The Home Depot --- DXO ViewPoint

Started Dec 25, 2012 | Discussions thread
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 15,271
Like?
Re: DM . . .
In reply to Bob Tullis, Dec 31, 2012

Bob Tullis wrote:

Detail Man wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Well, I must say this DXO 8 and LR are working out splendidly. It's been a few hours over two days now and I'm really liking it's ease (yet it's so fully featured) for getting such clean images back into LR. I had a funny feeling this Viewpoint would lead down this road - going to have to let that grudge go [g].

A truly amazing and historic moment in the history of photography, indeed. Now Bob, please promise not to tell too many people about our little "Lens Softness" corrections secret, OK ? ... TIA ...

[chuckle] Yes, if one waits long enough. . . [g]

Well, what is important to please one's own eyeballs (regardless of the brand-name emblazoned on the tools used). Have seen some of your landscape shots that I think might well benefit from DxO's "Lens Softness" corrections - but figured that I have cheered enough about DxO "Lens Softness" corrections as it is, and recognized your long-held ruminations about DxO Optics Pro.

In fact, DxO Labs has managed to "torque me off" by purposely refusing to allow compatibility of DxO Optical Corrections Modules released after the release of my (Win 32-bit) Version 7.23 with any versions prior to 7.50. No E-M5 or GX1 processing for me as a result - even though I paid in full for a Versions 7.x upgrade license ...

In general, it seems that a lot of folks seem to have hostilities about DxO Labs in general (regarding Optics Pro, as well as DxOMark testing and results). My philosophy is that I am willing to forebear a fair a bit of aggravation in order to achieve processing results that I like.

I think that a fair amount of the animosity expressed results from "Adobe-istic loyalties". Have ended up learning to enjoy the fact that my image-processing has (as a result) remained relatively unique (though it seems that some have, and some more are, digging DxO Optics Pro).

As with all RAW processors (that I have tried using), the "defaults" are not representative of what can be achieved when the user learns the individual user-controls, and develops manual control approaches towards those user-controls that enables one to emerge from the process with some qualities and characteristics that they like. (For me), DxO Optics Pro remains that item after 3 years.

I do like a lot about RAW Therapee 4.x - but it's lack of Gamma correction control and automatic optical corrections ("Lens Softness" in particular, as well as the fine quality Rectlinear Distortion corrections), and somewhat limited color controls sends me back to DxO Optics Pro every time. Never warmed up much to LR 3.x (except for it's excellent RAW-level Color NR).

In seriousness. LR 3.x/4.x Color NR (as well as perhaps the Luminance NR) dose not perform nearly as well when processing TIF images (as compared to when LR is processing RAWs). As a result, even though DxO Optics Pro's NR could reasonably be said to not be as effective as LR's NR (when LR is doing the intial RAW processing), it may well represent a better option than what LR NR is able to accomplish in the case of 16-bit TIFs that are exported into LR. Check that out.

Thanks. For that, and for other DXO tidbits you've sprinkled about. Having an interesting time figuring how to offload most of LR's refinement steps. Best of all, supported panasonic lenses on the OM-D take care of the CA/fringing and corner IQ so darn well.

Interested to know your impressions about that (the DxO CA corrections in general, as compared to LR 4.x CA correction abilities). Have not switched the DxO lateral CA corrections on/off very often to have a look.

Most of my shots avoid patches of sky (or crop them out), so I don't typically have very many aggravating problems with purple/green fringing. ‚ÄčI sometimes do check the "PF" check-box - though I have seen it have some deleterious effects on subject-matter with delicate purple-ish hues, so, as a result, these days I leave the PF suppression check-box alone (unless I think that it may be important to apply when processing particular shots).

One poster remarked that they thought that DxO's CA corrections are not outstanding (but I have little in the way of perspective on the source of those statements). Can't run LR 4.x on my WinXP OS (but have LR 3.60), so I was curious as to how DxO's CA tools "stack up" relative to LR 4.x's.

Not that I suffered from corner IQ distractions before, but the difference is significant (and I will be distracted, from now on [g]).

You mean the Vignetting corrections ? Note that running the Preserve Shadows/Highlights control up near 100% can impart some nice qualities to shadow-detail which (also) affects inner portions of the image-frame, as well (and does not seem to affect highlights much at all). That can (sometimes) result in more darkness in the shadows than is sometimes desired. If so, keep that in mind as one of the effects of the Vignetting tool Preserve Shadows/Highlights control.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow