Todd, I enjoyed your informative video. Purchased PureRAW2 a month after the free trial ended. It is amazing! Like you, I did not notice anything other than minor differences compared to RAW3. Based on this, do not plan to upgrade any time soon.
It's a question I've asked myself too. I don't think so. Having PhotoLab is far more useful given that it has all the optical corrections and noise reduction functionality anyway.
Thank you for the great review.. What would be the work flow with DXOPureRaw3 when using Capture One (for fuji files). I don't see a plug in drop down in CO as there is in LR ('process file with...")?
Thank you for this demonstration! I really enjoy your videos. I love Pureraw 2 I t’s amazing - so much so that I have convinced friends and family to buy it. I’m curious as to whether I would see a difference between PR2 and PR3. It would be nice to try it before you buy it deal, but I don’t see the option.
I have Pure Raw 1 and don't intend parting with any more cash. It's ok providing they have the camera/lens profile. It was quite a while before they had a profile for my Sigma 65mm f2. Can tend to make some files a bit 'crispy'. I have a few manual lenses including a tilt/shift and Pure Raw is useless. Recently bought Topaz Sharpen AI and it makes a great job of sharpening files where I didn't quite hit the focus. Recommend trialling both before spending money.
The DXO deepprime works pretty well with Fuji files. I tested it on many very high iso raw files taken in dark places and dark city (few lights) and the results are amazing. Now every time I need heavy denoising I use DXO. I think the XD version doesn't work yet on Fuji.
DxO PureRaw 3 and latest update for DXO PhotoLab 6.4 adds XD version for Fuji as well. I think that is their big headline release feature. I haven't tested it on Fuji yet, but I would imagine its impressive. I use XD now for everything, from 100 ISO to 10 000 ISO. Because the demoseicing is so strong. On older lenses and older smaller size senots its more noticeable, so its like upgrading a camera. With high MP big sensors and sharp glass, its less of a benefit, but still worth it.
@@KrunoslavStifter thanks for the info, I didn't even notice the XD for Fuji. So true, it's like having a new camera and the denoising is subtle, not that much loss of texture.
@@REMY.C. I suppose its a matter of preference. I used to use the similar system for cataloging, Many photos. Than I became chained to that application to be able to read catalogs. Since I got burned like that, I started using good old folder structure. So as long as app can read the folders I'm OK. That is why now using DXO for me it was not a problem. My personal advice is to do something similar for the same perils of propitiatory catalog systems. But if you are already stuck in Lightroom or Capture One or some similar system, I guess DXO still offers that DNG export for people who use Lightroom. Unfortunately the DNG out of DXO is quite a bit larger than original RAW file because of all the demoseicing processing. So its a burden on storage system. I don't know what plans DXO has for future. I do see they have been adding some new features for easier file search and navigation, so maybe in future version they will go similar route and add catalog system.
I agree, don't throw your raw files. I very lately, decided to throw 15 years old raw files in Lightroom, dxo and capture one and the results are way better than what I got when I took and develop those photos 15 years ago in the softwares I had (Lightroom 1 I think and proprietary camera softwares).
if only DXO would support the original 1D...but they don't give a shit. They got money out of me for v2 and it is very good, but they won't get anymore money out of me. Their support has been shit.
I've compared the results, and to my eye, the new LR denoise feature is more than sufficient...of course, everyone has different standards of what's acceptable.
I wish it would put a default to put the file next to the original instead of a different folder then drag my lightroom to that folder after it finishes. Kinda like merging to HDR.
I find the stand-alone process queue processes faster than if I processed my files from Lightroom. Apparently, both PureRaw and Lightroom compete for the same GPU resources. Also, when processing through Lightroom, the resulting DNG can at times be dark gibberish, for the same reason.
I used DXO Pureraw 1, but the sharpening artifacts were bad, making it unusable. I'm happy to see that DXO listened to feedback, and now we have the option to switch off lens sharpening. This is how it should be used if you don't want to get that nasty sharpening countour around everything. Setting it to soft is somehow acceptable, but anything beyond that is as bad as it was in DXO Pureraw 1 or worse. Now, It's working very well with DJI Mavic 2 pro, but I wish to see smartphones added to it, like S22 Ultra. And, why not, DJI Pocket 2, for which the raw files really need some AI help. So yes, I find it worth buying now.
The problem with the previews might be that the AI needs a larger area of the photo to identify what is on it and how to handle it. It might not be possible to denoise just a 200x200 pixel preview. That is different from a "dumb" noise filter that smoothes the whole photo the same amount. The interesting thing for me would be how much it could help me speeding up my photography in the blue hour. Depending on your latitude and time of the time frame for the best blue hour photos can be shorter than 20 minutes every day. Right now I carry around a heavy tripod and usually do 30 second exposures at ISO 100 to get the cleanest images possible. That very much limits the amount of photos I can take in every blue hour. Such a software could help me take 100 photos or more during a blue hour handheld with a short exposure and high ISO. I wonder how those photos would look compared to my conventional method with ISO 100 and 30 seconds. The problem is that in order to go down from 30 seconds to a handholdable shutter speed I will have to bump up the ISO a lot.
I don't think the improvement is worth the upgrade price. DxO PureRAW 2 is very very good, and the improvements are minor. I had expected a more customer friendly upgrade policy.
Agreed, they won’t give a discounted price even if you just bought version 2. I asked DXO support, got told no. Very customer unfriendly approach especially seeing as presumably they’d like to sell us other products… which definitely won’t be happening with me. Version 2 is good enough.
@@Joebloggs4817 Their customer policy and support (which is very very slow) is way behind the development level, a fact I have presented to one of their ambassadors. And he agreed - and claimed he would relay the message. Apparently it has not helped - at least not regarding this problem. Such a disappointing attitude casts a shadow over the perfect results from the software and is very counter productive imho.
I have been using Pure RAW 2 on most files, and Topaz on the most noisy files in the past. I think topaz does some strange things with the sharpening, so after a few tests today, I believe DXO will be handling all my noise reduction from now on. Need to do some more testing, but it's looking promising 😊
Hope you will get a free or almost free update. Often you do if you bought software for less than two months ago. Don’t know how DXO deals with this though. I gladly payed $79 for the update 😊
I bought 2 just 5 weeks ago. I asked DXO support for a discounted upgrade for 3. Was told no, tough luck. Don’t think I’ll be bothering. Deepprime that’s built in version 2 will do fine.
@@Joebloggs4817 PR2 is still good and XD algorithms are sometimes too aggressive, even creating detail where there was originally none (lol). Overall, I'd say PR2 is more natural looking. For some shots, XD will look more crispy but only at 100 to 200%. Wait for PR4, just like me. ;-)
They just release Pure Raw 2 only months ago and now they want to charge us to upgrade yet again. Come on man, don’t be a shill to the anti-consumer practices.
It makes the subscription model look quite good really. One known price every year all the latest upgrades for free. Maybe Adobe has got the right idea after all.
I wonder if the standalone version will still give you new camera profiles forever. Are those profiles saved in a profile folder like Lightroom did it until version 6 or so? Then it would be possible to get those new profiles by installing another 30 day trial on another computer.
I have taken the trial following this review, to see where AI is taking us. Is it better than Capture One at noise reduction, yes it is. Does it produce a sharper look, yes it does. The major issue with this software I have is that the sharpening is applied globally and aggressively unless I have missed the functionality to give you the ability to target certain areas of your image? Subtle it is not. Viewing a printed image on a wall from your usual viewing distance will render no distinct difference between standard and AI based processing on matters of both sharpness and noise. If your photos are not captured sharp in camera, then sharpening bad technique is not the answer to the problem of rescuing a poorly executed shot. And, if your images are unavoidably high ISO, then the only issue with that is if you are printing the image larger than it should be printed. For web publishing only, high ISO is ably dealt with by your usual raw editor of choice and again there will be no discernible difference when uploaded as a compressed JPEG to your social media of choice. Whilst I am sure DXO Pure Raw will appeal to the pixel peepers out there, giving the dopamine inducing "wow" moment at a 200% screen view, more (via AI) is not necessarily better - the art of an image will always trump the pursuit of sharpness. And then for the £115 invested, that cost ignores the potential cost of a new CPU, graphics card, and more memory as the file size output is 2.5 times larger. It also begs the question, what is the point of using PureRaw and its ilk, if you then are going to apply film emulations to your raw files? In conclusion, I have never viewed an image online and thought, if only that was more sharp, or had a lower ISO. I more often say the composition or the light is the problem.
Todd, I enjoyed your informative video. Purchased PureRAW2 a month after the free trial ended. It is amazing! Like you, I did not notice anything other than minor differences compared to RAW3. Based on this, do not plan to upgrade any time soon.
PureRaw 3 is extremely effective for old raw photos. I edited my 15 years old RAW files and was stunned.
Agreed. The older the better.
If you have DXO Photo lab 6 is there any reason to get Pure Raw 3?
I'd like to know this as well.
It's a question I've asked myself too. I don't think so. Having PhotoLab is far more useful given that it has all the optical corrections and noise reduction functionality anyway.
Thank you for the great review.. What would be the work flow with DXOPureRaw3 when using Capture One (for fuji files). I don't see a plug in drop down in CO as there is in LR ('process file with...")?
Nice and clear explainations. Thanks.
You can disable Global Lens Sharpening in PureRaw version 2. Been there for awhile.
Thank you for this demonstration! I really enjoy your videos. I love Pureraw 2 I t’s amazing - so much so that I have convinced friends and family to buy it. I’m curious as to whether I would see a difference between PR2 and PR3. It would be nice to try it before you buy it deal, but I don’t see the option.
In your opinion what’s the best free application to import raw photos and edit them?
I have Pure Raw 1 and don't intend parting with any more cash. It's ok providing they have the camera/lens profile. It was quite a while before they had a profile for my Sigma 65mm f2. Can tend to make some files a bit 'crispy'.
I have a few manual lenses including a tilt/shift and Pure Raw is useless. Recently bought Topaz Sharpen AI and it makes a great job of sharpening files where I didn't quite hit the focus.
Recommend trialling both before spending money.
The DXO deepprime works pretty well with Fuji files. I tested it on many very high iso raw files taken in dark places and dark city (few lights) and the results are amazing. Now every time I need heavy denoising I use DXO.
I think the XD version doesn't work yet on Fuji.
DxO PureRaw 3 and latest update for DXO PhotoLab 6.4 adds XD version for Fuji as well. I think that is their big headline release feature. I haven't tested it on Fuji yet, but I would imagine its impressive. I use XD now for everything, from 100 ISO to 10 000 ISO. Because the demoseicing is so strong. On older lenses and older smaller size senots its more noticeable, so its like upgrading a camera. With high MP big sensors and sharp glass, its less of a benefit, but still worth it.
@@KrunoslavStifter thanks for the info, I didn't even notice the XD for Fuji. So true, it's like having a new camera and the denoising is subtle, not that much loss of texture.
@@REMY.C. Yeah. I just tried it with Fujifilm X-T5. Really impressive results. No noise, tones of details. Really impressive.
@@KrunoslavStifter I think if dxo had a solid cataloging feature like Lightroom, I would switch.
@@REMY.C. I suppose its a matter of preference. I used to use the similar system for cataloging, Many photos. Than I became chained to that application to be able to read catalogs. Since I got burned like that, I started using good old folder structure. So as long as app can read the folders I'm OK. That is why now using DXO for me it was not a problem.
My personal advice is to do something similar for the same perils of propitiatory catalog systems. But if you are already stuck in Lightroom or Capture One or some similar system, I guess DXO still offers that DNG export for people who use Lightroom. Unfortunately the DNG out of DXO is quite a bit larger than original RAW file because of all the demoseicing processing. So its a burden on storage system.
I don't know what plans DXO has for future. I do see they have been adding some new features for easier file search and navigation, so maybe in future version they will go similar route and add catalog system.
Why didn't you test against Topaz DeNoise?
I agree, don't throw your raw files. I very lately, decided to throw 15 years old raw files in Lightroom, dxo and capture one and the results are way better than what I got when I took and develop those photos 15 years ago in the softwares I had (Lightroom 1 I think and proprietary camera softwares).
if only DXO would support the original 1D...but they don't give a shit. They got money out of me for v2 and it is very good, but they won't get anymore money out of me. Their support has been shit.
I was in doubt if DXO Pure Raw would work with Capture1. I wish it had a trial version just like Photolab.
I've compared the results, and to my eye, the new LR denoise feature is more than sufficient...of course, everyone has different standards of what's acceptable.
I wish it would put a default to put the file next to the original instead of a different folder then drag my lightroom to that folder after it finishes. Kinda like merging to HDR.
I find the stand-alone process queue processes faster than if I processed my files from Lightroom. Apparently, both PureRaw and Lightroom compete for the same GPU resources. Also, when processing through Lightroom, the resulting DNG can at times be dark gibberish, for the same reason.
I used DXO Pureraw 1, but the sharpening artifacts were bad, making it unusable.
I'm happy to see that DXO listened to feedback, and now we have the option to switch off lens sharpening.
This is how it should be used if you don't want to get that nasty sharpening countour around everything. Setting it to soft is somehow acceptable, but anything beyond that is as bad as it was in DXO Pureraw 1 or worse.
Now, It's working very well with DJI Mavic 2 pro, but I wish to see smartphones added to it, like S22 Ultra. And, why not, DJI Pocket 2, for which the raw files really need some AI help.
So yes, I find it worth buying now.
Agreed. I wasn't a fan of the "always on" sharpening either. Love being able to just turn it (and other settings) off.
Wow, very nice result. I using DeNoise AI
great video, thank you!
Great video! This looks and feels like it was produced by master class.
The problem with the previews might be that the AI needs a larger area of the photo to identify what is on it and how to handle it. It might not be possible to denoise just a 200x200 pixel preview. That is different from a "dumb" noise filter that smoothes the whole photo the same amount.
