DxO PureRAW 5 Review: Worth the Upgrade? (2 Viewers)

[luxBorealis–TerryMcDonald]

I’ve just spent the day running some tests of DxO PureRAW 4 vs PureRAW 5 using ORFs. Interesting results. You can read the full blog article here along with the full-sized images which are too large to post here. Note: I am providing the link so you can read the details and see the photos better, not to get clicks as I do not charge for viewing, nor do I have affiliate links.

Suffice it to say, there was literally no difference between v4 and v5 for straight ahead raw file optimization (see image comparison here—v4 left; v5 right). The added bonus of v5 is that you can now add masks to apply processing to some areas differently than others. This is much like Topaz PhotoAI, except with DxO, you can add multiple masks and vary the intensity of each—a nice addition.

The other thing I noticed was how poorly the default settings of v5 processed High ISO images compared to v4 (see comparison here—V4 left, v5 right). My guess is DxO have tweaked the settings, maybe scaled back the default settings, to allow more specific editing using masking. I tried the same image using masking (here—v4 left; v5 with masking right) which produced excellent results. For more on masking, read the blog article!

Would DxO PureRAW 5 replace my usual raw file optimization? Probably not. Right now, using Lightroom’s Enhanced NR with proper Detail Sharpening and Sharpening Masking, I’m getting results every bit as good as PureRAW 4 and 5 and Topaz PhotoAI, so no reason to switch except for specific uses. You can see a side-by-side comparison of the four here.

 

[buddy4344]

I’ve just spent the day running some tests of DxO PureRAW 4 vs PureRAW 5 using ORFs. Interesting results. You can read the full blog article here along with the full-sized images which are too large to post here. Note: I am providing the link so you can read the details and see the photos better, not to get clicks as I do not charge for viewing, nor do I have affiliate links.

Suffice it to say, there was literally no difference between v4 and v5 for straight ahead raw file optimization (see image comparison here—v4 left; v5 right). The added bonus of v5 is that you can now add masks to apply processing to some areas differently than others. This is much like Topaz PhotoAI, except with DxO, you can add multiple masks and vary the intensity of each—a nice addition.

The other thing I noticed was how poorly the default settings of v5 processed High ISO images compared to v4 (see comparison here—V4 left, v5 right). My guess is DxO have tweaked the settings, maybe scaled back the default settings, to allow more specific editing using masking. I tried the same image using masking (here—v4 left; v5 with masking right) which produced excellent results. For more on masking, read the blog article!

Would DxO PureRAW 5 replace my usual raw file optimization? Probably not. Right now, using Lightroom’s Enhanced NR with proper Detail Sharpening and Sharpening Masking, I’m getting results every bit as good as PureRAW 4 and 5 and Topaz PhotoAI, so no reason to switch except for specific uses. You can see a side-by-side comparison of the four here.

I have not looked at you link yet (I will once on my PC), So while 5 has some nice features, if all you want is basic noise reduction and you have 4, should one buy 5?

 

[Jim M.]

Thanks. I'm using DxO Pure Raw 3, which I believe came out in 2024, and wasn't even aware of version 4, let alone version 5. I didn't see a big difference between 2 and 3, except the file sizes got bigger. But in any event, it is a great noise reduction tool and does everything I need from it.

 

[luxBorealis–TerryMcDonald]

I have not looked at you link yet (I will once on my PC), So while 5 has some nice features, if all you want is basic noise reduction and you have 4, should one buy 5?

The advantage of 5 is the addition of layers to allow you to work two or more areas differently; e.g. keep the background soft while the subject is sharpened—something that v4 seemed to so very well with ORFs.

Other than Layers, I did not see a difference between v4 and v5 when using straightforward processing of ORFs.