f8lee Loc: New Mexico

So I have been using LR Classic for 10 years (or since Apple blew off Aperture) and started with PureRAW2 a few months back - and have to say I am rather impressed. When I shoot an event where hundreds of shots are taken (the rodeo, for instance), my workflow has become thus:
1. Import all images into LR (and rename along the way)
2. Review images quickly - culling out obvious baddies and perhaps doing a little Develop stuff (color space, crop, whatever) in LR
3. After deleting the fails from step 2, batch running what's left through PureRAW2 and importing those into LR
4. Having sorted the folder by filename, so the dng files appear adjacent to the original raws, I flip from one to the next (and use the "Previous" command in the Develop module to apply the same crop, etc. that I did in the original image
5. For final tweaking, I use the Luminar Flex plug-in and generate JPEGs from there as needed

After that, general tweaking and culling...and I delete the original raw files because the dngs coming out of PureRaw are, in some sense, raw files, right?

So here is my question - would adding Photolab add some functionality? I'm thinking it might be a more powerful editor than Luminar Flex, but will it work on the dng files that are the result of the PureRAW processing?

And yeah yeah - sure I could download the 30 day trial version, but if anyone here has actual experience that might make it a more (or less) appealing package to spend some real time with...

Oh, and I use a MacBook Pro with the M1 chip and 16 GB of RAM running Monterey

So, TIA for any insights

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Might probably depend on any of a number of factors --the most salient of which may potentially be what camera/system a person might be shooting-- but what I've found is this:

My 'primary' shooting (as in what I consider "important" stuff) is with Nikon stuff (mainly FX, but DX too), and though I've run my raw files through PR2 before progressing to any further adjustments I choose to make in LrC, I find there's no discernible improvement in my files, or at least nothing I couldn't have done more elegantly and in far less time than what could be done in Lr, so that's a wash. No clue whether or not that's the case with Canon or Panasonic or Sony or any of the other brands, but I suspect PR2 might be useful/helpful with some of the micro 4/5th's type cameras.

I didn't try, then ultimately purchase, DxO PureRAW2 on a whim though. After doing considerable A/B testing (via the time-limited free download option) I purchased the program specifically because it did/does a great job of translating/de-mosaicing the Fuji raw (raf) files I likewise shoot. It's better in fact than any other de-mosaicing applications that I've likewise used and/or tried. I confess that I was tempted by DxO's Photolab, but even though it appears quite robust, and apparently uses the same de-mosaicing processes as PR2, I'm comfortable with, and am more adept at, using Adobe LrC for the bulk of my processing. And realistically, all I was most concerned with was getting the 'best' initial translation of my raf files that I possibly could, so I went with PR2. And there's the matter of a 4x price difference between PR2 and Photolab, too, and with LrC I had no need for PL or it's cost. Workflow-wise, I still import my Fuji files into Lr as a 'first step', but once I've seen which files I'll want to be working on, I run those through PR2 then proceed on the resulting .dng files that are produced afterward in LrC, Ps, or whatever else I choose to use.

As mentioned above, maybe PR2 wouldn't make a useful or discernable difference with a Canon raw or a Sony raw or whatever, but it very much does with my Fuji (X-Trans, non-Bayer array) raw files. YRMV.

I would suggest, therefore, that PhotoLab might not be a useful workflow tool, but PR2 just might be.

Jrhoffman75 Loc: Conway, New Hampshire

It is my understanding that PL6 has more control and flexibility in noise control compared to PR2. If you are satisfied with PR2 results then my question would be what doesn’t LrC do for you?

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Thanks, @Cany143 - I should have mentioned that my primary cameras are Fuji X-Ts, and I too have found PureRAW to do a pretty outstanding job, particularly when using high ISOs (basically 800 or above is where the before/after improvement is quite noticeable). That's why I don't know if PhotoLab really adds anything useful to the party.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Well, as I mentioned I will use the Luminar Flex plug in on some images out of LR, where it's ability to sharpen or make some other tweaks are far simpler than trying to do them in LR directly. So I was just wondering if PhotoLab would give me a bit more flexibility as that final processing step...but perhaps it's not worth it.