I've been using PR4 for the last week or so and there are some very welcome changes. Like PR2 and PR3, PR4 will continue to be an integral part of my workflow. Thanks for sharing your views. Always good to see how others use it and leverage the different features. 🙂
Yes and no for lens corrections related to shift Only C1 currently supports this - I don't much like the software to use, and the company has not endeared itself to many users of the software
I don't think that this has been mentioned but then again I haven't gone through all of the comments, so forgive me if this is redundant. I checked on the DXO site and no Canon tilt/shift lenses are supported by PR4. At least they are not supported optically. I assume what you meant was that with T/S lenses the noise reduction/sharpness can still be used with PR4. Comments?
Yes - no lens specific corrections [vignetting/softness] but PR does still give the benefits of the new De-noise and demosaicing. That is why this is potentially so useful to me - I use a lot of 'non supported' lenses
DxO has been my primary post-processing software for some time. I use PhotoLab for RAW conversion (often all I need prior to printing, but I also sometimes use FilmPack, ViewPoint, and especially Nik--as IMO, Silver Efex Pro is THE way to handle B&W conversion). I also have the Topaz suite, but use it less often. I just updated PL7 and I'm hoping that PR4's improvements have been incorporated into PL7. There's nothing on their site indicating that (e.g., if PL7 now has DeepPRIME XD2--it doesn't mention that--and PR4 has a "DeepPRIME XD2 / XD" button, but PL7 just has "XD"). I thought that DxO included all PR features in PL (I'd be disappointed if they didn't), but can you confirm? Thanks!
No - Unfortunately shift lenses are nothing but something I've asked the developers at DxO about for over 15 years. I've now got them to acknowledge they are a thing... ;-) No DxO software supports tit/shift lenses, just as no Adobe s/w does Nothing corrects a shifted image from the Fuji TS lens data [AFAIK] other than C1 {££££} The DxO software treats the TS 30mm as an unknown lens, the same as if I were using a TS-E24 with an adapter on my GFX or on my 5DS I'd have to change the habits of a lifetime and make notes to be able to enter shift data into something ;-)
Does it still increase the file size (I heard the earlier ver 2x)? Saw a demo of the On1 denoise, looks Impressive. Has optional sharpening also. Be couple weeks or so before release.
Which type of printer is good for photography photos and business cards, iam confused between choosing ricoh mpc8003 or epson wf c878r , many thanks for your help
Both office type printers, not of the sort I usually test I'm afraid. All the printers I look at are primarily art/photo printers, some of which may have office functions
A problem correcting shift lenses is that you need to know how much it's shifted, but this data isn't recorded. If oe vignettes on a camera it's designed for, the vignette is asymmetric. The solution is to measure its imperfections. The onl software I know of that does this is Capture One. You need a special white filter. I found them unde two brands. Phase One, expensive. Mamiya, cheap. Can you make your own? Dunno, it would involve trying and calbrate it against a known good one. The process is to set your camera up, composed, exposure settings in place. Put he filter in place, take a shot. This good until you recompose (a lot), the lighting changes a lot). You process this in C1 which measures the image, looking for anything that's not uniformly white. Such as vignetting, chromatic faults, dust spots. It then applies corrections for those automatically. I think the feature is called Lens Cast Correction. My mirrorless cameras all seem to have automatic correction for many potential lens flaws, but I don't know whether those are compatible across brands.
Yes, one reason I've asked DxO about support for the Fuji 30mm TS lens I suspect we'll also see it in ACR/Lightroom once Canon and Nikon finally introduce mirrorless tilt/shift lenses with encoders Phocus supports this too, with the HTS1.5 T/S adapter
I was a little confused by your comments around not being able to use DXO PhotoLab with your shift lenses. DXO-Photolab will open and process any camera files it supports and if the lens isn't supported the lens sharpness, vignette corrections are simply not activated but you can process the files in the same way PR does.
Yes - I should have said I get reduced benefit with PL with non-supported lenses If I'm using PL it's probably because I want lens correction for the lens I'm using. Partly because shift is not encoded in EXIF, the corrections in PL are limited. PR with its de-noising and de-mosaicing gives [to me] more widely useful uses. The new method in PR will likely appear in the next version of PL My real appreciation for PR is not having to use PL when all I'm after is a subset of PL functionality [I'm not a fan of PL for general use - nor C1 and LR either]
Hi Keith, thanks for your printer series! It's been incredibly helpful as someone who is looking to buy a new printer. One thing that I noticed you didn't really touch upon is printing on sticker paper or magnet paper and I would love to know if you have any experience with this. Right now I'm debating between the Epson ET8550, the Canon Pixma IP8750 or the Pixma IX6850 (or even the Pixma g550) I hear the Canon pro 200 likes to absolutely drink ink so that's why I'm not considering this. The majority of my prints would be on sticker paper and thicker 300 gsm matt paper (for something like a postcard or invitation) so I don't know if the ET8550 is overkill. I don't plan on printing a high volume of items and I don't mind placing paper 1 by 1. Would love to get your thoughts and I look forward to seeing more of your insightful videos.
Ah, stickers and magnet paper - not something I've ever looked at I'm afraid. The key is finding a media which takes the ink well - there are so many unknown brands here [in the UK] yet alone in the US [which is where I get asked from, more often].
@@KeithCooper I am also in the UK, but that's the trick! I would need to buy the printer first to know what takes ink well, but ideally I would like to know what takes ink well before buying the printer. A bit of a chicken and egg situation! Sticker paper seems quite popular for artists but I only see reviews for the cheaper Canon PIXMA printers and not something like the Epson ET8550. Just very difficult to make a decision. If you know any UK retailers who have a great sales team who could help me with these few options please let me know and I would be happy to use any of your affiliate links or affiliate name in return before purchasing as a thank you for all of your helpful videos. Thanks as well for the quick reply!
My normal suppliers [Fotospeed, PermaJet, Paper Spectrum] specialise more in photo/art papers, but they all know a lot about media and papers - might well be worth a call, just mention you got the info from my YT channel ;-)
I've been using PhotoLab (Elite version) for about 5 years or so now as a backup Raw converter to Adobe. Notwithstanding the high ISO capabilities of DxO, as you said it is extremely good for lower ISO's as well. For certain images the Raw conversion is more refined than Adobe's and this is where it is valuable to me.
Thanks - one of the areas I didn't dwell upon in this video is the AI based de-mosaicing, which is part of the new de-noising. Very nice looking - I'll likely use it for many more of my images now. The bit about PR4, for me, is that I can completely ignore all the workflow related aspects of Optics Pro/PhotoLab, which both get in the way and don't help with many of my images with 'other' lenses. PR4 fits into my workflow very easily.
I've downloaded the trial version and I am noticing some color differences when I am looking at the DNG processed by PureRaw4 vs the original RAW picture in Capture One. I tried swithcing between color profiles but the color change is still there. Has anyone else noticed it?
I do actually expect raw files to look different in different raw conversion workflows, so this wouldn't surprise me one bit - but then again I'm not a fan of C1 ;-) I have not tried any camera profiling though DxO for quite a while - but much of this is connected with camera and workflow choices. There are a lot of unknowns going on in the world of raw file conversion ;-)
No, that's on my to-do list ;-) However, my main uses of Topaz are resampling and sharpening - I need to see how these work together in a workflow I'm happy with. I still use Sharpen AI as a plugin [in PS] and Gigapixel standalone.
@@KeithCooper can't wait to see your video comparing one with another! By the way may I ask you a quick question regarding printing? Do I need to calibrate my printer even when I use ICC profiles?
@@KeithCooper I own a pixma pro 200 I saw a video of someone calibrating the printer with the "Calibrite ColorChecker Studio" and I was wondering if its needed or if an ICC profile is enough
I have used (version 3 I think) on some images taken with older aps-c camera and it works well, it can make a difference, but I suggest to buy dxo photolab instead of the standalone pureraw, because (at least in version 3) the one included in dxo photolab had more settings which could be tweaked (like the amount of sharpening) . Now I have upgraded to photo lab 7 (which I think includes pureraw 4) but I haven't compared it with the latest version of the standalone pureraw.....
Yes - the reason I like it is because it is simple, does what it does very well, and lets me ignore all the Photolab stuff ;-) I have PL, but it tries to do too much - I dislike C1 and Lightroom even more, for similar reasons ;-)
I’m intrigued. I tried DXO several times and couldn’t wrap my head around its user interface nor its confusing names for its products. And I truly can’t figure out what it does well that other programs cannot. It always felt a bit like using Lotus Notes.
It does lots - see my reviews over the last 20 years ;-) However, as it advanced, it incorporated more and more features that I didn't really want PR gets to the basics of what DxO do really well - processing raw files. So after a job, I get it to process all my raw files and create a folder of DNG files. These may be no better, a bit better or a whole lot better than the raw files out of the camera I'm a great believer in bits of software that do just a few things, but do them really well
@@KeithCooper I'll give it a whirl. RAW processing seems to be one of these subjects with profound implications and very little (that I know of) illumination concerning both the subject matter and usage. Would it be fair to say that people with a deeper background in practical image manipulation have a better understanding or capacity for manipulating RAW files? I always feel as if I'm looking at a basket of spices without fully realizing the implicationg of mixing them, and instead of it's a game of roulette with various sliders. Whenever I'm on the printing forums reading discussions from the early 2000's these guys seem to have a firmer grasp of how and what these various sliders and mechanisms do. The more important question (jk all of my questions are important) is how far along the auto features have come along. Honest question: how on god's green earth do people learn to properly manipulate raw files? Is it a purely subjective game of "tweak to taste," or is there more going on? I'm inclined to say that there's significantly more going on. Which makes me wonder if many people know what they're doing. Oh boy, this reply of mine spun out of control.
Using PR4 just gives me more options [the DNG file versions] I'll then do what most would refer to as the 'raw processing' with ACR - either on the DNG or the original raw file. You could even import these DNG files into Lightroom if you really wanted to [PR has several 'export to' type options] For myself I generally want to do 'not too much' in the raw conversion stage for print, or if generating jpegs to send to a client, all that's needed. I'll always start by applying the 'auto' corrections and seeing what I like/don't like Then I work through settings, usually top to bottom. Depending on the lens I may have had to options to include DxO lens correction in those DNG files - or not if the lens was not supported
Hi Keith, what's really not clear to me is the difference between PureRaw and Photolab. It sounds like PureRaw offers a subset of Photolab functionality with a simplified interface?🤔
PR4 offers a bit more than PL7 at the moment, since it has the new de-mosaicing - de-noise method. For me it may not offer the functionality of PL, but that's why I like it. It does a few things, but it does them well. For me, the best bits of Optics Pro and then PhotoLab were the basic raw processing and corrections. The file management and processing [u-point etc] and print were all features I just didn't want it for. PR is a tool/step to add to my commercial workflow at the start. What you [assuming you like PL] might see as cut down, I see as removing all the extraneous stuff which got in the way ;-) The products are aimed at two quite different markets and workflows.
