A choice to eliminate the noise reduction? That would leave the demosaicing and conversion to one of the selected file formats, and the optics modules. That’s enough for me.
I have never found the PureRaw sharpening to be useful, but at least I can turn that off and use Topaz Sharpen AI which offers much more control. PureRaw forces me to run both noise reduction methods on an entire batch. NR is more complicated because and I may need to stay RAW going into PhotoLab to try those options, or go to Topaz DeNoise AI.
As you can tell from reading my original post, I already have PhotoLab. (7)
In practice, if I’m shooting pretty much non-stop for 4 or 5 days and have somewhere between 1000 to 1500 images from three cameras, even after I cull down to a few hundred “possibles”, making that first demosaicing (from Fuji X-Trans) and optical correction works nice and fast. In my preferred workflow the NR doesn’t come into the picture until the next selection process.
So in PhotoLab I have access to many more tools (especially Topaz plugins). PureRaw wants to limit me to only two NR options, which is a decision that I don’t understand.
so you know that RAF raw files do not carry focusing distance information that DxO can read, so unless you are using a lens where DxO agrees with Fuji that only one set of corrections is needed your “nice and fast” optical correction w/o setting a focusing distance manually is a sham ?!
The main reason PureRaw exists is to apply DeepPRIME and DeepPRIME XD to raw file exports during demosaicing. It should be applied to every file as per DxO’s recommendation. If you are not going to use the main feature of that software why bother using it at all?
The request is based on what I’d call a genuine need (or want) of the OP which is therefore undeniable.
We can use DPR for optical corrections and leave NR to some other app. Moreover, other features can be tuned to a certain degree and I’d appreciate it to see some basic tune-ablity in all features. I don’t see sliders (unless DxO has planned to go that way) but something like mild/medium/strong…and none would make PureRAW a better rounded product.
Terrible localisation (see below) - Please improve/change your translation provider(s)
So your earlier suggestion that I get PhotoLab and use that in a batch mode will result in the same “sham”. In either case, the entire process would be fatally flawed, at least from the perspective of a pixel-peeper.
But of all the camera and lens combinations in the DXO library, how many of those produce RAW files containing focus distance information? A little more digging questions the accuracy of captured focus distance information.
DeepPRIME XD wasn’t part of PureRaw 1 & 2, so that observation is incomplete.
“…as per DxO’s recommendation”? Did you really expect a different recommendation? I was using PhotoLab with DNGs created from Fujifilm X-Trans RAF files years ago. They were processed with Iridient and I spoofed a model of a Sony camera (which was in PhotoLab’s lookup table) that then showed up in the EXIF data. At that time DXO would rather I not use PhotoLab at all than be happy with the (my) most important 95% of PhotoLab’s capabilities. Lens corrections could be applied during Iridient’s processing. For the most part, lens correction beyond the manufacturers’ has not been an issue. Recently I’ve been using the Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 and additional correction has been useful.
To that last question…Because I decide what is the “main feature”. To be truthful, I use PureRaw when I’m looking for “good enough”, or to get a batch into decent shape for further post processing. With so many post processing products available, I have a choice of when and how to use them. Suggesting an all-or-nothing position for any of them is not what I would consider to be responsible – but I’ve grown to expect that in this forum.
Thanks. It would make the software more complex, but would certainly allow us to tune the workflow to fit the purpose. I doesn’t seem to me that DXO has spent enough time stepping back a little and looking at the needs of photographers who have different workflow needs.
if you bother to correct focusing distance manually ( that is if your lens model warrants that, for example XF27/2.8 does not - it has one set of corrections and it seems that even Fuji itself provides just one set of corrections regardless of focusing distance ) then you get some value from optical corrections… otherwise my suggestion is to use Fuji provided optical corrections
RAF → Iridient X-Transformer ( that can apply what Fuji supplies like a breeze ) → your further app of choice ( was it Topaz something ? )…
if you do not need AI/ML based NR from DxO then Iridient will deliver you a qualify X-Trans demosaick and will use optics correction data from Fuji which accounts for focusing distance info w/o a need to know it ( either by baking it in linear DNG or supplying it as documented tags in linear DNG for another app to apply ) - but I assume you know all that because it seems you were using Iridient before…
I do not believe you indicated which version of PureRaw you are using in this thread. DeepPRIME XD which was first available in the October 2022 release of PL 6 is also available in PureRaw 3.
The original version of PureRaw was specifically built around DeepPRIME with the addition of corrections for various distortions for lenses when optical profiles are available. Those of us here involved in the original development of DeepPRIME and DeepPRIME XD understand, though extensive experience, the advantage of using one or the other of these tools on every image, not just those with high ISO. However, it’s your license so you can use the software anywhere you choose.
That’s interesting history, but time only goes one way. Within minutes of the software’s release, that experience and original intent becomes ever more distant from the multitude of users who determine how useful it is and how they will use it. Technology is like a multi-arm see-saw and DXO isn’t always going to be the one sitting on the highest one.
With PureRaw2 I got some amazing “saves” from X-Trans RAFs, but I also got some really grim results in both NR and demosaicing. Thankfully, I had Iridient and Topaz DeNoise AI. For me, PureRaw2 never was acceptable for night work. PureRaw3 is better, though not always what I need. Some time in the future DXO might even allow us to “use the software anywhere we choose”.
(Canon, PL5 on desktop GTX 1050ti, Win 10 & on laptop GTX 4050, Win 11)
No software of any type, allows a user to do use the software any way we choose. The user is always constrained by the developers design and choices.
ROFL. Not bloody likely. If that was a “verbal stab”, perhaps there is a little pill for “verbal enhancement”. (And, to be truthful, I doubt it was intended as a verbal stab, except in the minds of some people.)
Really? I can start in Iridient, do a few selected things in PhotoLab, pop into PhotoShop for something it does better, return to PhotoLab, employ one or two plugins, and do the last few adjustments in PhotoLab, and then render final files in one of my preset formats.
To be fair, I think PureRaw 3 does a decent job for X-Trans demosaicing, but you have to take one of the two NR choices (usually not a good thing to add AI NR on top of existing NR).
I really depends on your workflow. But if you are working on one file at a time, and you’ve been happy with the results, PureRaw may not provide much benefit. There are some things in PL7 that I liked just enough to buy the upgrade.
For either PL7 or PureRaw, if you have 30 days in front of you where you’ll have time to sit down to try and compare, go ahead and download the trials.