For the vast majority of my sports workflow I have used High Quality, batch edit about 150 images at a time. I can’t seem to find ‘High Quality’ in PureRaw 5. Does it still exist? If not I need a refund.
Perhaps it is no longer necessary be cause the other options are just as fast?
No Joanna, it’s nowhere near as fast I’m afraid. I could run 150 images through High Quality in about 10 minutes, the new one took about 30 minutes. I don’t need the noise reduction on most images as they are max ISO 800. In winter months they go up to 2000, sometimes 4000.
As far as I recall, the pre-release information about version 5 made it clear that only DeepPRIME 3 and XD2s would be available from now on. Pretty sure I read it somewhere, anyway. No, High Quality is no longer available in version 5.
Oh bother, that’s a blow. Have to see if I still have 4, then decide what to do. Thanks
1 Like
You should have in your Downloads folder and as long as you made a note of the serial key somewhere, you should be fine.
Hopefully you haven’t installed the PureRAW 5 with the License Key. Once you do that, you are in breach of the user agreement if you continue to use PureRAW 4. PureRAW 4 will disappear from your “My software” list and the License Key will not appear in display in “My orders and invoices”. However, if you click on the download icon you’ll get a page that has the full order information, including the Key. The other day I saved all those PDF files to a DXO documents folder on my main computer.
EDIT: Having tried PureRAW 4 and PureRAW 5 side-by-side on some challenging DNG files, I can see the value in continuing to maintain your PureRAW 4. Sometimes you need a lighter touch in batch processing, especially with regard to regular subjects and locations.
I’ve mentioned before DXO’s trend towards technical arrogance – they rarely disappoint in that area.
Here it is in writing from DxO:
Unlike PureRAW 5, PhotoLab 8.5 retains HQ and PRIME while adding the new algorithms. I wonder if that will change in PhotoLab 9. I expect we’ll find out in September-October.
• Keep in mind that according to the first online reviews, DP3 is able to obliterate chromatic aberrations as never before (I have to test it on my side though)
• DP is not just denoising : this has been said on this forum many times already…there is the demosaicing part which is often overlooked. Even on low iso, I can pull my shadows very far, without getting any (or very low) noise. Try, you will see.
Ian.
Could you please quote the section of the EULA that states that you can’t continue to use an older version if you have installed and are using a newer one? Thanks.
I admit to being a little bit timid with regard to diving into that shark tank with the “EULA” sign on it. However, I can provide email quotes from one of their support agents (actually, I have no idea if it is one or many agents).
Apr 16, 2025, 5:14 AM GMT+2
“When you purchase an upgrade, it is still the same, single-user license you owned, it has just been upgraded to the new version. Therefore, purchasing an upgrade means it replaces the old version in your account with the new version at the upgrade rate. Once this occurs, you are no longer licensed to use the old version.
“If you wish to own both the old version and the new version, you would need to purchase the latest version at full price.”
Apr 16, 2025, 5:27 PM GMT+2
“Yes, if you had decided to use the trial without activating, you would have been eligible for a refund. Activating on 2 computers negates that, our apologies.
“There is no way to provide a trial now that the software has been activated, you would need to just open a technical support ticket and allow them to troubleshoot the software that has already been activated.”
Added:
One could deduce from those responses: If you didn’t upgrade to PureRAW5 and decided to purchase it instead (full price), you’d be legal running both PureRAW4 and PureRAW5 at the same time. 
Isn´t that replaced with “Standard” now??
… and yes, we need it because that is the only thing we have for JPEG-files.
Deep Prime isn´t Topaz that takes even JPEG-files.
Isn´t Standard a better word for High Quality as a default?
But PureRAW is only for RAW files, hence the name
1 Like
What hardware do you have (CPU, GPU)?
In my case there’s virtually no difference in HQ and DP or DP3 processing time.
I don’t have PR, but my PhotoLab uses probably the same denoising/demosaicking engine. With i14700KF, RTX-4070, 45 mpx 14-bit raws (standard Bayer CFA), all optical and some other corrections applied, I get the following per photo processing times in PL8.5 (batch of 10 photos, 45 mpx each):
- 1.7 sec – No Noise Reduction
- 1.9 sec - Standard (called HQ in PL8.3)
- 8.7 sec - PRIME (no GPU is used)
- 1.9 sec - DeepPRIME 3
- 4.3 sec - XD2s (heaviest, 87% GPU usage)
So with this hardware DP3 is just 10% slower than NoNR and equal with HQ. DP3, like DP and XD2s, adapts to noise levels across the frame, so it’s quite safe to use on low ISO photos. However, if you still prefer HQ, maybe use classic denoising method in your master software (LR, PS, AP, or whatever you use). HQ might be slightly better but the differences should not be too visible.
So we have someone who has the numbers running PureRAW5, and someone who doesn’t have/use PureRAW but is speculating based on different software. Not sure I follow that.
Why do you use this aggresive tone?
The engine in PL and PR is the same and OP didn’t specify his hardware yet, which might explain the difference. Don’t speak for OP.
That’s clear, thanks, but I still can’t see where it says it in the EULA. I must be missing something.
The article referred to be @Egregius includes a link to this table;
Support for NR algorithms by DxO product;
2 Likes
@Egregius I read the platitudes in the article you identified and sincerely hope they don’t downgrade any more options in either PureRaw or PhotoLab.
Once upon a time I used Luminar with its 5 licences and a workflow that had survived for a number of releases and appeared to be used by professionals who had created production workflows around the product.
They then announced a new version and told us that the licences were being reduced because users had indicated they didn’t need so many, what utter c*****.
They also changed the menus and then changed them again on the next release and at that point I christened them NTSI, Never Twice Same Interface, and stopped using the product. They didn’t seem able, and certainly not willing, to maintain the product structure from one release to the next.
There is no reason, that bears any scrutiny, to start deprecating features around which users may well have built their workflow, it is simply vandalism, particularly if the loss of that feature may result in an increase in processing time for the user or the loss of a particular “look” that the user wants to retain @Musashi, @DxO_Support-Team
In addition, @DxO_Support-Team the diagram on the web that is shown in the post above by @John-M is out of date after the release of PL8.5.0
DxO used a similar excuse to one used by Skylum for Luminar, in the following
In version 4, you can enable the display of legacy noise reduction algorithms in the preferences window by selecting the option “Processing technologies.” This will allow you to use DxO High Quality (HQ) and PRIME noise reduction alongside DeepPRIME and DeepPRIME XD2s.
Starting with version 5, we have streamlined the noise reduction options to focus on our most advanced technologies, DeepPRIME 3 and DeepPRIME XD2s/XD3 X-Trans. This change reflects user preferences, as the legacy HQ and PRIME options were rarely used. By concentrating on our latest innovations, we ensure the best possible image quality and processing efficiency.
The statement “we ensure the best possible image quality and processing efficiency” may be true with respect to image quality, but that is in the eye of the beholder, but as for the “processing efficiency” that certainly isn’t going to be true for all users
It also happened with PhotoLab 8 when users with GPUs with 2GB memory, which had worked perfectly with PL7, were “barred” from using any Noise Reduction capabilities that used the GPU. No notion of allowing those users to continue with DP or leaving DP XD intact as an option to the more GPU memory resource consumptive DP XD2s.
@Simon1 sorry for Hijacking your post
@LJClark Feel free to object to this post from a PhotoLab user if you want to.
2 Likes
Thank you for granting me permission to comment on your post. However, the density and span of you comment exceeded my own analytical capabilities. Instead, I turned to AI for an analysis:
"The user expresses strong frustration with software companies like DxO and Skylum (makers of Luminar) for removing or downgrading features that users rely on. They share a personal story about abandoning Luminar after repeated, disruptive interface changes and a reduction in license allowances, criticizing the rationale as disingenuous.
"Similarly, they criticize DxO for phasing out legacy noise reduction options (HQ and PRIME) in favor of newer technologies (DeepPRIME 3, XD2s/XD3), supposedly based on user feedback. The user doubts these claims, arguing that removing established features harms workflows and can reduce efficiency, especially for users with less powerful hardware. They specifically mention that PhotoLab 8 made certain GPU-dependent features inaccessible to users with older GPUs that had worked fine in previous versions.
“In summary, the user feels that these changes prioritize company agendas over user needs, and they urge DxO not to follow Luminar’s example of inconsistency and disregard for existing workflows.”