DxO PureRAW4
- Thread starter AlanLichty
- Start date
AlanLichty
Moderator
I would recommend updating to the current version for starters. The first image I showed above is the Export to Disk dialogue and doesn't look like the one you are seeing at all. A DNG file shouldn't really be concerned with PPI at all since it is simply an array of pixel data with no concept of a printed page at all.
To export directly into an application look just to the right of the blue Export button and you should see a small outline of a box with an up arrow in the middle. There is a drop down menu that allows you to export to a wide variety of things like export to disk, export to Lightroom, or export to application which includes Photoshop.
To export directly into an application look just to the right of the blue Export button and you should see a small outline of a box with an up arrow in the middle. There is a drop down menu that allows you to export to a wide variety of things like export to disk, export to Lightroom, or export to application which includes Photoshop.
Thanks Alan, I will check that out in a bit.
But I will mention that I don't want to actually Export into Photoshop with this as I will be hatching in groups of 50 to 125 photos. So I just want it to save as a dng that I then can later take into Photoshop 1 by 1.
AlanLichty
Moderator
The first example I showed above is the export to disk using DNG as the output.
I updated PhotoLab7, the same thing. For dng it says 72 PPI and it can't be changed. I decided to try it anyway, because I really need to get going on these wedding photos. And I have to say, even applying the Deep Prime XD from inside of PhotoLab7 the results didn't look all that good. It changed the noise from a regular color noise, and it cleaned it up some, but there was a more blotchy kind of noise to it. I increased the Luminosity to 100% in PhotoLab7, and it was better, but no where near as clean as I thought I had seen in the past.
I then tried the PureRaw3. I updated it to the latest. Ran it as Deep Prime XD first since it was dark in the Reception Hall and the ISO really got cranked up on some photos.
The Deep Prime XD totally messed up the faces. Not sure what it did, but it totally chopped up the faces and made them worse then Frankenstein. I repeated with using just the Deep Prime option, not the XD. And it was not the exact same, but the faces were again chewed up.
Here are some examples.
I then tried the PureRaw3. I updated it to the latest. Ran it as Deep Prime XD first since it was dark in the Reception Hall and the ISO really got cranked up on some photos.
The Deep Prime XD totally messed up the faces. Not sure what it did, but it totally chopped up the faces and made them worse then Frankenstein. I repeated with using just the Deep Prime option, not the XD. And it was not the exact same, but the faces were again chewed up.
Here are some examples.
AlanLichty
Moderator
*** - these results are terrible! I have never seen outputs like this in any of the versions of DxO's software I have worked with. Not something you show your client ever. My jaw is on the floor looking at these shots.
Yeah, its really bad. I have only used it a little in the past, but it always seemed like kind of a miracle worker with noise.
I ran the same images through Enhanced NR in ACR. It's way better, though the faces still are not 100% perfect, but better then DXO.
My conclusion is with these images being really high ISO or it's high ISO and underexposed, that the details especially of the teeth aren't really there. So the programs must be using an AI routine to decide what should go there. It looks like the DXO AI for filling in the gaps is not quite up to what Adobe has.
I ran the same images through Enhanced NR in ACR. It's way better, though the faces still are not 100% perfect, but better then DXO.
My conclusion is with these images being really high ISO or it's high ISO and underexposed, that the details especially of the teeth aren't really there. So the programs must be using an AI routine to decide what should go there. It looks like the DXO AI for filling in the gaps is not quite up to what Adobe has.
AlanLichty
Moderator
I think there are some differences in the Photolab export dialog for your PC vs my mac versions. As I look at the Export options list there is simply no way for me to get a DPI entry when I export as DNG. I just tried to replicate the settings you show and they aren't in the export dialog I get.
How high was the ISO on the shots above? I am floored by the results for the woman in the bottom image. Is this a heavy crop from a wider scene? That image literally falls apart with DxO's processing.
How high was the ISO on the shots above? I am floored by the results for the woman in the bottom image. Is this a heavy crop from a wider scene? That image literally falls apart with DxO's processing.
It was the worse possible scenerio. I had a family friend helping me as a 2nd shooter for the wedding. So these are off of their camera. I had put their camera on Auto-ISO and put them in Manual exposure with a 1//200th of a sec shutter speed. They knew enough to adjust the aperture up or down as needed for DoF.
Looking back over their photos later, I found that every 50 to 100 photos the shutter speed kept being bumped up. They must have accidentally been turning the thumb wheel once in a while not noticing. By the time we were in the reception their shutter speed was up to 1/1250th of a sec and they were shooting at f11.... So AutoISO drove the ISO up which is was supposed to. My mistake was to not put an upper cap on the ISO, say 3200. So if they had done that and their display went black from being so underexposed they would have said something to me.
So these were at 51200 and I would guess 2 stops underexposed. I should have checked on them, as our lighting changed from outdoors to indoors and from evening to night. But I was so focused on my own photography, I just never thought to double check with them after my initial setup of their camera.
The good news again is these aren't from my camera. Mine came out fine. And their outdoor images are great, so I can use those. But all of the indoor reception images or the beach photos we took of the couple at sunset will just have to be mine.
I will run PhotoLab7 on my indoor Reception photos, but mine actually look pretty good with just some normal Luminance NR from ACR applied. I will be interested to see if PhotoLab7 can top that basic NR for mine.
Looking back over their photos later, I found that every 50 to 100 photos the shutter speed kept being bumped up. They must have accidentally been turning the thumb wheel once in a while not noticing. By the time we were in the reception their shutter speed was up to 1/1250th of a sec and they were shooting at f11.... So AutoISO drove the ISO up which is was supposed to. My mistake was to not put an upper cap on the ISO, say 3200. So if they had done that and their display went black from being so underexposed they would have said something to me.
So these were at 51200 and I would guess 2 stops underexposed. I should have checked on them, as our lighting changed from outdoors to indoors and from evening to night. But I was so focused on my own photography, I just never thought to double check with them after my initial setup of their camera.
The good news again is these aren't from my camera. Mine came out fine. And their outdoor images are great, so I can use those. But all of the indoor reception images or the beach photos we took of the couple at sunset will just have to be mine.
I will run PhotoLab7 on my indoor Reception photos, but mine actually look pretty good with just some normal Luminance NR from ACR applied. I will be interested to see if PhotoLab7 can top that basic NR for mine.
Kyle Jones
Moderator
I tend to have better luck with topaz when things are really bad. Pure raw "invents" more weird detail in really noisy areas from my experience.
This is why I won't do weddings
This is why I won't do weddings
Ha ha...
I do very few weddings, not because of that since my Z8 images are fine with minimal noise. But because it takes me 60 to 80 hours of work after the wedding to do sorting, pruning and processing, and then more pruning and then more processing. And then creating multiple wedding books, video slide shows.... it's way to much work.
ISO 51200 and 2 stops of underexposure is way too much to recover from unfortunately.
Yep, the combination was the killer. It actually might have done okay at ISO 51200 had it been exposed properly. That might be worth testing sometime.
One thing I am also noticing here with using PureRaw 3, PhotoLabs7 and Adobe Camera Raw.
ACR does the best job with faces. Both PureRaw3 and PhotoLabs7 can sometimes destroy a face by it's AI use in how it recovers from the noise, but in the non face areas, the detail areas like the wedding dress, PureRaw3 and PhotosLabs7 retains the fine details in the dress and veil much better then ACR. In ACR the dress details are there, but kind of mushed over, like one would expect when say a simple Luminosity NR is used.
Which as I am processing the photos from the wedding that are shot in darker locations, like the beach at sunset, or indoors in the reception or hotel very tricky. In some cases it's not a choice at all as the DXO products (PureRaw3 and PhotoLabs7) end up melding ears into faces, moving noses, adding what looks like acne to faces, and especially the teeth. If the person is smiling? Yikes, their teeth end up looking like something from a horror movie.
I will try to get some 100% crops later to demonstrate that, but for now I have to try and stay focused. I hope to start assembling the Wedding Album later today. That's why the closer inspection on some incredible beach sunset photos of the bride and groom have caused me to run their photos through the same 3 programs of the 70 beach photos I have. Which then I am picking the best of the 3 versions for each photo.
PS. I will mention that in ACR I am using the simple Luminosity NR in the Details section. I am not using the Enhanced NR which is better, the issue is it takes 8 mins per photo to run. I don't have the time to spend 4 hours on 70 photos while the computer churns away the NR. For PhotoLabs I am using DeepPrimeXD at 60%.
PSS. These photos I am dealing with are from my Nikon Z8, with a lower ISO, but typically a stop or 2 underexposed as I was shooting into the sun for some of it and I didn't want to blow the highlights in the sky. These are not the ISO 51200 images.
ACR does the best job with faces. Both PureRaw3 and PhotoLabs7 can sometimes destroy a face by it's AI use in how it recovers from the noise, but in the non face areas, the detail areas like the wedding dress, PureRaw3 and PhotosLabs7 retains the fine details in the dress and veil much better then ACR. In ACR the dress details are there, but kind of mushed over, like one would expect when say a simple Luminosity NR is used.
Which as I am processing the photos from the wedding that are shot in darker locations, like the beach at sunset, or indoors in the reception or hotel very tricky. In some cases it's not a choice at all as the DXO products (PureRaw3 and PhotoLabs7) end up melding ears into faces, moving noses, adding what looks like acne to faces, and especially the teeth. If the person is smiling? Yikes, their teeth end up looking like something from a horror movie.
