I shoot a lot in low light. Golden hour bleeds into blue hour fast when you’re out in the field, and if you want the shot, you push the ISO. Lately I’ve been going back through a batch of Tennessee valley fog shots from earlier this year, and the noise in some of those files was doing real damage to the atmosphere I was trying to preserve. I was masking, reducing luminance noise, pulling back detail sliders, and the files still felt like they were fighting me.

That’s when I finally paid attention to something photographers had been mentioning for years: processing your RAW files through DxO PureRAW before they ever touch Lightroom. I’d always dismissed it as an extra step I didn’t need. Turns out I was wrong.

What DxO PureRAW Actually Does to Your File

In this Mark Denney tutorial, he cuts straight to the point: PureRAW isn’t a full editing application. It’s a preprocessing tool. You feed it your original RAW files, it applies deep learning-based noise reduction and lens corrections, and it hands you back a new DNG file that’s cleaner and sharper before any creative editing begins. The key word is “before.” You’re not replacing Lightroom. You’re upgrading what Lightroom receives.

PureRAW 6 gives you two main processing engines to choose from: DeepPRIME 3 and DeepPRIME XD3. DeepPRIME 3 handles noise reduction with strong results across most shooting situations. DeepPRIME XD3 pushes further into fine detail recovery, which matters most when you’re working with textured subjects like rock faces, bark, or water moving through a long exposure. Mark tests both on landscape images and the difference is visible at 100% crop. XD3 recovers micro-detail that standard noise reduction tends to soften into nothing.

The Comparison That Changed My Mind

Mark runs side-by-side comparisons between files processed in Lightroom alone versus files that came through PureRAW first. The Lightroom-only files look fine at a glance. But zoom in on the foliage, the cloud texture, the water surface, and the PureRAW files hold structure that the Lightroom files are already starting to lose.

This isn’t a subtle difference in controlled test conditions. It shows up in real-world files shot at ISO 1600, 3200, and higher. The processed DNGs carry more recoverable information into the edit, which means you have more latitude when you’re pulling shadows or recovering highlights. You’re not starting from a compromised file and trying to fix it later. You’re starting from a stronger file and editing forward.

One feature Mark highlights that I hadn’t heard much about before is AI dust removal. PureRAW 6 can detect and remove sensor dust spots automatically during processing. If you’ve ever spent twenty minutes on a tedious spot removal pass before you could even start color grading, the appeal of handling that at the preprocessing stage is real. It’s not replacing careful manual review, but it removes the obvious offenders so you’re not distracted by them during the creative part of the edit.

High Fidelity File Compression: The Feature Worth Knowing

The other new addition in version 6 is High Fidelity File Compression. The processed DNG files PureRAW produces are large, which has always been one of the practical friction points with this kind of workflow. The compression option reduces file size without throwing away the quality gains you just processed. Mark tests the compressed versus uncompressed output and finds the difference is minimal in ways that matter, while the file size reduction is meaningful for anyone working with large batches or limited storage.

For photographers who shoot hundreds of RAW files per session, that tradeoff is worth understanding before you commit to the workflow.

Where I’d Push Back Slightly

I’ve been running PureRAW on a selection of my own files while writing this, and my honest take is that the benefit scales with how challenging the original file is. On a clean base ISO shot with good light, the difference between PureRAW processed and Lightroom-only is there, but it’s not dramatic. On a high-ISO shot with significant shadow noise, the gap is substantial and the PureRAW file is genuinely easier to work with.

The case for adding PureRAW to your workflow isn’t that it transforms every file. It’s that it gives you consistent quality insurance, especially on the files where you’re already working against the light. If you shoot landscapes at dusk or interiors in available light, the investment makes more sense than if you’re mostly working in controlled conditions at base ISO.

Processing time is also real. Depending on your machine, running a batch of files through PureRAW adds time to the front end of your workflow. It’s not prohibitive, but it’s worth factoring in before deciding whether this fits how you actually work.

The Single Shift That Makes This Worth Trying

The idea that your RAW file is already your starting point is so ingrained in Lightroom-centric workflows that it’s easy to forget the file itself can be improved before editing begins. Mark’s testing makes a clear case that for high-ISO landscape files especially, PureRAW 6 delivers cleaner noise reduction and better detail retention than anything you can do after the fact inside Lightroom alone.

Start with a stronger file. Everything downstream gets easier.

Watch Mark Denney’s full video for the visual side-by-side comparisons, which are genuinely the most convincing part of the argument. You can also check out DxO PureRAW 6 directly and save 15% with discount code DENNEY at shop.dxo.com.