I went back and forth between 1 and 2. I liked the tonality of both and thought they both did a good job of controlling the edges of the histogram. I use On1 as my primary editor, so it's interesting that it was one of the editors I gravitated to. Cheers and thanks!
I don’t have a preference really to be honest! I think every result can be obtain from all these 5 raw editors.All matter of taste.Most important is the user experience, a fact that I learnt after been using quite some editors.
interesting. for me 3 and 2 adn 4 is not bad - winner for me 3 tight !. number 3 has the best higlight retention, I was disapointed at 1 and 5 as these are the wirst
Hi, thanks for this results slideshow, fascinating as ever. I'm a little confused, because if an image was processed in PureRaw first to denoise, then you would need to export .DNG or .TIFF files to the editor in question. So PureRaw 4 will have performed the demosaicing, not Capture One, for example. Would it not be better to remove PureRaw4 from the equation?
@hywel3143 Great question. As I understand it you need to pre-process with PureRAW first before processing with the RAW editor. It does not work in reverse (i.e. process with capture one then denoise with pureraw). So I don't really have a choice unless I'm missing something.
@@takebetterphotos8132 Hi, yes, PR4 will not process anything except RAW files, because demosaicing is an integral part of its processes. My question was prompted by it being less clear to me than last years excellent results comparison video which editor was which, before the reveal. I think that this may be because by processing (including demosaicing) the high noise files in PR4 first you are actually imposing a DXO render on each of the processed files. I would be inclined to leave PR4 out of the equation and let each editor deal with the files, including the high noise ones, from start to finish, as I think you choose to do last year. Another option would be choose files where the noise was not so high that it interfered with one's appraisal of each of the editors, although I appreciate why you wish to include files that are challenging in terms of dynamic range.
#6 was the best !
Ouch!
I went back and forth between 1 and 2. I liked the tonality of both and thought they both did a good job of controlling the edges of the histogram. I use On1 as my primary editor, so it's interesting that it was one of the editors I gravitated to. Cheers and thanks!
Thanks for your feedback. This was done with one click through Brilliance AI.
#2 for me
Ok thanks for sharing. Always interesting to know what folks find good! 😊
#3 - Capture One for me, which is good because that is what I use, and I picked it before you announced the names!!
Wow! You have a good eye! 😊
I don’t have a preference really to be honest! I think every result can be obtain from all these 5 raw editors.All matter of taste.Most important is the user experience, a fact that I learnt after been using quite some editors.
That is true. Important to understand your tools to get the most out of it.
interesting. for me 3 and 2 adn 4 is not bad - winner for me 3 tight !. number 3 has the best higlight retention, I was disapointed at 1 and 5 as these are the wirst
ok thanks for your feedback!
Hi, thanks for this results slideshow, fascinating as ever.
I'm a little confused, because if an image was processed in PureRaw first to denoise, then you would need to export .DNG or .TIFF files to the editor in question. So PureRaw 4 will have performed the demosaicing, not Capture One, for example. Would it not be better to remove PureRaw4 from the equation?
I agree. And, add an Adobe RAW converter. either LrC or Camera Raw.
@hywel3143 Great question. As I understand it you need to pre-process with PureRAW first before processing with the RAW editor. It does not work in reverse (i.e. process with capture one then denoise with pureraw). So I don't really have a choice unless I'm missing something.
@@takebetterphotos8132 Hi, yes, PR4 will not process anything except RAW files, because demosaicing is an integral part of its processes.
My question was prompted by it being less clear to me than last years excellent results comparison video which editor was which, before the reveal.
I think that this may be because by processing (including demosaicing) the high noise files in PR4 first you are actually imposing a DXO render on each of the processed files.
I would be inclined to leave PR4 out of the equation and let each editor deal with the files, including the high noise ones, from start to finish, as I think you choose to do last year.
Another option would be choose files where the noise was not so high that it interfered with one's appraisal of each of the editors, although I appreciate why you wish to include files that are challenging in terms of dynamic range.
Ok thanks I think we can strike a balance in the future. Thanks for the feedback!
Before the “reveal”, I thought #1 and #3 looked the best, especially when looking at the skies.
That's good news for ON1 given their low price to be one of the top.😊