Ah, but that depends on the in-camera settings the you choose for the JPEG that accompanies the RAW.
To the best of my knowledge, there should be at least 7 to choose from.
@Joanna sure what I mean here is this - when selecting the same Fuji in-camera film sim within LR, C1 and PL5, the colours in LR and C1 look pretty much the same whereas in PL they look more magenta. So if I select Fuji Velvia in each raw processor for example, especially skies will be more magenta in PL.
Wonder if it’s a lens combo thing. What are you shooting with?
I honestly find with the XT-4 and either 18-55 or 55-200 that it needs turning down not up.
Although you may of course just want more than what I deem acceptable!
Like I said. The picture I posted was untouched beyond defaults applied and screen sharpening.
Do you consider that picture to be lacking in detail?
To me if I’d have turned it up I feel it would have looked over cooked.
In fairness though it depends what you are actually shooting.
I feel feathers/fur are very easy to overdo and ruin so exercise caution more.
Can’t say I’ve noticed this. However my 55-200 tends to have a blue tint I’ve noticed so again maybe just a lens thing that PL5 is dealing with differently. Easily fixed.
As for the sims I don’t really use them but agree when they initially load I do feel they look a little ‘better’ in LR than PL5. Not enough however that I wouldn’t choose to use them in PL5 and without the benefit of having LR I wouldn’t really notice anyway.
Hi everyone,
Just a few words to stress, once again, that DeepPRIME does 2 things: Demosaicing & Denoising.
Considering DP a denoise-only technology, is missing half of the story.
Steven.
2 Likes
Q: …what do we get, if we use DP and shift the sliders to the left?
A1: …a result that still looks less noisy than HD noise reduction set at default values?
A2: …a result with less demosaicing artefacts
I can definitely see different colours or WB…
Whilst this may be the case at the end of the day the misunderstanding will exist for most (and I include myself in that until your comment) when that is exactly what it is described as in the program.
‘DxO Denonising Technologies’
From a personal viewpoint I had noticed that more than just noise reduction appeared to be happening but hadn’t thought more about it.
Many of us, myself included, use DeepPRIME on virtually every image regardless of ISO, as suggested by DxO. I find that there are very few images that DeepPRIME does not improve.
Mark
1 Like
As do I.
My only point was that until @StevenL stated DeepPrime does more than just Denoise due to the fact that it is largely touted to be the best denoise software and is described as such in the actual software then most will assume that’s all its is in fact doing.
Regardless. Whatever its doing works. That’s enough for me!
I think what a lot of people miss, possibly because of the description, is that it is also excellent at separating out detail in deep shadow areas. But then what would we call it? DeepPRIMEDenoisingAndShadowDetailRevealer? 
2 Likes
Hardly rolls off the tongue!
In honesty though. I’ve no idea.
If it is doing more than just denoise though as stated. Does it maybe need taking out of the ‘DxO Demonising Technologies’.
Probably not in reality as where would it go, but as long as it does sit there the misunderstanding will exist.
For most of us its probably a moot point but some like the OP I believe were avoiding it in the belief it was just denoising when in fact it does more.
Anyway. I guess we are just howling into the night now seeing as the OP has not been back!
It’s unfortunate, but most PhotoLab users I speak to on other sites only use DeepPRIME on their high ISO images and absolutely refuse to use it on low ISO images. I think DxO needs to do a better job marketing this feature. Perhaps it is time for a slight name change.
Mark
1 Like
@mwsilvers I think the point is that that some low ISO images really do have no objectionable noise, and most raw workflows would then suggest zeroing all noise reduction. That is certainly how I would process something in ACR, Lightroom or C1 and for years using DXO Optics Pro and now Photo Lab that is how I have worked with low ISO images that have no unsightly noise visible in them at 100% magnification. If DXO are suggesting that DEEP PRIME should be considered something we should be using all the time because it offers some kind of superior demosaicing on top of the excellent noise reduction, I think they should be more informative about that in their educational materials and within the software. I did run an experiment today on a Fuji RAF that had little noise and I am afraid to say that with DEEP PRIME turned down (luminance slider) to 4, and lens sharpness Detail slider cranked quite high, I still found that LR and C1 rendered some fine detail that PL5 was smearing. This was very fine level detail - we are talking “pebbledash” on a white building and also distant roof tiles. They don’t matter for the photograph of course, but as a scientific exercise comparing raw processors, it was interesting to see. On other images I have spent the last few days looking at - all Fuji RAFs - I have found PL5 can mostly match the level of detail extracted from LR or C1, which is pleasing.
So for now, my experiment with Fuji X-T1 and X-H1 RAFs has been that sometimes LR or C1 does better with fine detail, sometimes PL5 matches them. I hope to do a shoot with my new X-T3 soon, which has the latest X-Trans sensor (well, apart from the X-H2s), and it will be intriguing to see if PL5 fares differently with RAFs from that.
1 Like
I know this is an old thread, but having recently purchased PL6 Elite and coming from C1, I was shocked at the difference in RAW conversion.
PL6 lacks detail and I cannot match the output of C1 despite using lens sharpening and unsharp mask.
In it’s current form I cannot use it for RAF files, this makes me sad as PL6 is very promising.
Any idea if we will see an upgrade on file conversion?
If you camera/lens combination is supported you should not use “unsharp mask”, these sliders are only there for unsupported combinations.
I assumed that was the case, but I was trying to pull the same detail that I saw in C1
@Cream17 , can you post one of your RAW files (and its .dop sidecar) here or with a sharing service?
This could help us figure out, where the differences creep in…
Here is a link for download
I have included a JPG for DXO and C1 which actually looks comparable
However in program I have a snippit side by side comparison which looks way off, why is this ?
Maybe it’s better to cut this thread and continue here?
1 Like