@@KeithCooperThank you for your reply, it's more clear now! I fully understand your use case and that is ok. My thought is, if I buy PL7 because I want the extra features, whether it fully covers the PR4 tool. But like you said, it doesn't. On the other hand, I assume DXO will include the new methods in a PL8 version as well. 🤔
Agreed with your synopsis, Keith. However, there's an elephant in the noisy room that I call "Bayer noise". I'll explain this and it will widen the application area for DxO PR. THE BAYER PARADIGM In colour film, we had a three layer emulsion with (subtractive) filtering between them that gave us RGB or CMY at each coordinate. With digital cameras that has proven a hard thing to emulate and so we are reduced to the Bayer paradigm and its quirks: a colour-blind sensor that gives us colour by (a) having a filter grid precisely aligned to the photosites in the sensor that causes only one spectral colour band of humanly visible light to reach a photosite. That sensor is "panchromatic" (pan=all; chrome=colour - sees the entire humanly visible spectrum, but no colours) and with the Bayer (inventor of the paradigm) filter grid each photosite sees one colour (so the RAW data elements are monochrome - mono=single). As we now have data elements that lack colour information in two colour bands, we use (b) software to reimagine the missing colours. Raw processing software like Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) does this in Lightroom Classic (LrC) and Photoshop (Ps). RAW PROCESSING The naive or basic form of guessing missing colours is called deBayerisation. The RAW Bayer image looks extremely ugly and noisy. If you have a red patch in a subject (like a colour calibration target) then that red patch in the RAW file will be represented by bright red EV from photosites filtered red, dark EV from the green photosites, and black EV from the blue photosites. Instead of a continuous patch or red that you would have in colour film. DeBayerisation must then figure out that that patch must have been red. This was relatively easy with low resolution cameras in the 1990s, but with increasing resolution the consequent issues became apparent. Moiré, cross-bleeding across borders between differently coloured blobs, crinkly lines, etc. All generated by raw processing. When increasing resolution and pixel peeping or large prints made this visible, an improvement was added to the RAW processing: demosaicking as a way to remove the digital artefacts generated by deBayerisation. HARDWARE HELP FOR RAW PROCESSING Because 20 years or more ago, compute power for image processing was slower, bigger, heavier, needed more energy, and was more expensive, the Bayer conspiracy came up with in-camera hardware help in the form of a second filter over the sensor: the Optical Low-Pass Filter (OLPF) that is also called Anti-Aliasing (AA) filter. The abbreviation OLPF focuses on making the colour guessing easier, the AA aspect relates to jagged edges that follow from the sensor grid consisting of a regular pattern of squares. The principle already was applied in the development of the Scanning Tunnelling Electron Microscope (STEM) in the 1970s. THE PROBLEM OF THE OLPF The OLPF works by dispersing light travelling to photosite [x,y] to its direct neighbours. This makes colour-guessing easier and reduces jagged lines a bit. But it takes away contour sharpness from our beautiful lenses, it reduces colour space, reduces dynamic range (DR), reduces "contrast envelope" (the DR available to a single shot), reduces low light sensitivity, and messes with vignetting (depending on both lens and OLPF design). Up to a point in photosite density, the OLPF can be seen as beneficial because the mathematically precise and repeatable wild-assed guessing of missing colours is easier. But it gets in the way. Increasing resolution makes the OLPF a pain in the anatomy and beyond another point, increasing resolution becomes its own problem (in diffraction). ELIMINATE THE OLPF That is what Nikon did, over 10 years ago, in the D800E version that Eliminates the OLPF from the otherwise identical D800. For Nikon, at 36MP full frame photosite density, we have the pivotal point between OLPF or no OLPF. Now we can make a "ceteris paribus" comparison of the effect of the OLPF. Go to DxO Mark, find the sharpest F-mount lens and compare the D800 to the D800E with that lens. Shocking. Compare a 24MP D with that lens to the 36MP D800 - both with OLPF - and the difference is less exciting. Compare sharpness of that lens on the D800E to that lens on the D810 or 850 and also less shocking. We don't need no OLPF. RAW PROCESSING IN TROUBLE The problem with the OLPF out of the picture is that RAW processing must be done differently. Better AI is needed that recognizes what is in the picture. In the past 10 years, we have not seen a serious attempt in ACR to do better. The Mudbricks [1] were busy developing stripped versions of their software for mobile platforms in new programming languages and environments. Raising the corporate cost floor in the L of P&L. Our subscription money was not used for R&D to our benefit. THIRD PARTY HELP Topaz (DeNoise AI) and DxO (PhotoLab) jumped into the void some years ago. PhotoLab was amended with the optional "DeepPRIME" algorithm to remove noise. Having tested it, my conclusion was, "but I still need Ps and a bit of LrC" that I relayed to DxO. Somehow they figured that out too, because they released DeepPRIME as standalone plug-in "PureRAW" (PR) for ACR/LrC. And now we have PR version 4 as Keith points out. I downloaded it and will try it again. ADOBE For several years, generally some time before I need to pay the next year of my subscription, Adobe ask me if I would recommend their apps to others. My answer has been, "No, not at all. Not as long as I need a third party app or plug-in in order to get what I expected from you." Last year, the Mudbricks threw in "Enhance Denoise AI" as option in ACR. It's not bad, but it still needs improvement in prevention of digital artefacts, prevention of detail loss, or improvement in detail retrieval. Run your images through Topaz's Gigapixel AI and see what detail is in there. Wow. FLUENCERS HELP ADOBE You can watch different videos for hours or days and hear people blabbering about "not enough photons" as source of noise. In a scholastic way that is true. It may come with high ISO too. By calling noise in our images "luminance noise" or "colour noise", we imply that the problem is in the sensor, or camera. And it is not. It's Bayer noise. The Bayer paradigm promises beautiful colour images from RAW images because the problem created in the Bayer architecture in the camera has to be solved in post (SOOC JPEG is a form of "in post", but the earliest, and still in camera). Not calling raw processing out for its inadequacy delays improvements because the Mudbricks don't feel the pressure. BAYER NOISE The removal of the OLPF takes the OLPF-problems away, but as the dispersion of light is no more, we have darker raw data elements from the filters that did not allow light to pass. Where does this likely occur? In the darker image zones. And it will happen a lot at higher ISO settings when there is still some contrast in the image and the darker areas become very dark. Also, we have jagged edges where they weren't in the past. As deBayerisation must compensate for all this, in case it does not or not good enough, we will see noise in blurry and low contrast zones. BAYER NOISE IN OUR IMAGES FOLLOWS FROM INADEQUATE RAW PROCESSING As a bold statement, this is what is the problem. And why we need something like DxO PR. IF YOUR CAMERA HAS NO OLPF You may need better noise processing than what is in ACR. WHEN TO ACR I would argue that an A3 print from a full size full frame 45MP raw processed in ACR image is acceptably good. At 2 times that - A2 - I wold always denoise with a plug-in and probably upsample with Gigapixel AI. PureRAW TO THE RESCUE Yes, Thunderbirds are go. We need these tools in more than just high ISO cases. Occasionally, my images look grainy, because of ACR and no-OLPF, like my lower light shots with Kodacolor 400 of 40 years ago. That grain gave a bit of an artistic effect, much like Kodak Tri-X (Black & White) would do before that (and it looked better in 120 confection that had a different emulsion than 135 confection). But, grain in digital images may not be as organic. And in many cases we do not want a grainy artistic effect. That's where DeNoise AI (Topaz) and PureRAW (DxO) do a great job. Note: some APS-C cameras have no OLPF. If you made the comparison advised above, then you wil understand how a Nikon D500 (no OLPF) can be "so good" relative to a 24MP full frame camera (with OLPF). [1] a mudbrick is also called an adobe
Yes - but... ...practical testing over the years has perhaps hinted to me that this is a 'real problem' for a relatively small number of photographers. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate the issues, just no-one ever paying for my photography would ever notice ;-) :-) Whilst PR does give me a distinct up-tick in image quality after processing - it's more about giving me more flexibility in the shooting of my work. One area I've not yet explored is the use of PR4 as part of my 'large print' workflow, in conjunction with other tools.
I've been using Nikon Capture as my Nikon RAW(NEF)processor for ages. Are there any Nikon owners here using DXO for their workflow instead of Nikon Capture? If so, what's been your experience?
One or 2 more things I'd add to my questions is it seems DXO is heavily touting this as a noise reducing tool and lens correction tool. But how is it for everything else, such as for white balance, brightness, sharpening, etc with RAW files? Because I already have all my favorite settings with Nikon Capture and know what to expect when making those adjustments.
If NC works for you there probably no big reason to change - especially if you are invested in pre-sets To me PR4 about the combination of de-noise/de-mosaicing and sometimes lens correction.
![Why not to buy a tilt-shift lens [Fuji 30/5.6].Tilt-shift isn't magic, what do the lenses really do](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zt9DjlaiUHA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Why not to buy a tilt-shift lens [Fuji 30/5.6].Tilt-shift isn't magic, what do the lenses really do](/img/tr.png)
I've been using PR4 for the last week or so and there are some very welcome changes. Like PR2 and PR3, PR4 will continue to be an integral part of my workflow. Thanks for sharing your views. Always good to see how others use it and leverage the different features. 🙂
Thanks - I've been really happy how PR4 helps with my general workflow - i.e. the one for my work, not my one-off print making workflow
Thanks Keith very helpful.
Thanks
Keith, does this version of DXO pure raw work the GFX 100 S body and the 30 mm tilt-shift lens?
Yes and no for lens corrections related to shift
Only C1 currently supports this - I don't much like the software to use, and the company has not endeared itself to many users of the software
I don't think that this has been mentioned but then again I haven't gone through all of the comments, so forgive me if this is redundant. I checked on the DXO site and no Canon tilt/shift lenses are supported by PR4. At least they are not supported optically. I assume what you meant was that with T/S lenses the noise reduction/sharpness can still be used with PR4. Comments?
