Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: DXoPureraw sample

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    405

    DXoPureraw sample

    I will post the images here later on. Just to show how lifesaver that can sometimes be =)

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    405
    Here is link to album in flickr to show how much more editing marginal i got after pureraw to an quite under exposed northern lights image.

    https://www.flickr.com/gp/kasaari/J6Du5W

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,946
    First off...great image. Just the fact that you were there to see that.

    As for the noise:
    1. I am not sure what you think, but even your out of camera image with the R6 at ISO 6400 looks very good to me.
    2. Especially pixel peeping, DXO PureRAW pretty much cleaned up most of the noise. Not ISO 100 clean...but that is like ISO ~800-1600 clean, so ~2-3 stop improvement?


    What do you think?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    405
    The unmodded is quite horrible for my taste. What happened on there first couple nights was that i had forgotten to dimm my back screen back to 2 from 4 or 5 daylight brightness =) But pureraw alone gives quite stunning results noise wise, and gives a TON leverage to editing and then you can just give a hint of luminance and voila =) With bird images with my 800mm f11 purewar does wonders. Can now easily use 6400 or more iso and yet have sharp and smooth images. Love this program and even more that now i can have the sky ripped to mask, making northernlights images editing and making timelapses sooo much more fun.

  5. #5
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,740
    I’ve been a big fan of DxO for many years. I don’t need PureRAW, I use the full DxO PhotoLab. The NR is great, but so are the geometric corrections. With the RF 14-35, I get an FoV of ~13.5mm with DxO, whereas Adobe gives just very slightly wider than 14mm (a few pixels), and Canon DPP gives just very slightly narrower than 14mm (all with the EF 11-24 at 14mm as a benchmark).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •