DXO Optics 50% off - worth it ?

fPrime said:

fPrime said:

Adobe lens profiles? Using a TIFF file generated by CO? Interesting indeed. I will have to look into this. Can you PM me with more information?

Bob

I still say that DXO PRIME NR is hard to beat.

Click to expand...

Beaten Prime plenty of times myself with Photo Ninja. ;-) Prime is not magic, people just rarely do bakeoff's anymore to compare things these days... they just repeat what they've heard others say. All noise reduction software has actually been at a standstill for the last several years.

Click to expand...

I hate to say this, but I have not been happy with Noise Ninja (inside Photo Ninja) for noise reduction when there are moderate to high levels of noise present. And I have done head to head comparisons with DxO Prime that I have shown on this site, though I don't feel like searching for them at this moment. Prime NR is the main reason that I have DxO Optics Pro 10 on my computer.

Rob

Robgo2 said:

fPrime said:

Robgo2 said:

Adobe lens profiles? Using a TIFF file generated by CO? Interesting indeed. I will have to look into this. Can you PM me with more information?

Bob

I still say that DXO PRIME NR is hard to beat.

Click to expand...

Beaten Prime plenty of times myself with Photo Ninja. ;-) Prime is not magic, people just rarely do bakeoff's anymore to compare things these days... they just repeat what they've heard others say. All noise reduction software has actually been at a standstill for the last several years.

Click to expand...

I hate to say this, but I have not been happy with Noise Ninja (inside Photo Ninja) for noise reduction when there are moderate to high levels of noise present. And I have done head to head comparisons with DxO Prime that I have shown on this site, though I don't feel like searching for them at this moment. Prime NR is the main reason that I have DxO Optics Pro 10 on my computer.

Rob

Click to expand...

Do you have any tips and pointers for the prime noise module? Obviously I'll spend loads of time experimenting with my own photos but I like picking up things from people when it comes to new software
--
Tom
Sony HX400V
Olympus OM-D E-M5mkII + M.Zuiko 14-150mmII

I purchased the Photo Suite that has FilmPack, ViewPoint, and DXO Optics Pro. I am sure I will find use for the other applications sometime in the far future. LOL

I have been importing images into CO. One image was badly in need of some first aid. I could not get a good image even when using the adjustments that are possible with CO, or as much as I know about it. Most appears to be nothing new to me with CO, but the adjustments do behave a bit differently. Then there is that color editor. I digress.

I imported the image into DXO. I ended up with almost as bad of an image, but at least something better to work with. I also used DXO to get the result allot of the way toward where I wanted it to be, but still in need of some work. I then imported the image into PS to do the remaining edits using adjustment layers and masks. So in this case, DXO was helpful to me. I imagine there will always be some images that have to be handled this way. Even though I think CO will be my of to RAW developer, for I think for the most part it will suite my needs, I am happy to have both RAW processors available to me. I this case, more is better.

Bob

PS Perhaps some veteran user of CO may have been able to do better?

--
A photographer with an attitude.

tomrandall86 said:

tomrandall86 said:

fPrime said:

tomrandall86 said:

Adobe lens profiles? Using a TIFF file generated by CO? Interesting indeed. I will have to look into this. Can you PM me with more information?

Bob

I still say that DXO PRIME NR is hard to beat.

Click to expand...

Beaten Prime plenty of times myself with Photo Ninja. ;-) Prime is not magic, people just rarely do bakeoff's anymore to compare things these days... they just repeat what they've heard others say. All noise reduction software has actually been at a standstill for the last several years.

Click to expand...

I hate to say this, but I have not been happy with Noise Ninja (inside Photo Ninja) for noise reduction when there are moderate to high levels of noise present. And I have done head to head comparisons with DxO Prime that I have shown on this site, though I don't feel like searching for them at this moment. Prime NR is the main reason that I have DxO Optics Pro 10 on my computer.

Rob

Click to expand...

Do you have any tips and pointers for the prime noise module? Obviously I'll spend loads of time experimenting with my own photos but I like picking up things from people when it comes to new software

Click to expand...

When I use Prime, I've often found that I can turn Luminance NR down from the default settings; I use the minimum that gets rid of visible noise.

Austinian said:

Austinian said:

Austinian said:

I hate to say this, but I have not been happy with Noise Ninja (inside Photo Ninja) for noise reduction when there are moderate to high levels of noise present. And I have done head to head comparisons with DxO Prime that I have shown on this site, though I don't feel like searching for them at this moment. Prime NR is the main reason that I have DxO Optics Pro 10 on my computer.

