I really wanted PureRaw4 to show me improvements over the Lightroom Classic Detail module. I have tried them on past and new photos and prefer LR. I find that feathers and fur look better in LR.
DxO PureRaw4 VS Lightroom
- Thread starter jerrylwatson
- Start date
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).
Any examples?
I have deleted the DxO. I will try to reproduce. I have the PureRaw trail.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
note that imo they are _different_. as an example, i notice that the LR denoise doesn't appear to do _any_ sharpening, nor impact color in any way and my playing with pure raw 3 _did_.
in some cases i found pure raw to more reflect what i wanted, and in others i found LR to more reflect what i wanted.
ymmv
in some cases i found pure raw to more reflect what i wanted, and in others i found LR to more reflect what i wanted.
ymmv
Cameron T
Well-known member
This is basically what I found with topaz vs dxo when I had both. Some images really worked better with one or the other, based on the machine learning each one used to train the program.
That said, I don't use lr, so that's out, and I've found topaz to be less good than dxo often enough that I stopped using topaz completely.
DxO left, LR right
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
Not sure what version of software you are using. I have DxO Pure Raw 3. It works well for wildlife but I do not use it now. I went to DxO Studio 7 to do raw conversions and Denoise. It seems best for fur and feathers to me. I use Lightroom Classic Denoise for raw conversion and Denoise for portrait and some macro photography. I previously used Topaz products but feel the both Studio 7 and LR Classic do a better job, depending on the subject.
EricKlees
Well-known member
I haven't tried PR4 yet but i have generally found LrC in 3rd place behind Topaz Denoise AI (the stand alone app, not Photo AI) and PureRaw 3.
I use Topaz Denoise AI for my sharpening as well. Much less to no artifacts compared to PureRaw or LrC. The stand alone Topaz apps are still better than the Photo AI even though they haven't been updated in over a year.
Point is, this thread shows it's still completely subjective as to what people like. That's why we have choices
I use Topaz Denoise AI for my sharpening as well. Much less to no artifacts compared to PureRaw or LrC. The stand alone Topaz apps are still better than the Photo AI even though they haven't been updated in over a year.
Point is, this thread shows it's still completely subjective as to what people like. That's why we have choices
You have examples of the LR artifacts?
EricKlees
Well-known member
No as I deleted the images after processing. I don't keep files I'm not going to use.
The only time i had lightroom do well enough that i liked it is if i wasn't cropping the image at all r only creeping to straighten the image, so very very minimal crop. If I cropped 50% or now Topaz was the best for me
Last edited:
Doomrider74
Well-known member
I have PR (I'm not sure which version, but it was purchased in 2022) and I use LRc for RAW conversion.
I've been using denoise in LRc recently but now I see PR4 is out, I'm wondering whether it's worth upgrading. Like others here, I find LRc to be good, but DXO is better at some things. I'd be interested to hear if PR4 is worth the upgrade over a slightly older version.
I've been using denoise in LRc recently but now I see PR4 is out, I'm wondering whether it's worth upgrading. Like others here, I find LRc to be good, but DXO is better at some things. I'd be interested to hear if PR4 is worth the upgrade over a slightly older version.
Box Brownie
Member
Do you mean PhotoLab 7.......as I don't recognise DxO Studio 7 ???
You can download a Trial.
Should proof read when I type a quick response. Yes Photolab 7
Box Brownie
Member
Are you able to point to DxO explicitly saying that PL7 is not equal to PR4 in noise reduction & lens corrections functionality?
Bennvdm
Active member
PL7 has only prime xd that came with PL6. No new noise reduction options added. PR4 has prime Xd ver2. It will likely only come with PL8 in Sept/Oct.
Lens softness correction is sharpening strength applied. PR4 has presets while PL7 has sliders (Global, details and bokeh)
I did not buy the Pl7 upgrade from PL6, but have an active trial. Only color management and masking improved. They also managed to include luminosity masking with Filmpack 7 only, which makes no sense to me.
Download 30 day trials of both and see for yourself.
PL7 screenshot
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
Quote from the website:
Users of PhotoLab 7 should note that DeepPRIME XD2 and the new lens softness correction algorithm are currently only available in PureRAW 4. However the development team at DxO are planning to add them to the next major release of PhotoLab.
Last edited:
Box Brownie
Member
Sorry.,....just catching up.
I have PL7 and I take your point about PR4 having a different version......as unfamiliar with PR development compared to PL.
Unfortunately, DxO have their business model.......I was under the impression that PR was in effect a subset of PL and not the program to get first Inception of new functionality.
I added FP to get the full Luminosity tool but only because it was on offer.
If XD2 is slated for PL8 comes as no surprise but that is approx 7 months off!!!
EricKlees
Well-known member
I found it odd that they are waiting for a major release/update to add this to PhotoLabs. This isn't a new feature, but just a update to an existing one. *.1 updates are usually updates to existing features for companies and a full version number like from v7 to v8 is for new features.
Then why not add it to PR3? Money
Cameron T
Well-known member
Yes, which is what I did.
EricKlees
Well-known member
Probably should have been a 3.x update and not a 4.0 honestly. It's just a v2 of an existing model, not something completely new