Perhaps I should have said “PhotoLab owners” rather than “PhotoLab users”.

My original post included…

…and the initial responses were…

Maybe it’s just me but the implication I took from those responses was “why would you bother spending more money?” Which is why I felt it worth explaining the benefits of using the black box compared to the full product, even if it cost more and reduced control.

That’s it. If you want to use PL4, use PL4. If you want to use iMatch and not PL4’s DAM, then do that. And if you want to use a fully featured product only to do basic RAW conversion, then do that too. I’m not suggesting what anyone do, just offering a perspective.


I must admit that I’m a bit confused too about what @zkarj wrote. PureRaw is somewhat an excerpt of PhotoLab. So if you already have PhotoLab, it would indeed be a double spent for the same thing. The workflow would be the same between both softwares as it seems you’re using another DAM. Yes, it would be the same (spare one mouse click, maybe two).

What I would better understand though is this narrative: “I presently have DxO PL, but I mainly use it for demosaicing + optics corrections + NR. Since DxO has released PureRaw, I won’t buy DxO PL Elite 5 in the future, I’ll just buy PureRaw 2 instead”.

I can’t think of any other way to write it, but it doesn’t matter. My point is made for anyone who sees value in it.

I do value everyone’s opinion here, and as much as I feel I have been misunderstood, so I have probably misunderstood others.


I see that as simply a statement of reality; Adobe is the “gorilla” in this marketplace - but, that doesn’t mean there’s not room for other players too … and PureRAW is a clever move (I reckon) that gets DxO a bigger share of Adobe’s user-base; who, otherwise, would never consider anything other than the Adobe rut that they’re stuck in.

Remember, PhotoLab is a LOT more than simply its RAW conversion engine and DeepPRIME - and non-DxO buyers of PureRAW may be tempted to have a closer look at PL once they’re introduced to PR … Again, a clever move by DxO, I reckon.

For example: I reckon there will be requests for “more control” over PureRAW processing paramaters … and punters can then be pointed to PhotoLab.

John M


Even better, provide more control over output-sharpening in PL’s Export to Disk process
See here to vote for this (Currently 42 votes as I write).

John M

Yeah, a valid point here (PureRaw as an entry ticket for DxO PL).
But then in the future DxO definitely has to make an upgrade plan from PureRaw to PhotoLab so that in the end, the user pays exactly the price of PhotoLab Elite, but in 2 steps.


Morning :),

  • Please, do not worry - no plans to cut any functionality in PL :wink: . As most of you said - this app is mostly for those who is not a PL user and works with RAW format.

But if you want to buy it even if you have PL, it’s up to you :grin:

Svetlana G.


Thanks for that confirmation @sgospodarenko . I was actually trying(unsuccessfully) to be funny, but that is very good to know.


Attention DxO PureRAW marketing team:

There’s a mix of languages in the promo material:

… which may be off-putting for someone considering purchasing PR - but worrying that it’s not in their native language.

John M

1 Like

Attention DxO PureRAW marketing team :
There’s a mix of languages in the promo material:

but at least a ‘consistent behaviour’ :upside_down_face:

1 Like

@John-M, @Wolfgang, as with most software, version 1.0 lacks some care regarding peripheral functionality. It’s a pity, because all these things have been pointed out during the tests.

The situation reminds me of something our math teacher said quite a while ago:
"Master, the work is done, should I fix it now?

Thanks John for pointing it out!
Was this in the promo email that you received or somewhere else?


Downloaded a Fujifilm X-T2 with X-Trans RAW file, and tried it in PureRAW

Exported it to Lightroom

Fujifilm X-T2 with X-Trans is working !

The output was not impressive :thinking:

Yes, was in promo email … as received by those who downloaded the trial version.


OK, thank you. I will forward the info to the mktg department.

1 Like

On a whim I downloaded this after seeing the discussion pop up in my usual DxO Forum notification.

While being a PL4 Elite I see no use in my case.

But that is not why I am responding. After generating the .dng a took a look at its info. The color space that was assigned to it was the color space of my display, Display P3. I would think there should be an option to chose the color space of the export for .dmg and not default the the color space of the display.

FWIW, I did this on an M1 MacBook Air.

I noticed that the Finder tells us that an image is in P3 in case that the image has no assigned colour space. Look at the screenshot of the info regarding a .CR2 file of an image I shot in 2008 - and neither Canon nor Apple used P3 at that time.

Note the wording: Colour Space is RGB, Colour Profile is Display P3 and sRGB .JPG files display sRGB on the Colour Profile line.

Update after @Sigi’s comment: Display P3 in the info dialog (screenshot above) simply means that the image is displayed with a P3 colour profile because the display has a P3 colour space…?

I’ve checked a .CR2 and its DPR output .DNG with exiftool -G -U -a name.ext

  • .CR2 shows “AdobeRGB” in [MakerNotes] and “uncalibrated” in [EXIF]
  • .DNG shows “AdobeRGB” in [MakerNotes] and has no colour space entry in [EXIF]
  • Finder says “Display P3” for both images.
1 Like

The raw data in the DNG does not have a colorspace but the embedded preview has. I assume that is what you see as Display P3

Turns out ON1 has some very nice tools but now that I have really had a play with it, they have a really strange take on some of the basics. As basic as zooming and panning. I may yet stick with PhotoLab.

But what was really interesting was working with a DeepPRIME’d image at full frame.