DxO PureRAW 4 is a Huge Improvement
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2024
- Much improved over the previous version for birds in particular. Join me for a few test photos and one in particular where version 4 does an incredible job of making it usable where previous versions (and other software) have fallen short 🧙
Disclaimer: DxO gave me advance access to a review/beta copy of the software, but they haven't paid me or given me anything for free, nor do they have any input or oversight into my content. My review license expired when this video was published. I do however have an affiliate link below that may give me a commission if you use it and then purchase their software - but you don't have to use this.
Check out the PureRAW 4 free trial or purchase it from DxO: tidd.ly/48z1O9D
Other things to note:
- I have reported various bugs back to DxO and hopefully they'll be fixed fairly soon, though they are mostly interface oddities. I did experience an occasional bug performing the processing, which I believe to be specific to the Windows version, and that was also reported back to DxO. This was a beta copy of the software.
- Fujifilm X-Trans sensors aren't supported by the new model at launch, but support is apparently on the way as a free update soon.
- Yes I completely messed up my lighting on this video somehow, giving me a moderate lemon colour grade 🍋
00:00 - What is DxO PureRAW?
02:04 - Disclaimer
03:06 - Sparrow Photo, OM-1, ISO 25600
06:43 - Deer Photo, Z9, ISO 16000
08:56 - Seriously Noisy Wagtail Photo, OM-1, ISO 25600
13:23 - Using the new Advanced settings option
16:34 - Better candidate for a rainy photo
18:49 - Summary and other important info 
Наука
Very interesting, complete and visual demonstration of PureRaw 4 improvements. The best i saw. Even the pace is good. Thank you.
Robert, thank you for your informative review, especially from the perspective of a software engineer! I currently use PR 2 which has given new life to my Sony RX-10 files. I tried version 3, but was really unimpressed with what it did with some low light, high ISO files that version 2 had no problem with. I will certainly be looking for the free trial of version 4 after your review. Keep up the great work!
Thanks @edwardsponholz1614! Yeah version 3 definitely had an achilles' heel with underexposed high ISO files, and I found it gave photos a somewhat rubbery look too. I noticed some other release day videos said there wasn't much difference between 3 & 4, but for me the difference is pretty stark.
You did a great job with examples in this video. Very helpful, thank you! I'm new to PhotoLab and I'm really diving into using it as my main processor going forward. Hopefully fuji X-Trans support is coming soon.
Great video Robert. Looks like a very worthwhile improvement. I use PR2 and this looks quite a bit better. Well done👍
Thank you for a very informative review! One thing worth mentioning is that the DNG file produced is much larger on the hard drive than the original raw file. Something to be aware of if the batch option is used. Most of us prefer to still keep the original raw file alongside the improved DNG in which case eats up a lot of storage space in the end. This is not an isolated flaw by DXO but something that’s common for DNG files in general. Nevertheless, it is something to be aware of if we decide to run a batch operation on “10 000” images, isn’t it.
Great point! I imagine it varies somewhat with the different RAW types too - I tend to shoot the compressed RAW option on the Z9 because there's no noticeable difference, but some formats, like Fujifilm's, seem to be quite chunky files by default.
Storage cost is definitely a pain point, especially if you also want it to be fast enough for Lightroom to not slow to a crawl 😅
Nice to see examples of what doesn't do well, as well as good examples, thank you. Another tip for LrC users is disable your automatic lens corrections on import, or the pure raw export will get a second set of corrections when you open it in LrC. These are non-destructive, so you can turn them off after the fact, but it's easy to forget.
Ooh yes good tip! And yeah I always try to include the things that don't work too, mostly because I seem to be quite uniquely good at breaking things 😅
Hi Robert - from a wildlife photographer in Antarctica….
Well more like Oxfordshire tbh…
Just wanted to say thanks for the useful information on Pure raw, I have used it from the start. I have enjoyed going back through photos over many years and running them through, enjoying the new image improvement it brings. I will definitely upgrade to v4. Regards Andy
thanks for the effort and the information...
Great video! Very informative. I just upgraded to v.4.
Thanks for the information, I own version 3 and will update to version 4 soon. For pictures taken with my Panasonic G100 the results are remarkable. Another plus is that I still can use Lightroom 6 it does not have any problems importing the DNG files.
I use ver 3 most days with Fuji H2 and H2s files. Certainly the “soft” setting is enough and I use it as a presharping feature. I’m more than happy with v3 but no doubt get v4 when it supports .RAF files. Thanks for the heads up.
A good review thanks. I was using PR v3 and was finding the sharpening a bit too aggressive even in soft mode. I have downloaded the new v4 trial and I do like the preview feature with the sliders to allow adjustments so I can back things off a bit and change things to see the result. The soft mode does not seem so over-sharpened to me but it is quite subjective. I'm mostly processing bird photos - I tried it on a noisy dusk Barn Owl shot I took a while back on the Em1Mk3 at ISO 64000 and the results seem marginally better than v3. I may do the upgrade just for the preview feature - it saves time having to process multiple times and try a different mode if the result is not good. It does seem quite buggy on the interface - for example if I just did a process in HQ then do a preview mode process in DeepPrimeXD2 the result comes out as HQ - very confusing when the result comes out worse than expected! Also with multiple images in the processing lightbox the preview window shows them as thumbnails at the bottom but clicking a particular image doesn't always select it for the preview! I'm a software developer too (retired now...but the bugs still leap out at me!).
I was using DXO trial version 2 with my old D70 converted to infrared and it did wonders to the RAW files. It's always there somewhere on the purchase list since then.
Ooh that's really interesting! I've never owned an infrared-converted digital camera, so I've never seen the results of running those sorts of files through it.
Thanks…. Excellent vid…. It will help me through my trial…
My question is long because I am explain the problem I am facing in particle photography. I choose the z 8 just because of the battery grip. I have spent 8 weeks before the time of watching your blog with the z180-600mm lens. The re still are problems with auto focus with the 180-600 z . I understand that for its price it is amazing and I have to agree price wise it is . I am just explaining the back ground to why your blog may well do more to help me improve my presentation not my photography. The problem I face is down to auto focus . It’s a bat that does not always hit the ball. I have improved my hit rate when possible by having focus peeking on and touching the focus button and using its marking to help me get the background out of focus or make sure the peeking shows the head is in focus. This helps and the firm wear z8 2 as to . Closer you are to the subject the 180-600 is mostly at f 7.2 to f11 giving sharpish images. I am interested in purchasing the soft wear thanks to your helpful blog. I use a tripod or monopod and the lowest iso possible . However when it comes to wild life movement it’s a whole new ball game. With the z 180-600 the detail at close up gets lost at distance . The 2x converter is really better than many are reporting it in my opinion. I think around the eyes I noticed the lens is hit and miss so depth of field is the issue . Could you do a video which explains how the app works the settings and what to expect.
I've not tried the 180-600 with the 2x teleconverter, but it does work well with the 1.4x one - the AF is only slightly slower and it seems to lose no sharpness. I'd be interested to see what the 2x is like!
Nikon's AF can still be a bit odd in certain shots, and I think you might be hitting some of the same problems I have on the Z9. The two main ones are that it tends to focus on the cheeks/eyelashes in close-up shots (which is where that extra depth of field is useful - you're right that f/11 is often needed), but at a distance it seems to prefer to focus on the background. I do have a section of a video that talks about another problem primarily with low-contrast subjects too, which might be of interest if you haven't already seen it: ruclips.net/video/BIyZ-xBKN-A/видео.html
PureRAW is thankfully pretty straight-forward, but I would like to do a more tutorial-style video of it in the near future. I'll see if I have another good example photo to work through in more detail 😄
Hi Robert, thanks for the upload and your tips/advice on the soon coming version, very interesting. Yes I use them all where appropriate, DXO, Topaz, the old single apps, often still great for a light touch, and Photoshop Enhance AI. I find Photoshop best for mildly noisy, very clean results up to about 50 or 60% but for more noisy images DXO does the best job for me with the least artifacts, low or no sharpening, can be lightly sharpened in another app. For other jobs and non raw files, DXO and Adobe only work on raws, Topaz can be good or even for a secondary cleanup. We are lucky to have such amazing tools and means we can use smaller, cheaper lenses and achieve great results in low light with a bit of effort in post. 😊
Ooh yes that's a good point about Topaz being able to work with non-RAW files. I'd like to give the latest version a try sometime soon actually - I'm still on the older versions too 😀
And yeah agreed - these bits of software are one of the biggest improvements in photography in recent years, in my opinion. Opens up a lot of new options that were previously the realm of very expensive cameras and glass.
Hi Robert.. i just bought dxo pure raw 3 last week.. what does it cost me to get 4? Greetings Ron
@@ronschuddeboomdigiscoping3693 Doh, I think that happened with me and version 2. I suspect it'll be the standard upgrade license cost (which is $79), but it might be worth emailing DxO to see if there's anything they'll do. I have had some companies offer a discount when I've tried that before.
Thanks, Robert.
One thing that I notice with DXO Photolab (I use DXO Photolab alongside Topaz and Adobe AI), is that files processed with DXO software will overaturate and appear double-processed if Lightroom is then used to Auto-adjust.
This is true even if DXO’s Colour and Light adjustment tools are turned off. I’m wondering if you see this in DXO RAW as well.
I note.that the sample photo of the little flycatcher has highly saturated greens that are very reminiscent of the issue I see in DXO.
Cheers
Tom
Ooh interesting question - I'll see if I can test this out. I suspect Lightroom might be confused by the file info, as it'll be looking at the details of the original exposure but dealing with a quite substantially different file 🤔 I copy/pasted my develop settings from a previous attempt to fix that photo that wasn't run through PureRAW, and did find that I had to pull back things like saturation somewhat afterwards.
@@robert_may 👍 Yes. If I’m using Aito-process coming out of Photolab, I cut all applied values in half and then proceed from there. Anyway - thanks for an interesting chat.
Interesting!
I have an E-M1 mark III camera with pro lenses. M43 system provides lots of noise above ISO 2500 the limit is around 6400. I tried several noise reduction software, and PR4 delivered the best result with Olympus orf raw files. (Topaz Denoise AI is good too, but it is not available anymore as a standalone application.)
I too used to use Denoise but Topaz have now merged it into Photo AI, which works as a plugin or standalone app. It’s not as good as PR3 on high noise images though but I haven’t yet tried PR4 or Topaz version 4.
Good information, I'm in the process of upping my game from lower ISO static images of birds to higher ISO images hopefully catching some behaviors.
There's a number of modern cameras that have gotten really good at high ISO performance. There can be some problems with colour shifting (which the OM-1 is prone to when underexposed), which is difficult to correct later, but software like PureRAW has really allowed me to stop worrying about ISO 😀
@@robert_may Being semi-retired allows me time to experiment with my work on noise. Having over 30 years of architectural image editing experience has taught me patience. I'll be downloading all the noise reducing applications and testing. It may take a month or three, but I do believe they have evolved to the point that I can get to the next step. After that I'll look at a new camera body. I've invested heavily in color management and won't tolerate color shifts that are too intrusive to my workflow.
i see keyboard behind you and music sheet... And you mension about your working in programming. What do you do for a living?) Im just wondering)
Haha I am a software engineer, but I also play a lot of music. Very out of practice on the piano though - most of my other, weirder, instruments are just out of shot.
what do recemend for batch settings in advanced settings eg 30 and 0 and maybe turn the other settings off then do the rest in light room i am used to ver 2 and was fine with it
I’ve been running it on the defaults (40 and 0 I think) so far, but with the sharpening set to “Soft” instead of “Standard”. That works for me for probably 95% of my shots - I tend to just redo any individual ones that need different settings 😀
Personally I still prefer V3. I tried the trial version yesterday and in my own shots, which are mostly portraits of animals, I didn't see any real improvement in the quality of the generated files.
I use the "soft" sharpening setting as well because I like the subtle sharpening it applies. But with the stock settings in V4 with the "soft" preset the resulting image was way softer compared to the one I got from PureRAW 3. After I applied sharpening in LR it looked oversharpened.
And the "normal" preset resulted in an image that was oversharpened immediately.
So clearly they want you to tune the sharpening settings before processing the images. Which means that I would have to completely overhaul my workflow and invest more time into PureRAW 4, individually tuning each shot instead of just batch processing everything in one go. Usually I edit between 200 and 1500 shots at a time. This would take me *ages*.
Maybe I could find some "universal" settings I like to apply to all shots but since I have no issues with V3 right now and since I see no actual benefit in terms of image quality in my case I won't upgrade, at least not for now.
Yeah sharpening is the thing I find most inconsistent in all these different bits of software. I'm often tempted to just turn it off entirely and do it manually later. Makes sense to stick with what works for you - I've been using version 2 for the past year because 3 didn't work for my shots 😅
I got the exact same results. I was hoping for more detail and less CA and while CA removal did improve in my results, detail is worse and sharpening artifacts seem worse. I guess I'm saving some money
Looked at possibly upgrading but it still seems very buggy (rushed to market). On split screen if I use the mouse wheel to zoom in it only zooms the left side for me and after a couple of occasions it then crashes.
Yeah most of the bugs I found were in the preview view. Running through the instant processing in either standalone or the Lightroom plugin was largely trouble-free though, aside from one issue which I think is specific to Windows 11 virtual desktop switching (weird one) 🤔
I also find standard sharpening a bit to aggressive.
10,000 photos a day 👀
The version out of Dxo of the wagtail was great. But the oversaturated version from PS is horrible. That green water is not right.
It’s a reflection of the green foliage on the banks
@@robert_may Ok, Sorry Robert . It’s your image and you know what the scene looked like. It’s not the green color that bothered me just the saturation looks over popped. But that could be the video too. Thanks for a great review - I may well buy a copy.
@@michaelknibbs Haha no worries - it probably is still slightly oversaturated! I ported over my settings from the non-DxO version and it was waaaay too saturated, so I pulled it back quite a bit, but probably didn’t go far enough. I usually revisit photo edits over the course of a week and gradually refine them when I realise I’ve cocked it up, but ran out of time before the embargo date for the video 😅
It's a dunnock not a sparrow.
Technically correct. The best kind of correct.
Although it is also commonly known as a hedge sparrow, which is what I'm used to calling it. Even if that isn't technically accurate.
@@robert_may Fair enough! Admittedly,when I was growing up we called them hedge sparrows. Age has made me more pedantic😂😂😂
@@derektabron9952 It's one of those habits that's hard to shake 😆 I dunno why too - "dunnock" is such a satisfying word!
Or to be absolutely technically correct, a Hedge Accentor!😂😂😂
I found the new prime to be worse than the prime xd that i was using in 3.
Any particular subject matter it looks worse on? I'd be curious to find out as I've not had any problems myself so far on this version (and I had lots of problems on the previous one).