Does this DXO also work as a stand-alone-software? I suppose it’s not integrated into Capture One, so working as a stand-alone-software would be crucial for me.
zeitlos wrote:
And one more question: Does the current version of DXO PureRAW equal Photolab 4 or 5 in its functionality?
Because if it’s only 4, it might be better to wait for a new version.
You can export directly from PhotoLab to Lightroom, I'm not sure if it works the other way around (but you can fall back to "manual" export via generated file).
I think current releases of PureRAW and PhotoLab contain the same denoising engine, even though the version numbering is different.
FilmPack is also pretty nice in my opinion (avaiable as Lightroom plugin I think too) as it adds a couple extra sliders to PhotoLab.
AGeoJO wrote:
I am actually happy with how Topaz Denoise performs. But the processing time is a little long for my taste. Is PureRAW any faster in processing images than Denoise? To those that does a direct side-by-side comparison, is there a noticeable difference in the processing time between the two? Thanks!
I found PureRAW to take longer on my computer. With that said, I think it depends on your computers performance.
j4nu wrote:
You can export from PhotoLab to Lightroom, I'm not sure if it works the other way around.
I think current releaes of PureRAW and PhotoLab are contain the same denoising engine, even though the version numbering is different.
FilmPack is also pretty nice in my opinion (avaiable as Lightroom plugin I think too) as it adds a couple extra sliders to PhotoLab.
Thank you! (Unfortunately?) I use Capture One
Therefore I need it as stand alone versions. So if PhotoRAW uses the latest technology (i.e. Photolab 5) demolishing/sharpening techonlogy, it’s a good thing and I might buy it. I already bought the Filmarchiv 6 yesterday and was positively suprised. I found the films better than those of in the NIK collection (ColorEffects). Much more refined. But maybe I’m wrong .
Btw. So Photolab 5 includes PhotoRAW functionality. But does it also DXO ViewPoint 3 functionality? If yes, it might be worth a thought to buy Photolab 5 instated of those two packs. But still I want to stick with Capture One. Would have to think about how to implement PL5 into my C1 workflow.
Same question for how to implement DXO PhotoRAW and ViewPoint 3 into my C1 workflow so that it makes sense.
DXO Photolab 5 ELITE edition contains the exact capabilities for denoising that DXP Pure Raw provides. If you are using the standard DXO Photolab Essential you would need to add DXO PureRaw.
I was about to post the same exact screenshot. I usually turn off all corrections when using DeepPrime, which I think it's the best option for noise reduction in PureRaw.
Having said that, I don't use PureRaw for low and medium ISO files. IMO, the magic really happens with high ISO images. It substantially reduces noise while providing a natural looking final result.
zeitlos wrote:
Thank you! (Unfortunately?) I use Capture One
Therefore I need it as stand alone versions. So if PhotoRAW uses the latest technology (i.e. Photolab 5) demolishing/sharpening techonlogy, it’s a good thing and I might buy it. I already bought the Filmarchiv 6 yesterday and was positively suprised. I found the films better than those of in the NIK collection (ColorEffects). Much more refined. But maybe I’m wrong .
Btw. So Photolab 5 includes PhotoRAW functionality. But does it also DXO ViewPoint 3 functionality? If yes, it might be worth a thought to buy Photolab 5 instated of those two packs. But still I want to stick with Capture One. Would have to think about how to implement PL5 into my C1 workflow.
Same question for how to implement DXO PhotoRAW and ViewPoint 3 into my C1 workflow so that it makes sense. ...Show more →
ViewPoint functionality is not included in PhotoLab. You'd need to buy it separately or in a bundle with PL and FP, last time I checked at least.
As for the workflow, I was also a CO-only user, now I'm trying out PL to see if I can really switch. I like the color controls (esp. skintones) more in CO, so what I do sometimes is export (to DNG) the photo in PL (with no corrections, so only with denoising applied) and then process to the end in CO. The downside is that, you're losing lens correction data embedded in EXIF this way. If there is no lens profile in DxO and CO, then you need to do the lens correction (distortion, vignetting, lateral CA) manually...
That is an important point imho, DxO does *not* use embedded correction data, so if there's no DxO lens profile available, you're left with manual correction. I also find that more "exotic" lenses (e.g. CVs) have close to zero chance of ever having a DxO profile unfortunately...
Yes, found this on the DxO Viewpoint page. "DxO ViewPoint exists as an independent application, a plugin for DxO PhotoLab, and an external editor for Adobe® Photoshop®, Adobe® Lightroom® and Adobe® Photoshop Elements®."
I'm starting to work with Photolab so will be picking Viewpoint up on sale. Took advantage of adding some Topaz on sale, too.
Can you elaborate a bit on this workflow? I use LR for cataloging and quick and dirty raw edits, but I usually do heavier edits in C1 before exporting to PS for finishing. Are you saying that you can de-noise in DxO, save that out as a DNG and still have access to all of the other raw data in C1?
j4nu wrote:
ViewPoint functionality is not included in PhotoLab. You'd need to buy it separately or in a bundle with PL and FP, last time I checked at least.
As for the workflow, I was also a CO-only user, now I'm trying out PL to see if I can really switch. I like the color controls (esp. skintones) more in CO, so what I do sometimes is export (to DNG) the photo in PL (with no corrections, so only with denoising applied) and then process to the end in CO. The downside is that, you're losing lens correction data embedded in EXIF this way. If there is no lens profile in DxO and CO, then you need to do the lens correction (distortion, vignetting, lateral CA) manually...
That is an important point imho, DxO does *not* use embedded correction data, so if there's no DxO lens profile available, you're left with manual correction. I also find that more "exotic" lenses (e.g. CVs) have close to zero chance of ever having a DxO profile unfortunately......Show more →
You might want to try it on low ISO files. It gets rid of the pixelation/grit you see in skies after sharpening, and I don't really see a loss in actual detail.
At 2x, look at the full size link though to really see the difference. In the shot below, the shot on the left was processed through DxO PureRAW then taken into Lightroom. The shot on the right was just processed directly in Lightroom.
I was about to post the same exact screenshot. I usually turn off all corrections when using DeepPrime, which I think it's the best option for noise reduction in PureRaw.
Having said that, I don't use PureRaw for low and medium ISO files. IMO, the magic really happens with high ISO images. It substantially reduces noise while providing a natural looking final result.
fuzzykeys wrote:
Can you elaborate a bit on this workflow? I use LR for cataloging and quick and dirty raw edits, but I usually do heavier edits in C1 before exporting to PS for finishing. Are you saying that you can de-noise in DxO, save that out as a DNG and still have access to all of the other raw data in C1?
Yes, so basically the demosaicing and denoising steps of RAW processing can be done in DxO.
PureRAW is targetted exactly towards this kind of "pre" processing (you can also enable lens correction + sharpening as shown by Fred).
The resulting DNG file can be then edited in CO or LR. AFAIR, there's no data loss (I'm talking about actual "picture" data here, not EXIF) involved in this process (of course there are differences in demosaicing, that's why I started using DxO in the first place, as CO likes to produce black pixels in A1 files).
In PhotoLab, you can do full processing and you also have more control over the applied denoising, sharpening and lens correction (and you can still export it to DNG for further processing), compared to PureRAW.
j4nu wrote:
Yes, so basically the demosaicing and denoising steps of RAW processing can be done in DxO.
PureRAW is targetted exactly towards this kind of "pre" processing (you can also enable lens correction + sharpening as shown by Fred).
The resulting DNG file can be then edited in CO or LR. AFAIR, there's no no data loss (I'm talking about actual "picture" data here, not EXIF) involved in this process (of course there are differences in demosaicing, that's why I started using DxO in the first place, as CO likes to produce black pixels on A1 files).
In PhotoLab, you can do full processing and you also have more control over the applied denoising, sharpening and lens correction (and you can still export it to DNG for further processing), compared to PureRAW....Show more →
I'm using both DXO Photolab 5 and the latest Topaz DeNoise for denoise processing. As others have commented Topaz is now recommending a different approach to processing RAW files for noise processing and I think this may result in better noise processing then how I was doing it previously. BUT I've never had complaints about Topaz DeNoise since I started using it.
LR is my main editing app and that's not going to change any time soon, but I do use DXO Photolab 5 particularly when I want to get into tight areas ( no layers needed) and do a lot of spot editing to include adding spot micro contrast when I need/want. Photolab's Local Adjustment tool is worth the price of admission for this alone IMO. Even more so when on offer like it is now.
You might want to try it on low ISO files. It gets rid of the pixelation/grit you see in skies after sharpening, and I don't really see a loss in actual detail.
At 2x, look at the full size link though to really see the difference.
I also find it suppresses moire better than Lightroom alone.
Thanks Tim.
I do not find it does a bad job with low ISO images, it's just not as needed in my opinion. Also for portraits (people), I prefer using the original low ISO RAW files for a more natural look.
No arguments Fred, wasn't sure you had tried it. Post processing to me is always a personal preference in terms of what someone looks for in their output. I just found the differences interesting, for example the moire shot above.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks Tim.
I do not find it does a bad job with low ISO images, it's just not as needed in my opinion. Also for portraits (people), I prefer using the original low ISO RAW files for a more natural look.
LBJ2 wrote:
I'm using both DXO Photolab 5 and the latest Topaz DeNoise for denoise processing. As others have commented Topaz is now recommending a different approach to processing RAW files for noise processing and I think this may result in better noise processing then how I was doing it previously. BUT I've never had complaints about Topaz DeNoise since I started using it.
LR is my main editing app and that's not going to change any time soon, but I do use DXO Photolab 5 particularly when I want to get into tight areas ( no layers needed) and do a lot of spot editing to include adding spot micro contrast when I need/want. Photolab's Local Adjustment tool is worth the price of admission for this alone IMO. Even more so when on offer like it is now.
Thanks, I'll probably try the RAW option in Topaz, just to see how it compares. The thing is I'm shooting in lossless and it's 9 months or so since A1 release and Topaz still does not support it...
.