I’ve noticed that “classic” prime denoise has been removed from PL9 denoising options.
Is it possible to bring it back?
I’ve noticed that Deep noise removing algorithms in some cases produce less desired results - for example, “flat” surface of the sky sometimes got a kind of “blobs” - a very low frequency noise artifacts. I did not encountered this with “classic” prime algoruthm.
Best.
Marcin
It’s unlikely they’ll add it back, but you do have the option to tune noise reduction via masks now.
So if you’ve a subject you want to keep detail in (and are finding it’s being impacted) you could try reducing the NR applied to (your sky).
If you find the noise reduction too strong you can change the denoising parameters.
It is not too strong, it produces artifacts (eg. on the sky with even surface of the clouds).
Which means additional steps… In some cases “classic” prime was good enough. BTW, I have newer used “Standard” noise reduction.
Sadly, this is DxO’s way, they will just change things when it suits them with no regard to work people have done in previous versions of PL. I have many images that I’ve edited with PRIME since PL1, and in this case my choices are to either just accept the forced migration to DeepPRIME 3, spend time going through previously edited images to migrate from PRIME myself, or not upgrade PL. (I’m still on PL8 as is.) DxO has offered no other solution.
In PL5 they broke rotation on many of my images when they started reading xmp files. They could have added a toggle to disable the reading of xmp, but their solution was for me to rotate hundreds of images manually. I’m still running into them from time to time.
This is very bad form for an application suitable for managing an image archive over time, but I’ve come to the conclusion that PL is not such an application. It’s a very nice editor and raster file generator, but its non-destructive edits don’t always survive upgrades to PL itself, unfortunately.
In my experience, the best way to ask DxO to address this problem is to submit a support request via support.dxo.com. Then provide a test image and .dop sidecar file (using upload.dxo.com, referencing the number assigned to the support ticket) and make sure you mention in the support request that you’ve uploaded these files for evaluation. DxO support will then either help you find a good solution using PL9, consider your request to add PRIME (2016) denoising back in, or evaluate ways to improve their demosaic and denoise algorithms further.
I hear you. It does force a certain approach to editing (masking) and unfortunately masking can be quite a slow process in PL9!
Sadly…
I don’t really understand your criticism; if you manage a large archive, you develop the photos once and then you don’t need to reprocess them.
If, by chance, you do need to reprocess an image, you can always use the version of DX O you used initially.
Personally, I haven’t encountered these problems.
I don’t have any particular problems with image rotation, as my camera gives me the correct orientation. The only exception is when the camera is almost horizontal and gets it wrong, but even in that case, if I rotate the image in DO, I don’t have any problems. Exception, with my iPhone but I don’t use frequently DxO for its pictures.
Yes, some people do this. Other people revisit images they’ve previously processed in an earlier version of the software to see if they can be improved. If you like to do this then it’s a fairly important property of the software to respect your previous edits, so that you don’t return to your images and find that they’ve changed substantially.
Assuming you still have the hardware or software to do so. I certainly no longer have the computers I ran PL1 through PL3 on, and I can’t just install the software on another computer (even if the sortware went along, which is more of a problem on macOS than Windows) because of DxO’s relatively restrictive upgrade licensing.
So it would be nice if DxO tried a little harder with respecting the rendering of previous versions of their software. It hasn’t been as bad as discovering that my skies have turned completely green from one version to another (although I did have some colour shifts between PL2 and PL3, I think it was), but forcibly migrating PRIME to DeepPRIME 3 is not respecting previous rendering.
The problem in my case was with older cameras without orientation sensors, and PL applying orientation both from existing dop files and from existing xmp files that it started reading in PL5. That affected hundreds of my images.
None of these are insurmountable problems, but there are better things to do than spend time fixing them when the software could have dealt with it.
Welcome @M64 Marcin
PRIME has evolved and become DeepPRIME 3.
It should not be confused with DP XD2, which can produce artifacts.
Pascal
The problem is that DeepPRIME 3 isn’t always an improvement in any given image. I have noisy images with areas of uniform colour that render more smoothly with PRIME than DeepPRIME 3, regardless of settings. The latter’s rendering is blotchier, for lack of a better description. It doesn’t even require pixel-peeping to see, it’s noticeable even an normal viewing sizes.
Being shoe-horned into DeepPRIME 3 in cases like this is a step backwards, so even if DeepPRIME 3 is a descendant of PRIME, it’s not a drop-in replacement. Until it is, I’m not keen on upgrading to PL9 and giving up PRIME, and I don’t see why DxO should be in a hurry to drop it.