Texas hobbyist
Leading Member
I have Topaz and wondered if it is suitable for developing RAW files or if DXO is significantly better? Can anyone point me to a place to learn how to do this as I've only started shooting Raw.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Learning to use RAW files
- Thread starter Texas hobbyist
- Start date
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
It's not just that it's built in, but is done as part of the demosaicing process. Even if you set DeepPRIME to 0, you still get a better result than if you don't use DeepPRIME at all. And dxo isca very good raw developer, arguably the very best available. In contrast, Topaz DeNoise is a very poor raw developer, so it's best applied to files that have already been demosaiced in a proper raw developer. .
So you end up using multiple products with transfer files in between, and after all that complexity, you end up with worse quality images than you'd have got effortlessly, in a single step, in PhotoLab.
So I only use DeNoise AI to add a final polish to very high ISO images that have already been processed in PhotoLab. But that's seldom needed.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Viewpoint is included with PL5 so no need to buy it separately.
tbcass
Forum Pro
The lens needs corrections. DXO PL5 does a much better job applying those lens corrections. Lens corrections have always been a DXO forte'.
tbcass
Forum Pro
PL5 gets updates all the time. When it's updated the latest Viewpoint lens corrections are included.Viewpoint is a separate program that installs as both a plugin for programs and also available as a standalone program for jpegs and 8/16 bit tiffs.And this is how DxO fixes the fattened people at the edges:
DxO Viewpoint is built into PhotoLab, and allows the wide angle effect of fattened people at the edges to be automatically fixed
Just now I opened Viewpoint as standalone and it wanted to update to V3.3. I don't get any auto update messages for Viewpoint when opening Photolab. User manual at https://download-center.dxo.com/Support/docs/ViewPoint_v3/user-guide/VP3_manual_EN.pdf
--
Tom
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
Unfortunately, it's not. You do need the licence.
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
The lens corrections aren't done by ViewPoint. They're part of the core PhotoLab raw processor.PL5 gets updates all the time. When it's updated the latest Viewpoint lens corrections are included.Viewpoint is a separate program that installs as both a plugin for programs and also available as a standalone program for jpegs and 8/16 bit tiffs.And this is how DxO fixes the fattened people at the edges:
DxO Viewpoint is built into PhotoLab, and allows the wide angle effect of fattened people at the edges to be automatically fixed
Just now I opened Viewpoint as standalone and it wanted to update to V3.3. I don't get any auto update messages for Viewpoint when opening Photolab. User manual at https://download-center.dxo.com/Support/docs/ViewPoint_v3/user-guide/VP3_manual_EN.pdf
Michael Fritzen
Veteran Member
Well, I could but I don't.
Taking a look back to where the discussion began and what has been the question asked by the OP, I don't feel that diving any deeper into special features and qualities of one or the other RAW developping solution adds something crucial. Of course YMMV.
To the OP: Good luck with your decision.
AlwynS
Senior Member
I did a quick conversion of your RAW in C1 without taking a lot of effort to get it to look similar to your processing. An immediate difference that jumps out is the wider view that the PL conversion provided.Yes, I apply DeepPRIME to every image I process.Thanks Nigel, appreciate the very good response. For me, the takeaways from this are:PL includes a number of best-of-class capabilities that can be invoked automatically, leaving very little additional editing effort required. For example, try this raw file in C1:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3l718w6w38ogaeb/Ship's crew farewell parade RX603262.ARW?dl=0
This is what I got from it simply by opening the raw file in PL5, and exporting the processed result to a JPEG. Simply opening it causes my default preset to be applied, and I can then do further tweaks as needed. I have all my commonly used tools arranged in a logical order in my custom palette, so if I do want to adjust any setting it's really quick and easy. I normally do make a few tweaks, but in this case I deliberately didn't make any manual adjustments at all. So this is the zero-click option:
My default preset applied automatically, with no further tweaks or adjustments
My guess is that you will find it much harder to edit this in C1, and simply won't be able to properly replicate this result, however much you try.
Yes, agreed. But knowing the poor quality results that C1 produces, I saw no point in making that effort.
Yes, PL5 can do upscaling, but it's not very good at it. If you want the highest quality, you need to use something like the Topaz apps. For example, here's a raw file I took last month of a distant polar bear:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgg4rssk9asnz7g/Distant polar bear, Eolusneset, Svalbard R1001925.ARW?dl=0
I took a small (2.31mp) crop of the image, and upsized it 2x (9.63mp) using both bicubic sharper in PL5 and Topaz Sharpen and Gigapixel AI:
Upsized 2x in PL5
Upsized using the Topaz apps
I suggest comparing these at 100%
Non-existent for you perhaps, but C1 simply wouldn't be able to produce results that I find acceptable, even despite the extra effort those inadequate results require.But because C1 gives me results that I am happy with 99% (an arbitrary number...) of the time and changing would cost me US$200+, so, just as you could not be bothered to change to C1, so I could not be bothered to change to PL-5. FOR ME, the improvements that I could potentially get in a relatively small number of cases did not justify the price plus going through the learning curve.
I found it the prefect solution to a non-existent problem
1. As expected, noise reduction is way, way better than C1. This is not something I normally use much so not such a big deal for me. However, I agree that this would absolutely be a critical differentiator if you expect to/need to do significant noise reduction.
Yes, I do the same. With PL5, you can copy all the efit settings, then paste some or all of the settings to one or a range of images. So I start with the default preset, make a few adjustments as required, then paste some or all of them to all the similar images. I then process them in the background, while moving on to the next group of images. It's a highly productive workflow.
That should happen in just over three months, in the usual BF sale. It will apply to the next version, PL6.
I use both, as they have different strengths. I also use Luminar Neo, though I currently treat that more as a toy, and Affinity Photo.
I would be interested in seeing the results that C1 produced in each of these cases. Almost certainly, poor NR is not the only problem. For example, I'm pretty sure there would be at least two other significant problems in its rendering of the first image.
For images like this, PL is undoubtedly superior.
--
Cheers
Alwyn
AlwynS
Senior Member
And just for perspective: quickly grabbing some recent images is an indication of what is more representative of the type of photography I do:I did a quick conversion of your RAW in C1 without taking a lot of effort to get it to look similar to your processing. An immediate difference that jumps out is the wider view that the PL conversion provided.Yes, I apply DeepPRIME to every image I process.Thanks Nigel, appreciate the very good response. For me, the takeaways from this are:PL includes a number of best-of-class capabilities that can be invoked automatically, leaving very little additional editing effort required. For example, try this raw file in C1:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3l718w6w38ogaeb/Ship's crew farewell parade RX603262.ARW?dl=0
This is what I got from it simply by opening the raw file in PL5, and exporting the processed result to a JPEG. Simply opening it causes my default preset to be applied, and I can then do further tweaks as needed. I have all my commonly used tools arranged in a logical order in my custom palette, so if I do want to adjust any setting it's really quick and easy. I normally do make a few tweaks, but in this case I deliberately didn't make any manual adjustments at all. So this is the zero-click option:
My guess is that you will find it much harder to edit this in C1, and simply won't be able to properly replicate this result, however much you try.
Yes, agreed. But knowing the poor quality results that C1 produces, I saw no point in making that effort.
Yes, PL5 can do upscaling, but it's not very good at it. If you want the highest quality, you need to use something like the Topaz apps. For example, here's a raw file I took last month of a distant polar bear:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgg4rssk9asnz7g/Distant polar bear, Eolusneset, Svalbard R1001925.ARW?dl=0
I took a small (2.31mp) crop of the image, and upsized it 2x (9.63mp) using both bicubic sharper in PL5 and Topaz Sharpen and Gigapixel AI:
I suggest comparing these at 100%
Non-existent for you perhaps, but C1 simply wouldn't be able to produce results that I find acceptable, even despite the extra effort those inadequate results require.But because C1 gives me results that I am happy with 99% (an arbitrary number...
I found it the prefect solution to a non-existent problem
1. As expected, noise reduction is way, way better than C1. This is not something I normally use much so not such a big deal for me. However, I agree that this would absolutely be a critical differentiator if you expect to/need to do significant noise reduction.
Yes, I do the same. With PL5, you can copy all the efit settings, then paste some or all of the settings to one or a range of images. So I start with the default preset, make a few adjustments as required, then paste some or all of them to all the similar images. I then process them in the background, while moving on to the next group of images. It's a highly productive workflow.
That should happen in just over three months, in the usual BF sale. It will apply to the next version, PL6.
I use both, as they have different strengths. I also use Luminar Neo, though I currently treat that more as a toy, and Affinity Photo.
I would be interested in seeing the results that C1 produced in each of these cases. Almost certainly, poor NR is not the only problem. For example, I'm pretty sure there would be at least two other significant problems in its rendering of the first image.
For images like this, PL is undoubtedly superior.
From this you can see why FOR ME, for instance the absolute best in noise reduction and capturing the most possible pixels on the edges of the frame are not significant concerns. For what I do, I find the free C1 to be quite satisfactory.
As always: YMMV
--
Cheers
Alwyn
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
As expected, the volume deformation is also present. But, slightly surprisingly, the C1 image is very slightly wider than the OOC JPEG, but noticeably narrower than PL5.I did a quick conversion of your RAW in C1 without taking a lot of effort to get it to look similar to your processing. An immediate difference that jumps out is the wider view that the PL conversion provided.Yes, I apply DeepPRIME to every image I process.Thanks Nigel, appreciate the very good response. For me, the takeaways from this are:PL includes a number of best-of-class capabilities that can be invoked automatically, leaving very little additional editing effort required. For example, try this raw file in C1:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3l718w6w38ogaeb/Ship's crew farewell parade RX603262.ARW?dl=0
This is what I got from it simply by opening the raw file in PL5, and exporting the processed result to a JPEG. Simply opening it causes my default preset to be applied, and I can then do further tweaks as needed. I have all my commonly used tools arranged in a logical order in my custom palette, so if I do want to adjust any setting it's really quick and easy. I normally do make a few tweaks, but in this case I deliberately didn't make any manual adjustments at all. So this is the zero-click option:
My default preset applied automatically, with no further tweaks or adjustments
My guess is that you will find it much harder to edit this in C1, and simply won't be able to properly replicate this result, however much you try.
Yes, agreed. But knowing the poor quality results that C1 produces, I saw no point in making that effort.
Yes, PL5 can do upscaling, but it's not very good at it. If you want the highest quality, you need to use something like the Topaz apps. For example, here's a raw file I took last month of a distant polar bear:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgg4rssk9asnz7g/Distant polar bear, Eolusneset, Svalbard R1001925.ARW?dl=0
I took a small (2.31mp) crop of the image, and upsized it 2x (9.63mp) using both bicubic sharper in PL5 and Topaz Sharpen and Gigapixel AI:
Upsized 2x in PL5
Upsized using the Topaz apps
I suggest comparing these at 100%
Non-existent for you perhaps, but C1 simply wouldn't be able to produce results that I find acceptable, even despite the extra effort those inadequate results require.But because C1 gives me results that I am happy with 99% (an arbitrary number...
I found it the prefect solution to a non-existent problem
1. As expected, noise reduction is way, way better than C1. This is not something I normally use much so not such a big deal for me. However, I agree that this would absolutely be a critical differentiator if you expect to/need to do significant noise reduction.
Yes, I do the same. With PL5, you can copy all the efit settings, then paste some or all of the settings to one or a range of images. So I start with the default preset, make a few adjustments as required, then paste some or all of them to all the similar images. I then process them in the background, while moving on to the next group of images. It's a highly productive workflow.
That should happen in just over three months, in the usual BF sale. It will apply to the next version, PL6.
I use both, as they have different strengths. I also use Luminar Neo, though I currently treat that more as a toy, and Affinity Photo.
I would be interested in seeing the results that C1 produced in each of these cases. Almost certainly, poor NR is not the only problem. For example, I'm pretty sure there would be at least two other significant problems in its rendering of the first image.
For images like this, PL is undoubtedly superior.
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
Agreed, the particular strengths of PL5 are less relevant for (excellent) images like those. However, I think it might still produce slightly better, sharper results than C1 even in these cases, because of the superior lens correction. The DxO lens corrections include custom sharpening for each lens.And just for perspective: quickly grabbing some recent images is an indication of what is more representative of the type of photography I do:
From this you can see why FOR ME, for instance the absolute best in noise reduction and capturing the most possible pixels on the edges of the frame are not significant concerns. For what I do, I find the free C1 to be quite satisfactory.
As always: YMMV
tbcass
Forum Pro
Thank you for the information.
tbcass
Forum Pro
I see it cost $79. Does it go on sale during Black Friday because I'm not sure it would be worth it to me?
--
Tom
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
Would you like to know how to closely simulate that particular ViewPoint correction with other software? I recently described the method here:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66321772
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
That's incorrect. ViewPoint has always been a different product that must be purchased separately. The last version of DxO's converter/editor that included a subset (but not all) of what ViewPoint does was Optics Pro 9, which I still keep on my system alongside PL5.
Loading…
support.dxo.com
tbcass
Forum Pro
Your point about intuitive is right on. We aren’t born with any innate ability to use software or a camera UI. We learn through practice. Once we master something anything similar will seem “intuitive”.
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
Yes, DxO normally offers the discount on its whole product line, and not just the newly updated products.
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
Quite a lot of DOP 9 users were pretty annoyed when DxO took fairly basic, essential features out of DOP 10 and put them into a separately purchased product. People wouldn't have objected if they got a discount on ViewPoint, but I don't recall that there was one.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
For the last two years at Black Friday, everything at DxO was 50% off. So $79 becomes $39.50 if they indeed repeat what happened before.
JeremyB2
Leading Member
Thanks for that.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum