sohus

Joined on Apr 28, 2010

Comments

Total: 297, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Does NR come vaguely close to the not industry leading performance of ACR?

ACR is not industry leading, far from. DxO and Topaz are industry leading.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2021 at 06:55 UTC

Please stop parroting marketing BS. This is not a lifetime license. It’s called a perpetual license. They won’t add any updates once the next version is out. It’s misleading really. And 5 years down your the line your OS won’t be supported.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2021 at 18:06 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

tex: Well, on the con side, I'd say that it's not too expensive. If you're shooting raw you probably care a lot about your output, and so you pay to play, whether it's lenses, cameras, tripods, lights, etc. And this includes software.

I understand complaining about Leica or Phase One prices. Don't understand this one.

OTOH, the other con, inability to tweak...is maybe a dealbreaker. I'm shooting raw BECAUSE I want/need to tweak.

This is the right answer. I work like this for a while already, and you lose nothing, you even gain some, as .DNG stores metadata embedded which is superior from my point of view.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2021 at 08:14 UTC
In reply to:

TwoMetreBill: Sad but understandable, no X-trans support. Unless Fuji coughs up the money to implement it, I don't think we'll ever see it.
But just as Lightroom gave us a better U-Point, I expect they will eventually deliver an improved noise reduction tool.

A better U-Point? What are you smoking? Lightroom has nothing like it.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2021 at 08:12 UTC
In reply to:

Prognathous: Very sensible product management decision to bring the brilliance of DeepPRIME to users who want to stay with their current RAW conversion software. I just hope that DxO can market it better than PhotoLab. It doesn't matter how good the software is if people don't hear about it or don't bother to try it.

Their moment will come.

People are generally very dissatisfied about Lightroom and Adobe subscriptions, Capture One is increasing prices with decreasing stability while PhotoLab has been adding new useful features steadily. It's only a matter of time. I already see people like Thom Hogan recommending it after Lightroom/Photoshop as the sensible choice for most people.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2021 at 08:11 UTC
In reply to:

f1point4andbethere: Still no M1 Mac native for Lr Classic :(

I bet it's coming soon.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2021 at 09:39 UTC
In reply to:

lilBuddha: I've used DxO for processing RAW files since before I switched away from Adobe, I've always found it superior.

BTW, the Con 'Colors tend to be a bit muted and exposure corrections subtle by default' to be a bit odd since the point of using a RAW processor is to not use default settings.
IMO, the punchier colours sued by Adobe RAW is aimed at the lowest common denominator

There is a reason the video world using Log. DxO use a natural/realistic/neutral starting point. More like Adobe Neutral profile. Adobe Color is way too punchy and saturated.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2021 at 18:47 UTC
In reply to:

Sc1920: I have used Lightroom , PhotoLab 4 and Capture One 21. Lightroom is my least favourite, Capture One has one significant advantage over the other two, and that is layers that allow you the full gamut of tools on each layer. PhotoLab and Lightroom have a select group of functions that are allowed with local adjustments, whereas Capture One has no such limitation. PhotoLab has a significant advantage IMO when it comes to the library structure. There is no import and wait forever requirement like LR and C1, just point at a folder and start working.

You can also work the same when you use Capture One sessions instead of catalogs.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2021 at 18:36 UTC
In reply to:

chrisbc: Use all three, LR, C1 and DxO Elite (deep prime). DxO has better Noise reduction, with night photos it can be quite dramatic difference, better perspective correction (with Viewpoint add-on) but clearly worse shadow/highlight tools. It struggles with high contrast scenes in broad daylight, where true white color looks grey in shadow areas which are lifted whereas C1 and LR produce beautiful whites in shadow areas. Sometimes there is no way to get the scene to look like you saw it in DxO where LR and C1 copes much better with their shadow/hightlight tools (called HDR in C1).

This is because LR and C1 have proper highlight recovery where they use one channel that is not overblown to recover the ones that are.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2021 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

Luddhi: "What we don't (like): Colors tend to be a bit muted and exposure corrections subtle by default"
What I like: Colors tend to be a bit muted and exposure corrections subtle by default.
Because as you say: “The automatic corrections in PhotoLab (left) tend to deliver a much more muted, less punchy look than those of Camera Raw / Lightroom (right). The real world lies somewhere in between the two, but is probably a bit closer to DxO's rendering than to Adobe's, which sometimes verges on the cartoonishly oversaturated. Of course, both can easily be tuned to your personal tastes.”

It comes with literally hundreds of emulated camera profiles so you can chose Canon, Nikon, Leica colors or whatever you desire for all the bodies that DxO supports. Some Leica ones have more warmth.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2021 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

cxsparc: It really looks like DXO has the best Noise reduction engine there is.
However, when I tried it the interface and functionality did not appeal to me and a lot was missing that i have become used to being available in C1.

I guess if you make your living shooting in clubs or other badly lit situation where you often shoot with ISO higher than 800, DXO has some points going for it.

But 98% of my photos rarely even leave ISO 100 behind. And when doing nighttime shots, the color casts throwing white balance of are much more of a visual effect impacting the image than the noise visible at pixel peeping level.

And for those shots, DXO doesn't cut it for me.

It also has best in class lens corrections and automatic lens sharpness.

The only if is your camera and lens being supported.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2021 at 18:25 UTC
In reply to:

jwalker019: I know everyone will deride :P but this would be great for family events (e.g., birthdays, Christmas day, etc.).

There focus is on b2b, they own:
- Axis Communications (https://www.axis.com/)
- Milestone (https://www.milestonesys.com)

And some products are here: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/list/network-video-solutions/all-network-cameras/

I see many opportunities for them in the consumer space, but that will take time and their focus and survival instinct is on b2b (which is right I believe).

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2021 at 08:09 UTC
In reply to:

jwalker019: I know everyone will deride :P but this would be great for family events (e.g., birthdays, Christmas day, etc.).

Many streamers use similar tech for studio recordings. Massive growth potential for Canon.

There camera sales are largely gone and those peaks will never return. iPhone is the new Kodak Brownie for almost all.

All that is left are enthousiasts and professionals. They need to find and conquer new markets like GoPro and DJI before them.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2021 at 20:38 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Crowdfunding. Meaning, R&D money coming from the crowd?
This also works as webcam.

This is cool stuff. As of this moment I am not concerned about privacy issue

No.

They’re validating if there is a market for such product by letting people put money down. Proven concept.

As someone above noted, this is a repurposed existing security camera product.

Canon has plenty of money for R&D.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2021 at 20:36 UTC
In reply to:

Einride: Wow the colours in the Nikon program are really a lot better then Adobe. That’s not a small difference.

"I dont agree- nikon images always push green while canon's push towards red (heavily)."

This is what I see as well. But Adobe's Nikon profiles still have this bias since they copy Nikon's.

The Adobe Color/Standard/Neutral profiles lose this color bias but I still find the Color and Standard one too saturated and contrasty out of the box.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2021 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

entoman: I think the truth is that whatever software you use, and whatever "colour science" you prefer, is largely just a case of getting used to a certain "look".

When people switch brands they are often dismayed at the "new" colours, but after a few weeks you accept them as normal, and the colours of whatever they were using previously then seem unsatisfactory.

If it's vital to have continuity of colour when switching cameras or software, it's pretty easy to adjust colours to match requirements.

The whole "colour science" thing is overblown by anxious brand-warriors desperate to find something to criticise about products chosen by others.

The whole point of the Neutral profiles is that, to get Neutral Colors regardless of camera body. So they adjust all cameras towards a lab profile.

Neutral color, neutral tonality is very flat... like very flat but also very accurate
Neutral color, neutral tonality vs has more tonality (without over doing it)
Neutral color, factory tonality is quite heavy on the tonality (for Nikon that is), but this is like the Nikon Standard profile (so not the Nikon Neutral)

If you want more "vibrant" colors out of the box, the Leica profiles are very good a suggested, but you can also try things like selecting the Nikon Z camera color profiles for your Nikon FX cameras (they evolve over time), or even selecting a Canon R body profile for your Nikon camera.

As always, WB does affect your photos. Photos from multiple days, angles etc. have different WB and the light color changes all the time. My experience is with right WB, all my cameras have more or less similar look in PhotoLab.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2021 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

brownie314: If you don't want to become a professional computer jockey instead of a photographer - CNX-d is so much faster to get good colors than playing with dials and switches in ACR all day long.

@EDWARD ARTISTE

The single most outdated, not modern looking interface is that of Lightroom Classic. No other application or codebase is older, slower and less user friendly than that one. Capture One is way more modern, as is every other image editing application that like Affinity Photo or Pixelmator.

The Lightroom modern apps are a different story but they lack so many features that you cannot compare them to Capture One.

My favorite interface is Capture One on Mac. It is slightly less great on a Windows computer but that is more down to Windows.

DaVinci is such a great interface on Windows that it doesn't support proper scaling on high-resolution screens without getting blurry. So not.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2021 at 22:11 UTC
In reply to:

entoman: I think the truth is that whatever software you use, and whatever "colour science" you prefer, is largely just a case of getting used to a certain "look".

When people switch brands they are often dismayed at the "new" colours, but after a few weeks you accept them as normal, and the colours of whatever they were using previously then seem unsatisfactory.

If it's vital to have continuity of colour when switching cameras or software, it's pretty easy to adjust colours to match requirements.

The whole "colour science" thing is overblown by anxious brand-warriors desperate to find something to criticise about products chosen by others.

Just use the Neutral profile in PhotoLab. It will get all your camera and bodies to the exact same color profile.

Nikon is more yellow/greenish originally.
Canon is more magenta biased naturally.

I find none of them truly pleasing. The best color profiles are not from the camera makers.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2021 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

Roman Verton: (see my previous post for part 1)

But usually I choose between those two depending on the task. In my opinion Capture NX-D delivers best colors from Nikon RAW files. The only problem I found with this program is that it works somewhat sluggish (compared to PC) on Mac OS, especially Big Sur. And with some bugs. Hope they will be addressed in updates.

And I use Capture One Pro for projects, shoots, tethering, or if I have a set of RAW files grouped by a theme, place, etc. I like the way Capture One handles Nikon RAWs. And it works great for noise reduction. Of all the apps I mentioned it produces the best results.

NO!

PhotoLab 4 can export a Linear DNG with optical corrections only. It will correct lens distortion, lens sharpness and noise reduction and you will get super clean .DNG files that you can work with in Lightroom or Capture One or any other photo application and they will keep the same latitude as your RAW file.

It is absolutely fantastic and I use it daily.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2021 at 18:59 UTC
In reply to:

Lihkin: I loved Capture NX-2 (even though it was so clunky) until I discovered DXO Photolab. I have been using that software for the past 3 years now and am really happy with it. It is now in its v4 iteration and only seems to get better. Their PRIME noise reduction feature is stellar.

Stellar as in easily gain 1-2 stops with 1 click. Plus best in class dehaze, lens optical corrections and lens sharpness and micro-contrast.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2021 at 23:01 UTC
Total: 297, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »