Hi,
what I am interested in, as DxO does not provide plug-ins for Capture One, if I select 10 images in C1 and pass those 10 images to PureRAW - how many images will actually open in PureRAW?
That would be 10, assuming they are all cameraRAW files. If you count the exports then 20
Have you tried it?
I asked because DxO PL, for example, only displays the last image. Support told me that it was a bug and they would try to fix it in one of the next versions. So I am interested in how it really looks with PureRAW and not how it is in theory.
I am a beginner with PureRAW: I am using the PureRAW DNG files for entry into Capture One and it works
@RobiWann Yes, that works as expected. Select all RAW files in CaptureOne and right-click or choose from the menu âOpen WithâŚâ and select DxO PureRAW. It will open with all the files from CaptureOne, ready to be processed. This works with hundreds and thousands of images.
Depending on your PR process settings, the resulting DNG files will either be saved into a subfolder where the RAW files are or into the same directory as the RAW files. If it is the same directory and youâre using a CaptureOne session, the DNGs will automatically show up in your session. In case of a catalog or when using a subfolder, you will have to manually import the DNGs.
Even though I use sessions, I always process into a subfolder so that when I import the DNGs into the session, I can have it apply automatic adjustments.
I am using DXO PureRaw 4 w/CP1. Iâm working on figuring out the best workflow. I normally import all my RAW files into CP1 and cull out what I donât want to edit and/or keep. Since DXO will not be a Plug In w/CP1, this would require me to export my original RAW files that I want to denoise and process them in DXO, creating the DNG file. And then export from DXO into CP1.
I have now tried another method. I purchased FastRaw Viewer so I can preview my files while still on my CFE B cardâŚbefore transfer to CP1. I generally know ahead of time which files will need DXO processing. I review these files and tag the ones that I want to process and likely keep. These files are processed with DXO and go into a DXO folder. I then export these files AND the original Raw files into CP1 using DXOâs automated process. This not only saved me âtimeâ, but also allowed me to limit the raw files to only those that match up with the DNG processed files when importing into CP1. So farâŚso good. I have to say that I am pleasantly amazed at how good/great these processed pics are. I should have said that I process with DXO before I do any editing on these files with CP1.
I will gladly accept other workflow suggestions.
This recent review of PureRAW may be relevant: DxO PureRAW 4 review - Life after Photoshop
I was curious what capture one settings I should turn OFF when i have a workflow of DXOraw->C1. As an example, in noticed this odd stretching of the imported, processed DNGs, and it seems like I had Lens correction in C1 on, with Distortion set at 100%. Sliding that to 0 fixed the distortion.
Is there a way to turn those on/off by import (eg, leave Lens Correction on for non-dxo processed images)
Thanks.
As far as I know, you could use a recipe in Capture One when re-importing DNGs, In this recipe you might be able to exclude optical corrections â canât tell you how as I only use C1 and no longer DxO (last version was 5.x). Iâm just curious: what are the real advantages of including two RAW converters in a workflow? What can you do in PureRAW you canât do in Capture One and vice versa? And how do you know which of them causes trouble like the geometrical deformation you just described? And what would you do when using a body/lens combination not supported by PureRAW? I donât want to criticize your workflow or PureRaw, I just donât get the advantages of it â maybe I miss an important point?
Deep Prime is not a complete RAW-converter. It is more of a black box doing some of the tricks Photlab can do but certainly not all.
The reason using PureRaw before using Capture One is that there is nothing like Deep Prime XD2s in Capture One really and not Lens Correction either like DXO is doing it. Capture One has nothing that can compete with Deep Prime.
One thing I do wonder over though is how well DNG will synch with C1 - there are issues. I mean what changes made in Pure Raw the DNG import to C1 will actually be read properly and what will not. Maybe using TIFF is a better alternative after all- despite it is a terribly heavy format.
C1 so far does not have AI based NR, as for the optics correction that depends on the optics â C1 offers their profiles + manufacturerâs corrections embedded in raw files where manufacturer does that ⌠for a lot of lenses thatâs good enough for most users ( and you donât need to wait for lens support ) + for some lenses like many from fujifilm it actually saves you from manual selections that must be done in dxo software to get optimal correction
so dxo has an edge for people not able to saturate their sensors ( so dxoâs AI NR can deliver ) and/or using either subpar optics ( cheap lenses, consumer level superzooms like 1-1000mm ) or some exotic wide angles where dxo lens profiles ( when and if available ) might deliver a noticeably better resultsâŚ
1 Like
I guess you just confused Deep Prime with Pure Raw? Speaking of âPureâ (and knowing there are worse marketing blurbs in this world): What remains of the purity after a heavy AI-denoising-attack? Itâs just a rhetoric question as for me noise is the least thing to care about. But ok, I tend to believe âpureâ in that case only means ânothing else than raw-conversionsâ and Only Raw might have looked too limited.
About those highly praised lens-profiles: As I experienced more than once the problems of lens names not recognized because manufacturers did a poor job before especially in the L-mount realm, where âcompatibilityâ only means âsure, you can fix a Lumix lens in front of a LeicaâŚâ and they never have enough breath or courage to tell you âbut this leads to a different entry in your lens listâ. DxO kept confusing a Sigma lens with a Leica lens for quite a while and itâs not DxOâs fault in the first place. However, C1 could deal with all (!) my lenses as they come with inbuilt profiles. Problem solved, results are good and convenient enough for me.
My curiosity feeds from the question âIf Pure Raw is that good of or a superior Raw-converter, what remains to be done in C1?â
PureRAW is not a complete RAW developer. It is a black box with very good denoising and lens profiles (as long as they are recognized correctly).
It is and will probably remain controversial whether it is better to do denoising at the beginning or end of the processing chain. I think it is qualitatively better to do it at the beginning, so Capture One can do everything except denoising.
2 Likes
PureRaw is among a few other things Deep Prime and even had a newer version of that than old Photolab 7 until version 8 gave us Deep Prime XD2s.
I totally join me too the writings of RibiWann above.
So I have updated my workflow and noticed some things as well that have been noted above. This workflow is when I have a lot of files to process.
I just returned from a trip to Central Europe and one of our stops was to the Wieliczka Salt Mine. It was mostly dark. ISO varied from 8900 to 25600 (Max Setting). I imported all NEF file into CP1 latest version. I then âlocatedâ them all on my SSD (Referenced Files) and exported them to DXO PureRaw4. Processed them all and exported to CP1. I then did my rating for all to determine what to discard, keep, keep and publish. By keeping the original names, the DNG file appears just above the NEF file. I then assigned the same rating to the NEF files. I then deleted all the files-both NEF and DNG that are rated to discard. Edited the DNG files with CP1 to publish. Then took another look at the files rated to keep. Culled the ones to delete and modified ratings of others. I did not edit the âkeepersâ at this timeâŚonly those to publish. I ended up publishing approximately 15%-20% of my photos.
I noticed a number of things. First, DXO absolutely performed exceptionally well. Removing noise and bringing out detail. I did a comparison of the same âeditsâ on the DNG and NEF files. Second, DXO has my specific Nikon 24-120 Z lens and does the lens correction well. If you go into CP1 and review thisâŚit is listed at â0â and will not modify again. CP1 does not offer a separate Lens ID for this lens and is picked up as âGenericâ. I understand that Nikonâs Z lenses may have their profiles baked into their software when imported into CP1ânot sure though.
I am now researching whether it is really necessary to keep the NEF file for a DNG that has been kept. Many sayâŚâkeep it as storage is cheapââŚandâŚâthe NEF has more information than the DNGâŚâ I am not one to gratuitously keep something that will have no future value. What are your thoughts.
1 Like
âŚas would have poorRaw 
I have used DPR and C1 and almost always used DPR as standalone app.
But my last version of C1 is C1 v12.
DxO optical corrections donât really matter that much for anything but architectural or repro work. Denoising and and demosaicing are worthwhile, but with Fuji X-Trans sensors and their dreaded worms, C1 seems to be the current king of the hill.