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
AlwynS
Senior Member
Should a person not have bought any of these programmes yet, I consider C1 to be an excellent FREE piece of software as an entrée to RAW processing. I found it very easy to get used to, the workflow is quite simple and quick and I find the results very good in by far the majority of cases. I am curious as to your implied comment that PL-5's workflow is better: seeing as I am not that familiar with PL-5, could you expand on in which way you found it superior to C1? I really find C1 very straight forward for my use, so I find it interesting that you would consider PL-5 superior in that regard.
In principle: human nature being what it is, I would be quite surprised if most people would not find the programme that they happened to start with and are familiar with the easiest to use and the other daunting. Any relatively powerful piece of software has a learning curve and unless there is a compelling reason to change, not something to be taken on lightly.
I tried the trial version of PL-5 earlier this year and I did not like it... most likely because I was proficient with C1 and comfortable with its UI and workflow. I accept that PL-5 could give better noise reduction, upscaling (not something I do) and sharpening. 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
Texas hobbyist
Leading Member
Yes I created an account and was emailed a license key.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
One email account here and installed on three computers, but only one can be activated at a time.
If I start C1 on this computer, a different one to my previous post, it will require me to give login details to make sure I'm real, then when it starts is asks for the (free) licence number to be reapplied. Then I'm OK to go on this computer - until I need to change to another computer and want to run C1 on it.
I don't use C1 but do use DxO so the awkwardness of C1 is only of academic interest to me.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
OK, then you are safely running the freebie.
I use Microsoft OneDrive for text files that contain licence numbers for various software, that way I can go to any of five computers in the house and access the licence number then cut and paste into where it's asked for.
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
I think very few individuals ever 'master' any tool as deep and powerful as the current crop of high end converting/editing tools. Those who do most likely become instructors and start teaching others how to use them.
The rest of us find a groove within which we operate as users, learning enough about a tool to accomplish our own goals for our own photos, and that's about it.
Different opinions shouldn't surprise anyone. The fact that many such competing tools continue to exist and thrive indicates that no single one is 'best' for all users.
Well, the one I happened to start with (and also the next one to which I migrated) aren't even maintained anymore, and don't support my current cameras. In addition, the ones I started with were so limited in functionality that I would be very unhappy using them now. I then flirted with (and rejected) a few more after those first two before settling down with the ones that feel best for me.
But your larger point is correct: Whatever we become familiar with eventually feels so natural that we think of it as 'intuitive' even if it isn't.
And I find that perfectly understandable.Any relatively powerful piece of software has a learning curve and unless there is a compelling reason to change, not something to be taken on lightly.
I tried the trial version of PL-5 earlier this year and I did not like it... most likely because I was proficient with C1 and comfortable with its UI and workflow. I accept that PL-5 could give better noise reduction, upscaling (not something I do) and sharpening. 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
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
The problem was I couldn't get the Noise Reduction I wanted at a higher ISO, the primary reason I wanted to shoot RAW. PL5 Deep Prime gave me great results at ISO 3200 and acceptable results at 6400 with my RX10iv with no effort at all. So you are right. I wasn't willing to put the effort into mastering C1.
Jon555
Veteran Member
I think DXO's main advantages over C1P (not the free version) is in lens correction and it has miles better noise reduction, which might be useful with the small sensor.
C1 does tend to give nice popping images more easily.
C1 is a lot more expensive... especially if you have the full version, here's my history (note if you don't need new camera support you don't have to upgrade any of these):
Capture One Pro upgrade prices (there are deals sometimes, these are all deals):
v11 full £200
v12 upgrade £126.65
v20 (aka 13) upgrade £107.10
v21 upgrade £139.30
Total = £573.05
Passing on v22 upgrade at £199
DXO upgrade prices (there's always a deal):
OpticsPro 11 upgrade £55.00
PL1 Elite upgrade (new name for OpticsPro) £55.00
PL2 Elite upgrade £54.99
PL3 Elite upgrade £34.99
PL4 Elite upgrade £49.99
PL5 Elite upgrade £44.50
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
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:
Dropbox - Error - Simplify your life
www.dropbox.com
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:
Dropbox - Error - Simplify your life
www.dropbox.com
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
AlwynS
Senior Member
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.
2. No click edit is good. Closest C1 can come is two clicks with a style that you define and save for future use. Again on the personal needs/preference thing: I tend to treat each image individually by choice. If I do have a burst that has very similar/identical characteristics and which I want to treat similarly, I copy and apply settings from an edited image in the burst.
And then back to the personal requirements thing: I totally agree that PL is superior in certain respects, particularly noise reduction. At this time, based on my photography and what I want to do, those features, while significant, are not sufficiently important in my use case for me to pay $200 and go through the learning to make the change. Maybe if it comes up on a special at 50% off I might be tempted. But at that time I would have to do a careful review/comparison of for instance individual Topaz tools vs. DxO.
--
Cheers
Alwyn
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
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.
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
It really would be useful to see what C1 made of these two images. But I'm going to speculate that C1 produced something like this:
Typical raw developer output, similar to OOC JPEG
If so, then apart from the poor NR, the images is smaller, losing on all four sides, and the people are fattened at the edges.
Comparing the frame sizes:
The larger image DxO produces compared to the unnecessarily cropped OOC and most raw developer image
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
Michael Fritzen
Veteran Member
Hi,
in fact I notice in C1 the distortion towards the sides which you mentioned.
It seems to me though that this is something coming from the lens already, even more so with the f/2.8 aperture not covering entirely the focus differences from centre to the sides.
Just for fun I played with the distortion slider in the Lens Correction tab and a value just a little bit lower than the default 100 removes some of the distortion towards the sides. To me it looks as if the lens correction profile used in C1 is suboptimal.
Then again noise doesn't look to me an issue in C1 - at least not on screen - using the settings to their defaults.
When other SW does something better: excellent for us users since it's the driving force for competition.
in fact I notice in C1 the distortion towards the sides which you mentioned.
It seems to me though that this is something coming from the lens already, even more so with the f/2.8 aperture not covering entirely the focus differences from centre to the sides.
Just for fun I played with the distortion slider in the Lens Correction tab and a value just a little bit lower than the default 100 removes some of the distortion towards the sides. To me it looks as if the lens correction profile used in C1 is suboptimal.
Then again noise doesn't look to me an issue in C1 - at least not on screen - using the settings to their defaults.
When other SW does something better: excellent for us users since it's the driving force for competition.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
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
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
No, you wouldn't, because is built right into PhotoLab; it's not a plug-in. PhotoLab doesn't have a plug-in architecture. So, every copy of PhotoLab has DxO ViewPoint and FilmPack built in, but they only become available if you have licences for them.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
So, every time you update PhotoLab, you get the latest ViewPoint right inside PL. There's no need to update the separate program if you don't use it much (as neither of us do). It's completely separate to the stand-alone VP program and the plug-ins used in, say, Photoshop.
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
It would be useful if you could upload the full-size c1 rendering, with lens correction fully applied.
Note that volume deformation correction is not a lens fault, and nothing to do with lens distortion correction. It happens with every single wide angle lens.
JeremyB2
Leading Member
Nigel - it seems I must spend a little more time getting familiar with PL. If it isn't too much hassle I would be very interested to know the make up of your main default preset. Up to now I've been using Chromatic Aberration, Distortion, DxO Denoising Technologies, & Lens Sharpness, all at standard settings, before sending a DNG file to C1 for further tweaking. This usually produces images with good IQ but there is no harm in expanding the possibilities available.
I also need to look into perhaps buying ViewPoint to help slim the 'fatties' at the outer edges of photos containing people. I wonder if it will become available at a discounted price around November?
I also need to look into perhaps buying ViewPoint to help slim the 'fatties' at the outer edges of photos containing people. I wonder if it will become available at a discounted price around November?
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
This shows my preset settings (from last year, so they may be slightly different today) in my own palette, organised to roughly reflect my workflow; of course, you can use the tools in any order you like:
Yes, usually the discounts apply to all DxO products.
JeremyB2
Leading Member
Many thanks.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum