DxO Pure Raw with Sample Image
Apr 26, 2021 07:06:40 #
I received an email from DxO introducing Pure Raw which uses some of the technology in PhotoLab 4 to "fix problems that affect all RAW files: demosaicing, denoising, moiré, distortion, chromatic aberrations, unwanted vignetting, and a lack of sharpness".
Being curious, I downloaded the free trial, and have been playing around with it for the last week or so on about 30 images. I'm attaching one of the NYC Skyline taken in 2010 on a Nikon D200/24-120 lens as dusk was approaching. I think Pure Raw did a pretty good job and showed noticeable improvement on the RAW files I ran through it - YMMV.
Being curious, I downloaded the free trial, and have been playing around with it for the last week or so on about 30 images. I'm attaching one of the NYC Skyline taken in 2010 on a Nikon D200/24-120 lens as dusk was approaching. I think Pure Raw did a pretty good job and showed noticeable improvement on the RAW files I ran through it - YMMV.
Apr 26, 2021 07:44:43 #
Apr 26, 2021 07:55:17 #
Apr 26, 2021 07:58:40 #
I would be interested in the comparison RJW mentioned. Do you use Topaz products? If so, how does this compare?
Apr 26, 2021 08:10:18 #
tcthome
Loc: NJ
RJW wrote:
Can you put up the original to compare? Thanks!
My thoughts also. Other wise we don't no how the software did.Apr 26, 2021 08:10:54 #
Apr 26, 2021 08:40:20 #
That's a beautiful image, Bill. It would be interesting to compare it to one processed with another major pp software such as Photoshop or Lightroom or Affinity Photo (I use) or Capture One.
From my experience, using many trial versions of the major pp tools (many more than I listed, above), they can all be used to achieve the same result - some require more steps and time but in the end I haven't found one that is better for my workflow other than ease of use and cost.
From my experience, using many trial versions of the major pp tools (many more than I listed, above), they can all be used to achieve the same result - some require more steps and time but in the end I haven't found one that is better for my workflow other than ease of use and cost.
Apr 26, 2021 10:11:44 #
RJW wrote:
Can you put up the original to compare? Thanks!
Here's an original image from later that same evening processed in Photoshop.
And a second version processed in DxO
Viewing in double download, the noise is easily visible in the first image. The DxO image looks much better to my eye.
Apr 26, 2021 11:34:04 #
I have to agree, Bill. The 2nd image in the 2nd post is better. Looks like software you might want to stick with. By the way, the first image is really nice.
Apr 26, 2021 11:45:34 #
I downloaded the free trial of Pure Raw and applied it to a raw (NEF) file of a very far off Osprey taken last week. My processing last week included Topaz DeNoise (since heavy cropping introduces some artifacts that looks somewhat like noise (ISO only 220) and then my usual Affinity Photo Processing. This current processing was only with Pure Raw and then the same Affinity Photo processing.
As you can see the second is much cleaner. The first has some edge artifacts and is slightly over-sharpened (auto denoise and sharpening from Topaz) but neither occurs in the second.
Thanks very much, Bill. I'll continue to use Pure Raw instead of DeNoise and will likely purchase it.
As you can see the second is much cleaner. The first has some edge artifacts and is slightly over-sharpened (auto denoise and sharpening from Topaz) but neither occurs in the second.
Thanks very much, Bill. I'll continue to use Pure Raw instead of DeNoise and will likely purchase it.
Apr 26, 2021 12:21:09 #
Bill, you have a timely post. Anthony Morganti published his comparison between the two today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJrj7uKdBVc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJrj7uKdBVc
Apr 26, 2021 13:29:25 #
ecobin wrote:
I downloaded the free trial of Pure Raw and applie... (show quote)
You're very welcome Elliott - I'm glad it was useful. I tried it on some images with higher noise and was impressed.
Apr 26, 2021 13:30:06 #
Apr 26, 2021 13:35:36 #
UTMike wrote:
I would be interested in the comparison RJW mentioned. Do you use Topaz products? If so, how does this compare?
Hi Mike. I used it alone, and also in combination with DeNoise AI. For problem images the combination seemed to work a little bit better, although DeNoise did very small adjustments to DxO processed images. For most I'd probably just run it through Pure Raw and export to my editor.
Apr 26, 2021 13:36:52 #
tcthome wrote: My thoughts also. Other wise we don't no how the software did.
My thoughts also. Other wise we don't no how the software did.tcthome - see my 2nd post in this thread for a comparison.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.