Processing RAW using DxO - post your samples and tips - Part II

As the 'Processing RAW using DxO - post your samples and tips' thread is just about full, I am starting this Part II thread.  The first post will be on using DxO Viewpoint to do perspective correction from within DxO Photolab 5.

I use DxO Viewpoint 3 from within DxO PhotoLab 5 to do perspective correction on more than half of my images. DxO Viewpoint is a standalone product that you have to buy separately ($79), but it integrates into PL5 and looks like a built-in feature once installed.

For years I've been using a perspective correction tool to correct 'vertical' perspective - on city images. For example, if you shoot with the camera angled upwards, buildings look like they're falling backwards, and correcting vertical perspective brings the buildings' sides into parallel lines. I'd also correct perspective shooting interiors of properties before advertising them for sale or rent, so that the rooms' walls are vertical and parallel for a pleasant, balanced look.

DxO Viewpoint is great for this: it has a 'parallel lines' correction tool. Once selected, two parallel lines appear on the image, and you can move them around and change their angle, then 'Apply' the change and the image perspective will be adjusted and the lines will be made parallel.

You can also use a Viewpoint 3 'Rectangle' tool to correct not only vertical, but also horizontal perspective, stretching and compressing the image horizontally at the same time as vertically. This is really useful for adjusting perspective with wide angle and especially ultra-wide angle lenses, to make images look more 'normal' and pleasing.

Here's an example. I recently shot a vintage 'Dome' touring railroad passenger car on an Amtrak train that came through Tampa. I shot it with the EF-M 18-150mm lens at a wide angle of around 21mm. I shot from fairly close to the train in order to get some detail from the 'front' of the car and between the cars.

When processing, I wanted to 'stretch' the image horizontally to give it a more natural perspective, show more of the long car, and fit the image to 16:9 format.

Below are the 'before' and 'after images --- along with the rectangle perspective correction that I applied.

Stretching parts of the image can result in the stretched parts of the image appearing less sharp and noisier than the areas that aren't stretched.

I've found that the Canon M6ii's 32 MP sensor gives you more latitude in perspective correction than the 24 MP sensors (such as the M50ii), but correcting perspective works well with 24 MP cameras as well - you just can't stretch quite as far.

In the example below, I cropped the image quite a bit, and after stretching, the left side of the image was noticeably softer that the rest of the image.

I was able to bring the left side to about the same level of sharpness as the rest of the image by masking it with DxO Pl5 control points (covered in a post in the original DxO tips thread), and bringing up the sharpness of the masked region by 50.

The resulting image was a little noisier than the original, unstretched image, so I also increased the DxO Deep Prime Luminance value by 5 (from 65 to 70 so that the images appeared similar.

At first glance it may not seem like the perspective correction is that much, but when looking at both images, in the first, personally, my 'gaze' wanders around and then off the image, whereas with the lines and elements in the second image, my gaze quickly rests within the image in the center to the right side of the train car. (Camera club stuff LOL).

Not perspective corrected, only 'horizon' slider was adjusted

Rectangle perspective correction - left edge of image masked and sharpened 50 - +5 de-noise

Perspective correction that was applied

Sharpening Mask used to sharpen left side +50 after it was softened by the stretching

The link to the Part I DxO tips thread is here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4599001

DxO's deep prime de-noise is great for high ISO shots. I wondered it could help get 'reasonable' shutter speeds for infrared landscape photography using an IR filter (such as the Hoya R72) on an unmodified camera on very fast wide-angle lenses at their widest apertures, and pushing the ISO for photos.

The problem with IR photography with unmodded cameras is the shutter speeds are very long, often 10-30 seconds, causing blurred foliage if there's any wind. (Cameras can be custom modified for IR photography at 'normal' shutter speeds by removing the sensor's internal IR filter.)

I gave this a try with various native EF-M mount lenses and my Canon M6ii...

I used my Canon M6ii, and a Hoya R72 filter in 67mm size, which fits the Sigma 16mm f1.4 C lens and Rokinon 12mm f2 MF lens I have, and step-up rings can be used with my other lenses.

I tried my fastest wide-angle lenses: the Rokinon 12mm f2, Sigma 16mm f1.4, and Canon 22mm f2 lenses. The Rokinon was OK, however it has a 'hot spot' in the center at f2 and f5.6, and the edges of the frame were blurred due to focus or field curvature differences that lens seems to have with IR light, so I didn't go far with it and results for the Roki aren't shown here.

The Sigma 16mm f1.4 worked well... it had a mild hot spot in the center at f1.4 and f4.5, but the spot was correctable with a mask - reducing exposure of the spot by -1 EV and increasing the contrast and microcontrast slightly. Results below.

The Canon 22mm f2 also worked fairly well, however at f2 it has significant corner vignetting, which degraded the f2 high ISO corners noticeably. Results also shown below.

Here's a shot with the Sigma 16mm f1.4 lens in normal 'visible' light at f4.5, at ISO 100, with no filter:

Canon M6ii, Sigma 16mm f1.4 at f4.5, 1/1000s, ISO 100

Here's the same scene with the Sigma 16mm f1.4 f1.4 lens in infrared light, with the Hoya R72 filter (67mm filter size) at ISO 100:

Canon M6ii, Sigma 16mm f1.4 at f4.5, Hoya R72 filter, 10s, ISO 100 (pushed to ISO 400 in post)

The shot above was white-balanced to Temperature of 2100K and Tint of -66, Reds punch up +40 and Blues and Greens dropped -66, Exposure compensation in post +2.13, Contrast +53, Microcontrast 20. Saturation +90, Vibrancy unchanged. (Processing infrared color images is subjective, there's no right or wrong, it's mostly getting an image that is to your taste.) My goal was to get some color that looked fairly neutral, with a tonal range and 'look' that was somewhat like the visible light image.

The problem with a long shutter speed of 10 seconds is that a light wind blew the tree branches around, blurring them...

By shooting with the lens wide open at f1.4, and shooting at ISO 1600 in camera (pushing to about ISO 8000 in post), I was able to get a shutter speed of 1/15s which reduced the blurring of the foliage quite a bit:

Canon M6ii, Sigma 16mm f1.4 at f1.4, Hoya R72 filter, 1/15s, ISO 1600 (pushed to ISO 8000 in post)

Very similar tone and color processing as the f4.5 image - the main difference is that this image was pushed 2.43 EV in post to about ISO 8000 and Deep Prime Denoise setting was set to Luminance 70 instead of 40, to reduce the high noise level to a 'light grainy appearance'. ISO 1600 gave the correct initial exposure that did not oversaturate the red channel, but after color balancing the overall exposure needed to be pushed.

Here's the result using the Canon EF-M 22mm f2 lens at f4.5:

Canon M6ii, Canon EF-M 22mm f2 at f4.5, Hoya R72 filter, 8s, ISO 100 (pushed to ISO 400 in post)

And the Canon EF-M 22mm f2 lens at f2 at high ISO and a faster shutter speed to avoid blurring the foliage:

Canon M6ii, Canon EF-M 22mm f2 at f2, Hoya R72 filter, 1/10s, ISO 1600 (pushed to ISO 6400 in post)

Note the degradation in both color and grain in the corners of the f2 shot due to the vignetting correction pushing the corners to a more extreme ISO.

All images above are uncropped but downsized to 2160 pixels high (web or 4k monitor resolution). Deep Prime de-noise was adjusted so the grain at this image size was balanced between having good detail and sharpness for the high ISO shots without washing out to a 'watercolor' appearance.

Larry Rexley wrote:

DxO's deep prime de-noise is great for high ISO shots. I wondered it could help get 'reasonable' shutter speeds for infrared landscape photography using an IR filter (such as the Hoya R72) on an unmodified camera on very fast wide-angle lenses at their widest apertures, and pushing the ISO for photos.

The problem with IR photography with unmodded cameras is the shutter speeds are very long, often 10-30 seconds, causing blurred foliage if there's any wind. (Cameras can be custom modified for IR photography at 'normal' shutter speeds by removing the sensor's internal IR filter.)

I gave this a try with various native EF-M mount lenses and my Canon M6ii...

I used my Canon M6ii, and a Hoya R72 filter in 67mm size, which fits the Sigma 16mm f1.4 C lens and Rokinon 12mm f2 MF lens I have, and step-up rings can be used with my other lenses.

I tried my fastest wide-angle lenses: the Rokinon 12mm f2, Sigma 16mm f1.4, and Canon 22mm f2 lenses. The Rokinon was OK, however it has a 'hot spot' in the center at f2 and f5.6, and the edges of the frame were blurred due to focus or field curvature differences that lens seems to have with IR light, so I didn't go far with it and results for the Roki aren't shown here.

The Sigma 16mm f1.4 worked well... it had a mild hot spot in the center at f1.4 and f4.5, but the spot was correctable with a mask - reducing exposure of the spot by -1 EV and increasing the contrast and microcontrast slightly. Results below.

The Canon 22mm f2 also worked fairly well, however at f2 it has significant corner vignetting, which degraded the f2 high ISO corners noticeably. Results also shown below.

Here's a shot with the Sigma 16mm f1.4 lens in normal 'visible' light at f4.5, at ISO 100, with no filter:

Canon M6ii, Sigma 16mm f1.4 at f4.5, 1/1000s, ISO 100

Here's the same scene with the Sigma 16mm f1.4 f1.4 lens in infrared light, with the Hoya R72 filter (67mm filter size) at ISO 100:

Canon M6ii, Sigma 16mm f1.4 at f4.5, Hoya R72 filter, 10s, ISO 100 (pushed to ISO 400 in post)

The shot above was white-balanced to Temperature of 2100K and Tint of -66, Reds punch up +40 and Blues and Greens dropped -66, Exposure compensation in post +2.13, Contrast +53, Microcontrast 20. Saturation +90, Vibrancy unchanged. (Processing infrared color images is subjective, there's no right or wrong, it's mostly getting an image that is to your taste.) My goal was to get some color that looked fairly neutral, with a tonal range and 'look' that was somewhat like the visible light image.

The problem with a long shutter speed of 10 seconds is that a light wind blew the tree branches around, blurring them...

By shooting with the lens wide open at f1.4, and shooting at ISO 1600 in camera (pushing to about ISO 8000 in post), I was able to get a shutter speed of 1/15s which reduced the blurring of the foliage quite a bit:

Canon M6ii, Sigma 16mm f1.4 at f1.4, Hoya R72 filter, 1/15s, ISO 1600 (pushed to ISO 8000 in post)

Very similar tone and color processing as the f4.5 image - the main difference is that this image was pushed 2.43 EV in post to about ISO 8000 and Deep Prime Denoise setting was set to Luminance 70 instead of 40, to reduce the high noise level to a 'light grainy appearance'. ISO 1600 gave the correct initial exposure that did not oversaturate the red channel, but after color balancing the overall exposure needed to be pushed.

Here's the result using the Canon EF-M 22mm f2 lens at f4.5:

Canon M6ii, Canon EF-M 22mm f2 at f4.5, Hoya R72 filter, 8s, ISO 100 (pushed to ISO 400 in post)

And the Canon EF-M 22mm f2 lens at f2 at high ISO and a faster shutter speed to avoid blurring the foliage:

Canon M6ii, Canon EF-M 22mm f2 at f2, Hoya R72 filter, 1/10s, ISO 1600 (pushed to ISO 6400 in post)

Note the degradation in both color and grain in the corners of the f2 shot due to the vignetting correction pushing the corners to a more extreme ISO.

All images above are uncropped but downsized to 2160 pixels high (web or 4k monitor resolution). Deep Prime de-noise was adjusted so the grain at this image size was balanced between having good detail and sharpness for the high ISO shots without washing out to a 'watercolor' appearance.

Yes, it is always the fight between noise and not having the eye catching discrepancy between the DxO style oversharpened high contrast edges vs smeared low contrast details.

What helps me is the following:

- create two layers

- bottom layer with carefully de-noised picture

- second layer with the original picture

- adjusting the visibility of the original layer to the taste which reveals back some of the lost low contrast detail while bringing back only acceptable amount of noise.

KoolKool wrote:

Do you have experience in processing Milky Way shot with DxO?

I have one and Deep Prime just not worked well.....

I've processed a lot of astrophotos using DxO Photolab 5, and generally find that Deep Prime does a great job at keeping detail while reducing the noise, even at high ISOs. The trick is to balance the sharpness of the photos with the Deep prime Luminance so that you have a very slight amount of grain in the image.

Here's an example of processing an image I took last June of the summer Milky Way, in the area of the 'summer triangle' with the bright stars Deneb (in Cygnus the swan), Vega (in Lyra) and Altair (in Aquila).

I used the Canon M6ii with the 22mm f2 lens, wide open at f2, and a 6 second exposure on a tripod at ISO 800. Much longer than that would have resulted in star 'trails' due to Earth's rotation. The 22mm f2 lens turns out to be a very good lens for astro, it's quite sharp although it does vignette quite a bit wide open, and brightest stars show some coma near the corners of the frame.

Here is the 'original' image without any processing except for lens corrections, DxO only converting it to a downsized 2160-pixel high JPG file. Standard noise reduction used with value of 40:

Here's the image processed. In order to really bring out the faint star clouds from the background noise, I applied an aggressive S-shaped custom tone curve (see the screen shot of the processing below) which has a steep incline in the shadows (high contrast) then a more gradual roll-off to the highlights. I also color balanced it to bring the background to a more neutral gray (or black) and applied Deep prime de-noise at a value of 40:

Here's the processing I did in DxO PL5, see the settings to the right:

Unfortunately, the location I was shooting from has some light pollution in the Eastern sky (down direction in the photo). I applied a mask to the 'polluted' region using multiple control points as shown, to mimic the 'glow' of light pollution. For the masked area, I reduced Exposure by -0.48 EV, increased highlights +20, increased midtones +46, and dropped shadows -24 units. This effectively applied another tone curve to the masked area which reduced the glow from light pollution in the sky background, while keeping the star clouds and stars at similar brightness to the rest of the frame.

Two satellites were caught by this exposure, they are slightly slanted vertical 'lines' in the upper middle part of the frame. Note how the tone brings them out along with the fainter stars in the processed image, compared to the unprocessed image.

KoolKool wrote:

very well, Larry!

Here is my milky way shot, not from canon but nikon.

This is my new attempt on it

And here is the original RAW file if anyone interest https://www.dropbox.com/s/2t3w92mtceqp58q/DSC_9791.NEF?dl=0

The photo was took in urban area with heavy light pollution.

and let's see, i actually took 3 same shots for stacking.

I feel like the result from stacking was a little bit more natural than Deep Prime. But the downside of stacking is the fake raw output (TIFF, DNG), which limited further processing.

Very nice result!

Was this processed with DxO? Did you use a light pollution filter?

I'm really happy with how this ISO 6400 portrait turned out using Deep Prime.

I've started doing some infrared photography, shooting with a full-spectrum M200 and various infrared filters.

Super-color IR photography involves swapping the red and blue channels, usually using something like photoshop or other software's channel mixer.

I couldn't find info on how to swap channels using DxO PhotoLab 5, so I spent many hours learning how to do it in Adobe Lightroom and darktable. This was really a pain, as it involved exporting the file to DNG format, pulling it into Lightroom, using a special color profile, making the swap, exporting the file again, and then doing final processing in DxO.

I was really wishing there is a way to do this with DxO PL5!

After doing lots of research and playing with the software, it turns out to be ridiculously simple to do a red-blue channel swap for color infrared --- you just have to know what to do!

1. Open your color infrared image in DxO PL5, captured with either a full-spectrum-modified camera using the appropriate IR filter, or a dedicated color-IR-modified camera.

A 550-nm filter gives you the most infrared 'super color', 590 nm and Hoya Red 25A filters give you 'standard IR color', and 650 and 720 nm filters still give you some color to work with. Deep IR filters such as 850 nm and 950 nm filters pretty much yield B&W images.

