Comparison of output, PL6E complete vs Luminar Neo

I am attaching two JPEG outputs from an original Nikon Z9 NEF, lossless compression. These are my copyrighted images; one was processed with PL6E complete DeepPRIME XD current production. The other is Skylum Luminar Neo current. Both were using MS Win 10 current. The PL image was part of a portfolio submitted to and accepted by the client (excerpt: Wonderful colors on some of the birds. The detail on the feathers is great. ) I had been experimenting with Luminar Neo, but there is a major issue. Luminar Neo crashes when attempting to use directories/files on network shared folders, but requires files to be copied onto local media (internal drive or USB attached drive). PL works fine on network shared folders; if MS File Explorer can “see” the file, so can PL. Skylum support has not been able to address this issue.

Luminar Neo

I prefer Luminar’s rendering of the background. The same softness could be achieved in PhotoLab with a local adjustment or two. Maybe that showing some of the birds context was important?

BTW: What does the E stand for in “PL6E”? “Essential” or “Elite”?


I agree with platypus. The first image is way over processed.

1 Like

PL6E Complete: DxO PhotoLab 6 Elite (ie, DeepPrime XD) Complete (including the perspective and film pack applications that are marketed as stand alone applications but actually are integrated in PL6E once the license is paid – unlike Nik and “plugins” that do NOT use the internal image processing pipeline of PL6E and require an export to a TIFF or similar file).

I appreciate your comments. The presets I have developed “over the years”, originally for the Adobe suite and now for PL produce images accepted by clients. Were I submitting for a photography exhibit (or contest) judged by either of you (or others with similar aesthetics), I would need presets that meet your criteria. What about my personal aesthetic criteria? Unfortunately, I do not have the economic “freedom” to do that. One question: The same softness could be achieved in PhotoLab with a local adjustment or two (Background?). Which local adjustments or two would you recommend? I will incorporate these into a preset. Thank you for your comments.

Can you upload the RAW file to a sharing service and post the link here? I will give it a try with LAs.

1 Like

I do not know of any no charge sharing service that can accept a 50 plus MByte file. If you do, please advise. My clients typically have a service to which I upload files, usually JPEGs.

Others have successfully used, dropbox or google drive to share their files.

I just tried to use that allows a limited 2Gbytes for “free” with target adverts – and presumably will deluge my email. However, the ability to scroll down and actually even log-in does not work on Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, not Microsoft Edge. Is this an Apple Safari site?

Alternative to wetransfer might be, very useful. Not sure if you want to use it for this threat, but in general, its a great service. In my view better than wetransfer. less adds.

@wildlifephoto I feel personally that the first image (preferred by your client) is somewhat over-processed and the second image under-processed.

However, my concern, particularly with the first image is the amount of noise?

DxO have concentrated on noise reduction for RAW images but sadly not made any (new) attempts to help with noise in JPG images, given that all my images from 2003 until part way through 2018 are JPGs then my processing to achieve a look I like can increase the noise with no effective way of reducing or removing it!

Here, is my take on your images using ON1 to attack the noise in the JPG (I don’t believe that ON1 is superior to DxPL for RAWs but for JPGs it seems to offer something useful?)

If you are able to supply the RAW (with or without the DOP) either via a transfer service or wrapped as a zip then other users could try to process the image.

This zip of a RAW (and the RAW) from my Panasonic GX9 took about 2.75 minutes to upload on my slow internet connection and is not as interesting as yours, but I wanted to try out an upload since an engineer spent a large chunk of Saturday trying to fix our internet connection!

Apparently at the cabinet the connection showed 40Mb down and 10 Mb up but after a journey of 1.2KM we received 1.82 Mb down and 0.41Mb up! At a junction box out on the main road that was down to 17Mb down but was still bad at the junction box at the foot of the telegraph pole!! Apparently the fault was in an intermediate junction box “hidden” in a neighbour’s hedge and he managed to find two spare wires and we now have 13.52 down and 1.22 up with the added benefit that is doesn’t seem to collapse under the weight of an upload or two!! (20.0 MB)
or even as a RAW

P1010008.RW2 (22.9 MB)

I have had a free wetransfer logon for some time and can use it from any windows browser!? I get the odd email but … I have also just tried and that looks useful.

The opening screen for Chrome is

and you can “No thanks” and then need to agree to the terms of reference, which I have not checked and you should be able to use it, if you wish to.

Wow!!! And do they call that high speed? We live 4km from our local town (population 3,600), 2km from the sea, in the middle of farmland and only half a dozen houses within a 1km radius. We get FTTH (fibre to the house) at around 250-300MB both down and up. And, if that fails, we have 5G mobile phones with 75MB down and 7MB up.

Obviously Brexit is having greater effects than Bojo was willing to admit to :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

@Joanna You need to go back further than that to de-nationalisation and the “darling” of the right!

Plus the “Avenue” could have had fibre when Nynex (now owned by Virgin) was butchering roads and causing gas leaks but the residents voted not to allow the verges and road to be butchered and committed the residents to slow internet or Elon Musk!

The road is not ‘Private’ as advertised but an un-adopted road that has been adopted by a road association (i.e. the residents) and looks like this (I was photographing the Lavatera I planted that blocks access to our drive but a bit of the road snuck in).

It is patched but O.K. but the broadband is lamentable, pronounced in English or French as you wish!

The average for the road is 15Mb down and 1.5 Mb up, but a short walk onto the main road and they have Virgin Fibre.

According to the engineer there appears to be fibre cables (FTTP or FTTH) on the entrance to the road but that is as far as BT have reached and … then vanished.

The government of the day leans on BT and BT picks the easiest route to meet their targets (and it may or may not have been better if it was still a nationalised company).

and don’t start me on Bojo or … or … there is no place for politics here so hands over you eyes when you read “darling of the …”.

Oh and we are in a not-spot for mobile coverage, parts of the bungalow receive no signal at all, the engineer could not access his tests systems with his EE phone and being a bungalow surrounded by high trees at the back (guilty) and in the lee of the South Downs, we would need to put the 4G aerial up a high pole and as for 5G, what’s that?

But I still managed to write long posts, so there …

Well, that explains the slow speeds - too many words per second :wink: :laughing:

@Joanna :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

If you have a gmail account, you can use Google drive. Free, and easy to use. Does Google spy on what you upload? Probably. But, every other file upload option will do the same. Don’t like that, get your own FTP/web server that you 100% control.

The noise is horrendous. I am guessing the original image was heavily underexposed.

The processing on either image is well, poor imho.

I would quite like to see the RAW file.



Just contrast -100 and denoising high quality. On the jpg.


1 Like

@George and with the RAW even more might have been possible but (notwithstanding the money to purchase ON1) I was actually impressed with what is did with the noise in the JPG and I left the contrast as it was.

Your image is on the left and the ON1 image is on the right of the original and the ON1 image is also here.

There is a place for advanced JPG noise processing I feel but value DeepPrime and DeepPrime XD for RAW processing.

PS:- There is a degree of “artificiality” with the ON1 image I have included above and using the controls to allow some noise in the image may well still remove the worst of the noise but not introduce as much “artificiality” to the image?

Nicely done. The final image is much improved over the other two. ON1 seems to do a great job on jpegs.

Free and you can share very large files - no need to register for an account to use either. I regularly use it:

@Louie Thank you for your response. On1 appears to do a good job of removing the noise from the JPEG while leaving much of the image detail (possibly all) intact but for some reason I feel the image doesn’t look quite right!?

1 Like