Moonlit Landscape - DXO Pure Raw Test

I’ve tried Pure RAW on a couple more images and did not get the horrible result shown above. I will continue to try it but my current impression is that is does a decent job of NR with high ISO images. It does darken the darker tones more than LR/ACR, but it returns a dng file – a true raw file which can be adjusted back in raw conversion before going to PS, where the darker tones would be baked in and harder to bring out detail. The contrast increase also increases saturation, too much for me, but that is also fixable if you back to the raw sliders.

When you move the preview slider across the image you see that the original does not have chroma noise removed, so that looks like a significant improvement, but if you process in LR/ACR, it has been removed automatically.

It did not do noticeable sharpening, but the files were clean enough that Topaz Sharpen can do a very nice job if needed.

Then I went back to the file I tried above, checked that all settings in the LR Dev module were at default, and ran Pure RAW again, with the same awful result. But it was not a very sharp image, so it must be attempting some sort of sharpening. The files I just tried that gave me good results were very sharp in places, but had limited DOF – closeups of small birds at close range with a long lens. The OOF areas in them did not look like the results in my earlier post.

Bottom line: for me, so far, it’s not better than leaving the LR/ACR sliders for noise and sharpening at the defaults and going into PS and using Topaz DeNoise as the first step. But it could be a convenience in some cases if it would integrate better with LR.

I didn’t try DxO PureRAW, but I suppose it can do the same as DxO PhotoLab 4 if you select to export a DNG file in PL4. The difference will be, that you have no control over the settings when you use PureRAW, because it hasn’t got any.
I don’t use LR (I disliked it from the beginning), so integration in a LR/PS workflow is no issue for me. In my experience, PL4’s noise reduction and optical corrections (camera/lens dependent geometrical corrections, CA, lens sharpening w.o. any halo’s) are excellent. Files that are processed in PL4 need very little sharpening, and with small radius, the TIFF files as well as DNG files that are processed in some other RAW converter.
I noticed, that (in PL4) the software sometimes seems to recognize the lens incorrectly, suggesting to download an additonal optical module. In PL4 it is simple: you turn down the suggestion and do the corrections by hand if the right module isn’t available. The lens dependent sharpening will be not available then. If PureRAW makes the same error unnoticed, I can imagine that DNG files are returned that have the wrong corrections, and maybe are oversharpened.
I compared many RAW conversions over the years. In my experience, you can always find images that are better converted in another application. No app is the best choice for every raw file.
Next to my reflex camera, I use the Olympus Stylus 1 as I want to have something that can be put away in a pocket. It has a small sensor, so it is noisy, it is a couple of years old, but it felt as having a completely new camera after I started using PL4.

If your camera/lens combination is known to DxO, I suppose that PureRAW has used the Optical Module to apply what is called “lens sharpening” in PL4. This means, that the returned linear DNG file needs only very little sharpening, if any at all. When you apply the LR settings that are default for your uncorrected RAW files, I can imagine that you oversharpen considerably.

1 Like

I’ve tried the software on landscapes and florals and it does well on them. I seem to have discovered a peculiar problem it has with the fine breast and head feathers on small birds, which get oversharpened with the odd look shown in my first post above. It happens with various cameras and lenses, with birds that are large or small in the frame, and very sharply focused to begin with or slightly soft. It is somewhat variable, with some being worse than others, but I don’t have time to try to figure out why.

I’m evaluating by looking at the before/after at 100% in PureRaw-- not bringing them back into LR. It makes no difference if I turn off the default sharpening and NR in LR before processing them in PureRaw.

If it is worth the effort for you, you can explain this in the DxO forum. It might be a bug.
I had a very peculiar error a short time ago: I reworked an older RAW file in DxO PL4, and the returned DNG had a very strong overall magenta cast (but not in all RAW converters, I tried a few). I played with the settings, and when I switched off the geometrical corrections, the DNG was o.k. Very strange. Only with a certain camera/lens combination, but in most cases this combination was fine.
I reported it in the forum, got a prompt reply from one of the DxO developers, asking for files/workflow etc. and they will investigate the bug and expect to have this resolved in the June 2021 release.

It’s not a bug; it’s just not sophisticated enough for fine detail when you crop in with a high MP sensor. Here is a raw file I shot this morning:

Here is my cropped and processed PS file – some tonal adj’s in LR then into PS for Topaz DeNoise (Low Light) and then Topaz Sharpen, which really did nothing. (The file was not the sharpest.)

And here is the Pure RAW (with Deep Prime processing). The feet show halos clearly.

It would work for a lot of cases, I’m sure, but I don’t have time to pursue it as I’m getting better results with Topaz DeNoise, and I have a good degree of control.