DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

DxO PhotoLab

I added it to my work flow to get Deep Prime - a wonderful fix for the inherent noise of the small 1" sensor in my Nikon 1 cameras. I shoot in raw, open the raw files in PhotoLab to apply Deep Prime, then export the result as a DNG file. I can then use the DNG file with Adobe Camera Raw for all the adjustments that I've learned over the years using Photoshop.

But doing this results in DNG files many times larger than the original NEF files. I suspect but cannot determine that PhotoLab incorporate the original NEF file in the exported DNG. Is that true? And if so, is the a way to keep this from happening?
 
If anyone is using DxO PhotoLab, I can answer any questions you may have. Official beta tester for over 8 years (retired last year)
I do not use it, thought I am now trying out the Pure RAW 3. How is it that it brings out the extra details from raw files that Adobe or Capture One cannot? Is it actually from lens and camera data? Sometimes I feel like they were manually sharpened or details applied, but what do I know? If you could share some details, that'd be amazing.

Adobe is pretty lazy at these things, so it is kinda believable that they would s**k at these processing :ROFLMAO:
 
I added it to my work flow to get Deep Prime - a wonderful fix for the inherent noise of the small 1" sensor in my Nikon 1 cameras. I shoot in raw, open the raw files in PhotoLab to apply Deep Prime, then export the result as a DNG file. I can then use the DNG file with Adobe Camera Raw for all the adjustments that I've learned over the years using Photoshop.

I think, giving the user a choice of 4 types of noise reduction is a dead-end way of developing software. Will the next version have five? :)
2023-04-09_10-08-10.jpg


DeepPRIME and especially DeepPrimeXD is no longer noise reduction, but an attempt of probabilistic detail recovery, which often results in artefacts. Also, noise reduction should be done by zones - you cannot apply general noise reduction to the whole image if it has both empty spaces and small details (forest and sky, for example). I can do this in Topaz Denoise Ai, but not here.
In other words, I can only effectively apply noise reduction to high ISO photos, images from small sensors (Nikon 1 ... ) or etc. where the noise is evenly distributed over the entire area.
But doing this results in DNG files many times larger than the original NEF files. I suspect but cannot determine that PhotoLab incorporate the original NEF file in the exported DNG. Is that true? And if so, is the a way to keep this from happening?

Yes. This problem still exists even in the latest version of DxO just for NEF files. At the same time there is no such effect in C1. It works fine with linear DNG.
So many people who have both DxO PL and C1 - combine C1 and DxO, i.e. open NEF in C1, then use "open with" from C1 to open NEF in DXO, run noise reduction and geometric distortion correction in DXO, etc. and then continue editing in C1. But don't forget to eliminate any clipping before exporting to linear DNG.

But, in general, I wouldn't touch with linear DNG and prefer to get the colours right (via DCP profiles), proper noise reduction in DXO PL + etc. and export the result as 16 bit TIFF ;)

I do not use it, thought I am now trying out the Pure RAW 3. How is it that it brings out the extra details from raw files that Adobe or Capture One cannot? Is it actually from lens and camera data? Sometimes I feel like they were manually sharpened or details applied, but what do I know? If you could share some details, that'd be amazing.

Adobe is pretty lazy at these things, so it is kinda believable that they would s**k at these processing :ROFLMAO:
PureRaw is good for workflow when you need to process a lot of files and get an acceptable result. But in PureRaw there is no way to preview the effects of your corrections. And with the cost of this product, it's easier to buy DxO PL and work with it, where processing a large number of files is not too much of a problem either :)
 
I do not use it, thought I am now trying out the Pure RAW 3. How is it that it brings out the extra details from raw files that Adobe or Capture One cannot? Is it actually from lens and camera data? Sometimes I feel like they were manually sharpened or details applied, but what do I know? If you could share some details, that'd be amazing.

Adobe is pretty lazy at these things, so it is kinda believable that they would s**k at these processing :ROFLMAO:
BTW... As a matter of fact, almost all modern image editors give excellent results, but there are cases where it is necessary to use only one of them. For example, when processing Pentax Pixel-Shift RAW's, DxO and Adobe interpret it as a normal RAW file. Only C1 and Silkypix work correctly with them.
 
But don't forget to eliminate any clipping before exporting to linear DNG.
Is that suggestion specific to C1? In my tests, highlight recovery in Adobe gives similar results to the raw and linear DNG files exported from PL6.
 
Is that suggestion specific to C1? In my tests, highlight recovery in Adobe gives similar results to the raw and linear DNG files exported from PL6.
No... Typically, DNG files store unprocessed RAW data. By contrast, Linear DNG files store some intermediate results of RAW conversion.
Therefore, it is better not to transfer an already modified "RAW-file" to another RAW-editor (Adobe LR or etc.), but either to prepare it in the first RAW-rditor in the most accurate way possible.
 
No... Typically, DNG files store unprocessed RAW data. By contrast, Linear DNG files store some intermediate results of RAW conversion.
Therefore, it is better not to transfer an already modified "RAW-file" to another RAW-editor (Adobe LR or etc.), but either to prepare it in the first RAW-rditor in the most accurate way possible.
Linear DNG is still scene referred, like the raw file and unlike a 16-bit TIFF which is output referred. Highlight recovery with 16-bit TIFF is not as good as with a linear DNGs which still has three channels to reconstruct data in the clipped channel.
One of the biggest advantages of DxO tools was always their ability to generate linear DNGs which have practically the same capabilities as a raw file.
By exporting with optical correction and NR only, we have a high quality input to post processing that loses almost nothing to raw file (in most cases?).
 
Linear DNG is still scene referred, like the raw file and unlike a 16-bit TIFF which is output referred. Highlight recovery with 16-bit TIFF is not as good as with a linear DNGs which still has three channels to reconstruct data in the clipped channel.
One of the biggest advantages of DxO tools was always their ability to generate linear DNGs which have practically the same capabilities as a raw file.
By exporting with optical correction and NR only, we have a high quality input to post processing that loses almost nothing to raw file (in most cases?).
Yes, I completely agree.
But the discussion above was that the linear DNG after PL is not created correctly (only) for NEF files.
I don't see any reason why highlight recovery can't be done correctly and finally straight away in PL, then save result in 16-bit TIFF and then not do it again (highlight recovery) in another editor. You can do without a secondary raw-image (DNG). But, everyone works the way they want and in the way that gives the best result.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I completely agree.
But the discussion above was that the linear DNG after PL is not created correctly (only) for NEF files.
I don't see any reason why highlight recovery can't be done correctly amd finally straight away in PL, then save result in 16-bit TIFF and then not do it again (highlight recovery) in another editor. You can do without a secondary raw-image (DNG). But, everyone works the way they want and in the way that gives the best result.
Yes, thank you for the clarification.
 
Back
Top