Rob

Click to expand...

Do you have any tips and pointers for the prime noise module? Obviously I'll spend loads of time experimenting with my own photos but I like picking up things from people when it comes to new software

Click to expand...

When I use Prime, I've often found that I can turn Luminance NR down from the default settings; I use the minimum that gets rid of visible noise.

Click to expand...

That's what I do as well. The default setting for Luminance is 40, but I usually end up somewhere between 10-25, depending on the image. Also, I do not try to remove every last scintilla of noise. A little grain is fine with me. The only problem that I have had with Prime is that it has a tendency to make out of focus areas blotchy, which may or may not be objectionable at normal viewing size. It will be interesting to see if DxO fixes that in v11.

Rob

fPrime said:

Robgo2 said:

I shudder at the thought of having to use Capture One's catalog or sessions. They gave me hives in the past. Photo Ninja is still the best purely in terms of raw conversions IMO. However, like any program, it can stand improvement, which hopefully will be forthcoming in v2.0.

Rob

Click to expand...

Interesting that past Capture One sessions would be problematic for you, Rob. Can you elaborate?

I use Capture One v9 in session mode which outputs its RAW conversions to a static folder where I pick them up in Adobe Bridge for any further tweaks in PS before I place them inside my logically named, manual folder structure. I've never been a fan of DAM's so even though CO has a competent one, I myself prefer session mode. Lightroom could take note of giving its users a similar option instead of forcing their catalog down everyone's throat.

Capture One maintains it's session settings history neatly inside a CO folder placed inside the folder it's working in, just like Photo Ninja does. After RAW conversion the settings folder can easily be deleted... just like Photo Ninja. Either way, it's no greater or lessor of a burden that Photo Ninja's process (which I know you are a fan of as am I). What I personally don't like is DxO and LR littering the working folder with sidecar .xmp or .dop files. Now that's a real pain to clean up.

fPrime

Click to expand...

As I recall, Capture One groups all sessions inside a separate Sessions folder. Is that not still the case? And that means you have to look outside the normal file structure to find your work. But I did like the way that C1 subdivided a session, and I have adapted it to my own file organization. For instance, inside folder X, I create subfolders for Capture, Output, Prints, Gallery etc, all of which show up in any browser, where I can do ratings, colors and the like.

It's interesting that you consider C1 to be close to Photo Ninja in image quality, as I was not happy with the results I got from v8. I suspect that your C1 skills are more highly developed than mine.

Rob

curiousmike1300 said:

I'm currently a Lightroom user.

As an amateur-enthusiast, would DXO ( either package ) be a worthwhile addition to my raw processing?

Click to expand...

I use DxO as my main raw developer since their version 3 - and except for the (crap) version 5 - they have added functionality and image quality for every version.

I also was a early adopter for ACR when it was released as a plug-in for Photoshop at a cost. IMO it always had the best user´s interface but not the best image quality.

Yes, I think it is worth to purchase DxO developer, mainly at a substantial discount.

Regards,

Robgo2 said:

Austinian said:

Robgo2 said:

Robgo2 said:

I hate to say this, but I have not been happy with Noise Ninja (inside Photo Ninja) for noise reduction when there are moderate to high levels of noise present. And I have done head to head comparisons with DxO Prime that I have shown on this site, though I don't feel like searching for them at this moment. Prime NR is the main reason that I have DxO Optics Pro 10 on my computer.

Rob

Click to expand...

Do you have any tips and pointers for the prime noise module? Obviously I'll spend loads of time experimenting with my own photos but I like picking up things from people when it comes to new software

Click to expand...

When I use Prime, I've often found that I can turn Luminance NR down from the default settings; I use the minimum that gets rid of visible noise.

Click to expand...

That's what I do as well. The default setting for Luminance is 40, but I usually end up somewhere between 10-25, depending on the image. Also, I do not try to remove every last scintilla of noise. A little grain is fine with me. The only problem that I have had with Prime is that it has a tendency to make out of focus areas blotchy, which may or may not be objectionable at normal viewing size. It will be interesting to see if DxO fixes that in v11.

Rob

Click to expand...

What Rob points out here is correct. DxO Prime can easily posterize dark/shaded areas which creates unnatural blotchy patches. I don't like this artifact any more than I do the plasticized surfaces other noise reduction engines generate when over-driven.

I can see how DxO Prime's method can work slightly better with photographs of mainly high contrast edges (type on white paper, printed circuit boards, etc.) where the tonal variations are small and posterized smoothing has less of a visual impact.

But most typical photographs involving people & places have tremendous tonal variation and here is where I think both Photo Ninja and Capture One intelligently trade some residual noise for greater tonal depth that appears... well, more natural looking for lack of a better description. Pictures are worth a thousand words but this was an example from a few months ago.

ISO 6400 RAW converted with DxO 10 by Keith using Prime NR (100% Crop):



And, ISO 6400 RAW converted with Photo Ninja by me Noise Ninja 3 NR (100% Crop):



Look at the faces, the DxO looks artificial and the PN looks natural. I prefer the latter tonal rendition of Photo Ninja noise reduction over DxO's for that reason. Capture One handles it similarly.

fPrime

Robgo2 said:

fPrime said:

Robgo2 said:

I shudder at the thought of having to use Capture One's catalog or sessions. They gave me hives in the past. Photo Ninja is still the best purely in terms of raw conversions IMO. However, like any program, it can stand improvement, which hopefully will be forthcoming in v2.0.

Rob

Click to expand...

Interesting that past Capture One sessions would be problematic for you, Rob. Can you elaborate?

I use Capture One v9 in session mode which outputs its RAW conversions to a static folder where I pick them up in Adobe Bridge for any further tweaks in PS before I place them inside my logically named, manual folder structure. I've never been a fan of DAM's so even though CO has a competent one, I myself prefer session mode. Lightroom could take note of giving its users a similar option instead of forcing their catalog down everyone's throat.

Capture One maintains it's session settings history neatly inside a CO folder placed inside the folder it's working in, just like Photo Ninja does. After RAW conversion the settings folder can easily be deleted... just like Photo Ninja. Either way, it's no greater or lessor of a burden that Photo Ninja's process (which I know you are a fan of as am I). What I personally don't like is DxO and LR littering the working folder with sidecar .xmp or .dop files. Now that's a real pain to clean up.

fPrime

Click to expand...

As I recall, Capture One groups all sessions inside a separate Sessions folder. Is that not still the case? And that means you have to look outside the normal file structure to find your work. But I did like the way that C1 subdivided a session, and I have adapted it to my own file organization. For instance, inside folder X, I create subfolders for Capture, Output, Prints, Gallery etc, all of which show up in any browser, where I can do ratings, colors and the like.

It's interesting that you consider C1 to be close to Photo Ninja in image quality, as I was not happy with the results I got from v8. I suspect that your C1 skills are more highly developed than mine.

Rob

Click to expand...

You may be thinking of Capture One's session output folder here... the output is still directed there. But its session settings (for the developments made to each picture) are definitely now stored neatly in the folder containing the photographs.

The funny thing is that I actually don't consider myself a Capture One expert yet if only because I only started evaluating it with v9 a few weeks ago! But the fact that I can get such good results right out of the box is a powerful testament to the power under the hood. Admittedly, I do still think Photo Ninja renders slightly smoother edges (less jaggy and even fewer artifacts), but the difference is so small that the faster time to correct color outweighs this loss for me for most photographs. I'll be very keen to see what Picture Code do in v2, and hope it comes out soon. Still a big fan.

fPrime

fPrime said:

Robgo2 said:

Austinian said:

fPrime said:

fPrime said:

I hate to say this, but I have not been happy with Noise Ninja (inside Photo Ninja) for noise reduction when there are moderate to high levels of noise present. And I have done head to head comparisons with DxO Prime that I have shown on this site, though I don't feel like searching for them at this moment. Prime NR is the main reason that I have DxO Optics Pro 10 on my computer.

Rob

Click to expand...

Do you have any tips and pointers for the prime noise module? Obviously I'll spend loads of time experimenting with my own photos but I like picking up things from people when it comes to new software

Click to expand...

When I use Prime, I've often found that I can turn Luminance NR down from the default settings; I use the minimum that gets rid of visible noise.

Click to expand...

That's what I do as well. The default setting for Luminance is 40, but I usually end up somewhere between 10-25, depending on the image. Also, I do not try to remove every last scintilla of noise. A little grain is fine with me. The only problem that I have had with Prime is that it has a tendency to make out of focus areas blotchy, which may or may not be objectionable at normal viewing size. It will be interesting to see if DxO fixes that in v11.

Rob

Click to expand...

What Rob points out here is correct. DxO Prime can easily posterize dark/shaded areas which creates unnatural blotchy patches. I don't like this artifact any more than I do the plasticized surfaces other noise reduction engines generate when over-driven.

I can see how DxO Prime's method can work slightly better with photographs of mainly high contrast edges (type on white paper, printed circuit boards, etc.) where the tonal variations are small and posterized smoothing has less of a visual impact.

But most typical photographs involving people & places have tremendous tonal variation and here is where I think both Photo Ninja and Capture One intelligently trade some residual noise for greater tonal depth that appears... well, more natural looking for lack of a better description. Pictures are worth a thousand words but this was an example from a few months ago.

ISO 6400 RAW converted with DxO 10 by Keith using Prime NR (100% Crop):



And, ISO 6400 RAW converted with Photo Ninja by me Noise Ninja 3 NR (100% Crop):



Look at the faces, the DxO looks artificial and the PN looks natural. I prefer the latter tonal rendition of Photo Ninja noise reduction over DxO's for that reason. Capture One handles it similarly.

fPrime

Click to expand...

Again, I hate to say it, but in my own usage, I have had more than a few noisy images that I had to process in DxO, because Noise Ninja/Photo Ninja simply could not reduce noise without losing detail and/or producing crosshatching artifacts. But there is no question that PN is a superior raw converter overall, and by a fairly wide margin. In saying this, I do not mean that DxO is a bad raw converter. It does a reasonably good job, just not a great one, IMO.

Rob

fPrime said:

Robgo2 said:

fPrime said:

Robgo2 said:

I shudder at the thought of having to use Capture One's catalog or sessions. They gave me hives in the past. Photo Ninja is still the best purely in terms of raw conversions IMO. However, like any program, it can stand improvement, which hopefully will be forthcoming in v2.0.

Rob

Click to expand...

Interesting that past Capture One sessions would be problematic for you, Rob. Can you elaborate?

I use Capture One v9 in session mode which outputs its RAW conversions to a static folder where I pick them up in Adobe Bridge for any further tweaks in PS before I place them inside my logically named, manual folder structure. I've never been a fan of DAM's so even though CO has a competent one, I myself prefer session mode. Lightroom could take note of giving its users a similar option instead of forcing their catalog down everyone's throat.

Capture One maintains it's session settings history neatly inside a CO folder placed inside the folder it's working in, just like Photo Ninja does. After RAW conversion the settings folder can easily be deleted... just like Photo Ninja. Either way, it's no greater or lessor of a burden that Photo Ninja's process (which I know you are a fan of as am I). What I personally don't like is DxO and LR littering the working folder with sidecar .xmp or .dop files. Now that's a real pain to clean up.

fPrime

Click to expand...

As I recall, Capture One groups all sessions inside a separate Sessions folder. Is that not still the case? And that means you have to look outside the normal file structure to find your work. But I did like the way that C1 subdivided a session, and I have adapted it to my own file organization. For instance, inside folder X, I create subfolders for Capture, Output, Prints, Gallery etc, all of which show up in any browser, where I can do ratings, colors and the like.

It's interesting that you consider C1 to be close to Photo Ninja in image quality, as I was not happy with the results I got from v8. I suspect that your C1 skills are more highly developed than mine.

Rob

Click to expand...

You may be thinking of Capture One's session output folder here... the output is still directed there. But its session settings (for the developments made to each picture) are definitely now stored neatly in the folder containing the photographs.

Click to expand...

But that matters to me when I am looking for my output folders. I want everything associated with a given project to be grouped in the same place, that being the original folder labeled with the name of the project as opposed to a Sessions folder with the project folder buried inside. When I used C1, I got used to Sessions, so I know that it can be done, but it seemed like an extra layer of complexity. However, as I mentioned previously, I do like the Sessions concept of subfolders inside each session.

Rob

Robgo2 said:

Again, I hate to say it, but in my own usage, I have had more than a few noisy images that I had to process in DxO, because Noise Ninja/Photo Ninja simply could not reduce noise without losing detail and/or producing crosshatching artifacts. But there is no question that PN is a superior raw converter overall, and by a fairly wide margin. In saying this, I do not mean that DxO is a bad raw converter. It does a reasonably good job, just not a great one, IMO.

Rob

Click to expand...

I completely agree that PN is superior to DxO with the exception, perhaps, of automated lens corrections (which can be resolved either with Adobe's lens profiles or using PN's easy lens profile tool).

But also I admit that I don't fully understand PN's "crosshatching" artifacts for lack of seeing them personally. Maybe you can you post an example? The best case would be one that's of people's faces accompanied by a raw file which I'd be happy to post comparative conversions of using both PN and CO.

fPrime