It may be a convenience to have the program do a bit of sharpening at import, but it makes no difference whether you do that or do the same sharpening later in the workflow.I recommend PL over pureRAW because I often see the need to change deepPrime settings or had to adjust the lens correction values, impossible with pureRaw, for optimal quality. It makes no difference when or how often you add (or subtract) sharpening adjustments in Lightroom all that matters is the sum of all of them. Moreover, if DxO works like Lightroom, that conventional three-way distinction doesn't make much sense-creative and capture sharpening are part of the same process. I don't see why that would help and would be curious to hear their rationale. Perhaps it is just a bow to the convention of treating sharpening as having three stages, capture (to compensate for blurring in the camera), creative, and output-that is, let the program compensate for blurring in the camera and then do noise reduction. Perhaps it is to see whether noise will be prominent enough to worry about. I have no idea why Nik would suggest 'pre-sharpening' before noise reduction. I don't use noise reduction much, but when I do, I always do it in Lightroom-which now has powerful and very controllable noise reduction-and because I am in Lightroom, I can do it at any point in editing. In Lightroom-I don't know about other parametric editors-it makes no difference, as the program doesn't pay attention to your order of edits anyway. In the former case, the reason people advice using noise reduction before sharpening is to avoid sharpening the noise. It is not true of Lightroom, which is a parametric editor that applies the edits in its own order when it renders the final image. This is true of pixel editors like Photoshop or Nik. The advice one usually sees about when to do noise reduction assumes that when you are done, the editor performs your edits in the order in which you do them.

Code promo dxo photolab 2