Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on August 30, 2012, 06:14:21 pm
-
First tests seems to indicate it works well and will probably be my converter of choice for the RX100.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Tend to agree with you, Bernard. DxO seems to bring out more detail. Surprisingly, I think I can see that sort of tiny worm effect/blotchiness in LR that used to appear in an earlier incarnation with Canon 5D2 files. But I need more time to play. And I need to get to know DxO better too.
-
So Dxo sharpening algorithms work well with most cameras as advertised?
I am getting into Nkon and it's all listed. Wondering if it's worth at least pre-processing with DxO to sharpen > LR4 for storage.
Wont bug ya about archiving features and such since can determine that for myself, but it seems worth it for sharpening alone...
Thanks
-
Hmm, on second thoughts...
Just can't get DxO to look natural and and now able to pull much more from LR. DxO looks ok till you do a side-by-side with LR and then it's chalk and cheese, at least with my efforts. So far I haven't had time to master the highlight recovery and shadows controls in DxO and for the stuff I'm playing with (Japanese forests and temples in bright sunlight) that's pretty critical.
I know LR pretty well and clearly don't know DxO at all well so please ignore my findings above.
As usual, it's good to listen to other people but only trying it yourself is the safe way. I'm sure Bernard knows DxO much better than I do.
-
I need to test more.
Overall I tend to like the lens correction of DxO better as well as the automated application of NR for higher ISO images.
I also find DxO to deliver very nice tones.
Cheers,
Bernard