cough up $79 for version 5 just 90 days later. The ‘customer‘ service rep wouldn’t do anything at all. @Ralph when did you purchase it? The website says any time after Feb 4 is a free upgrade.
Click to expand...
I purchased it about 2-3 weeks ago. I emailed them and and explained the situation.
 
Member's gallery
Unscript said:
That's so weird to have different headers & footers for those HE files, but the world is a weird place. :D



I know about both programs since, as I just said, I just tested them. But the AI didn't answer the question at all; it seems to come from a DXO ad that must have been fed to the neural net during its training.

The question was "why choose PureRAW over PhotoLab?" - in other words, "what's the difference?"

More to the point, I suppose you're implying that my answer about the differences was wrong. If that's the case, please don't hesitate to tell what was wrong so that the person who asked isn't misled. I'm not a DXO expert, so I may have missed something.


PS: Since you're talking about the knowledge of both programs, it seems from your earlier post that you're only using Capture One and DXO PureRAW, not DXO PhotoLab, so I'm even more confused by your post.
Click to expand...
I guess you may have misunderstood or I wasn't clear. Yes, the ? is referenced properly. The answers, just about all, including mine, are that DXO is a standalone specialized denoise program. It is not a PE, as extensive as PS or CP1 or others. DXO is included in PL8. It can be used in conjunction with other PEs.
Your answer about the differences is not wrong--and while you have tried DXO--even before I ever tried it, the company was known as the ultimate benchmark and testing company for all manufacturer's lenses. Professionals who had need of this type of information would go to DXO. This has ultimately evolved into one of the foremost denoising applications. I can tell you that CP1 only provides a profile for one or two Nikon Z lenses, and sets up a 'generic' profile for these lenses. CP1 will tell you that they read information imbedded in the RAW file date that will provide better lens correction. But I have check this out and find that DXO's lens correction is outstanding. And yes, the AI picked up their marketing..but it is correct!
Be that as it may, no intent to imply your answer was wrong.
 
Member's gallery
ButlerKid said:
Thank you! Do you like the HE* files? Do you prefer them over lossless raw? I'll be going to Africa this year and was thinking about giving HE* a try.....
Click to expand...
I do like HE* raw files for my wildlife work, especially when I’m shooting lots of bursts. I wish I could use HE* for precapture. Brad Hill, the Canadian wildlife photographer, has generally gone to using HE* for his wildlife work. I’ve done several trips with Brad.

I suppose it’s mostly liking the smaller file size, without seeing a penalty in image quality. I’ve read there might be less room to pull up underexposed shadows without noise. That hasn’t been an issue for me.

I generally use lossless compressed for landscape work where I shoot fewer frames, so smaller files are less an advantage.

My wildlife shooting bank is set for HE* raw. My landscape shooting bank is set for lossless compressed raw.

I’d certainly recommend giving HE* raw a try, but maybe before heading Africa, to determine whether you like it. I shot HE* raw files in Botswana last April/May and was happy with the results.
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
I do like HE* raw files for my wildlife work, especially when I’m shooting lots of bursts. I wish I could use HE* for precapture. Brad Hill, the Canadian wildlife photographer, has generally gone to using HE* for his wildlife work. I’ve done several trips with Brad.

I suppose it’s mostly liking the smaller file size, without seeing a penalty in image quality. I’ve read there might be less room to pull up underexposed shadows without noise. That hasn’t been an issue for me.

I generally use lossless compressed for landscape work where I shoot fewer frames, so smaller files are less an advantage.

My wildlife shooting bank is set for HE* raw. My landscape shooting bank is set for lossless compressed raw.

I’d certainly recommend giving HE* raw a try, but maybe before heading Africa, to determine whether you like it. I shot HE* raw files in Botswana last April/May and was happy with the results.
Click to expand...
An advantage of HE* is an unlimited (or near unlimited) buffer.
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
well there’s the actual image and the data that describes the exif data and such. that said, i would assume the difference in that data is extremely small, like maybe even just a few bytes different to describe z8 instead of z9 and any delta in the exif data based on the differences between cameras and i would expect those changes would be pretty easy to figure out 🤷
Click to expand...
Indeed. I assumed it was a difference of format in the header, not the data it contained or in the EXIF. Since both have the same sensor, there shouldn't need to be any difference in the data, theoretically (same image format and same compression parameters), but file format versions change now and then. It could be the TIFF version the NEF structure is based on, fields that Nikon added for a new camera type or a new compression scheme, ...

Who knows. I'm also surprised Nikon wouldn't provide the format on demand or a small library to access the image and data, maybe with some conditions like not distributing it. After all, they need the major photography tools to support their device, sometimes probably more than the other way around. Although the NEF format is well known, I believe, as users have been collaboratively probing it since it existed and published their findings (here's an example).

Anyway, it appears both DXO PL and PR support HE/HE* for the Z8 too, after all. :)
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
The z8 had a note that said does not support hif . what is hif?
Click to expand...
HEIF maybe.

  • Benefits of HEIF over JPEG:
    • Better Image Quality: HEIF offers better compression and image quality, allowing for smaller file sizes with higher quality images.

    • Wider Dynamic Range: HEIF captures a wider range of brightness and contrast, resulting in images with more detail in both highlights and shadows.

    • 10-bit Color: HEIF supports 10-bit color, which means more color information can be captured and displayed, resulting in more vibrant and natural-looking images.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top