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!
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.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 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?
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 eitherI 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
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.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
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.But don't forget to eliminate any clipping before exporting to linear DNG.
No... Typically, DNG files store unprocessed RAW data. By contrast, Linear DNG files store some intermediate results of RAW conversion.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.
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.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.
Yes, I completely agree.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, thank you for the clarification.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.