Unsupported Lens Workaround

I believe I have found a workaround for the lenses that are not supported by DXO PureRaw2. However, it involves the use of Topaz Sharpen AI. I would really like to stop using the Topaz products but until DXO can support my equipment, this will have to do.

  1. Process the file in DXO Pure Raw 2 without the sharpening or lens corrections modules selected.
  2. Export the DNG file back to Lightroom.
  3. Make all necessary edits in Lightroom (including lens corrections if necessary)
  4. Zero out all detail (sharpening and noise reduction) settings.
  5. Export file to Topaz Sharpen AI (let Topaz determine best settings)
  6. Export back to Lightroom.

I have found the end result to be virtually the same as a file from a DXO-supported camera/lens.

How is that a workaround?

That’s just not using lens corrections that don’t exist.

1 Like

In my opinion, my ‘workaround’ achieves an end result similar to an image processed with a camera and lens combo that is supported by DXO. In most cases, I find that my lenses don’t necessarily need any correction. However, if correction is needed I am happy with the correction obtained in Lightroom.

Your workflow profits from PureRAW’s excellent demosaicing and noise reduction. All the rest can be done in whatever app you like. Using PureRAW like this is okay, as it is also meant to be used as a pre-processor for any other app(s).



Lately, it seems as though I am reading more and more about workarounds for various issues related to DXO. I enjoy using the software, but with all of these workarounds I am wondering, if as consumers we should be expecting better from DXO?

1 Like

I suspect that > 95% of all users are happily tagging along with the features they get and that only the most demanding/annoying users post in the forum.

We always want more for less and this has advanced and accelerated progress and productivity at the cost of the environment and less economically developed areas of this earth…

Should we expect better from DxO? Yes, certainly, but we’ll also need to be ready to bring food to their tables.

So, my post was annoying/demanding? Thanks for your terribly, insightful opinion. And, why shouldn’t one be demanding? DXO does not do a good job of informing potentially new customers that their products are not compatible with all equipment. Not to mention, but I will, the fact that many of us have tens of thousands of dollars tied up in our equipment to obtain the best results possible. DXO software isn’t cheap. I was incredibly disappointed that I could not get the same result from one lens that I could another using DXO PURERAW 2.

Fully agree that DxO could improve their communications greatly. Caveats like application and system interoperability as well as the limitations when unsupported gear is used are listed, but not easily accessible, unless one already knows about the caveats.

Your post are neither demanding nor annoying imo. What you call a workaround is a variant of intended use of PureRAW which can handle images shot with all kind of gear - except that the best results are available only, if the gear is fully supported. This makes some of DxO’s products “speciality” applications rather than “general use” apps and again, DxO would do good to point this out.

1 Like