Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)  (Read 39549 times)

MikeB55

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #60 on: October 08, 2012, 01:42:18 AM »

Quote
Mike, calm down and go take a walk or something.  You are starting to sound like Stewie and pretty soon you are gonna "feel compelled to leave LuLa" ...

And then where woud we be?

It will take much more than this but I'm am leaving this thread - you make my point more eloquently than I can.

Quote
What was it again that you said about sarcasm?

Touché - used against a gratuitous comment not someone trying to contribute and have a reasonable discussion.

I don't like bullies or people who are only too happy to rub salt into wounds. I will now leave you both to have the last word, don't hesitate to be as personally disparaging as you can ....and yes I will 'get real' and 'get over it'.

Mike
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2433
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2012, 04:40:38 AM »

... raised your post count to 1332.  Congratulations!

What's the problem with contributors here ?

Forums are only valuable if people post to them, lurkers contribute nothing.
This forum has been around a very long time and many of us have been taking part for years. Without those long term contributions LuLa would be nothing.
It's not about scoring points, it's about adding to the discourse.
Logged

MikeB55

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2012, 09:29:48 AM »

As you seem to be addressing me.

Great piece of dissembly. First the implication that I'm attacking ALL LuLa posters or posts combined with the 'lurker/newbie' tag - brilliant.

I find many posters (including notably Slobodan) to have given great information and insight and for that I thank them and freely acknowledge my lack of similar contribution. In this case a poster felt he had to leave and was then mocked after doing so. Never mind the quality feel the width.

You are right though it's not about scoring points, it's about adding to the discourse. I don't think anything positive will come out of this one so let's all move on?

Mike

Edited after stamper's feedback.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 12:11:42 PM by MikeB55 »
Logged

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2012, 10:40:46 AM »

In this case a poster was attacked until he left and was then further derided.

That's a ridiculous comment.

Someone says: "I'm looking at something startling!"

Someone else says: "Oh really, show us!"

OP says: "No, I don't think that would be useful."

Response: "On the contrary, that would be VERY useful."

That's an attack?  I call that a simple and reasonable request.

You need to grow up ...
Logged

MikeB55

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #65 on: October 08, 2012, 10:51:33 AM »

Quote
You need to grow up ...

Res ipsa loquiter. My post was modified because I think stamper had a point but do try to develop an original point yourself.

Mike
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 03:15:50 AM by MikeB55 »
Logged

allegretto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #66 on: October 08, 2012, 01:45:10 PM »

on another forum they referred to the OP's maneuver as a "YAGE"

Yet Another Grand Exit

I have yet to frequent a forum where a noob is not asked to explain or demonstrate what they are talking about. Yes, sometimes it makes your ears burn, but others are often trying to gauge your level of interpretation.

Professionally I am frequently "called on it", and not always politely. The more sophisticated the audience, the more likely you are to be challenged. And it's worth noting that being wrong (or maybe just out of step) is only a failure if you don't learn from your situation.

But I'm a noob here and this is deep water. lot's of very experienced and knowledgeable folks... so maybe I'm wrong...
Logged

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #67 on: October 08, 2012, 11:29:27 PM »

Thanks to Bart for the lucid explanation of deconvolution. Evidence I guess that can be good stuff in threads that look, at first glance, somewhat unpromising.
Logged
Ken Cameron

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
    • My Flickr page
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #68 on: October 09, 2012, 02:32:04 AM »

Thanks to Bart for the lucid explanation of deconvolution. Evidence I guess that can be good stuff in threads that look, at first glance, somewhat unpromising.

I agree 100%.  Thanks Bart!  Now, is there a way to deconvolute this thread?  It is really twisted.
Logged

mwr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #69 on: October 30, 2012, 11:14:40 PM »

I'm late to this party, but so what. First, I don't have or use LR. I've happily used Canon's DPP to convert RAW from my XSi, but find for problem images (in particular, underexposed), DxO does a better job than anything I've been able to get from DPP plus Noiseware (my favorite noise reducer).

This shot is from my XSi at ISO 1600 (its highest setting) and underexposed three stops for an effective ISO 12,800, and converted with DxO 7 using default settings (I may have manually set the white balance; can't remember). The first image is full frame, reduced to 800 pixels wide. The second image is a cropped area from the 100%-size file. I'm particularly impressed with the retained colors after all that pumping up of the brightness. The books actually are the colors displayed, or at least very close.



Logged

Ligament

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #70 on: October 31, 2012, 02:05:23 PM »

I'm late to this party, but so what. First, I don't have or use LR. I've happily used Canon's DPP to convert RAW from my XSi, but find for problem images (in particular, underexposed), DxO does a better job than anything I've been able to get from DPP plus Noiseware (my favorite noise reducer).

This shot is from my XSi at ISO 1600 (its highest setting) and underexposed three stops for an effective ISO 12,800, and converted with DxO 7 using default settings (I may have manually set the white balance; can't remember). The first image is full frame, reduced to 800 pixels wide. The second image is a cropped area from the 100%-size file. I'm particularly impressed with the retained colors after all that pumping up of the brightness. The books actually are the colors displayed, or at least very close.


I find the grain/noise on the enlarged image quite nice actually.
Logged

tom60634

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #71 on: November 06, 2012, 03:25:00 PM »

I too find DxO 8 verry effective.
The following adjustment took just six changes and a total of approximately 1 minute 37 seconds to accomplish from start to completion of jpeg creation.
Logged

tom60634

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #73 on: November 07, 2012, 07:58:24 AM »

I think we might have lost sight of the purpose of raw editors/developers.

I use them to primarily set White Balance, Black Point, White Point. The newer raw editors now allow for distortion control,global and local contrast control, noise removal, sharpening etc. etc..

A comparison between editors that do not have the same feature set, doesn't always (if ever) make sense.

To make my point more clear. The file that I provided was made with my new Olympus OM-D along with an even newer lens the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. It was part of a series of test shots and definitely does not show any particular artistic or photographic merit.

My camera/lens combination is part of DxO's database. It provides the DxO raw editor with sensor and lens information that allows the editor to automatically adjust for disortions, CA, noise removal, sharpening to compensate for lens softness, lens vignetting etc. etc.  Adobe's camera/lens distortions feature does not include any Olympus or Panasonic products, many of the distortion information for cameras/lenses that Adobe lists are provided by photo enthusiasts and the quality can only be viewed as dubious at best. So I could not reasonably demonstrate a superiority in one editor or the other. They are different products, with different capabilities. Lightroom and Camera Raw may be able to coax an equal edit, but it would take much more sliding of levers and re-adjustmesnts.

My demonstration was to show how easily DxO took a miserable file and developed it to the point that it could be handed off to Photoshop for final improvements. There are many things that DxO did automatically that Lightroom or Camera would find difficult or nearly impossible to match.
Logged

ario

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 172
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #74 on: November 07, 2012, 08:11:10 AM »

Distortion information, for Olympus and Panasonic camera/lens combination are included as metadata in the the raw file and as such are used by LR and ACR in the background.
The same is for CA but for the Panasonic combos only.
Logged

tom60634

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #75 on: November 07, 2012, 03:06:18 PM »

We must be talking about different things.

I've attached two screen shots, one of Adobe Camera Raw with the "Enable Lens Profile Corrections" box checked, the "Setup" box is checked to "Auto".

The other screen shot is of DxO version 8, which under "Optical Correction" the "Chromatic aberrations" is checked and the option is set to "Auto".

The DxO screen shot shows how the program cleaned up the file.
The ACR screen shot shows that no matter that Olympus and Panasonic provides distortion information (metadata) with each file, Adobe doesn't seem to process the information.

DxO processes the information with just a checkmark, I leave that option always checked so there's no effort on my part. I've yet to have to correct DxO's process decisions with regards to the "Optical Corrections" panel.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9400
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #76 on: November 07, 2012, 03:23:54 PM »

Of course:
« Last Edit: November 07, 2012, 03:51:51 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

tom60634

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #77 on: November 07, 2012, 04:34:20 PM »

Of course:

"Of course" is a response that certainly enlightens the discussion.

Since you obviously didn't read the preceding posts let me explain that I was trying to show that ACR/LR does not make use of the lens distortion metadata that Olympus and Panasonic provides in their respective files.

To show an example of a file format that ACR/LR utilizes the metadata please note the attachment that shows ACR's response to a NEF file.
Logged

MikeB55

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #78 on: November 07, 2012, 04:56:18 PM »

Quote
Of course:

OK I'll bite as I don't understand your point. I have a Panasonic GH 2. In Lightroom you cannot select Panasonic (or Olympus) as apparently lens corrections are built in. Likewise, in ACR selecting default, custom or auto gives rise to a 'cannot load or select a profile' message again because profiles are supposedly built in.

Quote
I've attached two screen shots, one of Adobe Camera Raw with the "Enable Lens Profile Corrections" box checked, the "Setup" box is checked to "Auto".

The other screen shot is of DxO version 8, which under "Optical Correction" the "Chromatic aberrations" is checked and the option is set to "Auto".

Having said that, the comparison with DxO seems unfair as it compares the full DxO processing pipeline with an unprocessed ACR shot. Surely the correct comparison would be with the a fully processed shot using each program (i.e. all LR or ACR panels)?

Mike  
« Last Edit: November 07, 2012, 05:00:13 PM by MikeB55 »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9400
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)
« Reply #79 on: November 07, 2012, 05:06:18 PM »

OK I'll bite as I don't understand your point...

My point was that from the attached examples it is impossible to see (visually, in the image itself) if the LR applied distortion correction or not. All we are able to see is the presence of uncorrected CA. My second arrow pointed out the Color panel, where you are supposed to check "Remove Chromatic Aberration."
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up