Yes - no lens specific corrections [vignetting/softness] but PR does still give the benefits of the new De-noise and demosaicing.
That is why this is potentially so useful to me - I use a lot of 'non supported' lenses
DxO has been my primary post-processing software for some time. I use PhotoLab for RAW conversion (often all I need prior to printing, but I also sometimes use FilmPack, ViewPoint, and especially Nik--as IMO, Silver Efex Pro is THE way to handle B&W conversion). I also have the Topaz suite, but use it less often. I just updated PL7 and I'm hoping that PR4's improvements have been incorporated into PL7. There's nothing on their site indicating that (e.g., if PL7 now has DeepPRIME XD2--it doesn't mention that--and PR4 has a "DeepPRIME XD2 / XD" button, but PL7 just has "XD"). I thought that DxO included all PR features in PL (I'd be disappointed if they didn't), but can you confirm? Thanks!
Not yet IIRC - I imagine it should be along at some point.
They say DeepPRIME XD2 will be added in PL8
Ah - yes, upgrade time ;-)@@MichaelChou
Does it correct shift lenses based on you inputting the shift amounts, or does it do a best guess?
No - Unfortunately shift lenses are nothing but something I've asked the developers at DxO about for over 15 years. I've now got them to acknowledge they are a thing... ;-)
No DxO software supports tit/shift lenses, just as no Adobe s/w does
Nothing corrects a shifted image from the Fuji TS lens data [AFAIK] other than C1 {££££}
The DxO software treats the TS 30mm as an unknown lens, the same as if I were using a TS-E24 with an adapter on my GFX or on my 5DS
I'd have to change the habits of a lifetime and make notes to be able to enter shift data into something ;-)
Does it still increase the file size (I heard the earlier ver 2x)? Saw a demo of the On1 denoise, looks Impressive. Has optional sharpening also. Be couple weeks or so before release.
Yes almost doubles it - I guess that might still be an issue some places
Which type of printer is good for photography photos and business cards, iam confused between choosing ricoh mpc8003 or epson wf c878r , many thanks for your help
Both office type printers, not of the sort I usually test I'm afraid.
All the printers I look at are primarily art/photo printers, some of which may have office functions
A problem correcting shift lenses is that you need to know how much it's shifted, but this data isn't recorded. If oe vignettes on a camera it's designed for, the vignette is asymmetric.
The solution is to measure its imperfections. The onl software I know of that does this is Capture One. You need a special white filter. I found them unde two brands. Phase One, expensive. Mamiya, cheap. Can you make your own? Dunno, it would involve trying and calbrate it against a known good one.
The process is to set your camera up, composed, exposure settings in place. Put he filter in place, take a shot. This good until you recompose (a lot), the lighting changes a lot).
You process this in C1 which measures the image, looking for anything that's not uniformly white. Such as vignetting, chromatic faults, dust spots. It then applies corrections for those automatically.
I think the feature is called Lens Cast Correction.
My mirrorless cameras all seem to have automatic correction for many potential lens flaws, but I don't know whether those are compatible across brands.
Yes, one reason I've asked DxO about support for the Fuji 30mm TS lens
I suspect we'll also see it in ACR/Lightroom once Canon and Nikon finally introduce mirrorless tilt/shift lenses with encoders
Phocus supports this too, with the HTS1.5 T/S adapter
I was a little confused by your comments around not being able to use DXO PhotoLab with your shift lenses. DXO-Photolab will open and process any camera files it supports and if the lens isn't supported the lens sharpness, vignette corrections are simply not activated but you can process the files in the same way PR does.
DXO PureRaw still sharpens the images up without a lens profile, and PhotoLab does not. That is what Keith is most likely referring to.
Yes - I should have said I get reduced benefit with PL with non-supported lenses
If I'm using PL it's probably because I want lens correction for the lens I'm using. Partly because shift is not encoded in EXIF, the corrections in PL are limited.
PR with its de-noising and de-mosaicing gives [to me] more widely useful uses.
The new method in PR will likely appear in the next version of PL
My real appreciation for PR is not having to use PL when all I'm after is a subset of PL functionality [I'm not a fan of PL for general use - nor C1 and LR either]
@@AbdonPhirathon PhotoLab sharpens images without lens profiles in the same way as PR, you just can't use the lens sharpness module.
@@ianyorke2617 In my experience, PhotoLab doesn’t sharpen my images unless there is a lens profile.
@@AbdonPhirathon You can use standard USM or microcontrast.
Hi Keith, thanks for your printer series! It's been incredibly helpful as someone who is looking to buy a new printer.
One thing that I noticed you didn't really touch upon is printing on sticker paper or magnet paper and I would love to know if you have any experience with this.
Right now I'm debating between the Epson ET8550, the Canon Pixma IP8750 or the Pixma IX6850 (or even the Pixma g550)
I hear the Canon pro 200 likes to absolutely drink ink so that's why I'm not considering this.
The majority of my prints would be on sticker paper and thicker 300 gsm matt paper (for something like a postcard or invitation) so I don't know if the ET8550 is overkill. I don't plan on printing a high volume of items and I don't mind placing paper 1 by 1.
Would love to get your thoughts and I look forward to seeing more of your insightful videos.
Ah, stickers and magnet paper - not something I've ever looked at I'm afraid.
The key is finding a media which takes the ink well - there are so many unknown brands here [in the UK] yet alone in the US [which is where I get asked from, more often].
@@KeithCooper I am also in the UK, but that's the trick! I would need to buy the printer first to know what takes ink well, but ideally I would like to know what takes ink well before buying the printer.
A bit of a chicken and egg situation!
Sticker paper seems quite popular for artists but I only see reviews for the cheaper Canon PIXMA printers and not something like the Epson ET8550.
Just very difficult to make a decision. If you know any UK retailers who have a great sales team who could help me with these few options please let me know and I would be happy to use any of your affiliate links or affiliate name in return before purchasing as a thank you for all of your helpful videos.
Thanks as well for the quick reply!
My normal suppliers [Fotospeed, PermaJet, Paper Spectrum] specialise more in photo/art papers, but they all know a lot about media and papers - might well be worth a call, just mention you got the info from my YT channel ;-)
@@KeithCooper Fabulous! Thank you and I will do so!
Subscribed and looking forward to hearing more of your reviews. Cheers!
I've been using PhotoLab (Elite version) for about 5 years or so now as a backup Raw converter to Adobe. Notwithstanding the high ISO capabilities of DxO, as you said it is extremely good for lower ISO's as well. For certain images the Raw conversion is more refined than Adobe's and this is where it is valuable to me.
Thanks - one of the areas I didn't dwell upon in this video is the AI based de-mosaicing, which is part of the new de-noising. Very nice looking - I'll likely use it for many more of my images now.
The bit about PR4, for me, is that I can completely ignore all the workflow related aspects of Optics Pro/PhotoLab, which both get in the way and don't help with many of my images with 'other' lenses.
PR4 fits into my workflow very easily.
I've downloaded the trial version and I am noticing some color differences when I am looking at the DNG processed by PureRaw4 vs the original RAW picture in Capture One. I tried swithcing between color profiles but the color change is still there. Has anyone else noticed it?
I do actually expect raw files to look different in different raw conversion workflows, so this wouldn't surprise me one bit - but then again I'm not a fan of C1 ;-)
I have not tried any camera profiling though DxO for quite a while - but much of this is connected with camera and workflow choices.
There are a lot of unknowns going on in the world of raw file conversion ;-)
Thanks for the video Keith!
Have you compared it with topaz ai?
No, that's on my to-do list ;-)
However, my main uses of Topaz are resampling and sharpening - I need to see how these work together in a workflow I'm happy with. I still use Sharpen AI as a plugin [in PS] and Gigapixel standalone.
@@KeithCooper can't wait to see your video comparing one with another!
By the way may I ask you a quick question regarding printing? Do I need to calibrate my printer even when I use ICC profiles?
It likely won't be a video if I do it...
What do you actually mean by 'calibrating your printer'?
This depends on the printer... @@Keyboardwarrior42
@@KeithCooper I own a pixma pro 200
I saw a video of someone calibrating the printer with the "Calibrite ColorChecker Studio" and I was wondering if its needed or if an ICC profile is enough
I have used (version 3 I think) on some images taken with older aps-c camera and it works well, it can make a difference, but I suggest to buy dxo photolab instead of the standalone pureraw, because (at least in version 3) the one included in dxo photolab had more settings which could be tweaked (like the amount of sharpening) . Now I have upgraded to photo lab 7 (which I think includes pureraw 4) but I haven't compared it with the latest version of the standalone pureraw.....
Yes - the reason I like it is because it is simple, does what it does very well, and lets me ignore all the Photolab stuff ;-)
I have PL, but it tries to do too much - I dislike C1 and Lightroom even more, for similar reasons ;-)
I’m intrigued. I tried DXO several times and couldn’t wrap my head around its user interface nor its confusing names for its products. And I truly can’t figure out what it does well that other programs cannot. It always felt a bit like using Lotus Notes.
It does lots - see my reviews over the last 20 years ;-)
However, as it advanced, it incorporated more and more features that I didn't really want
PR gets to the basics of what DxO do really well - processing raw files.
So after a job, I get it to process all my raw files and create a folder of DNG files. These may be no better, a bit better or a whole lot better than the raw files out of the camera
I'm a great believer in bits of software that do just a few things, but do them really well
@@KeithCooper I'll give it a whirl. RAW processing seems to be one of these subjects with profound implications and very little (that I know of) illumination concerning both the subject matter and usage. Would it be fair to say that people with a deeper background in practical image manipulation have a better understanding or capacity for manipulating RAW files? I always feel as if I'm looking at a basket of spices without fully realizing the implicationg of mixing them, and instead of it's a game of roulette with various sliders. Whenever I'm on the printing forums reading discussions from the early 2000's these guys seem to have a firmer grasp of how and what these various sliders and mechanisms do. The more important question (jk all of my questions are important) is how far along the auto features have come along. Honest question: how on god's green earth do people learn to properly manipulate raw files? Is it a purely subjective game of "tweak to taste," or is there more going on? I'm inclined to say that there's significantly more going on. Which makes me wonder if many people know what they're doing. Oh boy, this reply of mine spun out of control.
Using PR4 just gives me more options [the DNG file versions]
I'll then do what most would refer to as the 'raw processing' with ACR - either on the DNG or the original raw file. You could even import these DNG files into Lightroom if you really wanted to [PR has several 'export to' type options]
For myself I generally want to do 'not too much' in the raw conversion stage for print, or if generating jpegs to send to a client, all that's needed.
I'll always start by applying the 'auto' corrections and seeing what I like/don't like
Then I work through settings, usually top to bottom.
Depending on the lens I may have had to options to include DxO lens correction in those DNG files - or not if the lens was not supported
@@KeithCooper Thanks. I’ll test it out.
Hi Keith, what's really not clear to me is the difference between PureRaw and Photolab. It sounds like PureRaw offers a subset of Photolab functionality with a simplified interface?🤔
PR4 offers a bit more than PL7 at the moment, since it has the new de-mosaicing - de-noise method.
For me it may not offer the functionality of PL, but that's why I like it. It does a few things, but it does them well.
For me, the best bits of Optics Pro and then PhotoLab were the basic raw processing and corrections. The file management and processing [u-point etc] and print were all features I just didn't want it for.
PR is a tool/step to add to my commercial workflow at the start.
What you [assuming you like PL] might see as cut down, I see as removing all the extraneous stuff which got in the way ;-)
The products are aimed at two quite different markets and workflows.
@@KeithCooperThank you for your reply, it's more clear now!
I fully understand your use case and that is ok. My thought is, if I buy PL7 because I want the extra features, whether it fully covers the PR4 tool. But like you said, it doesn't.
On the other hand, I assume DXO will include the new methods in a PL8 version as well.
🤔
Yes - update time ;-)
DXO rules.
In some areas... ;-)
Agreed with your synopsis, Keith. However, there's an elephant in the noisy room that I call "Bayer noise". I'll explain this and it will widen the application area for DxO PR.
THE BAYER PARADIGM
In colour film, we had a three layer emulsion with (subtractive) filtering between them that gave us RGB or CMY at each coordinate. With digital cameras that has proven a hard thing to emulate and so we are reduced to the Bayer paradigm and its quirks: a colour-blind sensor that gives us colour by (a) having a filter grid precisely aligned to the photosites in the sensor that causes only one spectral colour band of humanly visible light to reach a photosite. That sensor is "panchromatic" (pan=all; chrome=colour - sees the entire humanly visible spectrum, but no colours) and with the Bayer (inventor of the paradigm) filter grid each photosite sees one colour (so the RAW data elements are monochrome - mono=single). As we now have data elements that lack colour information in two colour bands, we use (b) software to reimagine the missing colours. Raw processing software like Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) does this in Lightroom Classic (LrC) and Photoshop (Ps).
RAW PROCESSING
The naive or basic form of guessing missing colours is called deBayerisation. The RAW Bayer image looks extremely ugly and noisy. If you have a red patch in a subject (like a colour calibration target) then that red patch in the RAW file will be represented by bright red EV from photosites filtered red, dark EV from the green photosites, and black EV from the blue photosites. Instead of a continuous patch or red that you would have in colour film.
DeBayerisation must then figure out that that patch must have been red. This was relatively easy with low resolution cameras in the 1990s, but with increasing resolution the consequent issues became apparent. Moiré, cross-bleeding across borders between differently coloured blobs, crinkly lines, etc. All generated by raw processing. When increasing resolution and pixel peeping or large prints made this visible, an improvement was added to the RAW processing: demosaicking as a way to remove the digital artefacts generated by deBayerisation.
HARDWARE HELP FOR RAW PROCESSING
Because 20 years or more ago, compute power for image processing was slower, bigger, heavier, needed more energy, and was more expensive, the Bayer conspiracy came up with in-camera hardware help in the form of a second filter over the sensor: the Optical Low-Pass Filter (OLPF) that is also called Anti-Aliasing (AA) filter. The abbreviation OLPF focuses on making the colour guessing easier, the AA aspect relates to jagged edges that follow from the sensor grid consisting of a regular pattern of squares.
The principle already was applied in the development of the Scanning Tunnelling Electron Microscope (STEM) in the 1970s.
THE PROBLEM OF THE OLPF
The OLPF works by dispersing light travelling to photosite [x,y] to its direct neighbours. This makes colour-guessing easier and reduces jagged lines a bit. But it takes away contour sharpness from our beautiful lenses, it reduces colour space, reduces dynamic range (DR), reduces "contrast envelope" (the DR available to a single shot), reduces low light sensitivity, and messes with vignetting (depending on both lens and OLPF design).
Up to a point in photosite density, the OLPF can be seen as beneficial because the mathematically precise and repeatable wild-assed guessing of missing colours is easier.
But it gets in the way. Increasing resolution makes the OLPF a pain in the anatomy and beyond another point, increasing resolution becomes its own problem (in diffraction).
ELIMINATE THE OLPF
That is what Nikon did, over 10 years ago, in the D800E version that Eliminates the OLPF from the otherwise identical D800. For Nikon, at 36MP full frame photosite density, we have the pivotal point between OLPF or no OLPF.
Now we can make a "ceteris paribus" comparison of the effect of the OLPF.
Go to DxO Mark, find the sharpest F-mount lens and compare the D800 to the D800E with that lens. Shocking. Compare a 24MP D with that lens to the 36MP D800 - both with OLPF - and the difference is less exciting. Compare sharpness of that lens on the D800E to that lens on the D810 or 850 and also less shocking.
We don't need no OLPF.
RAW PROCESSING IN TROUBLE
The problem with the OLPF out of the picture is that RAW processing must be done differently. Better AI is needed that recognizes what is in the picture. In the past 10 years, we have not seen a serious attempt in ACR to do better. The Mudbricks [1] were busy developing stripped versions of their software for mobile platforms in new programming languages and environments. Raising the corporate cost floor in the L of P&L. Our subscription money was not used for R&D to our benefit.
THIRD PARTY HELP
Topaz (DeNoise AI) and DxO (PhotoLab) jumped into the void some years ago. PhotoLab was amended with the optional "DeepPRIME" algorithm to remove noise. Having tested it, my conclusion was, "but I still need Ps and a bit of LrC" that I relayed to DxO. Somehow they figured that out too, because they released DeepPRIME as standalone plug-in "PureRAW" (PR) for ACR/LrC. And now we have PR version 4 as Keith points out. I downloaded it and will try it again.
ADOBE
For several years, generally some time before I need to pay the next year of my subscription, Adobe ask me if I would recommend their apps to others. My answer has been, "No, not at all. Not as long as I need a third party app or plug-in in order to get what I expected from you."
Last year, the Mudbricks threw in "Enhance Denoise AI" as option in ACR. It's not bad, but it still needs improvement in prevention of digital artefacts, prevention of detail loss, or improvement in detail retrieval. Run your images through Topaz's Gigapixel AI and see what detail is in there. Wow.
FLUENCERS HELP ADOBE
You can watch different videos for hours or days and hear people blabbering about "not enough photons" as source of noise. In a scholastic way that is true. It may come with high ISO too. By calling noise in our images "luminance noise" or "colour noise", we imply that the problem is in the sensor, or camera. And it is not. It's Bayer noise.
The Bayer paradigm promises beautiful colour images from RAW images because the problem created in the Bayer architecture in the camera has to be solved in post (SOOC JPEG is a form of "in post", but the earliest, and still in camera).
Not calling raw processing out for its inadequacy delays improvements because the Mudbricks don't feel the pressure.
BAYER NOISE
The removal of the OLPF takes the OLPF-problems away, but as the dispersion of light is no more, we have darker raw data elements from the filters that did not allow light to pass. Where does this likely occur? In the darker image zones. And it will happen a lot at higher ISO settings when there is still some contrast in the image and the darker areas become very dark. Also, we have jagged edges where they weren't in the past.
As deBayerisation must compensate for all this, in case it does not or not good enough, we will see noise in blurry and low contrast zones.
BAYER NOISE IN OUR IMAGES FOLLOWS FROM INADEQUATE RAW PROCESSING
As a bold statement, this is what is the problem. And why we need something like DxO PR.
IF YOUR CAMERA HAS NO OLPF
You may need better noise processing than what is in ACR.
WHEN TO ACR
I would argue that an A3 print from a full size full frame 45MP raw processed in ACR image is acceptably good. At 2 times that - A2 - I wold always denoise with a plug-in and probably upsample with Gigapixel AI.
PureRAW TO THE RESCUE
Yes, Thunderbirds are go. We need these tools in more than just high ISO cases. Occasionally, my images look grainy, because of ACR and no-OLPF, like my lower light shots with Kodacolor 400 of 40 years ago. That grain gave a bit of an artistic effect, much like Kodak Tri-X (Black & White) would do before that (and it looked better in 120 confection that had a different emulsion than 135 confection). But, grain in digital images may not be as organic. And in many cases we do not want a grainy artistic effect.
That's where DeNoise AI (Topaz) and PureRAW (DxO) do a great job.
Note: some APS-C cameras have no OLPF. If you made the comparison advised above, then you wil understand how a Nikon D500 (no OLPF) can be "so good" relative to a 24MP full frame camera (with OLPF).
[1] a mudbrick is also called an adobe
Yes - but...
...practical testing over the years has perhaps hinted to me that this is a 'real problem' for a relatively small number of photographers.
Doesn't mean I don't appreciate the issues, just no-one ever paying for my photography would ever notice ;-) :-)
Whilst PR does give me a distinct up-tick in image quality after processing - it's more about giving me more flexibility in the shooting of my work.
One area I've not yet explored is the use of PR4 as part of my 'large print' workflow, in conjunction with other tools.
@@KeithCooper - appreciated and yes, but, what cameras did you use without OLPF?
Some H6 models IIRC - remember the dreadful moire :-)
@@KeithCooper - Moiré generated by deBayerisation, not taken out due to absence of "demosaicking".
I've been using Nikon Capture as my Nikon RAW(NEF)processor for ages. Are there any Nikon owners here using DXO for their workflow instead of Nikon Capture? If so, what's been your experience?
One or 2 more things I'd add to my questions is it seems DXO is heavily touting this as a noise reducing tool and lens correction tool. But how is it for everything else, such as for white balance, brightness, sharpening, etc with RAW files? Because I already have all my favorite settings with Nikon Capture and know what to expect when making those adjustments.
If NC works for you there probably no big reason to change - especially if you are invested in pre-sets
To me PR4 about the combination of de-noise/de-mosaicing and sometimes lens correction.
@@KeithCooperThat's about what I thought. Thanks 👍
Using it on a daily basis, all of my pictures pass through DxO first
That may well become part of my own workflow for some work