sybersitizen
Forum Pro
Again, from the documentation:I tried PR3. I didn't see any lens sharpening option. Only NR levels which was new.Maybe it's not inaccurate for them, but still inaccurate for other people. This is actually a common occurrence.Some of the top super users who said that are in this thread. I didn't expect inaccurate information.You spent much time explaining that opinions on these things differ ... and indeed they do. So why trust what others say about XD? My guess is that they aren't shooting the same subjects you shoot with the same camera and lenses you use.I have PureRaw2 and V3 is of no use to me because users here have stated that XD tends to over sharpen and is now adding false detail.
This is what I see in the PureRAW documentation: 'The support for cameras and lenses (using DxO Optics Modules) is exactly the same as that offered by DxO PhotoLab'.While DXO added Noise level adjustments the super users said it is missing lens sharpening.I'm in my 30-day trial period with PL7, and am now looking at the difference between DP and DPXD (which is not available in my current PL5). I haven't seen objectionable artifacts or anything that I'd call false detail. What I've seen is (slight) improvement. It does take much longer than DP to do its work on my system, though, and the results are only visible when pixel peeping. I'm not sure how that equation will work for me in actual practice.
Maybe there is a difference between XD as implemented in PureRAW vs. PhotoLab, but I've been using it at its default setting with no adjustment.You really need the control PL offers.
Whom should we believe?
Lens softness: Defaults to Standard (which is equivalent to the DxO PhotoLab Lens Sharpness setting, with the global slider set at +1), you can also opt for a soft, strong or hard intensity. Optical sharpness improves image detail and overall image sharpness from the center to the edge of the frame.
I've personally never used PhotoLab's extra controls associated with lens sharpness correction, so I might be perfectly happy with that aspect of PureRAW despite what others think.
Yes, it's very frequently about personal opinions.It's not about personal opinions.Well ... when personal opinions don't match, it's sometimes hard to tell the information from the disinformation.Thanks for the suggestion but I won't. Like others that don't like Adobe, I don't like DXO's business model nor their customer support. It's personal thing and I fully respect others who don't Adobe. I only pipe in if I see what I think is deliberate disinformation. It was pretty bad six years but is seldom these days.Right. So maybe you should personally test the latest version of PureRAW if you think it's potentially helpful for you.The only reason I responded is the tool that that works the best for your needs is the best. Opinions about being best are subjective. If someone comes out and says LrC the best I would step up and not agree with that either.
Getting facts wrong is a real thing, of course. But assuming that personal opinions don't influence what people say is a mistake.When LR went subscription this place was a zoo. People with 10 -20 posts coming in and saying LrC will take your files to cloud and eventually Adobe will hold them ransom. No matter how much evidence you provided that LrC required local file storage it didn't matter. They kept at it. I was there.
Last edited:





