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?
j4nu wrote: zeitlos wrote: j4nu wrote: 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 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.
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, 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 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.
Nov 27, 2021 at 01:57 PM
Previous versions of j4nu's message #15780354 « DXO vs Topaz Denoise »
.