Trying DXO PureRAW5

[ProCaliberTraveler]

This image of Kata Tjuta in Australia represents my first attempt using DXO PureRAW5. I then sent it to Photoshop where I made basic adjustments to light and color. For those of you more experienced with the DXO programs, what do you think of the editing job it helped produce? I just downloaded it and am giving the free trial a try.

 

[Kyle Jones]

Can you share an unprocessed image? I see some weird things but that looks like a weird enough landscape that they might be real!

The ground layer seems very bright compared to the rocks. Were shadows raised a lot? Did it need to "invent" some detail in the trees?

I also see some pink in the top right corner that doesn't seem like it belongs.

That looks like very cool place to shoot!

 

[AlanLichty]

Looks pretty nice to me. A little soft compared to what I am used to getting out of PureRAW5.

PureRAW5 (PR5) will give you a cleaner and sharper file to take into Photoshop to begin with. When you export the file from PR5 use the DNG output option and then when you are in ACR select the "embedded" profile which will give you DxO's color corrections as well. The profile contains DxO's color calibration corrections for your camera/lens. ACR corrections are still applicable as you see fit for your own tastes. For additional sharpening in PR5 check out Lens Sharpness Optimization under Optical Corrections. You can either use the drop down menu or grab the Intensity slider and select how much of the effect you want. DxO's sharpening is much cleaner than anything Adobe has in Photoshop.

 

[ProCaliberTraveler]

Can you share an unprocessed image? I see some weird things but that looks like a weird enough landscape that they might be real!

The ground layer seems very bright compared to the rocks. Were shadows raised a lot? Did it need to "invent" some detail in the trees?

I also see some pink in the top right corner that doesn't seem like it belongs.

That looks like very cool place to shoot!

The unprocessed image is too dark for display here so I've done nothing to this one except turn up the exposure. The pink you see is the color from the sunrise. It is indeed a weird landscape as the ground is red/orange and the trees really thin and wispy. Both Kata Tjuta and Uluru glow vibrantly!

 

[JimFox]

Hey Michael,

You should post the original, totally unprocessed, it doesn't matter if it's too dark. Just convert it to a jpg and post it.

The reason for that is you are showing us what you did while trying out PureRaw5, but unless we see the totally unprocessed version, we can't really appreciate the job it did.

That said, that's a cool place you were photographing! It does look soft though. Is that from movement? If it was dark was your shutter speed too low? Inlcude some exif info if you can.

 

[ProCaliberTraveler]

Here's the unprocessed image.

 

[AlanLichty]

That was a pretty serious recovery job given the starting point. Reminds me of some of the things we use to try to fix in the old Salvage Saturday threads.

 

[JimFox]

Thanks Michael, that gives a much better idea as to what you are working with. That is some serious shadows.

What I suggest you do is take that same raw image into ACR, and use it's Auto Function, then click on the Denoise, and let it's AI Denoise it. I would also suggest to increase the Texture (under Effects) to try and bring out some more detail.

Then compare the trees in the PureRaw5 to the ACR version of the trees. I found that in my dark images like this, that PureRaw would invent detail that wasn't there, but it thought it should be, while ACR was more conservative on the inventing new detail part.

I think if you do that, you will decide if you want PureRaw5. Of course you have to recall, that this image is on the Worst Case scenerio side. And we have seen PureRaw5 add details that weren't there.

You may want to try PureRaw5 on a more normal image where you just want to improve it slightly.

 

[Kyle Jones]

That's pretty much what I was wondering from the first post. I was guessing that the trees were very dark, leading PureRaw to invent details like Jim described. I think that's why (especially in the mid ground) they look soft.

Overall I'd probably take a more conservative approach with processing this one, and let the foreground stay a little darker relative to the mountain. I think that will look more natural and let the mountain be the star of the show.

 

[JimFox]

That's pretty much what I was wondering from the first post. I was guessing that the trees were very dark, leading PureRaw to invent details like Him described. I think that's why (especially in the mid ground) they look soft.

Overall I'd probably take a more conservative approach with processing this one, and let the foreground stay a little darker relative to the mountain. I think that will look more natural and let the mountain be the star of the show.

Great suggestion Kyle. I know I tend to want to always pull all of the shadow detail I can out, but there are times to just let the shadows be darker. I think this is one case.

 

[ProCaliberTraveler]

That's pretty much what I was wondering from the first post. I was guessing that the trees were very dark, leading PureRaw to invent details like Jim described. I think that's why (especially in the mid ground) they look soft.

Overall I'd probably take a more conservative approach with processing this one, and let the foreground stay a little darker relative to the mountain. I think that will look more natural and let the mountain be the star of the show.

Can you point out the details to me that you think the program invented?

 

[Kyle Jones]

I circled the area that I was curious about here:

The reason why I was curious was because these trees look less sharp than both the mountain and the trees at the bottom of the frame. That tends to be a sign that PureRaw is engaging with voodoo.

That said, I'm only looking at a websized image amd can't be sure what I'm looking at.

Except: dang that mountain looks really cool!

 

[ProCaliberTraveler]

I circled the area that I was curious about here:
View attachment 86275

The reason why I was curious was because these trees look less sharp than both the mountain and the trees at the bottom of the frame. That tends to be a sign that PureRaw is engaging with voodoo.

That said, I'm only looking at a websized image amd can't be sure what I'm looking at.

Except: dang that mountain looks really cool!

Thanks for pointing out the area, Kyle. I wasn't aware that the program is known to invent things in the shadows, so I'll keep that in mind and not run salvage jobs through it.

The mountain is Kata Tjuta to the Anangu people, otherwise known as Mt. Olga. It's the other massive formation in that area, the other being Uluru.

 

[JimFox]

Thanks for pointing out the area, Kyle. I wasn't aware that the program is known to invent things in the shadows, so I'll keep that in mind and not run salvage jobs through it.

The mountain is Kata Tjuta to the Anangu people, otherwise known as Mt. Olga. It's the other massive formation in that area, the other being Uluru.

Hey Michael, Just to add that this isn't an isolated case of PureRaw adding detail that didn't exist. 2 years ago I was up in the Colorado mountains shooting the Milky Way and Northern Lights as I often do. One of the nights with no moon, the mountain sides got really dark as they are down, almost like in a valley. When I used PureRaw, it changed the dark mountain sides and literally added what I can best describe as Rice Terraces all along the mountain sides. If I purely increased the exposure in processing or did 100% shadow recovery, there was no detail in those areas. As you can imagine, often the steep sloping sides of mountains and just flat without any real detail to speak of. But PureRaw added Rice Terraces to it. Now the AI Denoise in ACR? It did not add any rice terraces.

Oh... that now reminds me of another case. I was hired to photograph a wedding, during the reception when its party time, it is very dark inside. So Pure Raw started adding teeth to peoples smiles. That turned out almost Frankenstein type. Again DeNoise in ACR didn't do that.

The one reason I keep testing PureRaw about once a year is that you know I do the Milky Way timelapses that often are 1600 images that I have to batch process, or my Northern Lights which are about 8000 images I need to batch process, and the DeNoise in ACR is the best there is in my book, but it's slow. It can take 25 secs per image. That adds up when there are thousands to process. PureRaw is much faster, about 10 seconds per image. So I keep testing it in hopes that I can use it for my large batch processes, but since it keeps inventing and added non existent details, I can't.

 

[Kyle Jones]

I use PureRaw all the time on "normal" landscape images. Like Jim, I avoid it for nighttime images and shots with clipped darks.