Yes, I'm happy with DxO PhotoLab v6.
Moderately happy with Topaz Denoise AI, but I would only use it on images that I can't process using DeepPRIME (i.e. non-raw images).
Noise reduction and sharpening for detail are two sides of the same coin. While Photolab 6 noise reduction of RAW files is excellent and I use it whereber possible, PL 6 lacks the best sharpening routines.
OTOH, DxO's lens profiles apply excellent capture sharpening. For creative and output sharpening, I rely on Lightroom.
For many files the sharpening of Topaz software and in some cases Luminar Neo will provide a better overall result. I print almost exclusively on13x19" and 17x22" papers and occasionally on 17x25".
Whatever capture sharpening is applied by DxO isn't a complete solution, as you note. In fact, DxO has a separate independent sharpening module, which strongly suggests that DxO understands the limitations of whatever sharpening is automatically applied.
Sharpening in Photoshop is not the same as Lightroom and Photoshop has no dedicated output sharpening.
Depending on the photo if I want the best quality sharpening, following whatever rudimentary sharpening is applied by DxO
There's nothing "rudimentary" about DxO's profile-based Lens Sharpness. It applies stronger sharpening in areas where a given lens model is known to be softer. Try that with any other app. In my view this is all that's needed for capture sharpening.
For creative sharpening, DxO's USM combined with U-point local adjustments is pretty versatile.
DxO lens corrections are very good, but print making usually requires additional sharpening and not just output sharpening. The photo below was trash coming out of DxO; the detail was smeared by the noise reduction.
The photo below was made with a lens that was incorrectly reported by the camera and thus DxO was unable to apply a profile for Lens Sharpness.
No,
Yes.
as with many lenses, DxO has no profile for that fisheye lens.
Nobody offers lens-specific sharpening for that lens. The example you're using to criticize DxO is an outlier. With most lenses, DxO does apply "additional sharpening and not just output sharpening". Adobe offers this feature for exactly
zero lenses. In fact,
nobody other than DxO is offering this feature for
any lens.5
Oh, I wasn't criticizing DxO for not having a profile for THAT lens, but generally for many lenses, including, as I mentioned, almost all Voigtlander lenses, including the popular 50mm F2, which I have. Fortunately, that lens doesn't require significant correction. But, you are correct, DxO ignores manual focus lenses, even those that are reasonably popular.
But, noise reduction was applied in DxO, which is very good. Even if there had been a DxO lens profile, it would not have brought up sufficient detail for this shot, in my experience.
My experience is different. The combination of capture sharpening via Lens Sharpness and output sharpening via Lightroom's Export module is generally sufficient. If the lens is soft, as my FZ1000 MkII's can be, I'll apply fine sharpening USM in Lightroom. I could just as easily do that in DxO PhotoLab, but the masking slider in Lightroom's USM makes this tool a bit better.
Rest assured, following noise removal of high-noise files, the newer AI software sharpening routines can be FAR better that what is currently provided by Adobe, although I believe Adobe Lightroom may be looking into AI development for noise removal and sharpening.
It irritates me that despite repeated requests over the years, DxO ignores development of lens profiles for several relatively popular Voigtlander lenses (not this photo).
There are a lot of lenses hitting the market these days, including relatively obscure manual-focus ones. DxO has to devote its limited resources to the ones with the largest user bases. I've got a couple of Samyang AF primes for FE mount for which DxO does not yet have profiles. I've put in requests to DxO, but I'm not publicly trashing the company about it because, for the vast majority of my work, PhotoLab is stills hands-down the best tool for me.
Trashing? That's an absurd way to look at legitimate criticism, even if you personally disagree.
