I think DxO have solved the problem you show around 13:00. They have done it with the DeepPRIME XD (only available in the PhotoLab from 6 I think). I compared the two, and those fine details in certain areas - the eXtra Details - are improved relative to PureRAW and PureRAW 2. Some fine details may still be missing when we pixel peep, but they are far from important - imo. The quality is far better than with Topaz Photo AI. Actually I have decided to use the annual upgrading fee for Topaz to ease the price for PhotoLab 6 - primarily to get access to DeepPRIME XD. Topaz has struggled for years to exclude artifacts from their noise treatment - even before sharpening - which is about to get annoying. The problem has been solved by DxO.
It does a fantastic job on those high iso, noisy files. But it is worth mentioning that you end up with a new dng file that is at least 3 times larger than the original. So I would only use it for those special occasions where it is really needed.
Hi, Jean-Claude. That's a good point. I totally agree with you on using it only for special photos, not as an automatic part of the workflow :-) Cheers, Greg
Nice review Greg. I too have purchased Pure RAW. It has its’ place in life and I can see using it for some images that I like to create. On your 15mm fisheye image from Bosque De Paz where DXO did the odd lens correction, you can turn that off. Click the DXO module button at the top, and choose None from the lens/camera combo and it won’t do the lens correction. That option also allows you to process one version in LR and one from DXO and bring them into PS and mask off parts of the image that you like from one or the other processing options and get the best of both worlds. Overall, a really nice tool in our arsenal. Very nice overview with great examples of the variety of places where it can be used.
Keith, thanks for the good words and for pointing out that you can turn off lens correction in PureRAW. I mentioned your comment to Ross too in terms of being able to stack RAW and DNG files as layers in Photoshop. Obviously with lens corrections applied it would be difficult if not impossible to line things up correctly. And, in the case of my fisheye photo featured in the video this would indeed be a good way to reap the benefits of the PureRAW version in terms of the cleaner detail without losing the cool fisheye effect. Cheers! Greg
Very extensive overview of various types of shoots. I tried PureRaw vs Topaz Denoise on images taken mainly with a 7Dmkii. In the end' I decided Topaz Denoise gave me far superior results in excessively high ISO images(3200) in lowlight conditions, at 800 ISO in reasonable light of an extremely colourful bird, Topaz also produced a far better final image compared to the DxOPureRaw. My major complaints against DxO was there was no way of controlling amount of noise, sharpness, original detail and colour noise while with Topaz these all can be adjusted. Even brightness can be on a very basic level be enhanced in Topaz. I also found that DxOPureRaw on some images had a tendency to oversharpen, while you showed ways of reducing certain effects using brushes, by getting my settings ok in Topaz Denoise I eliminated having to go back to sort out the over enhanced and/ or under enhanced areas. Cost wise if you compare the prices of the two stand alone products, Topaz definitely also has the advantage in my opinion. Having had my say Thank you for all your videos I find them most helpful especially your eBook on Flash Photography which has taught me so much regarding flash in nature.
Hi, Kirk. Thanks very much for your comments, and I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I considered throwing in a Topaz comparison but the video was long enough already :-) I agree that for telephoto shots, Topaz would be a good alternative for PureRAW and indeed offers the advantages you mentioned for selectively tweaking the adjustments. PureRAW is pretty much all or nothing; you take what DxO gives you. I will argue, however, that Topaz DeNoise and PureRAW are not quite comparable products because PureRAW can give some really nice effects in terms of color and lens aberrations as well in addition to noise and sharpening and on a wider range of nature photography scenarios. I think both products can have their place. I might indeed use Topaz for certain telephoto shots but, based on my (limited) experience so far will turn to PureRAW for night landscapes (where I've had really mixed results with Topaz Denoise), drones (for color and noise), and high contrast landscape scenes (for enhanced shadow detail). In the end, I think it's cool that we have so many different options now that allow us to pick and choose what works best for each of us for any given photo :-) All the best! Greg
Thanks for the in-depth review. In general, I like PureRaw very much but I have been concerned with the over sharpening on many of the PureRaw photos I have produced. To my knowledge, you are the first reviewer who has tackled the issue in-depth and appreciate your suggestions on reducing sharpness according to the needs of the image.
Hi, Ina. Great, thanks so much, and I'm glad you enjoyed that portion of the video. I think oversharpening is definitely something to be aware of, especially with low ISO, already sharp photos. But I do think that it can be dealt with pretty easily using a brush in LR or Camera RAW or even by stacking the original RAW and the DxO DNG as layers in Photoshop. All the best, Greg
I agree. Here is my workflow. DXO PureRAW is essentially DXO PhotoLab 4 that uses just few of the modules from its big brother. The things that they both do, reduce noise with DEEPPrime AI, they correct for lens distortions, but they there are few drawbacks to DXO PureRAW. Even if its used as prepartion for program such as LR, it still by default applies pretty agressive sharpening, which can at times be too harsh. Sometimes its just right, sometimes its too harsh, but for now at least there is no way to disable it in DXO PureRAW. In its big brother DXO PhotoLab 4, there is full control. So I would personally recommend DXO PhotoLab 4 if one can afford it to people. If however you or other viewers here want absolute best quality here is workflow I would recommend. Its not cheap but it delivers by far best results. I process everything with DXO PhotoLab 4, or if you like you can prepare the files similar to DXO PureRAW and process in Lightroom, but important step is to turn off sharpening and "lens details" in DXO PhotoLab 4. So I apply noise reduction, color grading all the good stuff in DXO PhotoLab 4, except sharpening and what DXO calls "lens details", attempt to fix soft edges on the lens. I export the files as TIFF and than I use another AI product from Topaz Labs, called Sharpen AI. But I use older version of Sharpen AI version 2. I don't use latest version 3 because I think they trained the AI with wrong models. Anyway I use TopazLab Sharpen AI and I set sharpen to auto, usually works for batch processing well, and there is option "extra noise" reduction, which than cleans any leftover noise and uses AI to sharpen every detial. The results are spectacularly clean and detail files even at high ISO and kit lens on prosumer cameras. I think at the moment its the best results one can get from all the tools on the market. Cheers!
Thanks, Lloyd. I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I know, that toucan species is off the chart! I'm happy you had the opportunity to see and photograph one. Cheers, Greg
Good work and video Greg! It has been on my list and after the first sequences in your review, I downloaded the software and got my own experiences. It is you have stated - the oversharpening is a problem sometimes. It can do overall good work and some parts are just too oversharpened even with strange effects. I will then keep the dxo file and use that as a mask with a PS raw generated file and mask out those parts. Works fine! Its strength is on noisy files where the sharpness is not to a maximum from the beginning. Keep on with your channel - good work even for us who are living of photography!
Thanks so much, Jan. I hope all's well with you. The masking in Photoshop is a good idea. The only potential problem there I think if the scene shifts a little bit during the DxO lens correction process. In that case the .dng and the RAW file may not line up. I'm guessing that would be fairly rare, however, and probably easily adjusted with the Auto-align feature. I'd be interested to know if you've seen that issue or not. In any case, I'm glad you're enjoying the channel! All the best, Greg
Thanks for taking the time to make this informative and honest review. Seems like DXO is a great all round pre-fix device for dng's, albeit with somewhat unpredictable results on some images which don't quite fit the mould. Your varied work is a great example of this. It's a shame it can't be used as a plugin in PS, would be much easier to blend and mask. Cheers
Thanks, Ross. Glad you enjoyed it. I agree about being able to use layers and masks in Photoshop to work the effects of PureRAW selectively. See my friend Keith Bauer's comment here though. I had thought that stacking the DxO DNG and original RAW as layers in Photoshop might work but then I figured that the DxO lens correction would make it difficult to line things up. Keith points out, however, that you can turn off the DxO lens correction. So, that would make for a plausible, if somewhat inelegant, way to work with layers between the original RAW and the PureRAW file versions. Best, Greg
Good review and a well composed video. And what a great selection of photographs; just viewing the video for your photographs was worth it for me! That being said, I think I’ll stick with topaz denoise AI and sharpen AI; one has much more control over the algorithms parameters and masking is also possible. Noticed that you’ve recently joined up with Jared Lloyd as well! Look forward to seeing and reading more of your efforts, Greg. Best of luck.
Thanks so much. Glad you enjoyed the video and the photos too :-) The Topaz products are great for sure. I do think that DxO PureRAW is much more useful with a wider range of nature photos whereas I think Topaz Denoise shines brightest when used for high ISO telephoto bird and wildlife portraits. When I reviewed Topaz Denoise a few months ago for night landscapes, for instance, it didn't fare very well. But, the cool thing is we have lots of great tools that we can pick and choose for our particular situation/interests, etc. 😀 Oh and yes, I am doing some articles for the Journal of Wildlife Photography this year. I'm glad you are enjoying them! All the best, Greg
Thank you Greg for this review. I have one simple question in case you know. I have the new Canon R7 and need to wait until DXO adds the R7 to their magic. What's the best way to know when that happens?
Hi, John. That's awesome. I am waiting to get my R7 :-) DxO has a new affiliate manager which may give offer a bit of inside information to their partners like me. I will reach out to them to ask and will reply here if I learn anything. Cheers
Hi Greg, excellent overview. I wonder if you were using the DeepPrime on all images, and that you might be better off choosing either HQ or Prime for those images that look perfect right out of the camera? I love the product for night photography.
Hi, Les. Glad you enjoyed it. I was indeed using the Deep Prime mode for all of the images in the video. That's a good thought on trying the HQ mode for those "perfect" files. My initial thought after seeing the oversharpening for those photos is that DxO probably really isn't going to help much anyway so why go through the hassle, especially at the risk of introducing some problems. I still think that's how I'll handle it but I will indeed give it a go with your suggestion to try them with the HQ method. Thanks for the idea! All the best, Greg
Hi Greg. Very nice work! I have been using DxO for a bit, Amazed! A question, Did you play with the three different processing settings? HQ, Prime and Deep Prime? I was thinking that applying a different setting for different levels of noise in the original captures, say, for low iso, low noise maybe using the HQ setting, for medium noise using the Prime setting and of course for the really noise stuff using the Deep Prime setting. I guess the best thing to do is just run them and inspect! What do you think? Dan
Hi, Dan. Good to hear from you! I hope you're doing well, and I'm glad you enjoyed the video. As I understand it, the Prime setting is a legacy option that does not use AI and takes longer to process. So, I think I would stick with Deep Prime AI. The HQ setting as I understand should do what you are thinking. I probably wouldn't worry about for low ISO, sharp images just because I don't think it's necessary. But, it might be worth a try. If you do so, please let me know what you think. I'm always up for learning more :-) All the best, Greg
@@deepgreenphotography Hi Greg, thanks for your quick reply. I am well and can't wait to start travelling again! Would love to go down to S.A. with you! So, I see that if you click on each of the different methods for DxO processing, you are given a time estimate for the file. HD is the fastest, Prime takes about double that and DeepPrime doubles again. Also, there is a "?" button that has a description of what each method does.
Terry West I truly enjoyed your informative video on Dxo PureRAW, and have since purchased it. A caveat though, is that in its current form, PureRAW will not open raw files of most Fujifilm cameras because their x-trans sensor does not employ a Bayer matrix filter. Perhaps this limitation will be resolved in future versions of PureRAW. Cheers.
Hi, Terry. I'm glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for your comment. That is a good point and something I had not considered. I guess the different sensor array for the Fuji would change the math for demosaicing. As you mention, perhaps they will broaden support or release a version for Fuji x-trans sensors at some point. Cheers, Greg
After taking your raws through DXO pure Raw do you make sure that Lightroom is set up to import the images after that without any sharpening and noise reduction? Maybe I can set all of that to zero in Lightroom and then save it as a preset that will be applied instead of lightrooms usual automatic treatment of a file? It would seem like Lightroom would still try to do some things to the image otherwise. Thanks for the video!
Hi, that's a good point. I'll usually check that before I send the file to DxO or after import. But having a preset is an interesting idea. It's definitely important to make sure that you're not doubling up on sharpening and/or noise reduction without realizing it :-)
i like the app, only to bad it is not working well on Apple Silicon Macs (M1), it hangs most of the time when it need to start processing. On Intel macs it works well, on the site is states it is compatible with M1 only this is NOT native, so it works with Rosetta and having some problems.
Thanks. I'll keep my eyes open. Much appreciated.
Very good and interesting demonstration. Thank you.
Glad you liked it!
Nice video amigo. Amazing software for sure :-)
Thanks, man. I've been enjoying your videos on the topic as well :-)
I think DxO have solved the problem you show around 13:00. They have done it with the DeepPRIME XD (only available in the PhotoLab from 6 I think). I compared the two, and those fine details in certain areas - the eXtra Details - are improved relative to PureRAW and PureRAW 2. Some fine details may still be missing when we pixel peep, but they are far from important - imo. The quality is far better than with Topaz Photo AI. Actually I have decided to use the annual upgrading fee for Topaz to ease the price for PhotoLab 6 - primarily to get access to DeepPRIME XD. Topaz has struggled for years to exclude artifacts from their noise treatment - even before sharpening - which is about to get annoying. The problem has been solved by DxO.
Thank you for this review.
Thanks so much, Sam. Cheers, Greg
Great review, thanks!
Thanks so much, Karsten. Cheers, Greg
It does a fantastic job on those high iso, noisy files. But it is worth mentioning that you end up with a new dng file that is at least 3 times larger than the original. So I would only use it for those special occasions where it is really needed.
Hi, Jean-Claude. That's a good point. I totally agree with you on using it only for special photos, not as an automatic part of the workflow :-) Cheers, Greg
Nice review Greg. I too have purchased Pure RAW. It has its’ place in life and I can see using it for some images that I like to create. On your 15mm fisheye image from Bosque De Paz where DXO did the odd lens correction, you can turn that off. Click the DXO module button at the top, and choose None from the lens/camera combo and it won’t do the lens correction. That option also allows you to process one version in LR and one from DXO and bring them into PS and mask off parts of the image that you like from one or the other processing options and get the best of both worlds. Overall, a really nice tool in our arsenal. Very nice overview with great examples of the variety of places where it can be used.
Keith, thanks for the good words and for pointing out that you can turn off lens correction in PureRAW. I mentioned your comment to Ross too in terms of being able to stack RAW and DNG files as layers in Photoshop. Obviously with lens corrections applied it would be difficult if not impossible to line things up correctly. And, in the case of my fisheye photo featured in the video this would indeed be a good way to reap the benefits of the PureRAW version in terms of the cleaner detail without losing the cool fisheye effect.
Cheers!
Greg
Very extensive overview of various types of shoots. I tried PureRaw vs Topaz Denoise on images taken mainly with a 7Dmkii. In the end' I decided Topaz Denoise gave me far superior results in excessively high ISO images(3200) in lowlight conditions, at 800 ISO in reasonable light of an extremely colourful bird, Topaz also produced a far better final image compared to the DxOPureRaw.
My major complaints against DxO was there was no way of controlling amount of noise, sharpness, original detail and colour noise while with Topaz these all can be adjusted. Even brightness can be on a very basic level be enhanced in Topaz. I also found that DxOPureRaw on some images had a tendency to oversharpen, while you showed ways of reducing certain effects using brushes, by getting my settings ok in Topaz Denoise I eliminated having to go back to sort out the over enhanced and/ or under enhanced areas. Cost wise if you compare the prices of the two stand alone products, Topaz definitely also has the advantage in my opinion.
Having had my say Thank you for all your videos I find them most helpful especially your eBook on Flash Photography which has taught me so much regarding flash in nature.
Hi, Kirk. Thanks very much for your comments, and I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I considered throwing in a Topaz comparison but the video was long enough already :-)
I agree that for telephoto shots, Topaz would be a good alternative for PureRAW and indeed offers the advantages you mentioned for selectively tweaking the adjustments. PureRAW is pretty much all or nothing; you take what DxO gives you. I will argue, however, that Topaz DeNoise and PureRAW are not quite comparable products because PureRAW can give some really nice effects in terms of color and lens aberrations as well in addition to noise and sharpening and on a wider range of nature photography scenarios.
I think both products can have their place. I might indeed use Topaz for certain telephoto shots but, based on my (limited) experience so far will turn to PureRAW for night landscapes (where I've had really mixed results with Topaz Denoise), drones (for color and noise), and high contrast landscape scenes (for enhanced shadow detail).
In the end, I think it's cool that we have so many different options now that allow us to pick and choose what works best for each of us for any given photo :-)
All the best!
Greg
Thanks for the in-depth review. In general, I like PureRaw very much but I have been concerned with the over sharpening on many of the PureRaw photos I have produced. To my knowledge, you are the first reviewer who has tackled the issue in-depth and appreciate your suggestions on reducing sharpness according to the needs of the image.
Hi, Ina. Great, thanks so much, and I'm glad you enjoyed that portion of the video. I think oversharpening is definitely something to be aware of, especially with low ISO, already sharp photos. But I do think that it can be dealt with pretty easily using a brush in LR or Camera RAW or even by stacking the original RAW and the DxO DNG as layers in Photoshop.
All the best,
Greg
I agree. Here is my workflow. DXO PureRAW is essentially DXO PhotoLab 4 that uses just few of the modules from its big brother. The things that they both do, reduce noise with DEEPPrime AI, they correct for lens distortions, but they there are few drawbacks to DXO PureRAW. Even if its used as prepartion for program such as LR, it still by default applies pretty agressive sharpening, which can at times be too harsh. Sometimes its just right, sometimes its too harsh, but for now at least there is no way to disable it in DXO PureRAW. In its big brother DXO PhotoLab 4, there is full control. So I would personally recommend DXO PhotoLab 4 if one can afford it to people.
If however you or other viewers here want absolute best quality here is workflow I would recommend. Its not cheap but it delivers by far best results. I process everything with DXO PhotoLab 4, or if you like you can prepare the files similar to DXO PureRAW and process in Lightroom, but important step is to turn off sharpening and "lens details" in DXO PhotoLab 4. So I apply noise reduction, color grading all the good stuff in DXO PhotoLab 4, except sharpening and what DXO calls "lens details", attempt to fix soft edges on the lens.
I export the files as TIFF and than I use another AI product from Topaz Labs, called Sharpen AI. But I use older version of Sharpen AI version 2. I don't use latest version 3 because I think they trained the AI with wrong models. Anyway I use TopazLab Sharpen AI and I set sharpen to auto, usually works for batch processing well, and there is option "extra noise" reduction, which than cleans any leftover noise and uses AI to sharpen every detial. The results are spectacularly clean and detail files even at high ISO and kit lens on prosumer cameras. I think at the moment its the best results one can get from all the tools on the market. Cheers!
Excellent video with some very pertinent information. One of my favorite photos is also of a Plate Billed Mountain toucan
Thanks, Lloyd. I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I know, that toucan species is off the chart! I'm happy you had the opportunity to see and photograph one.
Cheers,
Greg
Terrific video! I really appreciate the education, keeps me learning and improving.
Hi, Rex. Glad you got the comments to work and thanks for the good words on the video!
Enjoyed the vid. You can use the noise reduction slider in lightroom as an anti sharpness control.
Thanks, Mark. That's an interesting idea. I will try it out. Cheers, Greg
Good work and video Greg! It has been on my list and after the first sequences in your review, I downloaded the software and got my own experiences. It is you have stated - the oversharpening is a problem sometimes. It can do overall good work and some parts are just too oversharpened even with strange effects. I will then keep the dxo file and use that as a mask with a PS raw generated file and mask out those parts. Works fine! Its strength is on noisy files where the sharpness is not to a maximum from the beginning. Keep on with your channel - good work even for us who are living of photography!
Thanks so much, Jan. I hope all's well with you. The masking in Photoshop is a good idea. The only potential problem there I think if the scene shifts a little bit during the DxO lens correction process. In that case the .dng and the RAW file may not line up. I'm guessing that would be fairly rare, however, and probably easily adjusted with the Auto-align feature. I'd be interested to know if you've seen that issue or not.
In any case, I'm glad you're enjoying the channel!
All the best,
Greg
Thanks for taking the time to make this informative and honest review. Seems like DXO is a great all round pre-fix device for dng's, albeit with somewhat unpredictable results on some images which don't quite fit the mould. Your varied work is a great example of this. It's a shame it can't be used as a plugin in PS, would be much easier to blend and mask. Cheers
Thanks, Ross. Glad you enjoyed it. I agree about being able to use layers and masks in Photoshop to work the effects of PureRAW selectively. See my friend Keith Bauer's comment here though. I had thought that stacking the DxO DNG and original RAW as layers in Photoshop might work but then I figured that the DxO lens correction would make it difficult to line things up. Keith points out, however, that you can turn off the DxO lens correction. So, that would make for a plausible, if somewhat inelegant, way to work with layers between the original RAW and the PureRAW file versions.
Best,
Greg
Good review and a well composed video. And what a great selection of photographs; just viewing the video for your photographs was worth it for me! That being said, I think I’ll stick with topaz denoise AI and sharpen AI; one has much more control over the algorithms parameters and masking is also possible. Noticed that you’ve recently joined up with Jared Lloyd as well! Look forward to seeing and reading more of your efforts, Greg. Best of luck.
Thanks so much. Glad you enjoyed the video and the photos too :-) The Topaz products are great for sure. I do think that DxO PureRAW is much more useful with a wider range of nature photos whereas I think Topaz Denoise shines brightest when used for high ISO telephoto bird and wildlife portraits. When I reviewed Topaz Denoise a few months ago for night landscapes, for instance, it didn't fare very well. But, the cool thing is we have lots of great tools that we can pick and choose for our particular situation/interests, etc. 😀
Oh and yes, I am doing some articles for the Journal of Wildlife Photography this year. I'm glad you are enjoying them!
All the best,
Greg
Thank you Greg for this review. I have one simple question in case you know. I have the new Canon R7 and need to wait until DXO adds the R7 to their magic. What's the best way to know when that happens?
Hi, John. That's awesome. I am waiting to get my R7 :-) DxO has a new affiliate manager which may give offer a bit of inside information to their partners like me. I will reach out to them to ask and will reply here if I learn anything. Cheers
Hi Greg, what a fun 🤣 I published video on the same topic today 🙈🙏 Really good and helpful tool 👍
I'll check it out!
Hi Greg, excellent overview. I wonder if you were using the DeepPrime on all images, and that you might be better off choosing either HQ or Prime for those images that look perfect right out of the camera? I love the product for night photography.
Hi, Les. Glad you enjoyed it. I was indeed using the Deep Prime mode for all of the images in the video. That's a good thought on trying the HQ mode for those "perfect" files. My initial thought after seeing the oversharpening for those photos is that DxO probably really isn't going to help much anyway so why go through the hassle, especially at the risk of introducing some problems. I still think that's how I'll handle it but I will indeed give it a go with your suggestion to try them with the HQ method. Thanks for the idea!
All the best,
Greg
Hi Greg. Very nice work! I have been using DxO for a bit, Amazed! A question, Did you play with the three different processing settings? HQ, Prime and Deep Prime? I was thinking that applying a different setting for different levels of noise in the original captures, say, for low iso, low noise maybe using the HQ setting, for medium noise using the Prime setting and of course for the really noise stuff using the Deep Prime setting. I guess the best thing to do is just run them and inspect! What do you think? Dan
Hi, Dan. Good to hear from you! I hope you're doing well, and I'm glad you enjoyed the video. As I understand it, the Prime setting is a legacy option that does not use AI and takes longer to process. So, I think I would stick with Deep Prime AI. The HQ setting as I understand should do what you are thinking. I probably wouldn't worry about for low ISO, sharp images just because I don't think it's necessary. But, it might be worth a try. If you do so, please let me know what you think. I'm always up for learning more :-)
All the best,
Greg
@@deepgreenphotography Hi Greg, thanks for your quick reply. I am well and can't wait to start travelling again! Would love to go down to S.A. with you!
So, I see that if you click on each of the different methods for DxO processing, you are given a time estimate for the file. HD is the fastest, Prime takes about double that and DeepPrime doubles again. Also, there is a "?" button that has a description of what each method does.
@@danbrown8979 Hi, Dan. Yes, I checked out the info button as well. Pretty interesting. Come to Ecuador with me this September :-)
Terry West
I truly enjoyed your informative video on Dxo PureRAW, and have since purchased it. A caveat though, is that in its current form, PureRAW will not open raw files of most Fujifilm cameras because their x-trans sensor does not employ a Bayer matrix filter. Perhaps this limitation will be resolved in future versions of PureRAW. Cheers.
Hi, Terry. I'm glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for your comment. That is a good point and something I had not considered. I guess the different sensor array for the Fuji would change the math for demosaicing. As you mention, perhaps they will broaden support or release a version for Fuji x-trans sensors at some point.
Cheers,
Greg
After taking your raws through DXO pure Raw do you make sure that Lightroom is set up to import the images after that without any sharpening and noise reduction? Maybe I can set all of that to zero in Lightroom and then save it as a preset that will be applied instead of lightrooms usual automatic treatment of a file? It would seem like Lightroom would still try to do some things to the image otherwise. Thanks for the video!
Hi, that's a good point. I'll usually check that before I send the file to DxO or after import. But having a preset is an interesting idea. It's definitely important to make sure that you're not doubling up on sharpening and/or noise reduction without realizing it :-)
i like the app, only to bad it is not working well on Apple Silicon Macs (M1), it hangs most of the time when it need to start processing. On Intel macs it works well, on the site is states it is compatible with M1 only this is NOT native, so it works with Rosetta and having some problems.
Sorry to hear about the issues with some Macs. Hopefully they'll sort that out.
Will DXO Pure RAW work on J.P.G
Hi, David. No, it will only work on RAW files. Topaz DeNoise will work on any file format I believe.
Cheers,
Greg
Oftentimes its too sharp.
That can indeed be an issue. The latest version of DxO has an option to toggle the sharpening off if you wish. Cheers, Greg