DxO PureRAW 4 - What's New, Worth the Upgrade?

[@MattisProbably]

PureRAW 3 was actually a pretty significant step up from version 2 but I will skip version 4. I just tried the trial version. It is good that there is more control over the whole process but to me it feels like it makes the whole thing more complicated and slows down the workflow. For example, the file I just processed with version 4 turned out to be significantly softer than the one version 3 spat out. I shoot a lot of animals (wording) and I got great results with version 3 using the XD model at soft sharpening. It gave me nice details in fur and feathers with very subtle sharpening. And it basically worked for every image I threw at it. But now soft is too soft and normal looks oversharpened. So I have to tweak the sliders to see what works best... With version 3 I just selected my images, started the batch processing and came back later to start editing. With version 4 I would have to rethink my entire workflow.

[@davegrenier1160]

Did you try running PureRAW 4 in standard "DeepPRIME" mode? As Todd mentioned, there's little qualitative difference between the images generated between the "DeepPRIME" and the new "DeepPRIME XD2/XD" modes. (I find the standard settings of the latter to be a bit too aggressive in denoising, and not much else different except for maybe a slight bit of crunchiness in the detail enhancement - although you have to look pretty hard at the image to see both effects.) Because if you do, you'll find it rips through files (I batch process) like crazy compared to the processing engines in earlier versions. This is my standard way of running PureRAW 4. Batches that used to take all night are done in two or three hours. The speed gain was worth the upgrade.

[@MattisProbably]

@@davegrenier1160 I bought PureRAW 4 a week after I made that comment 🙃

[@alexwhelan1]

@@MattisProbably 2 months in, was it worth the upgrade and have you been able to achieve the same results you were achieving prior with 3? kind of in the same boat. Would appreciate your 2 cents

[@MattisProbably]

@@alexwhelan1 PureRAW 4 really does seem to produce less artifacts. The images do look nice and clean. Recently it also got the update for the new XD2s model. Didn't get to experiment with that yet but apparently it's more efficient.

[@trisjor]

I pulled the trigger and bought PR4; within 5 days it paid for itself just in sheer speed compared to Lr AI Denoise. I shoot basketball and tend to process close to 250 pictures per day. PR4 gets more detail from my 3200 ISO pictures and is way faster at processing that many RAWs than Lr AI Denoise; ~30 minutes vs ~140 minutes on an M1 Pro Mac. DxO uses Apple’s Neural Engine whereas Adobe does not.

[@robfielding100]

I noticed a huge improvement to my IR photos.

[@johndunne]

Todd, have you found any use cases for PureRAW on your GFX100s files?

[@KenToney]

I’ve been using Topaz photo AI on my bird photography for several years and I’m thinking of buying the DXO pure RAW 4 I’ve never used it. Do you think it would be a better product than the topaz? Thanks.

[@helloianzakharov]

Topaz AI is far behind in terms of creating weird AI artifacts.

[@KenToney]

@@helloianzakharov I bought the DxO 4, very happy!!

[@madtoffelpremium8324]

I am still using Pure Raw 2 because I didn't like the oversharpened look of Deep Prime XD. Maybe I becomes usable now with the option to turn down the sharpening, but I am still not sure if I m going to upgrade this time given how amazing "normal" deep prime still is.

[@JTMGJTMG]

You can disable "Lens softness" and dont get sharpness mixed into the result. I have it disabled completly, so that the pictures just get less noise and more detail, without putting in a layer of not real sharpness :)

[@lucky-shirt]

Do you ever use PureRaw on portraits, or only landscapes? I've used it in some low-light situations during weddings and it works perfectly. I'm curious if others use it for people also.

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

I would add, Pure raw 3/4 for Fuji X trans files is essential in Lightroom and actually out does Capture one For me it was a godsend although I had been using Xtransformer pure raw 3 did a better job of the raw conversion. Thanks for the info on the upgrade Tod great video as always 👍

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

Further to my earlier comment Pure raw 4 at present doesn’t support Fuji xraw but hopefully this will be addressed in due course as they did with version 3 It seem to default to version 3 for dng conversion which is still good but the new preview doesn’t work as yet

[@jamiexmn]

@@oldgrumpyjim5003 Not sure this is correct. I just upgraded to Pure Raw 4 and I am getting XD2 and the new preview before processing with Fuji RAWs shot on the X-H2S and the 50-140mm lens.

