![]() ![]() When I use my Richoh Theta I need 360 degree abilities and Affinity is my go to. Affinity has provided free upgrades for a long time. I take updates when there are improvements of interest. I bit the bullet and bought DXO years ago. I have 3 products on my computer and they all have strengths and weaknesses. When I need DXO I choose it as an external editor, and export the DXO processed image as a tiff, and finish the editing in Exposure. You need expensive ad-on’s for perspective control, film simulations, overlays and borders, and especially for culling. I continue to use Exposure X7 as my “browser” and DAM and as my RAW processor for images that don’t have issues that need special sharpening or NR. I bit the bullet and got DXO elite on Black Friday last fall at a 50% discount. Certainly, PureRaw would fit into an ACDSee controlled workflow much more smoothly.Ĭlearly, I will have to test The "elite" product heavily before I decide to buy something else. I really like ACDSee Ultimate, and aside from my minor quibble with what they've done with Pixel Targeting, it is the only product that I've found that can compete with Lr on a feature comparison basis. Yours is the first time I've heard this sort of analysis. I did some testing myself and found out that the colour was the same but the baackground sharpnesss of the DXO product was better. But there is no doubt the DXO product is leading in this field at the moment. I personally haven't seen such a colour shift in the images. I wonder if this is unique to ORF or is common to all raw files.Īt any rate, now that the PureRaw problems I saw in V1 have been addressed, I am going to stop my maintenance subscription to Topaz and consider purchasing a DXO product in the fall. I processed a Base ISO orf file in the two products, and while there was some shift, it was more along the lines of luminance and shortened DR. I suspect it is an artifact of ISO level. DxO and Topaz use the Apple neural engine to good effect. Why did Topaz Denoise AI turn the image green?Īs an ACDSee user, I guess you are stuck on Windows, but the price of an M1 Mini is compelling, considering how expensive GPUs have become, and how little progress Intel has made with their onboard GPU. Many edits would be possible within PL and ACDSee could be round tripped to for photos that require more editing, retaining your investment in ACDSee. ![]() You get all the performance of Pure Raw but with complete control over noise and lens corrections. I would consider investing a bit more in DXO - PhotoLab Elite. You won't see THAT much difference between the 3, unless you REALLY pixel-peep. ![]() There's no rush anyway, all the good discounts happen in the fall anyway! I'll continue to experiment.īelow are jpgs of the converted files, along with a jpg of the original (ISO 6400) ORF. I will need to rethink my entire workflow if I did, and I'm not sure changing away from ACDSee would be worth it for me. I think the advice to use DeNoise AI on a completed bit-mapped image still holds. There is a VERY slight color shift with DxO, I'm not sure you can see it, but it has significantly truer color than Topaz. ![]() I think noise and sharpness are fairly similar between the two, but there is a consistent color shift to Topaz DeNoise AI when using the raw file. However, images from my Olympus E-M5 III come out of PureRaw2 the same size as they went in.ĭxO PureRaw2 is significantly faster when dealing with raw images (roughly 1.5 minutes) compared to Topaz DeNoise (roughly 5.5 minutes) on my PC. Plus, I have heard that DxO makes the processed dng significantly larger than the original raw. There doesn't appear to be any over sharpening or 'odd' artifacts from either Noise control or from sharpening. I downloaded and installed PurRaw2, and I am satisfied that the problems I saw in the original version have been addressed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |