Not again! It really is DxO's fault.

Jethro B-UK wrote:

I recently posted about a sky turning purple when I underexposed in LR. (here )

It has now happened again, but this time it's also on a white gull.

Both times this problem showed up only on a "linear DNG" created by DxO Pureraw.

The problem didn't show up on the original .cr2 file.

It's happened again:

Does this happen to other images you are running through DxO ?

Maybe it is some kind of setting you registered previously.

-M

Jethro B-UK wrote:

I recently posted about a sky turning purple when I underexposed in LR. (here )

It has now happened again, but this time it's also on a white gull.

Both times this problem showed up only on a "linear DNG" created by DxO Pureraw.

The problem didn't show up on the original .cr2 file.

It's happened again:

Those birds aren't pink, they're white.

If you have clipped a channel, then "underexposing" in the post can change the color. Use Rawdigger to check if any channel is clipped.

Jethro B-UK wrote:

Lensmate wrote:

Jethro B-UK wrote:

I recently posted about a sky turning purple when I underexposed in LR. (here )

It has now happened again, but this time it's also on a white gull.

Both times this problem showed up only on a "linear DNG" created by DxO Pureraw.

The problem didn't show up on the original .cr2 file.

It's happened again:

Does this happen to other images you are running through DxO ?

Yes.

Maybe it is some kind of setting you registered previously.

I haven't made any custom settings.

-M

Change to the default preset and see what happens?

-M

Jethro B-UK wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean:

Pureraw only has 2 options, which denoising engine and lens corrections on/off.

My bad, I thought you were using DxO PhotoLab5 with the pureraw within the program.

Have you posted this in here:

Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Maybe contact DxO directly for advise...

-M

Make the original CR2 file available, like you did the last time.

sybersitizen wrote:

Make the original CR2 file available, like you did the last time.

The OP has already stated the issue doesn't appear with the original cr2 raw file.

The solution/workaround is simple if DXO offers the option to output a tif file instead of a potentially problematic DNG file.

As I said in the op's other thread, I never use DNG files unless I have no other option.

Convert the cr2 to a DNG using Adobe's free DNG converter.

If the problem does not exist with the Adobe DNG then you know there is an issue with the way DXO creates DNG files.

rambet wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Make the original CR2 file available, like you did the last time.

The OP has already stated the issue doesn't appear with the original cr2 raw file.

The solution/workaround is simple if DXO offers the option to output a tif file instead of a potentially problematic DNG file.

As I said in the op's other thread, I never use DNG files unless I have no other option.

In theory, linear DNGs are better than TIFF files in the same way that CR2 files are better than TIFF files. In practice, I have never seen any issues with linear DNGs produced by DxO PhotoLab 5. The possibility to have a linear DNG as output is a significant advantage over other tools like Topaz DeNoise AI (which I also own and use).

OP should contact DxO support. I found them quite helpful.

SrMi wrote:

rambet wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Make the original CR2 file available, like you did the last time.

The OP has already stated the issue doesn't appear with the original cr2 raw file.

The solution/workaround is simple if DXO offers the option to output a tif file instead of a potentially problematic DNG file.

As I said in the op's other thread, I never use DNG files unless I have no other option.

In theory, linear DNGs are better than TIFF files in the same way that CR2 files are better than TIFF files. In practice, I have never seen any issues with linear DNGs produced by DxO PhotoLab 5. The possibility to have a linear DNG as output is a significant advantage over other tools like Topaz DeNoise AI (which I also own and use).

OP should contact DxO support. I found them quite helpful.

I don't see linear DNG files as true raw data because they have been partly processed - demosaiced to some extent and who knows what else. I am not convinced they are better than tif files.

https://www.dxo.com/tech-news/linear-dng/#:~:text=Linear%20DNG%20files%20are%20RAW,as%20denoising%20and%20lens%20corrections.

Topaz also offers the option of both tif and DNG outputs. I prefer the tif format for transferring the image to other apps.

I suspect there is an issue with the way DXO linear DNG files are created.

rambet wrote:

SrMi wrote:

rambet wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Make the original CR2 file available, like you did the last time.

The OP has already stated the issue doesn't appear with the original cr2 raw file.

The solution/workaround is simple if DXO offers the option to output a tif file instead of a potentially problematic DNG file.

As I said in the op's other thread, I never use DNG files unless I have no other option.

In theory, linear DNGs are better than TIFF files in the same way that CR2 files are better than TIFF files. In practice, I have never seen any issues with linear DNGs produced by DxO PhotoLab 5. The possibility to have a linear DNG as output is a significant advantage over other tools like Topaz DeNoise AI (which I also own and use).

OP should contact DxO support. I found them quite helpful.

I don't see linear DNG files as true raw data because they have been partly processed - demosaiced to some extent and who knows what else. I am not convinced they are better than tif files.

https://www.dxo.com/tech-news/linear-dng/#:~:text=Linear%20DNG%20files%20are%20RAW,as%20denoising%20and%20lens%20corrections.

Topaz also offers the option of both tif and DNG outputs. I prefer the tif format for transferring the image to other apps.

I suspect there is an issue with the way DXO linear DNG files are created.

Yes, linear DNGs have been demosaiced. However, like CR2 files, they are still scene-referred, while TIFF files are output-referred. E.g., highlight recovery works much better with linear DNGs that. TIFF files are less malleable than linear DNGs.

You are right. Linear DNGs can be processed, which should be advantageous (e.g., less noise).

Eric Chan from Adobe wrote:

A usual TIFF file that comes out the back end of a raw converter has already been rendered, i.e., it has been mapped to a standard color space, it has been tone mapped, white balancing has been done, etc. More technically, the image is output-referred.

In contrast, the linear DNG is still scene-referred and can still benefit from many of the operations typically performed by a raw converter, such as white balance, the application of a camera color profile, HDR compositing, etc.

You are right, Topaz DeNoise AI can output DNG, but that workflow is not integrated into Lightroom as DxO's workflow. However, Topaz has the advantage that it can process TIFF files as output and can generate TIFF files, which is sometimes a better workflow.

SrMi wrote:

rambet wrote:

SrMi wrote:

rambet wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Make the original CR2 file available, like you did the last time.

The OP has already stated the issue doesn't appear with the original cr2 raw file.

The solution/workaround is simple if DXO offers the option to output a tif file instead of a potentially problematic DNG file.

As I said in the op's other thread, I never use DNG files unless I have no other option.

In theory, linear DNGs are better than TIFF files in the same way that CR2 files are better than TIFF files. In practice, I have never seen any issues with linear DNGs produced by DxO PhotoLab 5. The possibility to have a linear DNG as output is a significant advantage over other tools like Topaz DeNoise AI (which I also own and use).

OP should contact DxO support. I found them quite helpful.

I don't see linear DNG files as true raw data because they have been partly processed - demosaiced to some extent and who knows what else. I am not convinced they are better than tif files.

https://www.dxo.com/tech-news/linear-dng/#:~:text=Linear%20DNG%20files%20are%20RAW,as%20denoising%20and%20lens%20corrections.

Topaz also offers the option of both tif and DNG outputs. I prefer the tif format for transferring the image to other apps.

I suspect there is an issue with the way DXO linear DNG files are created.

Yes, linear DNGs have been demosaiced.

Which might be related to the op's issue.

However, like CR2 files, they are still scene-referred, while TIFF files are output-referred. E.g., highlight recovery works much better with linear DNGs that. TIFF files are less malleable than linear DNGs.

You are right. Linear DNGs can be processed, which should be advantageous (e.g., less noise).

I'm not sure it's always an advantage. I prefer to use a denoising app I trust.

Eric Chan from Adobe wrote:

A usual TIFF file that comes out the back end of a raw converter has already been rendered, i.e., it has been mapped to a standard color space, it has been tone mapped, white balancing has been done, etc. More technically, the image is output-referred.

I prefer to choose the colour space the raw data is mapped to and to set the white balance myself in the raw converter.

In contrast, the linear DNG is still scene-referred and can still benefit from many of the operations typically performed by a raw converter, such as white balance, the application of a camera color profile, HDR compositing, etc.

I never feed a raw file to something like Topaz because I have no control how the raw data will be converted.

I set the colour space, white balance and profile how I like in ACR and then export a tif to another app if needed knowing the settings I used for the raw conversion have been applied to the raw data and baked into the tif.

I then apply any required edits in the other app to the tif data.

I have no need for DNG files for transferring images between apps.

You are right, Topaz DeNoise AI can output DNG, but that workflow is not integrated into Lightroom as DxO's workflow. However, Topaz has the advantage that it can process TIFF files as output and can generate TIFF files, which is sometimes a better workflow.

I prefer to run my Topaz apps as standalone and not plugins.

.

Jethro B-UK wrote:

The thing is, the colour shift only appears in the DxO version of the file.

I believe others used rawdigger in my first post.

I used the full version of DxO PhotoLab 5 on your previous CR2 file and had no such issue. Something about the use of PureRAW is doing this.

sybersitizen wrote:

Jethro B-UK wrote:

The thing is, the colour shift only appears in the DxO version of the file.

I believe others used rawdigger in my first post.

I used the full version of DxO PhotoLab 5 on your previous CR2 file and had no such issue. Something about the use of PureRAW is doing this.

That is what I suggested earlier was the issue.

The way the linear DNG is created by his DXO is the likely culprit.

rambet wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Jethro B-UK wrote:

The thing is, the colour shift only appears in the DxO version of the file.

I believe others used rawdigger in my first post.

I used the full version of DxO PhotoLab 5 on your previous CR2 file and had no such issue. Something about the use of PureRAW is doing this.

That is what I suggested earlier was the issue.

The way the linear DNG is created by his DXO is the likely culprit.

Yes, I see you suggested this: 'The solution/workaround is simple if DXO offers the option to output a tif file instead of a potentially problematic DNG file.'

PureRAW can only export to DNG or JPEG:

https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/articles/4432734318865-What-output-formats-are-offered-by-DxO-PureRAW

He needs to dump it or stop trying to do those edits on the output.

sybersitizen wrote:

rambet wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Jethro B-UK wrote:

The thing is, the colour shift only appears in the DxO version of the file.

I believe others used rawdigger in my first post.

I used the full version of DxO PhotoLab 5 on your previous CR2 file and had no such issue. Something about the use of PureRAW is doing this.

That is what I suggested earlier was the issue.

The way the linear DNG is created by his DXO is the likely culprit.

Yes, I see you suggested this: 'The solution/workaround is simple if DXO offers the option to output a tif file instead of a potentially problematic DNG file.'

PureRAW can only export to DNG or JPEG:

https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/articles/4432734318865-What-output-formats-are-offered-by-DxO-PureRAW

He needs to dump it or stop trying to do those edits on the output.

Or maybe the quality of the jpeg output is good enough for him.