p.2 #1 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
Badger wrote:
Thanks. This feels really odd because it feels like running the original through a denoise program first should give the best possible starting point and may even influence what other edits I may wish to make
At least the constraints are now clearer. What seems to matter now is whether the denoise in DPP is better than third party denoise programs - which the video above (thanks @IndyFab@) seems to indicate it should be given Canon has the inside info on sensor and processor
Do you recommend an 8 or 16 bit TIFF? With or without EXIF?
I also shoot Sony, and I found the free Capture 1 download for Sony works fantastic, I never tried Sony's software, but when I next edit a Sony file I will download the Sony software and compare it to Capture 1 To see what I feel is better.
Unfortunately Capture 1 does not have a free download for Canon, Only Fuji Nikon & Sony.
The problem with DPP is you cant first run your raw file thru a denoise software, then into DPP it will not except DNG or Tiff files, they must be the Raw file. DPP is a Raw editor
p.2 #2 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
That's the issue. While LR and other software will work work with plugins. Canon has always been pretty tight with this. Most likely because it is archaic and Canon can be pretty tight with their stuff. Since it is free Canon is not motivated to revamp it. They make a few small changes here and there and add RAW support. The last time they had a major update was when they added DLO. That was over 10 years ago.
Since iPhones, Covid, etc I have noticed Canon is not the same. How long has the R3 been out and no AF guide as far as I know. The 1D4 has one. They have pulled tons of videos, blogs, documents, etc off the web and do not produce as many as the used to.
p.2 #3 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
The last few days I have been playing around with DPP, which was one of them. I cropped and exported the file as a TIFF and my final presentation size. I then opened that file in Topaz Sharpen AI which offers additional NR and sharpening of course. I then saved as a Jpeg. Pretty good results. I wouldn't even need to keep the TIFF around. Just export again if I need it.
p.2 #4 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
By way of update on this (with some travel in the interim, to explain why this thread went quiet from me).......
Tried both DPP to TIFF to DXO PR and DXO PR to TIFF to DPP and neither worked well. The first not possible (DXO PR will not read TIFFs - as per @IndyFab) and the second lost a lot of meta data and some important functionality would not work in DPP. So, no way forward with DXO PR
As suggested above, will now try PL (thanks @ The Rat) and, if I can get a trial of Topaz Sharpen AI, use that (thanks @Zenon Char)
Interested in the Walks on the Wildside video and the point he makes about denoising after processing vs before - processing can cause more noise and therefore denoising after can take out any processing induced noise.
p.2 #5 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
Badger wrote:
By way of update on this (with some travel in the interim, to explain why this thread went quiet from me).......
Tried both DPP to TIFF to DXO PR and DXO PR to TIFF to DPP and neither worked well. The first not possible (DXO PR will not read TIFFs - as per @IndyFab@) and the second lost a lot of meta data and some important functionality would not work in DPP. So, no way forward with DXO PR
As suggested above, will now try PL (thanks @ The Rat) and, if I can get a trial of Topaz Sharpen AI, use that (thanks @Zenon Char@)
Interested in the Walks on the Wildside video and the point he makes about denoising after processing vs before - processing can cause more noise and therefore denoising after can take out any processing induced noise.
Topaz will have a big announcement on Sept 7th for Photo AI. Many are speculating that the 3 stand alone will no longer be for sale after this month. Even if you do buy it before they pull it off off the shelf you is still get a years support. Not sure how much that will amount too. Sharpen AI only had one update in the last year. All their efforts are going into Photo AI. Sharpen AI is a mature product and since it opens as a TIFF you will get years out of it.
p.2 #6 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
Badger wrote:
By way of update on this (with some travel in the interim, to explain why this thread went quiet from me).......
Tried both DPP to TIFF to DXO PR and DXO PR to TIFF to DPP and neither worked well. The first not possible (DXO PR will not read TIFFs - as per @IndyFab@) and the second lost a lot of meta data and some important functionality would not work in DPP. So, no way forward with DXO PR
As suggested above, will now try PL (thanks @ The Rat) and, if I can get a trial of Topaz Sharpen AI, use that (thanks @Zenon Char@)
Interested in the Walks on the Wildside video and the point he makes about denoising after processing vs before - processing can cause more noise and therefore denoising after can take out any processing induced noise.