I will try to get some 100% crops later to demonstrate that, but for now I have to try and stay focused. I hope to start assembling the Wedding Album later today. That's why the closer inspection on some incredible beach sunset photos of the bride and groom have caused me to run their photos through the same 3 programs of the 70 beach photos I have. Which then I am picking the best of the 3 versions for each photo.
PS. I will mention that in ACR I am using the simple Luminosity NR in the Details section. I am not using the Enhanced NR which is better, the issue is it takes 8 mins per photo to run. I don't have the time to spend 4 hours on 70 photos while the computer churns away the NR. For PhotoLabs I am using DeepPrimeXD at 60%.
PSS. These photos I am dealing with are from my Nikon Z8, with a lower ISO, but typically a stop or 2 underexposed as I was shooting into the sun for some of it and I didn't want to blow the highlights in the sky. These are not the ISO 51200 images.
Z8 has pretty good DR even at higher ISO provided it is not that much underexposed.
The Z8 is great.
Here is what is dawning on me.
The difference between photos of people and landscapes is the face and arms of people.
Noise can get lost in areas with texture really easily. So with landscapes all of the NR software does a decent job. DXO seems to excel with removing noise where there is detail.
But it's the faces where they all fall short. There is no texture persay in a face or an arm. So there is no texture to blend the noise into. And DXO with its AI, if there is any amount of shadow it starts generated all sorts of crazy messes on faces.
In general I probably would have been better off over exposing 1 stop.
The Z8 did great, but at a few points it was underexposing by 3 stops as I was shooting the couple with the sunset behind them. And in reality those images look great, except you see grain in the face instead of smooth texture when zoomed in to 100%. It's not horribly bad, and if I wasn't a perfectionist, maybe it wouldn't even bother me. In those images, the waves, the sand, even the sky looks great. It's the faces and arms that have the issue.
Here is what is dawning on me.
The difference between photos of people and landscapes is the face and arms of people.
Noise can get lost in areas with texture really easily. So with landscapes all of the NR software does a decent job. DXO seems to excel with removing noise where there is detail.
But it's the faces where they all fall short. There is no texture persay in a face or an arm. So there is no texture to blend the noise into. And DXO with its AI, if there is any amount of shadow it starts generated all sorts of crazy messes on faces.
In general I probably would have been better off over exposing 1 stop.
The Z8 did great, but at a few points it was underexposing by 3 stops as I was shooting the couple with the sunset behind them. And in reality those images look great, except you see grain in the face instead of smooth texture when zoomed in to 100%. It's not horribly bad, and if I wasn't a perfectionist, maybe it wouldn't even bother me. In those images, the waves, the sand, even the sky looks great. It's the faces and arms that have the issue.
AlanLichty
Moderator
I have never spent time processing faces so this is a discussion that is new turf for me. I'm not a people photographer at all so it's interesting to hear how you have to change your processing workflow to accommodate the textures of faces.
It's been a long time since I have done faces. I also know that I am too much of a perfectionist to do weddings or portraits very often. In this case when my sister asked me, how could I say no? Even though I knew the pain it would cause me in the hours of processing.
But I do find it fascinating about the NR. When I did my last wedding, it must have been 6 or 7 years ago when NR was simply a Luminosity slider essentially. It was a little more sophisticated then that. But there was no AI being used like DXO is using or Adobe is using in their Enhanced NR.
Essentially what I am learning is of an image is too underexposed, so that with a simple brightening of the image and you look at eyes, ears, teeth and you cant see any kind of distinct edges, that the edges got lost in grain, then the NR software with its AI is just going to predict and replace those areas. Or like in the case of ears, it just ends up melting the edges of the ear into the face.
It all actually looks great at a distance or as a thumbnail. But enlarge it to 8x10 or larger and faces and fingers turn into a horror show.
But I do find it fascinating about the NR. When I did my last wedding, it must have been 6 or 7 years ago when NR was simply a Luminosity slider essentially. It was a little more sophisticated then that. But there was no AI being used like DXO is using or Adobe is using in their Enhanced NR.
Essentially what I am learning is of an image is too underexposed, so that with a simple brightening of the image and you look at eyes, ears, teeth and you cant see any kind of distinct edges, that the edges got lost in grain, then the NR software with its AI is just going to predict and replace those areas. Or like in the case of ears, it just ends up melting the edges of the ear into the face.
It all actually looks great at a distance or as a thumbnail. But enlarge it to 8x10 or larger and faces and fingers turn into a horror show.
AlanLichty
Moderator
Is there software that is specific to how to process faces? I have always seen tons of ads for applications catering to portrait photographers mostly for cosmetic enhancements and complexion smoothing so it would seem like there would be a market for this type of photo specialty. They even have conventions for wedding and portrait photographers.