DXO Challenge - Please prove me wrong

[Digital Nigel]

Here is my take at this challenge.

I tried to replicate your C1 processing, this is not necessarily how I would have treated this picture but I tried my best to be as close as possible to your rendering.

Processed in PL7

To me it's not natural look, but I've not seen it in person.

The challenge was to replicate something like the OP's C1 processing but using PL. It wasn't to produce a natural look. Of course, only the OP knows what Durdle Door looked like on that bright, sunny day in Dorset.

 

[IanYorke]

Here is my take at this challenge.

I tried to replicate your C1 processing, this is not necessarily how I would have treated this picture but I tried my best to be as close as possible to your rendering.

Processed in PL7

To me it's not natural look, but I've not seen it in person.

The challenge was to replicate something like the OP's C1 processing but using PL. It wasn't to produce a natural look. Of course, only the OP knows what Durdle Door looked like on that bright, sunny day in Dorset.

Your preset, thanks for sharing, has made me experiment more with DXO. I have never even looked at using one of the camera body colour profiles before and always start with "neutral" or the equivalent, as this is what I have always done in other software.

The camera body profiles seem to not only impact the colour but also the basic contrast profile of the demosaiced image. I also picked up a couple of ideas for what to set some of the parameters up for a default preset.

There are a plethora of camera bodies to choose from so I started with Leica as that was what you used. For me the Leica Q profile suits me best as I prefer the colours to the M9 and highlights seem to be relatively protected.

Anyway, I made my own preset and ran the target image through it. Only other edits were to use the "Daylight" white balance instead of "As Shot" and add +20 to the shadows. Not trying for the HDR look as I have C1.

Thanks again for sharing your ideas, it's all to easy to get into a rut with processing, just doing what you always do

It will be interesting to see if I actually like the new preset starting point when I have more experience with it.

Ian

 

[Alastair Norcross]

I thought I'd see what I could get by exporting the file from DXO as a DNG, with just denoise and optical corrections, and then applying a few different presets in Lightroom. I have all of Jared Polin's presets installed in Lightroom, and quite like some of them. Here are the results (downsized to 2000 pixels on the long side):

Bob Ross preset, with more highlight recovery added

Skittles preset

Kaleidoscope preset

Alastair

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair

anorcross

Keen hobbyist since teaching myself film photography as a teenager in the 70s, using manual SLRs and black and white film. Love photographing people and animals.

anorcross.smugmug.com

Equipment in profile

 

[g00gle]

Here is my version using DXO PL7, done in less then 1 min with basic controls.

 

[sybersitizen]

Here is my version using DXO PL7, done in less then 1 min with basic controls.

Rather dark. Must have been right before the rainstorm started.

 

[g00gle]

Or that one

 

[sybersitizen]

Ah, the weather is clearing!

 

[arrow501]

Just for fun I had a go with Silkypix 10. Just a quick global edit. I didn't do any local editing.

 

[Az5]

Here is my take at this challenge.

I tried to replicate your C1 processing, this is not necessarily how I would have treated this picture but I tried my best to be as close as possible to your rendering.

Processed in PL7

To me it's not natural look, but I've not seen it in person.

The challenge was to replicate something like the OP's C1 processing but using PL. It wasn't to produce a natural look. Of course, only the OP knows what Durdle Door looked like on that bright, sunny day in Dorset.

It was a very sunny day with strong harsh light. I had troubles looking at the scene without sunglasses. So, I definitely wouldn't like natural and realistic rendering. Not sure why some people are so obsessed with realistic photos. Btw I am sure you know that, but all movies are colour graded.

 

[maltmoose]

Here is my take at this challenge.

I tried to replicate your C1 processing, this is not necessarily how I would have treated this picture but I tried my best to be as close as possible to your rendering.

Processed in PL7

To me it's not natural look, but I've not seen it in person.

The challenge was to replicate something like the OP's C1 processing but using PL. It wasn't to produce a natural look. Of course, only the OP knows what Durdle Door looked like on that bright, sunny day in Dorset.

It was a very sunny day with strong harsh light. I had troubles looking at the scene without sunglasses. So, I definitely wouldn't like natural and realistic rendering. Not sure why some people are so obsessed with realistic photos. Btw I am sure you know that, but all movies are colour graded.

Its not the colors that are an issue for me. Theres too much contrast/micro contrast that make it look unnatural, would be too much for any scene imo.

 

[CAcreeks]

To me it's not natural look, but I've not seen it in person.

The challenge was to replicate something like the OP's C1 processing but using PL. It wasn't to produce a natural look. Of course, only the OP knows what Durdle Door looked like on that bright, sunny day in Dorset.

It was a very sunny day with strong harsh light. I had troubles looking at the scene without sunglasses. So, I definitely wouldn't like natural and realistic rendering. Not sure why some people are so obsessed with realistic photos. Btw I am sure you know that, but all movies are colour graded.

There's no doubt that Capture One makes it easy to produce landscapes with pleasing colors, especially deep blue skies and bright green foliage.

But what about portraits? Are they oversaturated, or are skin tones nicely rendered?

I don't have Lightroom, but I tried a DxO Photolab 6 conversion. It was difficult to get the same color balance. Sky was too pink and mid-tone contrast was too low.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Here is my take at this challenge.

I tried to replicate your C1 processing, this is not necessarily how I would have treated this picture but I tried my best to be as close as possible to your rendering.

Processed in PL7

To me it's not natural look, but I've not seen it in person.

The challenge was to replicate something like the OP's C1 processing but using PL. It wasn't to produce a natural look. Of course, only the OP knows what Durdle Door looked like on that bright, sunny day in Dorset.

It was a very sunny day with strong harsh light. I had troubles looking at the scene without sunglasses. So, I definitely wouldn't like natural and realistic rendering. Not sure why some people are so obsessed with realistic photos. Btw I am sure you know that, but all movies are colour graded.

Its not the colors that are an issue for me. Theres too much contrast/micro contrast that make it look unnatural, would be too much for any scene imo.

Completely agree, it's primarily the crunchy, exaggerated detail that's way over the top for me. I've never been to Dorset (or the U.K., for that matter) and have no idea what this scene actually looked like on this particular day but, while a bright/contrasty scene is probably best represented with bright/contrasty processing, there's no natural detail anywhere on the planet that I've seen that looks anything quite like this (or the OP's original example), and wouldn't be a look I'd ever be inclined to reproduce. Maybe I'm an outlier, but it seems to me that many folks routinely overdo the Clarity/Structure/Texture sliders with harsh/contrasty images like this that would often be better served going in the opposite direction...

[ATTACH alt="Similar brightness, still contrasty and still looks plenty sharp to me, but with less exaggerated (more "natural" looking, IMO) local detail. Is the local contrast under-exaggerated here? This is with Lightroom, but I have little doubt that the same result can be achieved with C1 or PL7"]3495506[/ATTACH]
Similar brightness, still contrasty and still looks plenty sharp to me, but with less exaggerated (more "natural" looking, IMO) local detail. Is the local contrast under-exaggerated here? This is with Lightroom, but I have little doubt that the same result can be achieved with C1 or PL7

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Here is my take at this challenge.

I tried to replicate your C1 processing, this is not necessarily how I would have treated this picture but I tried my best to be as close as possible to your rendering.

Processed in PL7

To me it's not natural look, but I've not seen it in person.

The challenge was to replicate something like the OP's C1 processing but using PL. It wasn't to produce a natural look. Of course, only the OP knows what Durdle Door looked like on that bright, sunny day in Dorset.

It was a very sunny day with strong harsh light. I had troubles looking at the scene without sunglasses. So, I definitely wouldn't like natural and realistic rendering. Not sure why some people are so obsessed with realistic photos. Btw I am sure you know that, but all movies are colour graded.

Its not the colors that are an issue for me. Theres too much contrast/micro contrast that make it look unnatural, would be too much for any scene imo.

Completely agree, it's primarily the crunchy, exaggerated detail that's way over the top for me. I've never been to Dorset (or the U.K., for that matter) and have no idea what this scene actually looked like on this particular day but, while a bright/contrasty scene is probably best represented with bright/contrasty processing, there's no natural detail anywhere on the planet that I've seen that looks anything quite like this (or the OP's original example), and wouldn't be a look I'd ever be inclined to reproduce. Maybe I'm an outlier, but it seems to me that many folks routinely overdo the Clarity/Structure/Texture sliders with harsh/contrasty images like this that would often be better served going in the opposite direction...

[ATTACH alt="Similar brightness, still contrasty and still looks plenty sharp to me, but with less exaggerated (more "natural" looking, IMO) local detail. Is the local contrast under-exaggerated here? This is with Lightroom, but I have little doubt that the same result can be achieved with C1 or PL7"]3495506[/ATTACH]
Similar brightness, still contrasty and still looks plenty sharp to me, but with less exaggerated (more "natural" looking, IMO) local detail. Is the local contrast under-exaggerated here? This is with Lightroom, but I have little doubt that the same result can be achieved with C1 or PL7

Your foreground is very good and detail looks unforced (a Lightroom forte,) but the whole pic is over"exposed" in an attempt to bring up the shadowed areas. As a result, the clouds look blown and blank, (which they are not) unlike the OP's C1 rendering and several others. As well, the color of the sky is aqua, which I'm pretty sure is not correct.

LR makes it very easy to mask the sky and work out the correct colors, etc.

C1 vs LR

 

[maltmoose]

Here is my take at this challenge.

I tried to replicate your C1 processing, this is not necessarily how I would have treated this picture but I tried my best to be as close as possible to your rendering.

Processed in PL7

To me it's not natural look, but I've not seen it in person.

The challenge was to replicate something like the OP's C1 processing but using PL. It wasn't to produce a natural look. Of course, only the OP knows what Durdle Door looked like on that bright, sunny day in Dorset.

It was a very sunny day with strong harsh light. I had troubles looking at the scene without sunglasses. So, I definitely wouldn't like natural and realistic rendering. Not sure why some people are so obsessed with realistic photos. Btw I am sure you know that, but all movies are colour graded.

Its not the colors that are an issue for me. Theres too much contrast/micro contrast that make it look unnatural, would be too much for any scene imo.

Completely agree, it's primarily the crunchy, exaggerated detail that's way over the top for me. I've never been to Dorset (or the U.K., for that matter) and have no idea what this scene actually looked like on this particular day but, while a bright/contrasty scene is probably best represented with bright/contrasty processing, there's no natural detail anywhere on the planet that I've seen that looks anything quite like this (or the OP's original example), and wouldn't be a look I'd ever be inclined to reproduce. Maybe I'm an outlier, but it seems to me that many folks routinely overdo the Clarity/Structure/Texture sliders with harsh/contrasty images like this that would often be better served going in the opposite direction...

[ATTACH alt="Similar brightness, still contrasty and still looks plenty sharp to me, but with less exaggerated (more "natural" looking, IMO) local detail. Is the local contrast under-exaggerated here? This is with Lightroom, but I have little doubt that the same result can be achieved with C1 or PL7"]3495506[/ATTACH]
Similar brightness, still contrasty and still looks plenty sharp to me, but with less exaggerated (more "natural" looking, IMO) local detail. Is the local contrast under-exaggerated here? This is with Lightroom, but I have little doubt that the same result can be achieved with C1 or PL7

Your foreground is very good and detail looks unforced (a Lightroom forte,) but the whole pic is over"exposed" in an attempt to bring up the shadowed areas. As a result, the clouds look blown and blank, (which they are not) unlike the OP's C1 rendering and several others. As well, the color of the sky is aqua, which I'm pretty sure is not correct.

LR makes it very easy to mask the sky and work out the correct colors, etc.

C1 vs LR

Eriks rendition is way nicer than the C1 version in your comparison. No contest, dont actually care much for the clouds thats not a primary subject and can be changed if needed, they are not a distraction. Your c1 version has lifted the shadows far too much, flatted it and killing the tonality. There should be shadows there.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Here is my take at this challenge.

I tried to replicate your C1 processing, this is not necessarily how I would have treated this picture but I tried my best to be as close as possible to your rendering.

Processed in PL7

To me it's not natural look, but I've not seen it in person.

The challenge was to replicate something like the OP's C1 processing but using PL. It wasn't to produce a natural look. Of course, only the OP knows what Durdle Door looked like on that bright, sunny day in Dorset.

It was a very sunny day with strong harsh light. I had troubles looking at the scene without sunglasses. So, I definitely wouldn't like natural and realistic rendering. Not sure why some people are so obsessed with realistic photos. Btw I am sure you know that, but all movies are colour graded.

Its not the colors that are an issue for me. Theres too much contrast/micro contrast that make it look unnatural, would be too much for any scene imo.

Completely agree, it's primarily the crunchy, exaggerated detail that's way over the top for me. I've never been to Dorset (or the U.K., for that matter) and have no idea what this scene actually looked like on this particular day but, while a bright/contrasty scene is probably best represented with bright/contrasty processing, there's no natural detail anywhere on the planet that I've seen that looks anything quite like this (or the OP's original example), and wouldn't be a look I'd ever be inclined to reproduce. Maybe I'm an outlier, but it seems to me that many folks routinely overdo the Clarity/Structure/Texture sliders with harsh/contrasty images like this that would often be better served going in the opposite direction...

[ATTACH alt="Similar brightness, still contrasty and still looks plenty sharp to me, but with less exaggerated (more "natural" looking, IMO) local detail. Is the local contrast under-exaggerated here? This is with Lightroom, but I have little doubt that the same result can be achieved with C1 or PL7"]3495506[/ATTACH]
Similar brightness, still contrasty and still looks plenty sharp to me, but with less exaggerated (more "natural" looking, IMO) local detail. Is the local contrast under-exaggerated here? This is with Lightroom, but I have little doubt that the same result can be achieved with C1 or PL7

Your foreground is very good and detail looks unforced (a Lightroom forte,) but the whole pic is over"exposed" in an attempt to bring up the shadowed areas. As a result, the clouds look blown and blank, (which they are not) unlike the OP's C1 rendering and several others. As well, the color of the sky is aqua, which I'm pretty sure is not correct.

LR makes it very easy to mask the sky and work out the correct colors, etc.

C1 vs LR

Eriks rendition is way nicer than the C1 version in your comparison.

No, the colors are way off and the clouds are blown. The foreground is fine, but the sky and the clouds are not. If you want to ignore blown clouds, be my guest.

No contest, dont actually care much for the clouds

A person would need to pay attention to correct rendering of clouds if he or she wants to become a good landscape photographer.

thats not a primary subject and can be changed if needed,

Yes, but he didn't.

they are not a distraction.

Nonsense. They most certainly are a distraction, just as any other part of the pic being blown would be.

Your c1 version has lifted the shadows far too much, flatted it and killing the tonality. There should be shadows there.

I don't care if you or anyone else doesn't like the degree to which I have highlighted the only portion that matters in this pic. Enjoy the gloom if that's what you desire.

 

[maltmoose]

Here is my take at this challenge.

I tried to replicate your C1 processing, this is not necessarily how I would have treated this picture but I tried my best to be as close as possible to your rendering.

Processed in PL7

To me it's not natural look, but I've not seen it in person.

The challenge was to replicate something like the OP's C1 processing but using PL. It wasn't to produce a natural look. Of course, only the OP knows what Durdle Door looked like on that bright, sunny day in Dorset.

It was a very sunny day with strong harsh light. I had troubles looking at the scene without sunglasses. So, I definitely wouldn't like natural and realistic rendering. Not sure why some people are so obsessed with realistic photos. Btw I am sure you know that, but all movies are colour graded.

Its not the colors that are an issue for me. Theres too much contrast/micro contrast that make it look unnatural, would be too much for any scene imo.

Completely agree, it's primarily the crunchy, exaggerated detail that's way over the top for me. I've never been to Dorset (or the U.K., for that matter) and have no idea what this scene actually looked like on this particular day but, while a bright/contrasty scene is probably best represented with bright/contrasty processing, there's no natural detail anywhere on the planet that I've seen that looks anything quite like this (or the OP's original example), and wouldn't be a look I'd ever be inclined to reproduce. Maybe I'm an outlier, but it seems to me that many folks routinely overdo the Clarity/Structure/Texture sliders with harsh/contrasty images like this that would often be better served going in the opposite direction...

[ATTACH alt="Similar brightness, still contrasty and still looks plenty sharp to me, but with less exaggerated (more "natural" looking, IMO) local detail. Is the local contrast under-exaggerated here? This is with Lightroom, but I have little doubt that the same result can be achieved with C1 or PL7"]3495506[/ATTACH]
Similar brightness, still contrasty and still looks plenty sharp to me, but with less exaggerated (more "natural" looking, IMO) local detail. Is the local contrast under-exaggerated here? This is with Lightroom, but I have little doubt that the same result can be achieved with C1 or PL7

Your foreground is very good and detail looks unforced (a Lightroom forte,) but the whole pic is over"exposed" in an attempt to bring up the shadowed areas. As a result, the clouds look blown and blank, (which they are not) unlike the OP's C1 rendering and several others. As well, the color of the sky is aqua, which I'm pretty sure is not correct.

LR makes it very easy to mask the sky and work out the correct colors, etc.

C1 vs LR

Eriks rendition is way nicer than the C1 version in your comparison.

No, the colors are way off and the clouds are blown. The foreground is fine, but the sky and the clouds are not. If you want to ignore blown clouds, be my guest.

No contest, dont actually care much for the clouds

A person would need to pay attention to correct rendering of clouds if he or she wants to become a good landscape photographer.

its fine and more natural then the overly reduced highlights in the other version..

thats not a primary subject and can be changed if needed,

Yes, but he didn't.

they are not a distraction.

Nonsense. They most certainly are a distraction, just as any other part of the pic being blown would be.

nope, its not important, we could all just remove them and wont matter either.

Your c1 version has lifted the shadows far too much, flatted it and killing the tonality. There should be shadows there.

I don't care if you or anyone else doesn't like the degree to which I have highlighted the only portion that matters in this pic. Enjoy the gloom if that's what you desire.

Anyone can lift all the shadows these days but thats not the desired outcome. I've been to this location many times and it can be completely in shadow and dark, the raw actually gives you a good idea oh how it looked at this time.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Your foreground is very good and detail looks unforced (a Lightroom forte,) but the whole pic is over"exposed" in an attempt to bring up the shadowed areas. As a result, the clouds look blown and blank, (which they are not) unlike the OP's C1 rendering and several others. As well, the color of the sky is aqua, which I'm pretty sure is not correct.

LR makes it very easy to mask the sky and work out the correct colors, etc.

C1 vs LR

Eriks rendition is way nicer than the C1 version in your comparison.

No, the colors are way off and the clouds are blown. The foreground is fine, but the sky and the clouds are not. If you want to ignore blown clouds, be my guest.

No contest, dont actually care much for the clouds

A person would need to pay attention to correct rendering of clouds if he or she wants to become a good landscape photographer.

its fine and more natural then the overly reduced highlights in the other version..

thats not a primary subject and can be changed if needed,

Yes, but he didn't.

they are not a distraction.

Nonsense. They most certainly are a distraction, just as any other part of the pic being blown would be.

nope, its not important, we could all just remove them and wont matter either.

Your c1 version has lifted the shadows far too much, flatted it and killing the tonality. There should be shadows there.

I don't care if you or anyone else doesn't like the degree to which I have highlighted the only portion that matters in this pic. Enjoy the gloom if that's what you desire.

Anyone can lift all the shadows these days but thats not the desired outcome.

To you. I consider the gloomy rendition to be a failed snapshot:

C1 no adjustments.

I've been to this location many times and it can be completely in shadow and dark,

The human eye at the venue instantly raises and lowers the exposure as we look from one area of the scene to the other. We have no such luxury looking at a photograph. Most of the time we're pushing shadows or lowering highlights. It's what we do.

the raw actually gives you a good idea oh how it looked at this time.

In many cases we're trying to do better than what the scene looked like, and we have the technology.

Where can we see some of your pictures of the Durdle Door? Or any other landscape photos?

 

[Digital Nigel]

To me it's not natural look, but I've not seen it in person.

The challenge was to replicate something like the OP's C1 processing but using PL. It wasn't to produce a natural look. Of course, only the OP knows what Durdle Door looked like on that bright, sunny day in Dorset.

It was a very sunny day with strong harsh light. I had troubles looking at the scene without sunglasses. So, I definitely wouldn't like natural and realistic rendering. Not sure why some people are so obsessed with realistic photos. Btw I am sure you know that, but all movies are colour graded.

There's no doubt that Capture One makes it easy to produce landscapes with pleasing colors, especially deep blue skies and bright green foliage.

But what about portraits? Are they oversaturated, or are skin tones nicely rendered?

I don't have Lightroom, but I tried a DxO Photolab 6 conversion. It was difficult to get the same color balance. Sky was too pink and mid-tone contrast was too low.

You need to change the WB with that image, or it's too warm. Did you increase the micro contrast and smart lighting?

 

[CAcreeks]

There's no doubt that Capture One makes it easy to produce landscapes with pleasing colors, especially deep blue skies and bright green foliage.

But what about portraits? Are they oversaturated, or are skin tones nicely rendered?

I don't have Lightroom, but I tried a DxO Photolab 6 conversion. It was difficult to get the same color balance. Sky was too pink and mid-tone contrast was too low.

You need to change the WB with that image, or it's too warm. Did you increase the micro contrast and smart lighting?

Yes, both. You are correct that changing WB color temperature and tint was the way to make a deep blue sky and bright green foliage, like the Capture One result.

I would not call this "easy" however. Color temperature slider is very temperamental.

 

[Digital Nigel]

There's no doubt that Capture One makes it easy to produce landscapes with pleasing colors, especially deep blue skies and bright green foliage.

But what about portraits? Are they oversaturated, or are skin tones nicely rendered?

I don't have Lightroom, but I tried a DxO Photolab 6 conversion. It was difficult to get the same color balance. Sky was too pink and mid-tone contrast was too low.

You need to change the WB with that image, or it's too warm. Did you increase the micro contrast and smart lighting?

Yes, both. You are correct that changing WB color temperature and tint was the way to make a deep blue sky and bright green foliage, like the Capture One result.

I would not call this "easy" however. Color temperature slider is very temperamental.

I used the colour picker tool. There's several people wearing white garments.

Edit:

I've just checked, and find that I simply selected 'Daylight' in the WB box.