DXO
|
-
#1. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 0
augustf Nikonian since 04th Nov 2007Tue 04-Oct-11 05:19 PMHey Steve,
I posted an inquiry a while ago about this software. Didn't get any responses. I downloaded the 30 day trial, but haven't gotten to use it yet. Hope someone chimes in for you.
-AugustDe l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace!
-
#2. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 0
pdekman Registered since 16th Nov 2005Tue 04-Oct-11 07:39 PMI tried it many versions ago but did not take to the workflow. Here's a review of all the majors against each other from one persons point of view. Might help.
http://www.twin-pixels.com/raw-processors-review-aperture-bibble-capture-one-dxo-lightroom/
-
#3. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 0
mklass Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Tue 04-Oct-11 08:44 PMI've used DxO Optics Pro on and off over the past few years. The interface is quirky, and the developers seem wedded to it, even when there are overwhelming requests for changes in their forums.
There are better ways to process NEFs with other software and get better results.
Where I find Optics Pro useful is when is when I have a large quantity of JPGs from an event shoot and want to process them in a batch. Just start the process, come back later and you're done. It a great way to do multiple, automatic corrections for lens distortion, lighting, sharpening and noise, as long as you images don't need to be hand crafted.
Mick
www.mickklassphoto.com-
#4. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 3
jmascharka Basic MemberThu 13-Oct-11 05:04 AMI'm running LR3 for my RAW processing. It doesn't seem to do as well for jpg, at least with camera and lens correction. I'm just starting to use DXO for my jpg files. I'll know by the end of the trial period if it's worth the extra step and processing time. I would suggest trying the 30 day trial period to see if it helps you.Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#5. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 0
I've kept it around through all its iterations. As our compatriot mentioned, I use it only for special problems. If I have a lot of noise, I use it first for tiffs generated straight from NX2, since they seem to have an excellent engine. One can use the "Open with" command under File to send it directly to DXO.
Topaz Denoise 5 does such a great job in post-processing for me that I rarely use DXO.
Otherwise, batch processing of party pix is definitely a good tool as mentioned above.
A really excellent specialized tool is straightening diverging lines such as caused by using a wide-angle directed somewhat upwards or downwards.
Short answer, buy it you have a good budget and want a bit more flexibility. Otherwise, I would pass.
Yours,
Rick Midthun
If you care, read further.
My workflow is Capture NX2. If I see a noise problem, most of the time I use the NX2's noise reduction at a level of 5, I think. Then finishing all my basic development in NX2 using Color Efex Pro filters and all the other cool NX2 features. Then I "open with" CS5 for printing. First I use Denoise if needed further, then add a slight brightening curve for printing (since my screen is brighter than my printer can print), use Nik Sharpener for output sharpening and print through CS5 for everyday prints or Image Print RIP for my serious prints, especially in B&W.
#6. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 0
I believe that the reason for the limited usage of DxO is mainly due to the fact that most people have mastered and are using Photoshop or NX2 so that there is little incentive to change.
Tristan
Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#7. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 6
regaladosantos Registered since 12th Dec 2011Tue 13-Dec-11 12:59 PM>I have been using DxO for many years and it remains my
>preferred program although I have Photoshop, LR and NX2. I
>find their raw conversion, lens and geometric corrections
>superior to other programs. You need to get accustomed to
>their interface, but once you are familiar with it I see no
>problem. DxO integrates very well with LR; I use the latter
>mainly for archiving and searching and for some specific
>functions, e.g. spot removal.
>
>I believe that the reason for the limited usage of DxO is
>mainly due to the fact that most people have mastered and are
>using Photoshop or NX2 so that there is little incentive to
>change.
Are most of the images in your gallery processed in DXO?-
#8. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 7
GiantTristan Registered since 08th Jan 2006Tue 13-Dec-11 01:39 PMYes - All pictures in my Nikonians Gallery were converted and processed using DxO Pro. By the way, DxO just released a new Version 7 of their software. They have it on sale till the end of the year.Tristan
Visit my Nikonians gallery-
#9. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 8
regaladosantos Registered since 12th Dec 2011Tue 13-Dec-11 01:57 PM>Yes - All pictures in my Nikonians Gallery were converted and
>processed using DxO Pro. By the way, DxO just released a new
>Version 7 of their software. They have it on sale till the end
>of the year.
Do you usually use the others in addition to DxO? If so how does that work? What do you save it as to open it in another app and tweak some more? If you export as jpg then other functions in the other app may not be available.
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack, just have this one question.-
#10. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 9
GiantTristan Registered since 08th Jan 2006Tue 13-Dec-11 04:47 PM>Do you usually use the others in addition to DxO? If so how
>does that work? What do you save it as to open it in another
>app and tweak some more? If you export as jpg then other
>functions in the other app may not be available.
>
>Sorry, didn't mean to hijack, just have this one question.
DxO should always be used at the beginning of one's workflow, since other programs might modify the meta data which prevents DxO from doing its automatic lens corrections. If you use RAW, DxO gives you the choice of 4 output formats: JPEG, DNG ,8 and 16 bit Tiff. Since I usually do nearly all my PP in DxO, I output JPEGs for further (minor) adjustments in LR3. If you want to do significant portions of your PP in LR3, you obviously should use DNG or Tiff.
If you want to learn more, DxO has a rather good Users' Manual on their web site.Tristan
Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
-
-
#11. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 0
So here's what I like: The available modules include just about every lens I own, save one. This includes even an oddball Rokinon 85 mm f/1.4 prime. The lens corrections seem to work beautifully in every case without any extra work on my part. Sharpening functions are exceptional without a visible halo. I have also compared the film emulations with those in Nik's Color Efex Pro and Silver Efex Pro, and with Grubba Software's TrueGrain. I am very impressed with the color positive and negative films in terms of their range and with the ability to mix and match different film characteristic curves with the grains of other films. The Fuji Velvia 50 is quite good, IMHO. Back to lens correction, I am especially impressed with the lens softness and vignetting corrections. It's one thing to get sharpness right in the center of the image, another to get it out to the edges. Another cute function is volume anamorphisis, which allows you to handle unique distortion effects that can happen near the edge of an image.
Here's what I find troubling: It seems you can only set a white balance, etc, from a reference image to others by creating a preset. Then you apply this preset to other images. While this is quick, it does mean that you have to manage transient presets. It doesn't have a built-in asset management system, so you still have to use something like LR or Aperture or Media Pro or whatever to keep track of your sessions. It has hard crashed my Mac several times, not on its own, but when I've had other programs up at the same time, like PS. My Mac isn't huge, but it's running Lion 10.7.2, and has 4GB of RAM; so it's not small or completely out of date either. I haven't tried running alongside LR, but I have a concern that the two might not play well; and this challenges the model of a DAM and Optics together. The one lens it doesn't have a module for is one I use frequently, a Nikon 28-105mm with switchable macro capability. Maybe it's that switchable macro mode that DXO doesn't like. Back to B&W, it has a color channel mixer but not exactly an obvious way to control emulated film sensitivity or dynamic range. In this regard, both TrueGrain and Silver Efex Pro appear more obvious in their methods of operation. I have also tried the output TIFFs for a few HDR blends with Photomatix Pro. In this case, my results have been mixed. One result was beautifully done. Another yielded a good deal of blending error apparently because DXO applied different amounts of lens correction based on the exposure. The good result was from my D700; the poorer one from my D80.
In summary, the combination of the Elite version c/w FilmPack currently on sale seems a value to me. My guess is that I'd use this product for special cases, especially where I wanted to emulate certain color films. I'm not certain it would ever become my work horse for studio work, where I'm quite happy with Media Pro and Capture One. On the other hand, for treating one of those landscape gems that will shine with the best in lens correction, DXO could be an excellent tool. I say this in spite of how great Capture NX2 is for the combination of a Nikon body and lens, because Nikon doesn't build in combinations for non-Nikon lenses of which many of us have more than one. Likewise, LR does almost nothing for lens corrections with the set of lenses I have. Even where LR has a built-in lens profile, I have never been impressed with the results. Among the reasons I'd say DXO Optics isn't for my studio work is the business about rapidly copying white balance and other adjustments through a large set of files from a studio shoot. Another is that my studio work almost always has the subject near the center of the field. Optics Pro is a little harder than LR or Capture One at handling the transfer of a reference set of corrections from one test image to a large body of others; it makes managing the resulting presets necessary. Similarly, the worst lens correction requirements arise from edges with sharp contrasts, distortion, and lens softness, which tend to be worse at the edges of the image. Getting this right across an entire image tends not to be the case in my studio work. Getting it right for a landscape, HDR, or panorama is a big deal. Optics Pro seems great for that.
For grins, here's the result of an HDR image I did with Optics Pro for RAW conversion, Photomatix for HDR conversion, PS for some keystone correction and contrast enhancement. It was done last fall at Golden Gate Canyon State Park here in CO with a D700 & 28mm lens at f/9 creating a 5-shot bracketed sequence at 1EV steps.
Be a little forgiving on this since I had to cut the JPG quality down to about 40% to get it small enough for posting. The bright red areas below the sun flare aren't CA, that's a couple of leaves being back lit. For being shot straight into the sun and still having detail in the dark regions near the forest floor, I'm happy with this. Not my best image ever, but a decent test of RAW conversion.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#12. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 11
adangus Nikonian since 02nd Jan 2009Thu 22-Dec-11 12:17 PMDoh!
Found the trick to copy and paste adjustments. Much easier than making a preset.Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#13. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 11
mklass Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Thu 22-Dec-11 04:07 PMNice review.
I'm debating whether or not to upgrade to V7. I have V6x now. While I like what Optics Pro can do, I find it slow for single image processing. It is handy to do a batch of event shots. Just start it and walk away, come back when it's done.
Mick
www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery-
#14. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 13
GiantTristan Registered since 08th Jan 2006Thu 22-Dec-11 09:42 PM>Nice review.
>
>I'm debating whether or not to upgrade to V7. I have V6x now.
>While I like what Optics Pro can do, I find it slow for single
>image processing. It is handy to do a batch of event shots.
>Just start it and walk away, come back when it's done.
>
I have never had a problem with "slow processing"; maybe the fault lies with your computer. Version 7 seems to be somewhat faster.Tristan
Visit my Nikonians gallery-
#15. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 14
mklass Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Thu 22-Dec-11 11:27 PMWell I have a 2.66Mhx AMD QuadCore with 8GB RAM and 1 TB of Hard disk space that is less than 50% full. Running a 60 image raw file batch process with DXO takes about 2 hours. Doing a single image takes about 1-2 minutes after clicking the "Process" button, that's after spending time selecting and tuning the adjustments.
I find even CNX 2.28 to be faster.
Mick
www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery-
#16. "RE: DXO" | In response to Reply # 15
GiantTristan Registered since 08th Jan 2006Fri 23-Dec-11 02:12 PMInteresting - with my computer it takes less than 5 seconds to process a single NEF with DxO, version7. I have Dell XPS with Windows 7, Intel core i7-2600 processor (8MB Cache 3.4GHz), 16GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM, 1.5TB RAID 0.Tristan
Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
-
-
G
There must be tons ? Same fundamental question: Do I want it?
I've been happy with LR for noise reduction, lens correction.
I have PTGui for tougher lens corrections. I dont like
the top part of pictures after lens corrections cuz
they get softer, tho PTGui seems better than LR.
What else? Anyone?
Thanks,
Steve Z
www.stevezavodny.com
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.