Sorry! I know, I had trouble with audio in this video, I only realised it after I recorded it, I had a broken mic!!! I spent one day to fix it so you can make out the words, otherwise, you wouldn't be able to hear it. I ordered a new mic and it's fine now.
I have just tested a lot of images between 400 to 3000 ISO and I was really astonished - the noise in the raw was blown away and having done did the same transformations in Capture One to the dng files as I did to the ORF files and I was pretty amazed! I will also try PhotoLab 4 for a month before I decide to either remain with C1 with the option of preprocessing critical RAW images in PureRaw or to switch to DxO entirely.
I tried both PureRaw and Denoise AI on my Panasonic G85 raw images. In my opinion, PureRaw gave the better result (amateur opinion). I like that I just have to drop files in and hit the process button. I never thought my photos could look so good. Saved me $$$$ from not upgrading my camera.
Cheers Jeff, Topaz is pretty cool, my only complaint is speed, to just work on one image at a time, that may not be so bad, but to do batch, this could really be awful. I prefer PL4 before because it's quick, but to use Deep Prime, I needed the RAW file which means that I can't 'export' from LR just for the noise reduction and sharpening, but now, I can because it's a reverse process here, PureRAW actually denoise and enhance my RAW files before importing to LR for edit, this may be an extra steps but overall saving me lots of time.
@@Red35Photography Thanks for that explanation Jimmy. You’re right about it being slow but that doesn’t bother me as I don’t tend to do batches but individual images if I think they need tweaking. I try to get it right in camera so I don’t have to too much post. Cheers Jeff
Nice! I am a DxO Photo Lab 4 user, but only use it to convert RAW to DNG with Denoise Prime and Optical corrects applied. Then import to Lightroom Classic. So this new program will be perfect for me.
@@Red35Photography I am considering it. Still I already own DxO PhotoLab 4 so will I really gain any thing. Only thing might be that it will be easier and quicker to use just to get the lens corrections and noise reduction.
@@davidblack2632 If you already have PL4, then in my opinion PureRAW is not needed. I can replicate the PureRAW workflow very easily in PL4 and export to Lightroom. I understand why DxO have given customers this option, particularly if folks are only interested in the optics and noise reduction capabilities, but I can’t see any benefit if you’re already in the PhotoLab ecosystem - unless you have $90 burning a hole in your pocket ;)
@@andyhughes073 You are correct! I would have brought PureRAW if I didn't already own PhotoLab4. I might consider it if it was quicker processing the image. With PhotoLab 4 I get to preview and adjust before exporting as a DNG file.
Addendum: as some viewers have remarked the sharpening can be quite nervous, overexaggerating structures to a very unrealistic level. So for relatively unstructured areas PureRaw does a fine job but for others like faces with beards, woolen clothes etc. this is not so fine. So I will also test the DxO Photolab Elite version where denoising and sharpening can be applied separately and both parameterized and especially restricted to subareas!
Yes, to me it's fine. I just won't add any more sharpening in LR. In fact, if you add more sharpening in LR, it will ruin the photos. Perhaps DxO can address this by making the lens correction/enhancement more subtle and lets users do some of that in post :)
Unfortunately, DxO Pure Raw does not support ORF files from the 'old' Olympus E-1, E-300 and E-500 camera's. I'm quite sure it has something to do with the CCD sensor these camera's used. A bit disappointing to me, as I love my E-1...
Thanks Jimmy, I'm quite happy with Photolab 4, if I ever use Lightroom more in future, I may splurge on PureRaw for a simpler plugin... I'm still just so impressed with the Jpegs from my EM5 Mkii, great colours and even the in camera noise reduction is awesome. As I shoot Jpeg + Raw, I edit the RAW files about half the time to treat shadows/highlights a bit more and denoise a bit. But I almost never have to touch the colour....Saving for a second hand EM1 Mkiii which is still very scarce in Australia...
Great to hear mate, PL4 is very powerful, PureRAW is essentially a 'skimmed' version of it but mainly to focus on noise and profiles but one extra brownie is the DNG RAW for edit later, this is pretty much most pros want :)
Hi Jimmy, I don't see the advantage of RAW Photo File Enhancer. DxO PhotoLab 4 is already very easy to use and a photographer can export a DNG file directly into PhotoShop or Lightroom. I've been using a combination of software programs for years, choosing the best functions from each one. It's actually pretty fast and simple to do. I use DxO PhotoLab 4 as my RAW processor, using the auto lens corrections, DeepPRIME (one needs to be careful with the amount of noise reduction), DxO SmartLighting Spot Weighted, then export a DNG file into CS6. From there I can use anything I want in PhotoShop and access the Nik Collection. I finish my files with Topaz Denoise AI as a plug in to CS6. Most of my RAW files only take 3-4 minutes maximum including processing time. Tom
THX Jimmy for this tip! Seen in the early morning and tried it immediately afterwards with the trial version. At a first glance: much better results than my trusty Topaz Denoise I use since a year. Prob meanwhile: dng's from smartphones are not supported. Hopefully there's coming an up-date. Would be another great opportunity for cleaning mobile-pics too. Pics from my Pana G9 with 2000 ISO (300 mm teleshoots with f 5.6 and shorter times for birding) came out as like nearby captured with base-ISO. Ingenious tool especially for M43-users.
Thanks Gerhard, I am glad you enjoyed the video and found the app useful. I did a comparison between ACR/LR, DxO, Topaz in another video, you can clearly see just how good DxO is from a variety of application. Since I did the review for DxO last year, I have over a couple of hundred M43 shooters told me how cool this is. I too transformed an ISO2000 from my Olympus EM1 III file to something like ISO 200-400!
DXO PhotoLab 4 is a little because you can and just the Luminance slider door Deep Prime. I sometimes go up to 55 to remove grain in the out of focus area. But even at 40 still looks good and you will have to look for the grain.
Co-incidentally I was already playing with PureRAW before I even saw this video. I've have some really amazing results from it, but also had some mixed results too, I think it depends on the image you are using. On a shot of a model in a wide shot (so not close up head & shoulders shot) I found when I zoomed in the models face & hair got messed up, and LR looked much better in a side-by-side comparison no matter which NR mode I used, this seems to be down to how it does its sharpening. In this case I got a better result processing in LR and then using Topaz Sharpen AI at the end.
@@Red35Photography I can only see the option to select the type of NR to use, there is nothing to disable profile correction that I can see, maybe they removed that from the release version. Still does an impressive job, but will just have to use it selectively for now
@@Red35Photography Ahhhh, I see what you mean. I was looking for a specific tick box to enable/disable it. I do think the processing side could do with more options/controls, plus ability to specify a naming format for the output files. It is only v1.0 so I am sure there will be lots of bits & pieces appearing as they get more & more feedback. I own a copy now on the basis of the impressive NR reduction... annoyingly I'd just renewed my Topaz updates for a year
Really good video thanks. To me if your are an existing PhotoLab Elite user, PureRAW really is not worth it unless you have money to burn. The cost is an issue too, ignoring the current promo rates, PureRAW seems to be not much less than PL4. I’d rather pay the extra and get all the additional functionality PL4 brings! From a workflow perspective, having tried both, I don’t see much advantage to PureRAW to be honest either - certainly not enough to justify the price.
Cheers Andy, yes I totally agree, I am looking at it from a different perspective. If I have neither, and already using a pre-defined workflow (LR/CaptureONE... etc.) PureRAW makes total sense. I love PhotoLab and it's very powerful, yet, as said in the video, I still use Lightroom for most works, as I have too many images in the library to manage and switching is very... cumbersome. So, rather, I use PL4 as a plugin for noise reduction and other edits if needed. I have converted many to switch over to PL4 since I last reviewed it, I still swear by it, as long as you don't have a huge library like me or has a pro workflow that's been settled for years. Don't forget, you need PL4 Elite for all the powers which is significantly more expensive than PureRAW. I think it has a niche and for those who needs just that noise reduction and profile corrections.
@@Red35Photography I agree, and if I wasn't already a PL4 user, I'd be tempted by PureRAW and I can definitely see why folks would be interested. My main argument is the value proposition of PureRAW. I expect the high price is because it offers the two features that probably cost the most to develop, but full price purchase of PureRAW is $129 vs $199 for PL4 Elite - that's worst case a $70 difference. After that investment you're on upgrade pricing. Question I would ask is whether the extra $70 is worth it for all the additional excellent features PL4 has that could enhance any existing workflow (great Colour Grading, Smart Lighting, Control Points etc)? I time my PL upgrades to coincide with DxO generous 50% Black Friday deal, for the past 2 years I've got PL3 and 4 for $60. Following that logic through, a PureRAW upgrade might be offered at ~$40 during Black Friday - only $20 difference.
It all depends on your camera. Older models and smaller sensors will benefit more and could save you money rather than upgrading. You could rework older photos if you have the RAWs.
This, I'm going to dive into, Jimmy. For the past several years, I've been trying - "trialling"! - numerous post processing software programs. Some good - some bad - some making promises they can't keep, but never mind, at least they're trying. Some that I won't be mentioning, because I'm not in the business of "slamming" other people's products. "Noise" is endemic with digital. It's even called "digi-noise". And it's the digital equivalent of the grain we used to put up with during the analogue film camera era. So it's here to stay. It's part of the product. People with medium format cameras, like the Hassy, report "better detail in the highlights", "better detail in the shadows", and less digital noise. For the rest of us, all sorts of programs claim to deal with digi-noise. Some are pretty good, too. But there's generally a trade-off. Removing noise often leads to a softening of sharpness. I'll be fascinated to try this stuff out, and see what I get!
After using PureRAW for a while I've observed that the sharpening is way too aggressive at least with my Olympus bodies and MFT lenses. There needs to ba an option to adjust it or disable it. In other respects it's good but I've gone back to using PhotoLab 4 in preference as one can adjust the sharpening to taste.
Hi Jimmy, I have tested PureRaw and am really impressed. But now, in addition to the RAW file, you have an additional DNG file that is about four times as large. How to solve the problem? My workflow is as follows: after importing the DNG into Capture One and making all the adjustments, I copy all the adjustments to the RAW file. This can be done in Capture One with 2 clicks. This may seem nonsensical since only the edited DNG file represents the finished photo in good quality. But I only use the RAW file as a note for the adjustments. If I delete the DNG and recreate it again from the RAW file using PureRaw, I can simply copy the adjustments from the RAW file back to the newly created DNG and have my perfectly rendered photo back. This way I save a lot of disk space.
Addendum 2: the DNG format PureRaw produces os a linear dng, an already demosaiced file that is with color information, fixed white balance, and less dynamic range so that e.g. brighten dark parts or darken bright areas does not retain "hidden" information - at least in the way it is possible for raw! The same with DxO PhotoLab! So either most of the the whole processing should be done in DxO Photolab or only at the end of the processing in Capture One or Lightroom the denoising should be done there!
Interesting, have you tried it? I did many tests and the dynamic range wasn't affected. white balance wasn't fixed, so if I have it wrong, it's still the same after converted to DNG. There are more colour and detail informations though. But I wouldn't have any sharpening at all in LR however as the DNG is already pretty sharp after 'correction'.
i cannot recommend this software enough, literally used it on about 200 images i shot at 3000 ISO on my a7rii a couple years ago and they look ridiculously sharp/clean, it almost brought me to tears because now i can upload to social media
Hi Jimmy, interesting and impressive, I think thi is useful for event photographers, wedding photographers etc. who have a lot of images to work on or anyone looking for an all-in-one solution. Personally, apart from the expense, this will be the one piece of DXO software that I won't be buying as allready have these features in other software and I don't process a lot of inages in one go. Kind regards mate, Leigh
It's great but has shortcomings When DXO came out with DXO deepprime I reworked some of my old pictures and the improvements were awesome. Anyhow paying about 200 USD (or 30% less) on there software was a bit too much for me. So I was very happy with the less expensive version. I made a trial with the free Demo version. For general processing it is just fine. Anyhow it is important to notice that after applying the "Pre" processing, you cannot choose the the camera profile anymore. Probably it is depended on the software you use. totally
Thanks for watching John. Yes, once you 'pre' processed, the correction is baked with the DNG so it won't allow another level of camera profile correction in other software, otherwise, it will look wrong.
Already have and use Photolab4, like you I then further process in Lr . Will have to give this a good try, I also process equestrian showjumping images,2-3.5k,at a time , this may speed things up.
If you do huge batch like this and use all the denoise, then this step will be quicker than in Lr and export for edit/denoise or to Topaz or any noise reduction software. Since you need to wait for Lr to export which takes ages and then process then re-import back to Lr. PureRAW cleans the RAW files and export as DNG RAW which is a native format for Lr, a lot quicker! Though the files is almost double due to the extra information it extracts
I'm trying it but I don't get to export the raw images from photos software in My Mac to pure raw... Can't get any image processed yet. Any advise? Thanks
It is not if you actually study the files, you are getting 'more details' so it 'looks' sharper. It's now the screen renders the image. But in the end, it's better to have more details that you can then selectively tone down if it's too much than try to 'sharpen' and enhance clarity and texture to get details back after. Latter is very destructive and never looks good in my opinion.
@@Red35Photography Sorry, I can not understand the hype about this program. For me, the result also looks over-sharpened. Especially with landscape photos in the grass and in the foliage.
Thanks, I did ask DxO and yes they said no. However, someone here actually tried it on a few different X Trans files and somehow they worked. But it's only a couple and not every.
Danke fürs zuschauen. Das Bild ist nicht zu scharf, es sind nur mehr Details, wenn Sie genauer hinschauen. Sie können die Profilkorrekturen / -verbesserungen jedoch ganz ausschalten, wenn Sie sie nicht mögen und nur das Rauschen entfernen möchten.
It's more to do with the design of the sensor and processing, generally CCD sensor has pretty crappy noise performance. Anything over 800 is pretty noticeable already.
I don't know... I just tested a couple of architecture images and they literally look like oil paintings after being processed by DxO PureRAW. Tbh they look better and more realistic and life-like with a little bit of noise.
Jimmy I advise you to check your new posts during the 1st hour or 2 after posting. There are spam bots posting unsavoury links (scam websites or worse) onto newly posted videos.. I just reported and removed one of those links here.. So annoying, one would think YT have filters for this...
One oddity I noticed was that the tool claimed the DeepPrime conversion was much quicker(9s) than the, supposedly simpler, Prime conversion(16s) and even the basic HQ(12s)! In PL4 DeepPrime takes a lot longer than Prime and an age compared to HQ. Is that a mistake in DxO's time estimates or does this really work faster than in PL4?
This is interesting. I decided I couldn't justify expense of PL4 Elite given I only wanted corrections & deep prime, so I am their target market for this software. One question though, in the PL4 version of deep prime, didn't you have to pick an amount to apply via a bar? This new software perhaps decides how aggressive to be itself? Also, I hear the DNGs producrd are significantly large...won't that be problematic later in workflow? Will give it a try & find out.
I have them side by side here, ORF files are averaging 20-25 MB RAW and enhanced DNG is about 50-60, basically double. However, if you are using LR, which DNG is actually a native file, it reads quicker (and translate better). The file size is bigger also because the enhanced RAW DNG has way more details (information) too. to me, I work on my file and only ever to keep the 'keepers' so it doesn't bother me at all. Regarding the 'level' of noise reduction, you are right, there's no preview or adjustment, they just 'apply' it. I've tried it on both PL4 and LR using the enhanced DNG RAW, I found that the level is about 50% and it seems to adjust itself base on the level of noise detected in the file. I would ask DxO about this to confirm. But what surprised me is that the enhanced DNG RAW has a lot of room to lift shadows with no noise... with my ISO 2000 files! They don't look smudgy or anything, just like a clean file. However, that can't be said about clipped highlight and shadows, if your original RAW file has clipped highlights and shadows, then you won't be able to retrieve anything. You can also disable the lens and camera profile correction if you don't want extra details and do your own sharpening later.
I ran a test where I compared Olympus Workspace, and PureRaw, I think that Olympus still process the raw file better, with a sharper image. But noise reduction PureRaw is pretty cool. I haven’t found any software that creates a nicer looking first step raw file than Olympus Workspace. But the workflow using Olympus Workspace to convert an ORF file isn’t that great because it only producess a TIF file. Which is huge. Espcially hi-res files. An 80 mp orf file becomes a 489 mb TIF. If only Olympus Workspace would create a Linear DNG file. That I could throw into PureRaw,, that would give us the best of both worlds. PureRaw is not fast. An 80mp orf file takes 7 mins. with DeepPrime. On my intel based 2020 macbook Pro
Cheers Kim. I respect your preference. But your 80mp file took 7mins? Mine only took 10 secs. Having said that, it did recommend user have a relatively high end GPU though. I too have a 2020 MacBook Pro (intel) but I have the maximum graphics card ATI Radeon 5600M with 8GB video ram.
That is an insane difference. Mine is the mbp 2020 (intel) 2 GHz Quad I5 16 GB ram with the intel Iris plus graphics. 7 mins. vs 10 sec. For Deep Prime sounds strange. My iMac from 2009 is to old to run the DxO software. I’m waiting for a new not Intel based.Any one else that have done some test on Deep Prime and ORF.
Hi Jimmy, I have DXO PL4 and have been really impressed by the denoise function. However, when I use deep prime and export the DNG file for processing in either Affinity photo or Luminar 4, the whites in the image all become pink. Have you experienced something similar?
Yes Gary. PhotoLab 4 is an independent RAW processing software, like Lightroom or Capture One. But can also acts as a plug in for other softwares. But the downside is that you will have to exit LR for instance, then enter PL4 to do denoise, then back to LR again. PureRAW is a 'pre-edit' clean up process that you can do them in batches before importing to LR for your normal routine. A word of advice is that you don't need any sharpening in LR because PureRAW already enhances the RAW file and include lens sharpening, which is very cool.
@@Red35Photography I used to be able to export DXO images back to LR, but that link is broken, for unknown reasons. So I export from DXO to a folder, then import the images back into LR as a separate action. It is annoying, but is a workaround.
This is interesting...Topaz Denoise doesn't output DNG. I've always wondered if getting out the noise and photos defects prior to putting it in lightroom would be better. I guess I should test a full edit of the Olympus raw file on Lightroom and put through Topaz Denoise verses running the DxO software as a DNG file and using the same edits in lightroom to find out.
Yes mate, that’s why DxO made this. I am happy that they do because I can now add this as a step for all my noisy images. The time it does it is quicker than Topaz and it’s still DNG RAW
Yes and much more, you can parametrize the transformations PureRaw offers with fixed paramers and of course it is a complete Raw editor and you can stick to your original raw format. But it is another Editor with a different workflow and what is also important a different (and still poor) configuration management.
I don't think there's a list, I did look and they never told me anything, just said "try it" hahah.. Well, it's better to try it though, it's free anyway to see if it works with Fuji RAW, let me know too as there are a few people asked. I don't have any Fuji cameras to try :(
@@Red35Photography Jimmy, i just get to know that it's only xt2, the newer cam like xt3 from fuji is not.. odd.. must be some mistakes happening.. i treat it as a tech preview :D
For ordinary noise reduction techniques this is correct. DeepPrime is a bit special because it throws away a traditional demosaic -> denoise -> deblur pipeline, and rolls them into a single step using deep learning. This is particularly great at eliminating cross talk between the Red/Green/Blue channels in the final output, all but eliminating colour noise
Hey Jimmy, what do you software/workflow do you recommend for someone who only has access to an iPad? I’m currently using Lightroom CC (also put this question out to Robin Wong)
Hi Michael, that depends on what file format you use or how you want to work. If you shoot RAW, you can only process them in certain apps in iPad. Affinity, LR CC.. etc. I think if you want a software that can 'manage' your catalogue/library, it may be better sticking with LR CC. it will sync back to the cloud when you can pick them up in the computer later for further work. I think you know that already. At present, I don't see a very 'pro' approach to what most professionals do with their computer setup. As I shoot a lot (at least pre-pandemic) and I use desktop to manage the huge library, iPad was fine to a point that it runs out of memory, frankly, I have multiple 4TB libraries, as you can imagine, max iPad storage is 1TB at present. Yes, you can use the usb-c storage, yet it's not very.... user friendly. I think it's hard for me to recommend at this point since I don't use iPad as my main workflow, I do, use it for some spot processing (at location if I need something quick) or some location video edit (that's pretty cool).
