Bear in mind, however, that PR2 does not do its thing quickly, and for that matter, neither does Topaz DeNoise. My main computer is no slouch, and even though I built it some years ago -which in computer-ese translates effectively into its being several eons old-, it'll leave many of today's 'blazing-hot gaming machines' in its dust, but rather than uselessly using computing power by leaving unused programs running, I open DxO as a stand-alone (rather than as a plug-in under Lr), select the files, and let PR2 do its thing. In terms of workflow, though I could de-mosaic in PR2 first, I oftentimes do not instead, I first import whatever I'd shot that outing into Lr, look at the images, decide which files I want to work on, then de-mosaic those in PR2. In side-by-side comparisons, I've found that PR2 does nothing for my Nikon raw files that Lr doesn't do equally well so there's no point in adding an additional step. *I use PR2 to de-mosaic the raw (.raf) files created by my Fujifilm (and now, my DJI drone) cameras. You, however, have to decide which of the (five) modes of de-noising will be best for your image, and though doing so is easy, it may not be necessarily 'simple'. While it can de-mosaic raw image files, like PR2, it is not capable of performing any image adjustment/manipulation apart from or above whichever degree of de-noising/sharpening you decide to apply. The purpose (and the strength*) of Topaz DeNoise lies in its ability to reduce or eliminate noise. dng file that can be used in, or imported into, probably any modern image editing application. Either way, or used stand-alone, PR2 will output a. Treasure Hunters Digital 2.68K subscribers Subscribe 2. Using PR2 could consequently not be easier, and I'd assume it works as a plug-in in CP1 much the same as it does in Adobe Lr or Ps, though I can't state that as fact. DxO PureRAW vs Topaz Denoise AI Comparison. It cannot manipulate (crop, adjust, increase or decrease anything, etc.) images, but it can and does apply lens corrections with the check of a box. The purpose (and the strength*) of DxO PR2 is to demosaic raw image files. You're asking for feedback on programs that have entirely dissimilar functions and/or purposes in effect, it's as if you're asking which is the better athlete: a pro golfer or an Olympic level swimmer. When DxO PureRAW is updated to support the OM-1, then I'll revert to my preferred workflow.Before saying much else, I should mention that I have, and I use, both programs you're seeking feedback on. Fortunately, I still have a current version of Topaz DeNoise AI. Now, with the OM-1 being fully supported by Capture One, but the OM-1 not yet being supported by DxO PureRAW, I have reverted to the first workflow as described above. Then I use DxO PrueRAW as a preprocessor to get rid of the noise, before importing the resulting DNG file into Capture One for further processing / editing. With the E-M1 III, I use Capture One from start to finish, unless there is more noise than I am prepared to accept. This was my workflow before I discovered DxO PureRAW. Then, after editing the photograph in Capture One, I would export a TIFF file to Topaz Denoise AI for denoising, before then exporting the resulting TIFF file as a JPEG file from Capture One. I used to use Capture One from start to finish, unless there was more noise in the photograph than I was prepared to accept. What I like about Capture One is I can process a days raw files pretty quickly including adding meta data. Most editing is done in Capture One with it's masks you can do quite a lot and I rarely use Photoshop these days even though I have a license. For the OM-1 I need to find a better "built in" noise reduction solution but have not looked to closely so far. It does however process OM-1 raw files quite nicely and offers a good first step at noise control. Also the learning curve is quite steep as it seems to do things a bit different to other software. It also import both Aperture and Lightroom catalogs.ĭownside is it is a subscription or purchase model and they upgrade versions quite often. Frankly, as a Lightroom user, I’m not using DXO PureRaw anymore, or very scarcely because, despite my previous post in the DXO 2 era, and with many updates to DXO including 3.1, there’s still no option to just put the DXO processed image next to the original one, in the same folder as the orignal one, not a subfolder. I assume this is because PureRAW is saving demosaiced data (RGB) vs Adobe Denoise which preserves mosaic data (RGGB). This is a great reason to consider adding DXO to your toolkit. This process's EM1X files better than lightroom and had much better moire/noise control at 1600 ASA. When you want to make enlargements for print, I find DXO (especially when combined with Topaz Gigapixel) is an indispensable tool. Following a presentation from Andy Rouse I went for Capture One. The LR import of Aperture was pretty bad so I only used LR on the newer imports and kept running Aperture for old files. Having had Silkypix, then Aperture which I replaced with an Adobe subscription.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |