DXO PureRaw vs Adobe Enhance vs Others for R5ii

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · DXO PureRaw vs Adobe Enhance vs Others for R5ii

Jan Wegener (bird photographer) says:

DXO Pure Raw 4 is best of the bunch (LR, DXOPR, Topaz) for noise processing
But up to iso 1600, adobe Enhance is very close
At even at very high ISO's Adobe Enhance is pretty close - need to double processing background noise
He considers that he would normally use Adobe Enhance for reasonable ISO, but flip to DXOPR for very high (eg >10,000 iso).

This is consistent with my testing. eg LR Adobe Enhance is very good and simplest. But very high ISO require more work with LR, particularly in background noise.

Oct 01, 2024 at 12:00 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · DXO PureRaw vs Adobe Enhance vs Others for R5ii

AmbientMike wrote:
It's pretty easy to get tripped up on a couple things and not get the most detail out of DPP.

That's the thing, there's so many settings you wonder about the results in the article. Might get different results depending on the settings.

I agree, DPP is bit awkward, even finding the settings is awkward, then seeing the impact before and after is awkward - and then knowing whether the new colour is better than the alternate setting colour is difficult. But if you had it set up, my testing results were pretty good but required more background noise processing - much like LR.

Oct 01, 2024 at 12:03 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · DXO PureRaw vs Adobe Enhance vs Others for R5ii

Hairy Heron wrote:
I find Topaz worlds better than LR especially when noise is prominent. The problem with Topaz right now is it’s not compatible with the R5 II’s RAW files. You have to convert to DNG. Topaz has no idea when compatibility will come.

My workflow is
- Cull, rename, tag, & star files in Bridge
- Import to LR as CR3s
- Edit starred photos including round trip to Topaz for denoising if needed - returns to LR as a RAW file, but copy so I don’t “lose” the original. If I need advanced corrections after LR I round trip to PS.

This...Show more →

Thanks - for your workflow and thoughts on Topaz.

After watching Jan Wageners video, I am inclined to purchase DXOPR, for high ISO processing. The instant preview and adjustments and 1 step are appealing for high ISO. I suspect Topaz is similar. But you identify the reason I am inclined to stay in LR - most software developers create a time gap when new camera's come out, but Adobe is usually fastest.

My complication is my winter focus on landscape and my summer focus on backpacking/landscape - I shoot lots of AEB to manage dynamic range. Particularly backpacking requires lens correction (use lighter distortion correction needier lighter lens) before Photomatix and culling. Thus for 1/2 of my shooting I have to convert either through LR or DXO or DDPP before photomatix. The extra step is time consuming. DPP takes about a minute a picture, then Photomatix takes another minute per 3 AEB pictures. On a busy day after getting up at 4am and hiking and shooting and returning, while my wife watches me take more time away from her, I am spending too much time on processing.

Oct 01, 2024 at 12:14 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · DXO PureRaw vs Adobe Enhance vs Others for R5ii

Scott Stoness wrote:
I agree, DPP is bit awkward, even finding the settings is awkward, then seeing the impact before and after is awkward - and then knowing whether the new colour is better than the alternate setting colour is difficult. But if you had it set up, my testing results were pretty good but required more background noise processing - much like LR.

DPP gives colors a lot closer to the lcd as opposed to the train wreck the other processors tended to serve up , that I then had to fix.

I found DPP faster and less aggravating, DxO much slower several years ago, in addition to requiring more corrections. None very fast, especially since one often had to spend minutes adjusting everything regardless of raw processor.

IDK that I find it more or less awkward, I've used it more vs others though. Perhaps those used to ps and Adobe find it awkward, but I never really used those that much. I agree NR needs some help, even there chrominanxe NR seems excellent

Oct 01, 2024 at 01:39 PM

koenkooi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · DXO PureRaw vs Adobe Enhance vs Others for R5ii

For my usecase, natural light macro, DxO PR4 gives the best effort/result trade off. I first import everything in LR, cull and then run the remaining pictures through PR4.
I set PR4 to 40/0/soft on the first 3 controls, that gives me the best starting point for the cameras and lenses I have. For the R8, I set the 2nd slider to a slight negative value, for the R5II a slight positive value, That results in a picture that is sharper than LR produces, but, to my eyes, not over sharpened. Copy/paste the settings and then batch process all shots.

When trying out Topaz PAI 3.2.0, I could get much better results for really high ISO (20k), but it took a lot of fiddling with the operations to add and their settings. And settings that made a dragonfly in one shot look great turned it into a molten wax rendering in the next shot. Not great when the precapture option gives you 20 in-focus shots that you want to cull after denoising. Even shots in the same burst needed significant changes in processing with Topaz.

So PR4 is my first choice, Adobe enhance when I'm lazy and don't need to recover details and Topaz for outstanding shots where I have both the time and motivation to spend 10 minutes per picture tweaking ill-documented sliders.

Oct 02, 2024 at 04:23 AM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · DXO PureRaw vs Adobe Enhance vs Others for R5ii

koenkooi wrote:
For my usecase, natural light macro, DxO PR4 gives the best effort/result trade off. I first import everything in LR, cull and then run the remaining pictures through PR4.
I set PR4 to 40/0/soft on the first 3 controls, that gives me the best starting point for the cameras and lenses I have. For the R8, I set the 2nd slider to a slight negative value, for the R5II a slight positive value, That results in a picture that is sharper than LR produces, but, to my eyes, not over sharpened. Copy/paste the settings and then batch process all shots.

When trying...Show more →

Thanks - good detailed useful input. Much appreciated.

You run unculled through plugin ? This lets you do a bunch at a time. ? Are they stacked? In lr automatically. ?

Oct 02, 2024 at 03:57 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.