Just FYI regarding DxO Photolab, they usually release a new version in late Oct/early Nov or so. Given that we're almost there, I'd recommend using their free 30 day trial for a bit, and if you like it, wait till the new version is released. No point in buying the current version with the new one right around the corner.
p.2 #7 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
Badger wrote:
By way of update on this (with some travel in the interim, to explain why this thread went quiet from me).......
Tried both DPP to TIFF to DXO PR and DXO PR to TIFF to DPP and neither worked well. The first not possible (DXO PR will not read TIFFs - as per @IndyFab@) and the second lost a lot of meta data and some important functionality would not work in DPP. So, no way forward with DXO PR
As suggested above, will now try PL (thanks @ The Rat) and, if I can get a trial of Topaz Sharpen AI, use that (thanks @Zenon Char@)
Interested in the Walks on the Wildside video and the point he makes about denoising after processing vs before - processing can cause more noise and therefore denoising after can take out any processing induced noise.
I would seriously consider Topaz Photo AI vs stand alone Topaz Denoise AI or Sharpen AI , Photo AI has both Denoise & Sharpen and Upsizing, you can choose what the app does, plus it's constantly getting updates improving its performance.
p.2 #8 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
The Rat wrote:
Just FYI regarding DxO Photolab, they usually release a new version in late Oct/early Nov or so. Given that we're almost there, I'd recommend using their free 30 day trial for a bit, and if you like it, wait till the new version is released. No point in buying the current version with the new one right around the corner.
Should be safe now. If you purchased PL6 today and falls outside 30 days you will not get the PL7 update. DXO is not forgiving in that area.
p.2 #9 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
IndyFab wrote:
I would seriously consider Topaz Photo AI vs stand alone Topaz Denoise AI or Sharpen AI , Photo AI has both Denoise & Sharpen and Upsizing, you can choose what the app does, plus it's constantly getting updates improving its performance.
Photo AI was released a little early which is why it has been getting an update a week since last fall. Despite having the stand alone apps I used it for that reason. Both under one roof. It was getting pretty good by April/May but I stopped using it when Adobe Denoise AI came out. I imagine it has even got better since May. 16 updates since then. I would likely gotten V2 this September but it's time to cool the jets on 3rd party apps.
p.2 #10 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
In August I compared Topaz Photo AI against DXO PL6 on RAW files. Photo AI is better than it was but clearly not as good as DXO on noisy RAW files. It's really a shame that nobody has a good NR tool that works on already converted images. I don't expect it will work as well as on a RAW file, but there is too much of a gap.
p.2 #11 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
Next instalment of this journey.
I have downloaded a trial version of Topaz AI DeNoise and run some tests using CR2 and CR3 files and some JPGs generated from earlier versions of DPP.
First, Topaz saves Canon RAW files as DNG, which DPP cannot read. Same as DXO. So the workflow of running RAW files through Topaz before doing modifications in DPP is not possible.
Second, neither Topaz nor DXO was able to read modifications to a RAW file saved from DPP. So, if I make the mods in DPP and save them to the RAW file, they will not be used as input to Topaz, even if DNG were an acceptable output format (over JPG or TIFF).
Exam questions:-
- Does running old JPGs through Topaz make them better than running the original CR2's through a more modern version of DPP and creating a new JPG?
o Answer - No
- Is a TIFF file from DPP using Digital Lens Optimiser run through Topaz AI better than a TIFF created by Topaz AI modified in DPP?
• Answer – does not appear to be. DPP cannot read the TIFF files created by Topaz - unclear why. Looking at them side by side in Mac Preview, it appears that the colors are a bit washed out and the feathers are smoothed. Overall, no real value add
Where this is heading seems to be:
- Stick with DPP and accept the shortcomings and lack of development by Canon
- Drop DPP altogether and go to a new product suite - Topaz AI or DXO PhotoLab and accept the risk of loss of processing information should I need to change again in the future
- Get over my aversion to Adobe (nice Heron @IndyFab!)
Do please let me know if the above logic and/or process is flawed. Per previous post, surely the software Canon supplies should offer the best opportunity to manipulate Canon generated images while maintaining the integrity of the original file, supported by saving the modifications during editing?
p.2 #12 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
I'm averted to banks, my cable/phone company (they are all the same), Netflix, Prime (especially), car dealerships just to mention a few but I still deal with them.
Also they have all gone up in price in the last 7 years expect for one. The Adobe Photo plan. Not only that they introduced Adobe Denoise AI which will save me a few hundred a year in 3rd party apps and headaches trying to decide which one to use on a particular day.
That does not mean I'm not averted to Adobe's subscription plan. I just don't think or worry about it.
p.2 #13 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
Badger wrote:
Next instalment of this journey.
I have downloaded a trial version of Topaz AI DeNoise and run some tests using CR2 and CR3 files and some JPGs generated from earlier versions of DPP.
First, Topaz saves Canon RAW files as DNG, which DPP cannot read. Same as DXO. So the workflow of running RAW files through Topaz before doing modifications in DPP is not possible.
Second, neither Topaz nor DXO was able to read modifications to a RAW file saved from DPP. So, if I make the mods in DPP and save them to the RAW file, they will not be used as input to Topaz, even if DNG were an acceptable output format (over JPG or TIFF).
Exam questions:-
- Does running old JPGs through Topaz make them better than running the original CR2's through a more modern version of DPP and creating a new JPG?
o Answer - No
- Is a TIFF file from DPP using Digital Lens Optimiser run through Topaz AI better than a TIFF created by Topaz AI modified in DPP?
• Answer – does not appear to be. DPP cannot read the TIFF files created by Topaz - unclear why. Looking at them side by side in Mac Preview, it appears that the colors are a bit washed out and the feathers are smoothed. Overall, no real value add
Where this is heading seems to be:
- Stick with DPP and accept the shortcomings and lack of development by Canon
- Drop DPP altogether and go to a new product suite - Topaz AI or DXO PhotoLab and accept the risk of loss of processing information should I need to change again in the future
- Get over my aversion to Adobe (nice Heron @IndyFab@!)
Do please let me know if the above logic and/or process is flawed. Per previous post, surely the software Canon supplies should offer the best opportunity to manipulate Canon generated images while maintaining the integrity of the original file, supported by saving the modifications during editing?...Show more →
My short answer to this long discussion is :
The best denoising are done with the raw files. It's either Lightroom Denoise, DXO Deep Prime, On One was not too bad. I don't like Topaz which creates way more artefacts than the others in my experiments.
--> Then you can finish your post processing using the same software (not Topaz of course, and not Pure Raw, but you can with Photolab, LR and One one), or you can create a linear DNG and finish with C1, Lr or the few others which accept linear DNG files. Which means : absolutely no software coming from the camera brands. There is just no way for you to have the DPP rendering and the best denoising of the market.
OR : you do everything in DPP, export a tiff and use Topaz on the resulting tiff. But it won't be as good as a denoising done on the raw file itself.
p.2 #15 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
Badger wrote:
Next instalment of this journey.
I have downloaded a trial version of Topaz AI DeNoise and run some tests using CR2 and CR3 files and some JPGs generated from earlier versions of DPP.
First, Topaz saves Canon RAW files as DNG, which DPP cannot read. Same as DXO. So the workflow of running RAW files through Topaz before doing modifications in DPP is not possible.
Second, neither Topaz nor DXO was able to read modifications to a RAW file saved from DPP. So, if I make the mods in DPP and save them to the RAW file, they will not be used as input to Topaz, even if DNG were an acceptable output format (over JPG or TIFF).
Exam questions:-
- Does running old JPGs through Topaz make them better than running the original CR2's through a more modern version of DPP and creating a new JPG?
o Answer - No
- Is a TIFF file from DPP using Digital Lens Optimiser run through Topaz AI better than a TIFF created by Topaz AI modified in DPP?
• Answer – does not appear to be. DPP cannot read the TIFF files created by Topaz - unclear why. Looking at them side by side in Mac Preview, it appears that the colors are a bit washed out and the feathers are smoothed. Overall, no real value add
Where this is heading seems to be:
- Stick with DPP and accept the shortcomings and lack of development by Canon
- Drop DPP altogether and go to a new product suite - Topaz AI or DXO PhotoLab and accept the risk of loss of processing information should I need to change again in the future
- Get over my aversion to Adobe (nice Heron @IndyFab@!)
Do please let me know if the above logic and/or process is flawed. Per previous post, surely the software Canon supplies should offer the best opportunity to manipulate Canon generated images while maintaining the integrity of the original file, supported by saving the modifications during editing?...Show more →
Well a congrats is in order for doing some A/B testing.
Where this is heading seems to be:
Ultimately it is going to be you who decides what will be your workflow.
I will say my workflow always includes to denoise initially which eliminate any camera manufactures software.
With that said, the big three are Adobe LR & PS / Capture One / DXO Photo Lab
Down load the free trials of Topaz Photo AI and DXO Pure Raw and download and use free trial of Adobe and Capture One, and see which one appeals to you. DXO Photo Lab will already have it's most advanced Pure Raw in it, so its all inclusive. Also Adobe now has Denoise AI in as well . So both Adobe and DXO Phot Lab is all inclusive should you decide to go with either. I am not 100% sure if Capture One now has Denoise AI in it as well. Perhaps someone can shine in on that.
My present workflow is using Topaz Photo AI initially, and then into Adobe LR & PS. Reason being PS offers me options the others dont.
So long as you Denoise the raw initially, and use any above mentioned, it should render you good results.
p.2 #16 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
There were comments above like "Topaz which creates way more artefacts."
If this is about Topaz Photo AI, this could possibly be due to this setting "Recover Original Detail" that by default is set to 0 (zero). Confusingly, this is the value when the "recovery" is at its strongest. The resulting images may look ugly over-sharpened. From time to time I do two-step denoising, first in DxO PL, then take the output as TIF to Photo AI and run another Denoise there when I make sure I change "Recover Original Detail" to 90-100.
p.2 #17 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
Badger, your problem is a choice of picking your poison. We can't make the choice for you.
If you want to stick with DPP, you've found the limitations there in your testing. If you're willing to abandon DPP completely, you have options everywhere.
The last several lines of your most recent post refer to non-destructive editing. DXO Photolab and Adobe Lightroom use this. You also mentioned being able to see your developing history in DPP, enabling you to see the consequence of every choice you make in the editing process. Both PL and LR do this too.
My workflow looks like 1) ingest into LR 6 with perpetual license 2) cull and pick in LR6 3) send picks to PL5 - everything is still RAW right now 4) do all editing, including the noise reduction, in PL5 5) export as TIFF back to LR6 6) resize, rename, export as jpg from LR6 to portfolio
Due to non destructive editing, all the RAWs are untouched. All my developing adjustments are baked into the TIFF that Photolab spits out. I could stop there, but I use LR6 to create JPG that goes to clients, because clients want the JPG.
p.2 #18 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
Oscarsmadness wrote:
Badger, your problem is a choice of picking your poison. We can't make the choice for you.
If you want to stick with DPP, you've found the limitations there in your testing. If you're willing to abandon DPP completely, you have options everywhere.
The last several lines of your most recent post refer to non-destructive editing. DXO Photolab and Adobe Lightroom use this. You also mentioned being able to see your developing history in DPP, enabling you to see the consequence of every choice you make in the editing process. Both PL and LR do this too.
My workflow looks like 1) ingest into LR 6 with perpetual license 2) cull and pick in LR6 3) send picks to PL5 - everything is still RAW right now 4) do all editing, including the noise reduction, in PL5 5) export as TIFF back to LR6 6) resize, rename, export as jpg from LR6 to portfolio
Due to non destructive editing, all the RAWs are untouched. All my developing adjustments are baked into the TIFF that Photolab spits out. I could stop there, but I use LR6 to create JPG that goes to clients, because clients want the JPG. ...Show more →
Just a heads up, by default LR adds in the detail panel sharpening, noise & color reduction when ingesting into LR. Be sure to zero out all the sliders before using a Denoise AI software.
p.2 #19 · DXO PureRAW in workflow that does not include Adobe – specifically, Canon DPP
IndyFab wrote:
Just a heads up, by default LR adds in the detail panel sharpening, noise & color reduction when ingesting into LR. Be sure to zero out all the sliders before using a Denoise AI software.
I don't remember this happening in my specific workflow. Either I changed those defaults so long ago that I don't remember, or this default was never a thing in LR6....
However this is very useful information!
