I would consider using Topaz or DXO for RAW conversion - but that's just my preference based on long time use of ACR and Adobe's constant enhancing and adding of features including the mask panel which is fabulous to use as part of RAW conversion.
When shooting at say ISO 1000 in low/poor light conditions, I prefer to apply noise reduction before any other edits (unlike applying output sharpening if needed at the end of post). I ran a batch of 100 images through both Topaz and DXO, and Topaz was a pitiful smeared mess as compared to DXO which dealt with each image as needed including applying any needed sharpening.
Sounds a lot like operator error if there's that big of a difference.
Possibly.
I don't usually apply noise reduction to raws; in fact, I rarely find there's any need to apply it at all but I downloaded and tried PureRaw to see what all the fuss was about. I've got Topaz already.
I initially took some shots; using my D7200, of some birds hiding in the shaded parts of a tree in my garden which contained enough noise to give it a go.
I passed the raws through both sets of software using various settings; PureRaw's a bit spartan in that respect and the results were pretty much as I'd expected.
I also compared raws taken using my Z7 but noisy shots were harder to come by. The results were as with the D7200.
Unsurprisingly, there were some good and some bad results from both.
Deep Prime, for all the raving we hear about it on here didn't outperform Topaz by the huge margins certain people would have you believe it would. In fact, the shots that it turned out badly were, in fact, very bad.
Topaz. likewise produced a mixed bag although its success rate could be improved upon by making adjustments to its settings.
PureRaw was a bit quicker.
Topaz, on the other hand offers more in return for taking a little bit longer.
Ultimately, it's really down to the user to decide which will work best for them.
An aside: I've just downloaded OnOne's No Noise offering as well and first impressions are that it's pretty good.
I haven't really used it yet but I think it's probably fair to say that it compares favourably with the other two.
View attachment 03ffabb9c29c469caa2905f65dccb3b7.jpg
Denoise @ 6400
I use Topaz for some of its interesting adjustment/painting filters now and then but not too often. I also like Topaz Remask, have no use for AI Sharpen. If someone took Topaz out of my tookbox, my reaction would be to yawn.
So yeah I'm annoyed that I had to buy a "major" upgrade to DXO just to have it support my Sony A7iv as the prior version supported my sony A7iii. But whatever - I need what I need and DXO addresses noise reduction beautifully so I grumbled as I paid the upgrade price. Sidenote: i just got clapped for using the banned word "pis*ed" which I had to change to "annoyed" in the first sentence. Really?
I didn't check, but what are the supposed must have "major" upgrades introduced with the latest DXO PureRAW 2?
Edit:
I've just remembered.
PureRaw's DNGs opened and converted to Jpeg/Tif and exported using Capture One don't open normally on here in Photoshop. Instead, they're opened by Camera Raw and treated as if they were still raw files.
Might be my machine, of course but it does render PureRaw, for me at least, pretty useless.
I brought this up in an earlier thead but got no response.
"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"