2. Go to the Customize tab to edit the image, and choose the 'Color' tab so you can see the color controls

3. Under the 'HSL' controls, click the 'White' button to adjust the color globally

4. Grab the 'outer ring' of the HSL control and swing it 180 degrees so that it is opposite its starting position. (See attached screen shots for before/after positions).

That's it! Your image is now color swapped.

Note that as in Adobe lightroom, after doing the swap, the other color controls have the opposite effect than they did before: for example, increasing the 'yellow' saturation will actually increase what appears to be the 'blue' saturation in the image you see.

Note also that you can fine-tune the hue of the color swap nicely this way ---- I find that a 180 degree swap makes foliage a little too pink for my taste, so I tune it to a position slightly different than 180 from its original position.

Here are screen shots of the one control you change to do the swap:

Full-spectrum modified Canon M200, Ef-M 11-22, Hoya 25A red filter, 11mm, f4, 1/250s, ISO 100 - Colors out of camera (color channels not swapped)

Full-spectrum modified Canon M200, Ef-M 11-22, Hoya 25A red filter, 11mm, f4, 1/250s, ISO 100 - Color channels swapped by moving DxO PL5 HSL control's 'white' outer slider by 180 degrees

I use Linux, and while running DxO in a virtual machine is my normal workflow, a native solution has benefits. Recently I found out about ART, a fork of the well-known RawTherapee that streamlines the interface and adds some tools I find highly useful, including local editing with various masks and a tone equalizer (blacks, shadows, midtones, highlights, whites adjustment, some of which are available in RawTherapee but not grouped together in a convenient way). Another thing I like about it is that it can use RawTherapee's film simulations, which lets me easily change the look and feel of an image. I am really liking the results I'm getting out of ART and think I'll probably make it my main tool going forward.

Of course, the major advantage DxO has over the competition is its Deep Prime noise reduction. I wanted to give ART a torture test against one of my noisiest photos: a low-light portrait at ISO 5000 that was underexposed by two stops. Here is the best I could do straight out of ART:

Processed in ART

Here is what I originally came up with last year with DxO:

Processed in DxO

Obviously, the noise handling is much better, as it's managed to get rid of most of the noise without smudging out all the detail. Next, I tried using DxO just to boost the exposure and do noise reduction, and export this as a TIFF. Then I loaded it into ART and did the rest of the edits there, including some local shadow lifting on the face, applied a film simulation (Fuji FP-100c Negative 1 --, which I arrived on by cycling through the available options and picking the one I liked best), and dialed down the colors a bit. Here is the result:

Exposure and noise reduction in DxO, then final processing in ART

The processing is a matter of taste, and I'm not sure I'm 100% happy with this particular version, but the point is that using DxO as a preprocessor is a useful way to go. That's not exactly groundbreaking information, but I thought I'd share an example.

dan the man p wrote:

I use Linux, and while running DxO in a virtual machine is my normal workflow, a native solution has benefits. Recently I found out about ART, a fork of the well-known RawTherapee that streamlines the interface and adds some tools I find highly useful, including local editing with various masks and a tone equalizer (blacks, shadows, midtones, highlights, whites adjustment, some of which are available in RawTherapee but not grouped together in a convenient way). Another thing I like about it is that it can use RawTherapee's film simulations, which lets me easily change the look and feel of an image. I am really liking the results I'm getting out of ART and think I'll probably make it my main tool going forward.

Of course, the major advantage DxO has over the competition is its Deep Prime noise reduction. I wanted to give ART a torture test against one of my noisiest photos: a low-light portrait at ISO 5000 that was underexposed by two stops. Here is the best I could do straight out of ART:

Processed in ART

Still it's better than what I used to be able to get out of Canon's DPP 4 at ISO 3200.

Here is what I originally came up with last year with DxO:

Processed in DxO

Obviously, the noise handling is much better, as it's managed to get rid of most of the noise without smudging out all the detail. Next, I tried using DxO just to boost the exposure and do noise reduction, and export this as a TIFF. Then I loaded it into ART and did the rest of the edits there, including some local shadow lifting on the face, applied a film simulation (Fuji FP-100c Negative 1 --, which I arrived on by cycling through the available options and picking the one I liked best), and dialed down the colors a bit. Here is the result:

Exposure and noise reduction in DxO, then final processing in ART

The processing is a matter of taste, and I'm not sure I'm 100% happy with this particular version, but the point is that using DxO as a preprocessor is a useful way to go. That's not exactly groundbreaking information, but I thought I'd share an example.

Good point, processing is always a matter of taste of course. Even processing the same images six months apart I've found my preferences and workflows have changed.

The biggest PP change was when I first switched to DxO PL. I had a well-established, efficient workflow in DPP 4 before switching, and for non-noisy images was very happy with the DPP results. But there was a set of noisy images I could never get right with DPP.  After getting DxO PL I spent weeks going back through my images and re-processing many of them. With DxO it took far less time and I generally am happy with the results.  Now I couldn't go back to DPP!

I've also used darktable and gotten very good results. There are some very nice controls in datktable and its astro denoise was better than DPP, but DxO Deep Prime is far better so I no longer use darktable.

Larry Rexley wrote:

Still it's better than what I used to be able to get out of Canon's DPP 4 at ISO 3200.

Indeed. I don't think DPP4's noise reduction is any better than what the camera JPEG engine can do. I'm pretty happy with ART's noise reduction in general, it's just the extreme cases where DxO is significantly better.

Good point, processing is always a matter of taste of course. Even processing the same images six months apart I've found my preferences and workflows have changed.

That's one reason why I like the film simulations. Each RAW editor is going to have a default rendering, but film simulations allow you to scroll through different options to easily get different tone and color profiles and get away from that default look if desired. I originally started down this road last week playing with a trial of DxO Filmpack, but IMO it is overpriced for what it is. That's why I started looking into alternatives. I didn't expect to like ART as much as I have.

The biggest PP change was when I first switched to DxO PL. I had a well-established, efficient workflow in DPP 4 before switching, and for non-noisy images was very happy with the DPP results. But there was a set of noisy images I could never get right with DPP. After getting DxO PL I spent weeks going back through my images and re-processing many of them. With DxO it took far less time and I generally am happy with the results. Now I couldn't go back to DPP!

I've also used darktable and gotten very good results. There are some very nice controls in datktable and its astro denoise was better than DPP, but DxO Deep Prime is far better so I no longer use darktable.

I also used darktable for a couple years. I think the most recent version I tried was 3.8, before I got into DxO last year. The main problem I had with it was sharpening. Comparing with DxO and even DPP4 (with DLO), the darktable images were frequently not as sharp, sometimes very noticeably so. Cranking up the sharpening radius is prone to causing artifacts or just making it look artificial. That was one factor that originally sold me on DxO. darktable uses an unsharp mask, which probably explains the difference. RawTherapee/ART uses RL Deconvolution by default. I will admit that I am far from an expert in the differences between these algorithms, but the results seem to be just as good as DxO's. It would be interesting to do a more scientific comparison, but that's been my experience anyway.

I've recently gotten the Laowa 9mm f2.8 manual focus lens. Images from this lens are somewhat challenging to process, due to the lens' known corner vignetting of some 4 stops wide open, and some corner softness wide open.

Correcting the corner vignetting 3-4 EV, plus bringing out shadow detail, can bring the corner image noise of an ISO 100 shot already to ISO 1600 and beyond! In lower light, shooting at even higher ISO's, the need for good de-noising would only increase.

I've found DxO Deep Prime de-noise, custom sharpness settings, and other features great for getting the most out of images from this lens.

Here's a shot taken at f2.8 and ISO 100 using the Laowa 9mm lens at its maximum aperture of f2.8. The lens has its shallowest depth of field at that aperture, and the corners are noticeably less sharp, even at a 4k image resolution which I normally downsample to for posting on dpreview and for camera club competitions, and most other uses.

The first image has color, exposure, contrast, and microcontrast applied, as you might apply in a standard post-processing workflow. The overall shadow boost is about +1 EV so the shadow noise is already going to be around an ISO 200 level. It has no chromatic aberration, vignetting, or sharpening applied. The image was converted from RAW to JPG at 2160 pixel high resolution.

The second image is from the same RAW file, but has a +50 manual vignetting correction, unsharp mask of intensity 150, Radius 1.2, Threshold 0, Edge Offset (additional corner sharpening intensity) 100, chromatic aberration settings maxed out plus purple fringing applied, but no de-noising applied so you can see the increase in noise caused by the vignetting correction.

The third image is also from the same RAW file, and has Deep Prime De-noise enabled with Luminance +60, and sharpness Intensity bumped up from 150 to 175, to match the sharpness of the second image that did not have denoise. (I've found that sharpness needs to be adjusted along with Deep prime de-noise for optimal results.)

1. Canon M6ii, Laowa 9mm f2.8 at f2.8: no vignetting, sharpness, or de-noise

2. Same image with vignetting +50, unsharp Mask with extra corner sharpening, CA correction, but no de-noise. Note the noise in the lower left and right corners especially

3. Same image with Deep Prime de-noise, and slight bump in sharpening over image #2

Larry Rexley wrote:

As the 'Processing RAW using DxO - post your samples and tips' thread is just about full, I am starting this Part II thread. The first post will be on using DxO Viewpoint to do perspective correction from within DxO Photolab 5.

Hey Larry, thanks for this informative thread.
I discovered PureRaw last week and had a ton of fun with the trial, really impressive stuff.
I'm itching to buy a copy but I'm on the fence between PureRaw or Photolab 6.
I'm aware there is huge thread here but I couldn't find how DxO deals with Canon's Rawburst files?
Can you share your experience with it, would it let you extract in one go all the images in the burst file to jpegs ?
In my quick test, it just recognize the poster frame from the rawburst file, so is very rudimentary. Maybe there was a button I overlook ?

Photato wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

As the 'Processing RAW using DxO - post your samples and tips' thread is just about full, I am starting this Part II thread. The first post will be on using DxO Viewpoint to do perspective correction from within DxO Photolab 5.

Hey Larry, thanks for this informative thread.
I discovered PureRaw last week and had a ton of fun with the trial, really impressive stuff.
I'm itching to buy a copy but I'm on the fence between PureRaw or Photolab 6.
I'm aware there is huge thread here but I couldn't find how DxO deals with Canon's Rawburst files?
Can you share your experience with it, would it let you extract in one go all the images in the burst file to jpegs ?
In my quick test, it just recognize the poster frame from the rawburst file, so is very rudimentary. Maybe there was a button I overlook ?

Thanks, I'm glad you found the thread useful.

Unfortunately I haven't used the raw burst feature of the m6ii (yet) and can't comment on how DxO might or might not work with it.

I'm still on PL5 waiting for a black Friday deal to upgrade.

Larry Rexley wrote:

Photato wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

As the 'Processing RAW using DxO - post your samples and tips' thread is just about full, I am starting this Part II thread. The first post will be on using DxO Viewpoint to do perspective correction from within DxO Photolab 5.

Hey Larry, thanks for this informative thread.
I discovered PureRaw last week and had a ton of fun with the trial, really impressive stuff.
I'm itching to buy a copy but I'm on the fence between PureRaw or Photolab 6.
I'm aware there is huge thread here but I couldn't find how DxO deals with Canon's Rawburst files?
Can you share your experience with it, would it let you extract in one go all the images in the burst file to jpegs ?
In my quick test, it just recognize the poster frame from the rawburst file, so is very rudimentary. Maybe there was a button I overlook ?

Thanks, I'm glad you found the thread useful.

Unfortunately I haven't used the raw burst feature of the m6ii (yet) and can't comment on how DxO might or might not work with it.

I'm still on PL5 waiting for a black Friday deal to upgrade.

Ha, me too, hopefully they have a deal like last year.

I tried to process a Raw-burst in PureRaw, but all it does is take the poster frame and export it, so if you want a different frame it has to be extracted first in-camera or by DPP.

I’m hoping PL6 can process all the frames, that alone would justify its purchase, but I doubt it can.