The preview is the same for all file type unless you zoom in to the minimum of 75%. It’s not just Fuji files.
This is because denoising is an expensive process and would slow down previewing too much to be useful for editing.
Instead of exporting to DNG and going back to Lightroom, why don’t you do a denoising export to DNG and then open the DNG in PL5?
Try it and see.
I don’t understand what you want. Please let me be. This is going nowhere, it’s intrusive. I’m prefectly happy with my workflow. I paid for the software, please let me use it as I seem fit.
BTW even at 100% preview is soft and noisy. I have send screenshots and uploaded raw files to support a month ago.
I don’t “want” anything. But, when I write replies, I write them in a way that someone else coming across them might benefit from additional information.
You didn’t even start this thread so don’t have the right to decide on what gets published.
You are welcome to use PhotoLab as you wish but others might not be aware of the DNG round-trip to provide a clean preview in PL5.
I asked about your preference for Lightroom because it is always interesting to find out what it is other apps that they prefer over PL - it helps others in the process of deciding.
This is, on the whole, a friendly forum where people are allowed to ask dumb questions and sometimes give dumb answers. Unless it’s ,a personal insult, please don’t take offence at advice given freely for the benefit of others.
OK. This is the most unfriendly and pretentious forum I’ve ever subscribed to.This time I’m out altogether. Bye bye. Be happy giving nonsensical answers “for posterity”.
“Undo DeepPrime” when opening a linear DNG in ACR…
For all sensors. I use it on almost every image.
Mark
I wasn’t explicit enough in my initial question to Marie: it wasn’t about denoising, but about DeepPRIME’s contribution to demosaicing.
As much as it is obvious that DeepPRIME is more than qualitative for denoising (even at low iso), it was not obvious that this had an impact on the quality of demosaicing. But Mary confirmed it. It is therefore valid for all the sensors and not only on the Xtrans sensors (object of this thread).
gerarto
Correct - I also use it in “Standard Preset” for both - Fuji and non-Fuji
I was referring to demosaicing. It’s impact is very obvious to me on all my images.
Mark
What would have been interesting is that you provide a .RAF file here so that we can understand your problem. I searched (perhaps badly), but I couldn’t find it.
Maybe a lot of the misunderstandings in this thread would then be cleared up…
In any case, I do not notice the problems mentioned on the few .raf files I have.
Raf file processing may still need some tweaking. As has been said many many times x-trans processing is still in beta.
The issue I see with @Photo-DKO is that while he feels free to share his opinions about how things work or should work, he seems to find that any disagreement with his opinions, and any suggestions for alternative processing approaches, objectionable and therefore brands this site as unfriendly. Frankly, I found his reaction to @Joanna’s response to @Louie over the top and very unfriendly.
Mark
@Photo-DKO This is the friendliest and most helpful forum that I’ve found on the Internet. It is YOU who is being unfriendly.
When someone as knowledgeable, kind and patient as @Joanna gives you advice, you should listen.
Someone needs to show you what unfriendly is. I’ll take the job:
Don’t let the back door hit you…
Hello,
as most of you said this forum is usually friendly so let’s be like that 
I noticed some discussion went sideways because of workflow differences.
PhotoLab is a full editing software and we keep improving it to provide the best possible experience but we are aware some people prefer to keep another software for different things and just use PL as an intermediate stpe. That’s why there is a module to make PL not break that workflow with an integration in LR for example. And if you want just DNGs with demosaiking + denoising and optical correction we have released last year DxO PureRAW, which is not available yet for Fuji X-Trans (but it will be), so they can still have access easily to our functionnalities.
Regards,
Marie
Marie,
I completely agree with everything you wrote. I’ve always found this site to be among the friendliest and most supportive of any user site I have been a member of.
Mark.
Honestly I don’t feel a very friendly atmosphere in this forum especially after the responses to Photo-DKO. As a Fuji user and a Canon user I can confirm that there is a big difference in processing Raf files regardless of what software you use. Fuji images when exposed properly exhibit basically no noise at low iso. In fact, in ACR and Capture One, the detail sliders are cranked up close to the max without introducing any noise or other artifacts. Dehaze also has no effect. Now when processing the same files using PL5, all sorts of noise and artifacts are introduced. So I came to this forum to get some answers and direction and all I got was that Clearview Plus is a dehaze tool, even though other dehaze tools do not affect Raf files in this negative way. It would help to know what is being changed when you apply these tools so that a user could adjust the various other tools to replicate the effect but perhaps eliminate the noise. No one seems to know what settings are being changed. Also, there is such a big push to use Deep Prime on every image even those with low iso. In both the Fuji threads there is nothing but EA members defending the software without addressing any of the concerns.
I’m sorry you feel that this site is being unfriendly. As several of us have said on a number of occasions, unlike other software which has supported x-trans files for some time, DxO just implemented that functionality in PhotoLab less than 3 months ago. It is still, to some degree, a work in progress, and DxO has made it clear that this functionality is still in a beta mode. Feedback from you and other experienced x-trans shooters is a very important part of the process to improve PhotoLab’s Fuji x-trans processing experience. Some tools, like Clearview plus, may need to be tweaked for proper use with Fuji files.
The reason you are not getting as many answers from other users on this site is that most of us who are experienced PhotoLab users do not have significant experience with Fuji images since that ability was only recently supported.
Mark
I can appreciate what you just said. It’s unfortunate that the Fuji beta testers don’t monitor the forums to provide some answers. Thanks for responding and I will continue to try and process my Raf files. Is there a better way to provide information or problems to DKO rather than posting here?
All of the beta testers post regularly on this site but a large majority of them are not experienced Fuji shooters which is why feedback from people like you is so important.
Also, be aware that Clearview Plus does not necessarily work the same way as dehaze tools in other software. It can be very easily over applied to any image from any camera. However, as I suggested earlier, since a number of Fuji shooters have raised concerns about Clearview Plus, it is likely that this tool needs to be reworked for x-tran processing.
If you are having problems that you would like DxO to analyze you could create a support ticket at https://support.dxo.com
Mark
The problem is that it would have been interesting to have one of your raw, to see what the visualization looks like on our workstations/configurations. Here you are showing us an example that is actually very telling… on your screen.
But I downloaded two .raf files from Imaging Resource, one from X-H1 and one from X100s and opened them in PhotoLab applying the “DxO Sandard” preset.
Result: I see absolutely no difference in sharpness or artifacts between displaying at 100% screen in PL 5.1.2 and displaying the jpeg output in ACDSee or Photoshop. No more in the PL window in comparison mode. And the test with a linear dng sent in ACR is identical.
On the other hand, I notice a difference in colorimetry / saturation which is noticeable and which should be looked into. Maybe due to an output profile problem.
@Louie ,
you said "Now when processing the same files using PL5, all sorts of noise and artifacts are introduced. "
Could you uplad one or two RAW file we can have a look at on https://upload.dxo.com/ ?
Regards,
Marie