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. Iâve no idea.
If it is doing more than just denoise though as stated. Does it maybe need taking out of the âDxO Demonising Technologiesâ.
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!
Itâs 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 âpebbledashâ on a white building and also distant roof tiles. They donât 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 itâs 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 âunsharp maskâ, 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 inâŚ
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 itâs better to cut this thread and continue here?
1 Like