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

@@jamiexmn Hope that’s right but Andy Hutchison from another channel confirmed this was the case for now. I used files from the XH2 and the XT3 with the 23mm 1.4 and the before and after didn’t appear to work in the new preview feature I also have the 16-55 & the 50-140 so will try raf files from them as well 👍

[@jamiexmn]

@@oldgrumpyjim5003 yeah, worked for me. I made changes to the settings and it was represented in the preview. I am on Mac. Not sure if that makes a difference or not.

[@oldgrumpyjim5003]

@@jamiexmn good to know Thanks I’ll look further into the settings incase I’ve missed something 👍

[@Frodofoto01]

Thanks Todd for an excellent evaluation. I have PR2, but thought PR3 was oversharpened. I like the increased options in PR4 to get the best out of your files. One thing I found annoying was the inability to save output files in the original folder (other than defining the output folder each time). Is this an option now? Thanks

[@Frodofoto01]

I downloaded the trial version and yes this is possible. However, PR4 is significantly slower than PR2 (but still faster than LR enhance). I can tolerate this but I have often experienced PR4 hanging. This usually occurs immediately when I access PR4 from the LR plugin, where the estimated time keeps climbing past 15 minutes for just a few images. As I type this now, it has hung on the last of 4 images. Restarting the computer helps and I have now installed the latest version 4.0.1, to no avail. I never experienced this with PR2 (I skipped PR3).

[@karthz]

I use PureRAW 3 in my workflow for wildlife photos regularly. I tried a trial of 4 and I found the batch processing tedious - looks like I need to select the options for every image individually and couldn't find a way to do them for the batch.

[@paulengle5784]

Man, you love to see software with a perpetual license in 2024. Feels like such a rarely these days.

[@LandscapesDronescapes]

Nice. I had version 1 and it worked wonders on my Mavic 2 Pro images. Then I got my Sony A7R4 and version 1 didn’t work with it so I bought version 2. Then Adobe came out with their Denoise feature and I’ve not used it since. That said I have downloaded the free trial just to see what it’s like.

[@robert_may]

Oh I'm glad it wasn't just me wondering why the preview wasn't updating - I thought I'd accidentally untoggled it or something 😅 On the subject of the DeepPRIMEXD2 model: it's weird in that it's _significantly_ better for some photos where the previous version went absolutely nuts. I mostly tested it on things like ISO 25600 bird photos though, where the difference is quite stark. I did run a few more normal photos through it and yeah there wasn't much difference in those instances (but I don't tend to process those sorts of photos through extra tools that often anyway).

[@AmorLucisPhotography]

I've compared PR3 and PR4 and in my view the latter is a significantly better. To begin with, it cleans up more of the background noise whilst at the same time producing fewer artifacts - which the XD engine had an annoying tendency to do around fine hair features and in some blank areas (which I think you commented on in your PR3 review, if I recall). Yes, DeepPrimeXD can extract more detail than DeepPrime, but in my view the former sharpened too aggressively by default creating artifacts or faux detail out of noise. Without the option to dial it back sufficiently (choosing "soft" for lens softness didn't really do enough to eliminate artifacts), I more or less stopped using DeepPrimeXD and preferred DeepPrime or simply Lightroom (which certainly loses out on detail extraction in comparison with PR2 or PR3 but at least does not produce artifacts). Now with control over luminance noise reduction and how aggressively the engine goes searching for detail to extract we have the best of both worlds and that all important thing - control. For me PR3 was a waste but PR4 is excellent.

[@Designsecrets]

I found the images blurry, compared to Deep Prime XD

[@foto-dk]

Hi Todd. Excellent review! I have just bought the 4-version. I have used the DXO PureRAW, since it came out, but something is puzzling me. If I use the DEEP PRIME XD2 processing, a standard RAW fil may take more than 7 minutes to process. I am used to let's say 30 seconds with Pure RAW 3. Is this just coupled to my HW specs? I have 32 GB RAM, a Ryzen 5 3600X 6-core processor and an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660Ti Graphic Card, and I think this should perform better. Can you pinpoint anything here? Kind Regards, Jan

[@generaltso9402]

7.5 minutes for processing my 20MB OM-1 files using DPXD2. Using GTX 2060. DXO does recommend 2080 for PR4. Looks like I'll be back to using PR3 until I upgrade my PC.