@@Red35Photography thanks Jimmy! I appreciate the advice. I am shooting RAW. It's good to know I'm on the right path with Lightroom cc. At some point, I'll get a computer again... luckily my photography is just for my own enjoyment. 😁
I think it’s better by quite a margin. You can download the trial to see, you get full feature to play with, remember to use my affliliate link ;) a little help is appreciated.
@@CHCH179 The problem with Topaz DeNoise it does not clean the raw files right and then it messes up the raw file colors. So you have to render out a TIFF or JPEG file and then use Topaz DeNoise and it uses I think some kind of vector technology maybe like Alien Skin blowup does. That's my guess. So they have three engines to clean noise. I've seen one engine clean one part of the image good but the other part of the image bad. Then change the engine and again gets some parts right and other parts wrong. Even Adobe Lightroom is sometimes better then Topaz DeNoise because when you have small patterns like a wedding dress that has kind of a net see threw netting Adobe Lightroom will keep the little holes. Topaz DeNoise will remove everything. Topaz DeNoise also uses face detection and can re-paint hair in. I've only seen one time when their worked well in all my images. DXO Deep Prime cleans raw files the way they should be.
@@gamingwithstand6886 well, i hear 2 version every time i say funny thing about topaz DAI in diff places.. when it is feed with processed file, someone will tell me it is better to feed it raw and then vice versa. This is why deep prime just win, it just always works.
@@CHCH179 I think a lot of these people pushing Topaz are people with affiliate links and they have ambassadors also pushing sales. Topaz does not want to admit they lost the noise war. Their technology is still very good but not for raw stills anymore. Its good if you just have a jpeg and their Video Enhance A.I. is really good turning regular footage into almost true HD. A lot of people use Topaz Video Enhance A.I. to upscale their old shows that never got a HD release mostly the Sci-Fi shows from back in the day like Babylon 5, Star Trek Deep Space Nine and Star Trek Voyager and other shows. Plus Topaz Video Enhance A.I. is good for no 4K or 8K releases taking 1080p and upscaling them. I know the Star Wars fans want Episode 1,2,3 in 4K and now they can have it. However Topaz now has to go back to the drawing board for still noise reduction and learn how to clean up raw files like DXO did. Topaz DeNoise is still good like I said if you scan old family photos in you can clean them up. But DXO Deep Prime is the death of Topaz DeNoise for raw stills. Topaz should stop pushing Topaz DeNoise as the best noise reduction because now they seem dishonest and word is getting out there is a new kid on the block called DXO Deep Prime.
this time, it does. tbh, i was too shocked to see my fuji x-trans file loaded by the it that I thought i mistakenly drop in my em5ii files. try it out at your side and see or i am actually dreaming LOL
@@Red35Photography a fix to soften this phone look is to disable the detail panel in Lightroom or ACR. This way it won't add sharpness or try to remove more noise. I also disable the Lens Correction panel, unless I need to manually defringe more
@@carlosandreviana9448 in PureRAW, you will see a little 'camera' icon next to the big "Process" button, that's where you can disable any profile correcton/enhancement and just use noise reduction itself.
Well, I do have a problem with hearing but even with headphones on I could not understand what was said. No information, I think, on how the software works, All in I am not impressed.
First thanks for watching Fred, I do apologise for the audio, I already adjust to the best that I could, I did encounter a problem during recording and only after I realised I had a broken mic. So I was messing around with the audio part for one whole day to get this result, otherwise, you wouldn't be able to hear me at all. Re software, it isn't really anything I can 'show' how it works, it's a software that sits before any import or edit, it processes the RAW files and export another 'enhanced' RAW files for you to work on, so it isn't an editing software, just like the title suggests, an enhancement software. You still have to edit and work on the files, just better than original RAW files, hope it makes sense.
Very informative.
Side note I had to really crank up the volume to hear this video and when a commercial came on it blew me away.
Sorry! I know, I had trouble with audio in this video, I only realised it after I recorded it, I had a broken mic!!! I spent one day to fix it so you can make out the words, otherwise, you wouldn't be able to hear it. I ordered a new mic and it's fine now.
I was going to comment the same thing. Great video anyways @red35
Let´s do this seems to be the New OMD Ambassador Slogan ;-)
I was hoping that phrase would fizzle out. Guess not.
yes amazing .. been using Dxo 4 elite/nik collection for awhile now.... thanks to you ... never go back
Great to hear mate!!
I have just tested a lot of images between 400 to 3000 ISO and I was really astonished - the noise in the raw was blown away and having done did the same transformations in Capture One to the dng files as I did to the ORF files and I was pretty amazed!
I will also try PhotoLab 4 for a month before I decide to either remain with C1 with the option of preprocessing critical RAW images in PureRaw or to switch to DxO entirely.
Man this software with topaz products can make even a novice like me create good images. Thanks to all the minds behind such wonderful software.
I'm a French pro photograph. For me and my job, PureRaw is a must and a "new start" !...
Yes this is a game changer, even with latest ON1 No Noise AI :)
I tried both PureRaw and Denoise AI on my Panasonic G85 raw images. In my opinion, PureRaw gave the better result (amateur opinion). I like that I just have to drop files in and hit the process button. I never thought my photos could look so good. Saved me $$$$ from not upgrading my camera.
Thanks for the heads up Jimmy. I’m currently using Topaz De-Noise and Sharpen AI. They’ve just updated the firmware and I’m pleased with the results 👍
Cheers Jeff, Topaz is pretty cool, my only complaint is speed, to just work on one image at a time, that may not be so bad, but to do batch, this could really be awful. I prefer PL4 before because it's quick, but to use Deep Prime, I needed the RAW file which means that I can't 'export' from LR just for the noise reduction and sharpening, but now, I can because it's a reverse process here, PureRAW actually denoise and enhance my RAW files before importing to LR for edit, this may be an extra steps but overall saving me lots of time.
@@Red35Photography Thanks for that explanation Jimmy. You’re right about it being slow but that doesn’t bother me as I don’t tend to do batches but individual images if I think they need tweaking. I try to get it right in camera so I don’t have to too much post. Cheers Jeff
Nice! I am a DxO Photo Lab 4 user, but only use it to convert RAW to DNG with Denoise Prime and Optical corrects applied. Then import to Lightroom Classic. So this new program will be perfect for me.
This is exactly what this software is for, try it to see, I like it so far.
@@Red35Photography I am considering it. Still I already own DxO PhotoLab 4 so will I really gain any thing. Only thing might be that it will be easier and quicker to use just to get the lens corrections and noise reduction.
@@davidblack2632 If you already have PL4, then in my opinion PureRAW is not needed. I can replicate the PureRAW workflow very easily in PL4 and export to Lightroom. I understand why DxO have given customers this option, particularly if folks are only interested in the optics and noise reduction capabilities, but I can’t see any benefit if you’re already in the PhotoLab ecosystem - unless you have $90 burning a hole in your pocket ;)
@@andyhughes073 You are correct! I would have brought PureRAW if I didn't already own PhotoLab4. I might consider it if it was quicker processing the image. With PhotoLab 4 I get to preview and adjust before exporting as a DNG file.
Thank you for this, downloading the trial now. I have a feeling I'll be buying it soon.
Hope you find it useful Trev!
@@Red35Photography after my first test batch I made sure to use your link to purchase it. It is now part of my standard workflow.
Addendum: as some viewers have remarked the sharpening can be quite nervous, overexaggerating structures to a very unrealistic level. So for relatively unstructured areas PureRaw does a fine job but for others like faces with beards, woolen clothes etc. this is not so fine. So I will also test the DxO Photolab Elite version where denoising and sharpening can be applied separately and both parameterized and especially restricted to subareas!
Yes, to me it's fine. I just won't add any more sharpening in LR. In fact, if you add more sharpening in LR, it will ruin the photos. Perhaps DxO can address this by making the lens correction/enhancement more subtle and lets users do some of that in post :)
Just got it using your link, can’t wait to try it out and have some fun 🤩
Cheers Andre!! Thanks a lot and have fun playing with it, try some old RAW files, I am having some fun re-editing some old files.
In DXO Photolab you need an AUTO button that once pressed is equivalent to PureRAW, like AUTO from Lightroom.
Unfortunately, DxO Pure Raw does not support ORF files from the 'old' Olympus E-1, E-300 and E-500 camera's. I'm quite sure it has something to do with the CCD sensor these camera's used. A bit disappointing to me, as I love my E-1...
Thanks Jimmy, I'm quite happy with Photolab 4, if I ever use Lightroom more in future, I may splurge on PureRaw for a simpler plugin... I'm still just so impressed with the Jpegs from my EM5 Mkii, great colours and even the in camera noise reduction is awesome. As I shoot Jpeg + Raw, I edit the RAW files about half the time to treat shadows/highlights a bit more and denoise a bit. But I almost never have to touch the colour....Saving for a second hand EM1 Mkiii which is still very scarce in Australia...
Great to hear mate, PL4 is very powerful, PureRAW is essentially a 'skimmed' version of it but mainly to focus on noise and profiles but one extra brownie is the DNG RAW for edit later, this is pretty much most pros want :)
OK great, I'll keep an eye on it as my editing evolves 🙂
I am happy to see they made it more plug in. I have PL 3 but now that I shoot with alot of vintage lenses the correction isnt as helpful.
Hi Jimmy,
I don't see the advantage of RAW Photo File Enhancer. DxO PhotoLab 4 is already very easy to use and a photographer can export a DNG file directly into PhotoShop or Lightroom. I've been using a combination of software programs for years, choosing the best functions from each one. It's actually pretty fast and simple to do. I use DxO PhotoLab 4 as my RAW processor, using the auto lens corrections, DeepPRIME (one needs to be careful with the amount of noise reduction), DxO SmartLighting Spot Weighted, then export a DNG file into CS6. From there I can use anything I want in PhotoShop and access the Nik Collection. I finish my files with Topaz Denoise AI as a plug in to CS6. Most of my RAW files only take 3-4 minutes maximum including processing time.
Tom
THX Jimmy for this tip! Seen in the early morning and tried it immediately afterwards with the trial version. At a first glance: much better results than my trusty Topaz Denoise I use since a year. Prob meanwhile: dng's from smartphones are not supported. Hopefully there's coming an up-date. Would be another great opportunity for cleaning mobile-pics too.
Pics from my Pana G9 with 2000 ISO (300 mm teleshoots with f 5.6 and shorter times for birding) came out as like nearby captured with base-ISO. Ingenious tool especially for M43-users.
Thanks Gerhard, I am glad you enjoyed the video and found the app useful. I did a comparison between ACR/LR, DxO, Topaz in another video, you can clearly see just how good DxO is from a variety of application. Since I did the review for DxO last year, I have over a couple of hundred M43 shooters told me how cool this is. I too transformed an ISO2000 from my Olympus EM1 III file to something like ISO 200-400!
I’m a DXO Pure Raw fan. Incredible software, give a try !
DXO PhotoLab 4 is a little because you can and just the Luminance slider door Deep Prime. I sometimes go up to 55 to remove grain in the out of focus area. But even at 40 still looks good and you will have to look for the grain.
Co-incidentally I was already playing with PureRAW before I even saw this video. I've have some really amazing results from it, but also had some mixed results too, I think it depends on the image you are using. On a shot of a model in a wide shot (so not close up head & shoulders shot) I found when I zoomed in the models face & hair got messed up, and LR looked much better in a side-by-side comparison no matter which NR mode I used, this seems to be down to how it does its sharpening. In this case I got a better result processing in LR and then using Topaz Sharpen AI at the end.
What I would suggest is to try to turn off profile correction and only using Deep Prime noise reduction instead, then you can sharpen/correct in LR.
@@Red35Photography I can only see the option to select the type of NR to use, there is nothing to disable profile correction that I can see, maybe they removed that from the release version. Still does an impressive job, but will just have to use it selectively for now
@@shortie8512 Yes, you can turn off profile correction by clicking the 'camera icon' next to the big 'Process' button on the top left corner :)
@@Red35Photography Ahhhh, I see what you mean. I was looking for a specific tick box to enable/disable it. I do think the processing side could do with more options/controls, plus ability to specify a naming format for the output files. It is only v1.0 so I am sure there will be lots of bits & pieces appearing as they get more & more feedback. I own a copy now on the basis of the impressive NR reduction... annoyingly I'd just renewed my Topaz updates for a year
Really good video thanks. To me if your are an existing PhotoLab Elite user, PureRAW really is not worth it unless you have money to burn. The cost is an issue too, ignoring the current promo rates, PureRAW seems to be not much less than PL4. I’d rather pay the extra and get all the additional functionality PL4 brings! From a workflow perspective, having tried both, I don’t see much advantage to PureRAW to be honest either - certainly not enough to justify the price.
Cheers Andy, yes I totally agree, I am looking at it from a different perspective. If I have neither, and already using a pre-defined workflow (LR/CaptureONE... etc.) PureRAW makes total sense. I love PhotoLab and it's very powerful, yet, as said in the video, I still use Lightroom for most works, as I have too many images in the library to manage and switching is very... cumbersome. So, rather, I use PL4 as a plugin for noise reduction and other edits if needed. I have converted many to switch over to PL4 since I last reviewed it, I still swear by it, as long as you don't have a huge library like me or has a pro workflow that's been settled for years. Don't forget, you need PL4 Elite for all the powers which is significantly more expensive than PureRAW. I think it has a niche and for those who needs just that noise reduction and profile corrections.
@@Red35Photography I agree, and if I wasn't already a PL4 user, I'd be tempted by PureRAW and I can definitely see why folks would be interested. My main argument is the value proposition of PureRAW. I expect the high price is because it offers the two features that probably cost the most to develop, but full price purchase of PureRAW is $129 vs $199 for PL4 Elite - that's worst case a $70 difference. After that investment you're on upgrade pricing. Question I would ask is whether the extra $70 is worth it for all the additional excellent features PL4 has that could enhance any existing workflow (great Colour Grading, Smart Lighting, Control Points etc)? I time my PL upgrades to coincide with DxO generous 50% Black Friday deal, for the past 2 years I've got PL3 and 4 for $60. Following that logic through, a PureRAW upgrade might be offered at ~$40 during Black Friday - only $20 difference.
It all depends on your camera. Older models and smaller sensors will benefit more and could save you money rather than upgrading. You could rework older photos if you have the RAWs.
This, I'm going to dive into, Jimmy.
For the past several years, I've been trying - "trialling"! - numerous post processing software programs. Some good - some bad - some making promises they can't keep, but never mind, at least they're trying. Some that I won't be mentioning, because I'm not in the business of "slamming" other people's products.
"Noise" is endemic with digital. It's even called "digi-noise". And it's the digital equivalent of the grain we used to put up with during the analogue film camera era. So it's here to stay. It's part of the product.
People with medium format cameras, like the Hassy, report "better detail in the highlights", "better detail in the shadows", and less digital noise.
For the rest of us, all sorts of programs claim to deal with digi-noise. Some are pretty good, too. But there's generally a trade-off. Removing noise often leads to a softening of sharpness.
I'll be fascinated to try this stuff out, and see what I get!
After using PureRAW for a while I've observed that the sharpening is way too aggressive at least with my Olympus bodies and MFT lenses. There needs to ba an option to adjust it or disable it. In other respects it's good but I've gone back to using PhotoLab 4 in preference as one can adjust the sharpening to taste.
Hi Jimmy, I have tested PureRaw and am really impressed. But now, in addition to the RAW file, you have an additional DNG file that is about four times as large. How to solve the problem? My workflow is as follows: after importing the DNG into Capture One and making all the adjustments, I copy all the adjustments to the RAW file. This can be done in Capture One with 2 clicks. This may seem nonsensical since only the edited DNG file represents the finished photo in good quality. But I only use the RAW file as a note for the adjustments. If I delete the DNG and recreate it again from the RAW file using PureRaw, I can simply copy the adjustments from the RAW file back to the newly created DNG and have my perfectly rendered photo back. This way I save a lot of disk space.
I tried out DXO PureRAW and was really surprised what it can do with my old noisy photos. There where details I never thought
Yeah, you wouldn't believe it until you try. I was shocked when I first tried it.
Me too! All of a sudden my old 12 mpx files from a Nikon D300s becomes usable again! Go figure?
Addendum 2: the DNG format PureRaw produces os a linear dng, an already demosaiced file that is with color information, fixed white balance, and less dynamic range so that e.g. brighten dark parts or darken bright areas does not retain "hidden" information - at least in the way it is possible for raw!
The same with DxO PhotoLab! So either most of the the whole processing should be done in DxO Photolab or only at the end of the processing in Capture One or Lightroom the denoising should be done there!
Interesting, have you tried it? I did many tests and the dynamic range wasn't affected. white balance wasn't fixed, so if I have it wrong, it's still the same after converted to DNG. There are more colour and detail informations though. But I wouldn't have any sharpening at all in LR however as the DNG is already pretty sharp after 'correction'.
i cannot recommend this software enough, literally used it on about 200 images i shot at 3000 ISO on my a7rii a couple years ago and they look ridiculously sharp/clean, it almost brought me to tears because now i can upload to social media
Hi Jimmy, interesting and impressive, I think thi is useful for event photographers, wedding photographers etc. who have a lot of images to work on or anyone looking for an all-in-one solution. Personally, apart from the expense, this will be the one piece of DXO software that I won't be buying as allready have these features in other software and I don't process a lot of inages in one go. Kind regards mate, Leigh
Cheers Leigh, yes indeed, I can see myself using it a lot when I do weddings again.
@@Red35Photography I tried it and I'm very impressed, so much so that I bit the bullet and bought it. :) Don't tell my other half :) !!
It's great but has shortcomings
When DXO came out with DXO deepprime I reworked some of my old pictures and the improvements were awesome.
Anyhow paying about 200 USD (or 30% less) on there software was a bit too much for me. So I was very happy with the less expensive version.
I made a trial with the free Demo version. For general processing it is just fine. Anyhow it is important to notice that after applying the "Pre" processing, you cannot choose the the camera profile anymore. Probably it is depended on the software you use.
totally
Thanks for watching John. Yes, once you 'pre' processed, the correction is baked with the DNG so it won't allow another level of camera profile correction in other software, otherwise, it will look wrong.
Already have and use Photolab4, like you I then further process in Lr . Will have to give this a good try, I also process equestrian showjumping images,2-3.5k,at a time , this may speed things up.
If you do huge batch like this and use all the denoise, then this step will be quicker than in Lr and export for edit/denoise or to Topaz or any noise reduction software. Since you need to wait for Lr to export which takes ages and then process then re-import back to Lr. PureRAW cleans the RAW files and export as DNG RAW which is a native format for Lr, a lot quicker! Though the files is almost double due to the extra information it extracts
I'm trying it but I don't get to export the raw images from photos software in My Mac to pure raw... Can't get any image processed yet. Any advise? Thanks
The PureRaw files look a bit like the oversharpening photos from current phone computational photography
It is not if you actually study the files, you are getting 'more details' so it 'looks' sharper. It's now the screen renders the image. But in the end, it's better to have more details that you can then selectively tone down if it's too much than try to 'sharpen' and enhance clarity and texture to get details back after. Latter is very destructive and never looks good in my opinion.
@@Red35Photography Sorry, I can not understand the hype about this program. For me, the result also looks over-sharpened. Especially with landscape photos in the grass and in the foliage.
The manual(under system requirements) says it does NOT support Fuji X Trans sensors.
Thanks, I did ask DxO and yes they said no. However, someone here actually tried it on a few different X Trans files and somehow they worked. But it's only a couple and not every.
Die Bilder wirken überschärft. Wann sollte die Schärfe einstellen können.
Danke fürs zuschauen. Das Bild ist nicht zu scharf, es sind nur mehr Details, wenn Sie genauer hinschauen. Sie können die Profilkorrekturen / -verbesserungen jedoch ganz ausschalten, wenn Sie sie nicht mögen und nur das Rauschen entfernen möchten.
What about the native files, for instance, Hasselblas 3F or Fujifilm RAF or PhaseOne CCD sensor files, which are the most susceptible to noise?
It's more to do with the design of the sensor and processing, generally CCD sensor has pretty crappy noise performance. Anything over 800 is pretty noticeable already.
I don't know... I just tested a couple of architecture images and they literally look like oil paintings after being processed by DxO PureRAW. Tbh they look better and more realistic and life-like with a little bit of noise.
Jimmy I advise you to check your new posts during the 1st hour or 2 after posting. There are spam bots posting unsavoury links (scam websites or worse) onto newly posted videos.. I just reported and removed one of those links here.. So annoying, one would think YT have filters for this...
Cheers mate and thanks. I do check them and delete and report and they keep coming back. Sometimes I am out and just can do this straight away
Yeah what a story, YT really needs to up their game...
Sadly, I can't buy the DxO products because of Fujifilm and their RAF files ... DxO can't open RAF files.
One oddity I noticed was that the tool claimed the DeepPrime conversion was much quicker(9s) than the, supposedly simpler, Prime conversion(16s) and even the basic HQ(12s)!
In PL4 DeepPrime takes a lot longer than Prime and an age compared to HQ. Is that a mistake in DxO's time estimates or does this really work faster than in PL4?
This is interesting. I decided I couldn't justify expense of PL4 Elite given I only wanted corrections & deep prime, so I am their target market for this software. One question though, in the PL4 version of deep prime, didn't you have to pick an amount to apply via a bar? This new software perhaps decides how aggressive to be itself?
Also, I hear the DNGs producrd are significantly large...won't that be problematic later in workflow?
Will give it a try & find out.
I have them side by side here, ORF files are averaging 20-25 MB RAW and enhanced DNG is about 50-60, basically double. However, if you are using LR, which DNG is actually a native file, it reads quicker (and translate better). The file size is bigger also because the enhanced RAW DNG has way more details (information) too. to me, I work on my file and only ever to keep the 'keepers' so it doesn't bother me at all. Regarding the 'level' of noise reduction, you are right, there's no preview or adjustment, they just 'apply' it. I've tried it on both PL4 and LR using the enhanced DNG RAW, I found that the level is about 50% and it seems to adjust itself base on the level of noise detected in the file. I would ask DxO about this to confirm. But what surprised me is that the enhanced DNG RAW has a lot of room to lift shadows with no noise... with my ISO 2000 files! They don't look smudgy or anything, just like a clean file. However, that can't be said about clipped highlight and shadows, if your original RAW file has clipped highlights and shadows, then you won't be able to retrieve anything. You can also disable the lens and camera profile correction if you don't want extra details and do your own sharpening later.
I keep the keepers too...but also lots of might be OKs. Wish there were software to resolve my indecisiveness! 😆
I ran a test where I compared Olympus Workspace, and PureRaw, I think that Olympus still process the raw file better, with a sharper image. But noise reduction PureRaw is pretty cool. I haven’t found any software that creates a nicer looking first step raw file than Olympus Workspace. But the workflow using Olympus Workspace to convert an ORF file isn’t that great because it only producess a TIF file. Which is huge. Espcially hi-res files. An 80 mp orf file becomes a 489 mb TIF. If only Olympus Workspace would create a Linear DNG file. That I could throw into PureRaw,, that would give us the best of both worlds. PureRaw is not fast. An 80mp orf file takes 7 mins. with DeepPrime. On my intel based 2020 macbook Pro
Cheers Kim. I respect your preference. But your 80mp file took 7mins? Mine only took 10 secs. Having said that, it did recommend user have a relatively high end GPU though. I too have a 2020 MacBook Pro (intel) but I have the maximum graphics card ATI Radeon 5600M with 8GB video ram.
That is an insane difference. Mine is the mbp 2020 (intel) 2 GHz Quad I5 16 GB ram with the intel Iris plus graphics. 7 mins. vs 10 sec. For Deep Prime sounds strange. My iMac from 2009 is to old to run the DxO software. I’m waiting for a new not Intel based.Any one else that have done some test on Deep Prime and ORF.
Can you imput a DNG image?
Bummer that it does nothing with moiré
Hi Jimmy, I have DXO PL4 and have been really impressed by the denoise function. However, when I use deep prime and export the DNG file for processing in either Affinity photo or Luminar 4, the whites in the image all become pink. Have you experienced something similar?
It's a luminar problem.
Thanks Red. Am I correct in understanding the only difference between PureRAW and PhotoLab4 with DeepPrime to be a simpler workflow for PureRAW?
Yes Gary. PhotoLab 4 is an independent RAW processing software, like Lightroom or Capture One. But can also acts as a plug in for other softwares. But the downside is that you will have to exit LR for instance, then enter PL4 to do denoise, then back to LR again. PureRAW is a 'pre-edit' clean up process that you can do them in batches before importing to LR for your normal routine. A word of advice is that you don't need any sharpening in LR because PureRAW already enhances the RAW file and include lens sharpening, which is very cool.
@@Red35Photography I used to be able to export DXO images back to LR, but that link is broken, for unknown reasons. So I export from DXO to a folder, then import the images back into LR as a separate action. It is annoying, but is a workaround.
i have DXO PL3. Should I get the PureRaw or just upgrade to the PL4?
If you use PL3 to edit, then upgrade to PL4. If you use PL3 just for certain features like noise reduction and profile enhancements, then PureRAW :)
@@Red35Photography thanks 👍 but currently PL4 upgrade is cheaper than PureRaw…🤔
This is interesting...Topaz Denoise doesn't output DNG. I've always wondered if getting out the noise and photos defects prior to putting it in lightroom would be better. I guess I should test a full edit of the Olympus raw file on Lightroom and put through Topaz Denoise verses running the DxO software as a DNG file and using the same edits in lightroom to find out.
Yes mate, that’s why DxO made this. I am happy that they do because I can now add this as a step for all my noisy images. The time it does it is quicker than Topaz and it’s still DNG RAW
“All raw files does probably not include Fuji X-Trans”?
It does include X-Trans files, another comment here somewhere tested it with his XT-3 files.
I must be missing something, so pure raw does everything that photolab already does? t
Yes and much more, you can parametrize the transformations PureRaw offers with fixed paramers and of course it is a complete Raw editor and you can stick to your original raw format. But it is another Editor with a different workflow and what is also important a different (and still poor) configuration management.
Enjoyed the video, is there a list of what cameras are supported, I have a Fuji X100V
I don't think there's a list, I did look and they never told me anything, just said "try it" hahah.. Well, it's better to try it though, it's free anyway to see if it works with Fuji RAW, let me know too as there are a few people asked. I don't have any Fuji cameras to try :(
@@Red35Photography I tried it with my X-T2 and it opened the RAW file perfectly. Woah.. DXO and Fuji, finally!
@@CHCH179 Good to know that it works on x-trans files!!
@@Red35Photography Jimmy, i just get to know that it's only xt2, the newer cam like xt3 from fuji is not.. odd.. must be some mistakes happening.. i treat it as a tech preview :D
If images have recorded grain, how do you get sharpness back when you smooth out the noise?
For ordinary noise reduction techniques this is correct.
DeepPrime is a bit special because it throws away a traditional demosaic -> denoise -> deblur pipeline, and rolls them into a single step using deep learning.
This is particularly great at eliminating cross talk between the Red/Green/Blue channels in the final output, all but eliminating colour noise
Hey Jimmy, what do you software/workflow do you recommend for someone who only has access to an iPad? I’m currently using Lightroom CC (also put this question out to Robin Wong)
Hi Michael, that depends on what file format you use or how you want to work. If you shoot RAW, you can only process them in certain apps in iPad. Affinity, LR CC.. etc. I think if you want a software that can 'manage' your catalogue/library, it may be better sticking with LR CC. it will sync back to the cloud when you can pick them up in the computer later for further work. I think you know that already. At present, I don't see a very 'pro' approach to what most professionals do with their computer setup. As I shoot a lot (at least pre-pandemic) and I use desktop to manage the huge library, iPad was fine to a point that it runs out of memory, frankly, I have multiple 4TB libraries, as you can imagine, max iPad storage is 1TB at present. Yes, you can use the usb-c storage, yet it's not very.... user friendly. I think it's hard for me to recommend at this point since I don't use iPad as my main workflow, I do, use it for some spot processing (at location if I need something quick) or some location video edit (that's pretty cool).
@@Red35Photography thanks Jimmy! I appreciate the advice. I am shooting RAW. It's good to know I'm on the right path with Lightroom cc. At some point, I'll get a computer again... luckily my photography is just for my own enjoyment. 😁
@@mtcrun that's what matters mate :) enjoy photography!
PhotoLab doesn't allow you to rename an export. It seems this doesn't either.
How does the noise reduction, (forgetting the lens correction and sharpening) of PureRaw compare to Luminar AI?
I think it’s better by quite a margin. You can download the trial to see, you get full feature to play with, remember to use my affliliate link ;) a little help is appreciated.
no contest.. dxo deep prime is at another league
@@CHCH179 I would still like to see a head on comparison.
go to sleep early jimmy hahahahaha, thanks for the review
Do I look that tired? Haha thanks mate
@@Red35Photography Ahh so this was the message that tipped you off jimmy. Feel and get better mate. This past year has just sc$&wed everyone over
Suddenly ISO performance doesn't matter.
Is this RAW processor included in DxO PhotoLab 4?
Yes, only in PhotoLab 4 Elite version, not standard.
Not sure how to let you know, but your next video upload 'One Photo Editing Mistake..." is showing up as a 'private' video. Did you intend that?
BTW: great video , I will be checking out the PureRaw! Thanks for sharing!
DXO Deep Prime is the death of Topaz DeNoise. LOL
yes, it looks like topaz denoise AI having issue differentiate noise and details, therefore introduce a lot of funny artifacts pattern
@@CHCH179 The problem with Topaz DeNoise it does not clean the raw files right and then it messes up the raw file colors. So you have to render out a TIFF or JPEG file and then use Topaz DeNoise and it uses I think some kind of vector technology maybe like Alien Skin blowup does. That's my guess. So they have three engines to clean noise. I've seen one engine clean one part of the image good but the other part of the image bad. Then change the engine and again gets some parts right and other parts wrong.
Even Adobe Lightroom is sometimes better then Topaz DeNoise because when you have small patterns like a wedding dress that has kind of a net see threw netting Adobe Lightroom will keep the little holes. Topaz DeNoise will remove everything.
Topaz DeNoise also uses face detection and can re-paint hair in. I've only seen one time when their worked well in all my images.
DXO Deep Prime cleans raw files the way they should be.
@@gamingwithstand6886 well, i hear 2 version every time i say funny thing about topaz DAI in diff places.. when it is feed with processed file, someone will tell me it is better to feed it raw and then vice versa. This is why deep prime just win, it just always works.
@@CHCH179 I think a lot of these people pushing Topaz are people with affiliate links and they have ambassadors also pushing sales.
Topaz does not want to admit they lost the noise war. Their technology is still very good but not for raw stills anymore. Its good if you just have a jpeg and their Video Enhance A.I. is really good turning regular footage into almost true HD.
A lot of people use Topaz Video Enhance A.I. to upscale their old shows that never got a HD release mostly the Sci-Fi shows from back in the day like Babylon 5, Star Trek Deep Space Nine and Star Trek Voyager and other shows.
Plus Topaz Video Enhance A.I. is good for no 4K or 8K releases taking 1080p and upscaling them. I know the Star Wars fans want Episode 1,2,3 in 4K and now they can have it.
However Topaz now has to go back to the drawing board for still noise reduction and learn how to clean up raw files like DXO did. Topaz DeNoise is still good like I said if you scan old family photos in you can clean them up. But DXO Deep Prime is the death of Topaz DeNoise for raw stills.
Topaz should stop pushing Topaz DeNoise as the best noise reduction because now they seem dishonest and word is getting out there is a new kid on the block called DXO Deep Prime.
Does it work with Fuji files?
Hi Steve, the best is to check DxO website to see a list, I suspect they have one... I need to check myself. I only use Canon, Leica, Olympus and DJI
this time, it does. tbh, i was too shocked to see my fuji x-trans file loaded by the it that I thought i mistakenly drop in my em5ii files. try it out at your side and see or i am actually dreaming LOL
I tried my x100s files and it didn't support
so quiet and mushy audio..
Let's not forget, DNG is Not Raw. Don't forget that. It's may be great. But, it is not the real raw.
I did not like the deep prime method. It over sharpens the images like smartphones do. It's a mix of smudgy and over sharpness
it will be an icing on top if dxo added some adjustable parameters, even a simple one, to this app.
You can turn it off if you want to sharpen things yourself and keep the noise reduction.
@@Red35Photography how? If you meam the Prime, it makes some textures weird
@@Red35Photography a fix to soften this phone look is to disable the detail panel in Lightroom or ACR. This way it won't add sharpness or try to remove more noise. I also disable the Lens Correction panel, unless I need to manually defringe more
@@carlosandreviana9448 in PureRAW, you will see a little 'camera' icon next to the big "Process" button, that's where you can disable any profile correcton/enhancement and just use noise reduction itself.
Well, I do have a problem with hearing but even with headphones on I could not understand what was said. No information, I think, on how the software works, All in I am not impressed.
First thanks for watching Fred, I do apologise for the audio, I already adjust to the best that I could, I did encounter a problem during recording and only after I realised I had a broken mic. So I was messing around with the audio part for one whole day to get this result, otherwise, you wouldn't be able to hear me at all. Re software, it isn't really anything I can 'show' how it works, it's a software that sits before any import or edit, it processes the RAW files and export another 'enhanced' RAW files for you to work on, so it isn't an editing software, just like the title suggests, an enhancement software. You still have to edit and work on the files, just better than original RAW files, hope it makes sense.
Cost me another $89
Sorry Dave :D
Change is always good when it leads you away from the Adobe ecosystem. Goodbye Adobe!