Or only high ISO/low light?
If you are asking if I use Deep Prime for all photos then the answer is yes.
PureRAW has a few downsides though
- No fine tuning: Corrections are either on or off
→ some corrections can lead to images that look over-sharpened, something that cannot be fixed afterwards.
- Limited output file formats: JPEG and DNG
→ there should at least be an option for 16 bit TIFFs imo.
- PureRAW lags behind PhotoLab, which is the first app to get new features (and therefore bugs)
All of the above makes me prefer DPL over DPR, even though DPR is cheaper. DPL is so much more at reasonable extra cost. Nevertheless, be sure to check if your gear is supported.
I’ve been working with PureRAW since it became available for Fuji X-Trans RAF files. After all kinds of workflows with various combinations of PureRAW2, PhotoLab5/6, Topaz Sharpen AI/Denoise AI, Iridient X-Transformer, and PhotoShop CS6, I’ve decided to put PureRaw into the I’ll-give-it-a-try-as-a-last-resort category.
The problem is that PureRaw is a blunt instrument and you have virtually no control over what it does. In terms of both sharpening and noise reduction it acts like an AI process. That means that if you try any other AI process after PureRaw gets done with your file, you’ve essentially added one AI on top of another AI; the the results can be dreadful.
I’ve been doing some rather challenging shooting which includes some unavoidable contrast reduction, resolution reduction, and motion blurring. My best results have been using Iridient for demosaicing, and then making a decision whether to deal with sharpness or noise first.
Back in the days with PhotoShop, the general wisdom was to apply sharpening at the end of your other PP workflow. With AI apps like Topaz, I often start with SharpenAI, which also allows a degree of noise reduction. I can still use Denoise AI if I need more. All of this is to get an image that I can work on with PhotoLab 6 – and seems to work well. (For PL6’s NR with native Fuji RAF files, “Prime” and “Deep Prime XD” are still not available for some X-Trans bodies.)
So the answer to the question? Definitely NO! I’ve pulled a few photos out of what would have been my reject file with PureRAW, but because you only have two on/off controls with PureRAW, it is far more likely to be destructive than constructive in my work.
I am interested in DPL, but feel like LR is so familiar now that all the shortcuts have become muscle memory. I also wonder if I’d miss LR’s image management aspect.
Thanks. I was wondering if people believe it’s worth the processing time plus those huge DNG files.
Do you use Lightroom? If so, is your process to…
(a) process all your photos externally in the PureRAW app first, then import the DNG files into LR for culling, or
(b) import the RAW files into LR, cull them, then run them through PureRaw via File / Plug-In Extras?
I found (b) to be a bit complicated at first, because you end up with a folder with the original RAW files plus a sub-folder with the PureRAW DNG files—twice the number of images. I get around the issue by flagging all the RAW images I want to keep. After processing the selected images with PureRAW, I then show flagged images (the original RAW files) and delete them. This leaves me with only the PureRAW DNGs.
I’d never delete the original RAW files without having at least one working backup:
- A PureRAW DNG file is a linear DNG which contains processed images. Said processing cannot be reversed…unless you start anew from the original RAW file.
- Imagine the day, when you discover that PureRAW’s processing does not agree to you any more. Without the original RAW files, you’re effectively trapped in a one way street.
I don’t use Adobe products at all and technically I don’t use PureRAW either though I do own a license for PR2. I do all RAW developing in Photolab 6 and occasionally finish in a pixel-editing app when necessary. I would urge you to try the 30 day free trial of PL6+FP6+VP4. Please be advised that coming from LR, there will be a learning curve as many of the most basic controls don’t work the same way that their counterparts in LR do.
Also, I agree with @platypus that you should never delete your original RAW files. Storage is cheap, just get an external HDD or SSD to keep them on.
Actually, it’s because of the image management aspect that I stopped using Lightroom after the Beta version. I have my own file management system that predates LR. It is a system that is organized based on date first, followed by project ID. The two main sub-folders for any primary folder are “Source” and “Working”. Source files remain untouched.
No need. I have for a long time managed my files with Lightroom and processed them with PhotoLab. You don’t even need to keep paying for Lightroom. If you’re happy to put up with nag screens, you can use the Library module for free and it is fully functional.
Thanks for the explanation—I wasn’t aware of that.
Cringing at the thought of the total size for two images. Upwards of 150MB per image. Yikes.