[@HR-wd6cw]

It's your hardware since the newer software uses more AI and that means more Tensor cores are needed on Nvidia cards. I ran PR4 with my GTX 4060 (8GB of RAM) and it takes about 30 seconds at most, and usually more like 10-15 seconds for me (Ryzen 8-core CPU, 16GB of RAM and GeForce RTX 4060). If you have an AMD or Intel video card (Integrated Intel or ARC) I'm not sure what their equivalent to Tensor cores are and AMD didn't really have such processing until more recently (maybe in the last 2 years). Not sure about the Intel ARC. But I do know that moving to a 3000 or 4000 series card should greatly improve processing time. But my guess is that your computer doesn't have the proper hardware to do AI calculations fast enough, so it's slower.

[@keithpinn152]

Hi Todd: Thanks for creating and sharing this video. I use both DXO PureRAW 3 and Topaz Photo AI. Do you see much difference between the new PureRAW 4 and Topaz Photo AI, and would it be worth upgrading to Pure RAW 4? Thanks, Keith

[@KenToney]

Hi Todd, I just asking the same question I use topaz for my bird photography and wondering if it would be worth trying the new DXO 4 product?

[@keithpinn152]

Hi @@KenToney . . . I also own DXO Pure Raw 3 but I haven't used it as much as Topaz Photo AI because it didn't have the slider for Before & After views of the impacted image. Generally speaking, I have found that the Pure RAW application does a better job than Photo AI so I am serious thinking of upgrading to the current version of Pure Raw.

[@KenToney]

@@keithpinn152 thanks I’ve never had the DXo so I’m gonna go ahead and order it and try it out

[@keithpinn152]

@@KenToney try the Trial Version first. That is what I am doing before buying the new version.

[@KenToney]

@@keithpinn152 good idea thanks

[@renestaempfli1071]

Unfortunately, RAW for the A9III is still not supported !!

[@kennethcheong4498]

Q: is this latest version faster than the older version?

[@normtesch1126]

why arent you able to create color profile after your photo has been through camera profile?? color profile is greyed out

[@ronald7482]

Does it works good with Raf files from Fujifilm?

[@KenToney]

I’ve noticed my Sony A1 RAW files are not supported unless I convert to DNG Does anyone else have this issue?

[@Cleverconveyence]

Yeah im wondering how useful this will be on the Zf for anything besides 10k+ shots

[@HR-wd6cw]

People should NEVER delete their original RAWs. It's the equivalent to throwing away film negatives basically. Unless an image is total trash (which should get weeded out in the culling process) I would say do not delete them unless you are not going to process them and they are trash. That being said, I may have to try out PR4. In my tests with LR, LR does a good job, but sometimes you have to apply a log of nose reduction to get rid of luminance noise if you so desire and this can create some nasty side effects. I always felt DXO did a better job, possibly creating some halos with aggressive settings, but I think in general, more detail IS retained (and this was based on testing Photolab 5 which I believe includes the original PureRAW algorithms/engine, versus Adobe LR's DeNoise AI). Now in that comparison LR did do a better job at detail retention, but didn't remove as much noise, so I guess it's a trade off. Hopefully PR4 is an improvement over the denoising system found in PL5 (which has DeppPrime, but the original version of DP).

[@dicekolev5360]

Will you buy me the best SSD's or unlimited Cloud to store my raw files ?! :D

[@Weyco23]

@@dicekolev5360Externals are cheap. I have three copies of every photo I have taken. It is very unlikely that three drives would fail simultaneously.

[@HR-wd6cw]

@@dicekolev5360 They're not that expensive. Even the Best (Samsung Pro's) are not terribly expensive. And 4TB drives are coming down in price (a lot in the past few years, where they used to cost $800+).

[@martyjwalker]

Where I see this being really helpful is if you're using a RAW editor that doesn't have great lens support (or hasn't been updated in a while **cough**Exposure**cough**), or don't have the brain space to delve into RawTherapee's wavelets.

[@LGPhotoArt]

Hi, if I buy DXO Photolab 7 is PureRaw4 fully included?

[@dominey]

No they're separate applications. PureRaw is derived from PhotoLab though, so if you own PhotoLab you may not need PureRaw.

[@Anadrolus]

PureRaw4 engine will very likely be included in PhotoLab 8 that will come out around November, PhotoLab 7 has the PureRaw 3 engine.

[@akkarparkiamopas3401]

Is it compatible with Sony a7IV and a7s Mark I ?

[@J5388T]

Whilst you are purchasing it, in reality its an annual subscription if you wish to stay up to date as each year DxO release a new version with any support for earlier versions stopping. I used versions 1 & 2 after they came out for dealing with noise in high ISO images but once Adobe released DeNoise, I use that these days and I could see negligible difference between them and that included a trail of DxO version 3 last year too.

[@matthewclapperton8673]

You should print the old canon shot, the lightroom enhance, and the dxo pureRaw version. View them at a normal viewing distance, and see if any of this actually matters to the viewers enjoyment of the image.

[@jessejayphotography]

DeepPrime XD2 is most effective on high ISO photos and is more intelligent about how it applies techniques to an individual photo at expense of processing time. If your photo is well exposed and shot at native ISO there is not much benefit between DeepPrime and the XD versions. I think PureRaw and PhotoLab do a really good job in opening up crop sensor high ISO performance. The industry is trending towards slower apertures and higher ISO. I have a X-H2S with a 150-600 f/5.6-8 (not a fast lens) and PureRaw or PhotoLab are essential, IMHO, to making the 4000-6400 ISO photos work.

[@marca9955]

A good reason to keep the DNGs and get rid of the RAWs is archiving. In 20 or 30 years the RAWs will be so non-standard as to be inoperable whereas DNG is an established standard.

[@JBRose]

I'm done with DXO. Just upgraded to Pureraw 3, three months ago. They won't upgrade me for free. The cost of the software is Turning out to be more than an Adobe subscription. I'll just use Adobe Denoise AI.

[@andr101]

this is indeed infuriating.

[@shmumm]

Just crack it lmao

[@JBRose]

@@shmumm I won’t ever do that. I’ve already uninstalled PureRaw3. Just done. It’s either value for money or not. Besides Adobe is close enough and already built in. Back to making photos.

[@KimHojbergJensen]

Before should have been made with DxO Pure RAW 3, not straight out of camera I think. Also he lens correction stuff confuses this before and after also and isn't really relevant if you use Lightroom already or have a new camera that does it automatically.

[@BryanMiraflor]

woah, PureRaw 4 looks so much better than Topaz Labs AI software.

[@mickue]

Definetly too much clarity :D

[@Designsecrets]

From my tests DeepPrime XD2 isn't as good as the Deep Prime Mode. After testing this, the dng's it creates arent' as good as DX3, using Deep Prime XD mode.......xd2 isn't that good, photos are blurry, it lacks detail compared to the original mode I use in dxo3. The reason I got DXo3 in the first place was because it was significantly better than anything else I've used in the market to remove noise and clean up images before editing them.......dxo4.....seems to be worse for my use case senarios.

[@rolandschiefer]

The upgrade fee is heavy overpriced. It is now the 3. Update. 119 € + 3x 79 € for the user, which startet with Version 1 and allways updatet.

[@LoryMierau-l9e]

Jevon Knolls

[@FredrickThompson-p3n]

Price Fields

[@JeromeLevy-k9t]

Salvador Estate

[@winfridatibanyenda4208]

Beier Garden

[@StephanieGallo-n1e]

Herman Motorway

[@KerryFalconer-z7r]

Brenda Via

[@boalter9629]

Dont buy this Software. It frequently asks for the activation Code and After 4 times Blocks. DXO does Not answer!

[@davepastern]

unstable as fuck, constantly crashes to desktop (DXO Pure RAW v2 works flawlessly on the very same laptop, with the very same problematic images) . Not all images cause the crash, it's random. This version is buggy as hell - avoid at all costs.

[@MrPjtmac]

Don't buy from DXO. Their support is WORSE than terrible.

[@snowhite1qazse4]

To me, lightroom denoise is enough.. I already feeling guilty of faking my image when using denoise or any AI cosmetics... I bought an expensive GFX system, I want to see all the flaws of it. I only use denoise or AI on emergency, but I do not want to spend more on a plugin to further cosmetics my images

[@DennisBater]

I think it is a waste of money! Between Lightroom and Photoshop, and your expertise with both programs I think you can accomplish what you require. The people with "deep catalogs" of "old images" that were shot with a 6mp camera are not going to use them again. I know I sound mean, that's because I am! 😇 With a 102mp Fuji, I wouldn't think you have any problems, I know i don't!

[@StreetsOfVancouverChannel]

It’s glaringly obvious why you have zero subscribers…

[@DennisBater]

The reason I have zero subscribers is because my channel is empty and I had no intention of doing anything with it. Also why are you such a fricken jerk?@@StreetsOfVancouverChannel

[@REMY.C.]

​@@StreetsOfVancouverChannelmaybe it's because he has no videos?