The interesting thing for me would be how much it could help me speeding up my photography in the blue hour. Depending on your latitude and time of the time frame for the best blue hour photos can be shorter than 20 minutes every day. Right now I carry around a heavy tripod and usually do 30 second exposures at ISO 100 to get the cleanest images possible. That very much limits the amount of photos I can take in every blue hour. Such a software could help me take 100 photos or more during a blue hour handheld with a short exposure and high ISO. I wonder how those photos would look compared to my conventional method with ISO 100 and 30 seconds. The problem is that in order to go down from 30 seconds to a handholdable shutter speed I will have to bump up the ISO a lot.
In the first image, I see a significant difference between DP and DP XD.
I don't think the improvement is worth the upgrade price. DxO PureRAW 2 is very very good, and the improvements are minor. I had expected a more customer friendly upgrade policy.
Agreed, they won’t give a discounted price even if you just bought version 2. I asked DXO support, got told no. Very customer unfriendly approach especially seeing as presumably they’d like to sell us other products… which definitely won’t be happening with me. Version 2 is good enough.
@@Joebloggs4817 Their customer policy and support (which is very very slow) is way behind the development level, a fact I have presented to one of their ambassadors. And he agreed - and claimed he would relay the message. Apparently it has not helped - at least not regarding this problem. Such a disappointing attitude casts a shadow over the perfect results from the software and is very counter productive imho.
@@Eigil_Skovgaard I got the standard "we will pass on your feedback" answer.
Thanks Todd. How does this compare to Topaz products in the real world?
I have been using Pure RAW 2 on most files, and Topaz on the most noisy files in the past. I think topaz does some strange things with the sharpening, so after a few tests today, I believe DXO will be handling all my noise reduction from now on. Need to do some more testing, but it's looking promising 😊
Sad, I just bought the Pure Raw2…
Hope you will get a free or almost free update. Often you do if you bought software for less than two months ago. Don’t know how DXO deals with this though. I gladly payed $79 for the update 😊
I bought 2 just 5 weeks ago. I asked DXO support for a discounted upgrade for 3. Was told no, tough luck. Don’t think I’ll be bothering. Deepprime that’s built in version 2 will do fine.
@@Joebloggs4817 PR2 is still good and XD algorithms are sometimes too aggressive, even creating detail where there was originally none (lol). Overall, I'd say PR2 is more natural looking. For some shots, XD will look more crispy but only at 100 to 200%. Wait for PR4, just like me. ;-)
Buyer beware: it doesn’t work with Apple ProRAW files from iPhone. Just a heads up!
They just release Pure Raw 2 only months ago and now they want to charge us to upgrade yet again. Come on man, don’t be a shill to the anti-consumer practices.
Two months ago? I've been using Pure RAW 2 for one year now. It was released in March 2022.
It makes the subscription model look quite good really. One known price every year all the latest upgrades for free. Maybe Adobe has got the right idea after all.
Time really does fly I guess
@davidevans9988 I hate a subscription based model.
I wonder if the standalone version will still give you new camera profiles forever. Are those profiles saved in a profile folder like Lightroom did it until version 6 or so? Then it would be possible to get those new profiles by installing another 30 day trial on another computer.
I have taken the trial following this review, to see where AI is taking us.
Is it better than Capture One at noise reduction, yes it is. Does it produce a sharper look, yes it does.
The major issue with this software I have is that the sharpening is applied globally and aggressively unless I have missed the functionality to give you the ability to target certain areas of your image? Subtle it is not.
Viewing a printed image on a wall from your usual viewing distance will render no distinct difference between standard and AI based processing on matters of both sharpness and noise.
If your photos are not captured sharp in camera, then sharpening bad technique is not the answer to the problem of rescuing a poorly executed shot.
And, if your images are unavoidably high ISO, then the only issue with that is if you are printing the image larger than it should be printed. For web publishing only, high ISO is ably dealt with by your usual raw editor of choice and again there will be no discernible difference when uploaded as a compressed JPEG to your social media of choice.
Whilst I am sure DXO Pure Raw will appeal to the pixel peepers out there, giving the dopamine inducing "wow" moment at a 200% screen view, more (via AI) is not necessarily better - the art of an image will always trump the pursuit of sharpness.
And then for the £115 invested, that cost ignores the potential cost of a new CPU, graphics card, and more memory as the file size output is 2.5 times larger.
It also begs the question, what is the point of using PureRaw and its ilk, if you then are going to apply film emulations to your raw files?
In conclusion, I have never viewed an image online and thought, if only that was more sharp, or had a lower ISO. I more often say the composition or the light is the problem.