Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: stewarthemley on October 01, 2012, 11:06:11 am
-
Risking it here but I have to post this, if only for someone to prove me wrong. I’ve been testing the new DxO converter against LR using Canons (5D2 and 3, 1DS3), Nikon D800 with a variety of lenses, and a Sony RX100 - fixed zoom.
My findings, briefly, are that DxO extracts significantly more detail from these cameras without planting artifacts. I find the colors better (ie, more accurate and more pleasing - I know, it’s subjective) and the tones better. I’ve tried various sharpening routines with LR images but can’t get near the DxO results.
For me, in side-by-side comparisons of my best efforts with LR (after using it regularly, professionally, on thousands of images from its initial release) and DxO (after about two weeks of playing), DxO is better by a surprising margin.
I don’t like the DxO interface, would much prefer to have a LR approach, with similar sliders and options, but with such an improvement in results I’ll put up with it. And LR is far more advanced in certain areas, such as adjustment brushes, gradients, etc, but these are all easy to dupllcate in PS. Ok, it's another step in the workflow but for a better result it's worth t.
The only area so far that I have seen LR get slightly better results is in extreme highlight recovery. Really extreme, around the 250 area. And if I get my exposure that wrong, well, I deserve to struggle.
I’m surprised at how much better I’m finding DxO. I’d be interested to hear from others who have made side-by-side comparisons to see what people think.
I have no connection with DxO and no-one from Adobe has pissed me off. Just a punter looking to get the best from my images.
-
I don't have DxO Optics Pro, but I own an RX100 and will own a D800. I'm serious with Lightroom.
I'd be more than happy to view a comparison between Adobe and DxO solutions.
Thank you in advance.
-
Just a devoted non-pro here and I could not agree more.
DxO is custom profiled for your cameras, and unless you are a slider wizard and know what to expect, DxO does in one click what would take you quite a bit of time to approximate in LR. Further, the Nikon and Sony (and I assume Canon) lens corrections are icing on a very fine cake.
It's great on the RX100, isn't it?
Alas, the Library of LR is far better and I have to export TIFFs to LR for that. I was on the phone with DxO and expect a LR plug-in to appear in the future... that would be very good indeed!!!
-
... in side-by-side comparisons of my best efforts...
Well... care to share? ???
-
Hi,
No problem that you prefer DxO, that's your choice, just a few observations.
- Lightroom is much more than a raw converter, its a parametric DAM tool.
- Have you tried to use Lightroom with deconvolution? Try to select amount to 45, radius to 0.8, detail to 100 and use some masking (15) and luminance noise reduction (15). If you stop down to f/16 you can increase radius to 1.2-1.5.
Best regards
Erik
Risking it here but I have to post this, if only for someone to prove me wrong. I’ve been testing the new DxO converter against LR using Canons (5D2 and 3, 1DS3), Nikon D800 with a variety of lenses, and a Sony RX100 - fixed zoom.
My findings, briefly, are that DxO extracts significantly more detail from these cameras without planting artifacts. I find the colors better (ie, more accurate and more pleasing - I know, it’s subjective) and the tones better. I’ve tried various sharpening routines with LR images but can’t get near the DxO results.
For me, in side-by-side comparisons of my best efforts with LR (after using it regularly, professionally, on thousands of images from its initial release) and DxO (after about two weeks of playing), DxO is better by a surprising margin.
I don’t like the DxO interface, would much prefer to have a LR approach, with similar sliders and options, but with such an improvement in results I’ll put up with it. And LR is far more advanced in certain areas, such as adjustment brushes, gradients, etc, but these are all easy to dupllcate in PS. Ok, it's another step in the workflow but for a better result it's worth t.
The only area so far that I have seen LR get slightly better results is in extreme highlight recovery. Really extreme, around the 250 area. And if I get my exposure that wrong, well, I deserve to struggle.
I’m surprised at how much better I’m finding DxO. I’d be interested to hear from others who have made side-by-side comparisons to see what people think.
I have no connection with DxO and no-one from Adobe has pissed me off. Just a punter looking to get the best from my images.
-
Risking it here but I have to post this, if only for someone to prove me wrong. I’ve been testing the new DxO converter against LR using Canons (5D2 and 3, 1DS3), Nikon D800 with a variety of lenses, and a Sony RX100 - fixed zoom.
My findings, briefly, are that DxO extracts significantly more detail from these cameras without planting artifacts. I find the colors better (ie, more accurate and more pleasing - I know, it’s subjective) and the tones better. I’ve tried various sharpening routines with LR images but can’t get near the DxO results. . . .
My experience is similar with respect to a Nikon D800E and LR 4.X. But a while back when I made some test shots with a Nikon D90 and a Canon S90, I couldn't detect much of a distinction between LR 3.X (using the appropriate camera profile) and DxO (can't recall which revision now). In fact, I was on the verge of abandoning DxO altogether until I started using the D800E.
I only use DxO on images I consider candidates for a significant preprocessing effort, and I only use the automated module corrections, not any of the manual controls. In other words, I use DxO to render the image and adjust for sensor and lens deficiencies, then import the DNG into Lightroom for everything else (that doesn't require pixel editing). That way, I figure I'm keeping almost all the benefits of LR's parametric editing. I archive the raw file as well as the DxO-emitted linear DNG because who knows what the next generation of software will offer.
While I was generally happier with DxO for the D800E images when I made some comparisons shortly after acquiring the camera, I didn't consider the difference dramatic — and I had to zoom the image to 1:1 to see it, so I'm not certain how much it would matter in a print. (I didn't produce any comparative prints.)
Finally, as you suggest, DxO's user agent is pretty awful. Lightroom's, on the other hand, is a pleasure to use.
-
Hi,
No problem that you prefer DxO, that's your choice, just a few observations.
- Lightroom is much more than a raw converter, its a parametric DAM tool.
- Have you tried to use Lightroom with deconvolution? Try to select amount to 45, radius to 0.8, amount to 100 and use some masking (15) and liminance noise reduction (15). If you stop down to f/16 you can increase radius to 1.2-1.5.
Best regards
Erik
Did you mean to select amount to 45, radius to 0.8, DETAIL to 100, and use some masking (15) and luminance noise reduction (15)?
You mentioned this tip (or a similar one with 100% detail) a while back in another post. It works really good on landscape images. Thanks!
-
Well... care to share? ???
Hi Slobodan.
That's always the dliemma. If I show my best efforts, taking into account my tastes/needs/etc, and my ability or lack of it, how relevant will that be for others? I believe that people should process images how they want then make the comparison. Not ducking out here, just inviting people to try something in case its better for them.
Eric,
Yes, I've spent longer than I should testing various sharpening methods in LR, DxO, C1, Raw Developer, PS, etc. Nothing I've found, including your suggestions - thanks - can get so much detail with so few artifacts as DxO. And, to my surprise, it does show in prints as small as 10x8. For me that's a small print and when you go to 36 (inches) it shows even more. I will have to reject the f16 bit. No lens I own, or know about, will be acceptable (to me - we're all different) because of diffraction. I usually call a halt at f8 when the difference begins to show. Maybe I'm a detail junky! I agree that LR has so much going for it, I really wish it could give me the image quality of DxO. For me, that's the ultimate crierion and I'll tolerate a slightly prolonged workflow to achieve it.
I was surprised by DxO. I have tried it a couple of times in previous versions and rejected it because I found the tones to be verging towards the HDR look, which I really don't like. Maybe they have fine tuned it but for now, it's my converter of choice. Which is great because each time I change converters, my images look a little better! Long live competition.
-
That's always the dliemma. If I show my best efforts, taking into account my tastes/needs/etc, and my ability or lack of it, how relevant will that be for others? I believe that people should process images how they want then make the comparison. Not ducking out here, just inviting people to try something in case its better for them.
To me it's way faster to kindly ask for an example rather than downloading the beta, installing it, learning how to use it, look for Raw images, process them and do the compare. :)
-
Did you mean to select amount to 45, radius to 0.8, DETAIL to 100, and use some masking (15) and luminance noise reduction (15)?
Just tried this on some landscapes with trees and leaves. Nice, thanks. Can anyone explain, in plain english, what deconvolution does? I have googled it, of course, but explanations like this (http://www.svi.nl/DeConvolution) don't work for me. And I have tried looking at what it does, by playing with the slider, but can't see any consistent impact.
-
To me it's way faster to kindly ask for an example rather than downloading the beta, installing it, learning how to use it, look for Raw images, process them and do the compare. :)
It's faster, no argument, but how relevant and useful to you? How much contrast do you like? Where do you like your black point? And highlights, where do you like them to blow, if at all? How sharp? How dark/light? Warm/cool colors? All the same as me? Etc, ad nauseam. Modern converters are so good at manipulating images just one slider can make a tremendous difference. I stand by my view: you have to make the effort, invest a little time, if you want to see if something is better for you.
-
It's faster, no argument, but how relevant and useful to you?
More relevant than a post simply exclaiming one is better than the other ... Just sayin' ...
-
Yes, you are right! Fixed!
Erik
Did you mean to select amount to 45, radius to 0.8, DETAIL to 100, and use some masking (15) and luminance noise reduction (15)?
You mentioned this tip (or a similar one with 100% detail) a while back in another post. It works really good on landscape images. Thanks!
-
It's faster, no argument, but how relevant and useful to you? How much contrast do you like? Where do you like your black point? And highlights, where do you like them to blow, if at all? How sharp? How dark/light? Warm/cool colors? All the same as me? Etc, ad nauseam. Modern converters are so good at manipulating images just one slider can make a tremendous difference. I stand by my view: you have to make the effort, invest a little time, if you want to see if something is better for you.
I suppose with DxO OP you'll be able to adjust HSL more or less like LR, same as for the contrast, exposure and so on.
Demosaic algorithms and detail recovery is what really interests me so, go on with the compare, don't worry about the parameters :)
-
More relevant than a post simply exclaiming one is better than the other ... Just sayin' ...
I started the thread because I like to try to help people. If someone tries this item and finds it better then I think that would be good. Do you disagree, Jeremy?
I have said, twice and in detail why I don't think my efforts at processing would be of benefit to other people.
EDIT: Hi Mac_paolo: I have just re-read my above statement and I don't want you to think I'm getting at you. It's just that I really don't think it would be that useful to try to judge whether a converter is better for you by using someone else's settings. There are so many variables at work. And it's really not that difficult to download it, pop in a raw and see what comes out. Hope that sounds a bit less abrupt!
-
D800E Raw: from what i have seen dxo has some benefit with backlit conditions but i like the detail better with ACR photoshopCS6... ( same as Lightroom4 i guess)
What i do not like about DXO is that i am never sure what is going to happen - or what has happened to my image.. In ACR it is very straightforward.
Maybe i have to read the tutorial again...
-
Totally agree about the interface. Just did about thirty images in DxO and by number ten I was crying out for LR's simplicity. I guess they want the thing to be as automatic as possible, which it almost is, but then when you want that extra bit of tuning, which most of us do, it's a right royal pain. I'm not sure how I'm going to react with my next batch of several hundred images, which I do about every ten days. Maybe I'll regret my original posting!
-
Hi Mac_paolo: I have just re-read my above statement and I don't want you to think I'm getting at you.
Never mind, thanks anyway :)
-
I started the thread because I like to try to help people. If someone tries this item and finds it better then I think that would be good. Do you disagree, Jeremy?
I think it would be MORE helpful to SHOW us what convinced you.
-
Totally agree about the interface. Just did about thirty images in DxO and by number ten I was crying out for LR's simplicity. I guess they want the thing to be as automatic as possible, which it almost is, but then when you want that extra bit of tuning, which most of us do, it's a right royal pain. I'm not sure how I'm going to react with my next batch of several hundred images, which I do about every ten days. Maybe I'll regret my original posting!
I gather you use DxO's manual controls. I use it solely as a batch preprocessor, and even then only on images I am willing to put a lot of time and effort into (and even then, as I mentioned in my earlier post, only those made with the D800E). That mitigates the pain of the DxO user agent somewhat. I have a preset I call "module corrections only" which applies the automatic adjustments for vignetting, distortion and lens softness. No sharpening, perspective changes, color modifications (I have DxO generate linear DNGs, and adjust the white balance in Lightroom)—just the few corrections, based on my reading of the descriptive information on DxO's website, that appear to be based entirely on the company's sensor and lens testing program. Then I import them into LR and do the rest of the work there, with an occasional round-trip through Photoshop. In that sense, I think of DxO as a substitute for LR's lens correction module.
And I'm purely an amateur, with a low-volume workload. If I was trying to a living with photography, I'm not sure I would be wiling to put up with the extra step. (Actually, if I was trying to make a living with photography, I would probably need to have my head examined. . . . )
-
I think it would be MORE helpful to SHOW us what convinced you.k
Dear Jeremy
It would be more useful to YOU if YOU played with it, like I did, and found out if it was convincing for YOU.
Honestly, I have no agenda here. I don't give a flying f*** if other people agree with me or not. I found it improved my images and so wanting to help others I posted.
And if people like Eric can suggest ways to help me get more out of LR then that's a bonus for all of us.
Why does it have to be a pain trying to help people?
-
Totally agree about the interface. Just did about thirty images in DxO and by number ten I was crying out for LR's simplicity. I guess they want the thing to be as automatic as possible, which it almost is, but then when you want that extra bit of tuning, which most of us do, it's a right royal pain. I'm not sure how I'm going to react with my next batch of several hundred images, which I do about every ten days. Maybe I'll regret my original posting!
Back in the day when I was a steady user of DxO Optics Pro, I was unconvinced by the developer's claim that optimal results could be achieved by using preset adjustments. Individualized adjustments are almost always going to give superior results, regardless of the program.
Rob
-
As I work entirely in black-and-white, I begin with a mass conversion of my RAW takes with DxO Pro (which I invariably find in comparison with the initial RAW provides an improvement). I pass these images to Lightroom, principally for reviewing and cropping, then conclude by processing selected images in Silver Efex Pro 2 for eventual printing. For me, this is the simplest procedure.
-
I am giving a try to DXO but I have not found the way to move my work between different computers as I do with LR, Aperture and Capture One.
I usually have both originals and catalogs/libraries/settings on portable HD's which I can easily move from one station to an other working always on the most updated version.
Apparently I cannot do the same with DXO but may be I am missing something.
Any suggestion will be highly appreciated.
Ario
-
... Why does it have to be a pain trying to help people?
Stewart,
I think you might have a problem with your spell-checker, i.e., its Auto-Correct part. I think you meant to write:
"Why do I have to be a pain trying to "help" people?
Damn you Auto-Correct!
-
Was that really necessary, Slobodan?
Sometimes when an uncalled-for smartarse comment comes to mind, it's best just to leave it there.
-
Was that really necessary, Slobodan?
Sometimes when an uncalled-for smartarse comment comes to mind, it's best just to leave it there.
Just as necessary as some dude on the Internet posting what he had for breakfast, or another dude posting "I prefer product A to product B." Just as I do not give a damn what some dude on the Internet had for breakfast, I just as well do not give a damn that another dude on the Internet prefers A to B.
Now, I am sure that the "dude" in question is a smart guy and a fine gentlemen in person, but so far I only know his forum persona, and, as I far as I am concerned, this is the first post I remember him for. So, why on Earth would I care what he thinks about A vs. B? Or what he had for breakfast?
Unless, of course, he would post examples so that I can see for myself. His repeated whining that examples do not make sense as they reflect his subjective criteria is just as annoying. His main claim is "...DxO extracts significantly more detail from these cameras without planting artifacts..." i.e., that the demosaic algorithms and detail recovery are superior. That statement leaves little room for subjectivity. While color and tone preferences are subjective (although it is also possibly to quantify them in terms of color accuracy and dynamic range), detail is much less so. It is there or it is not, nothing subjective about it, and easy for everyone to see. What is subjective about detail is, of course, how significant the difference is (i.e., the debate between 'incomparable' and 'barely noticeable under ideal circumstances').
To illustrate demosaicing superiority, all one has to do is to post the first thing that comes out of both converters, without any other processing (i.e., his subjective preferences for contrast, highlights, color, etc.). If one wants to be thorough, there are three options to present the initial rendering: sharpening zeroed, default sharpening, and the optimum sharpening for each converter (the latter is, of course, subjective, but as long as it is labeled as such, I will be free to form my own opinion).
That would be helpful for some guy from the Internet.
If, however, Jeff Schewe would post something like : "Hey guys, I just tried converter X and it is significantly better than L...," I would be downloading it before even finishing that sentence. Not because I am a sucker for authority (I am anything but), not because someone else proclaimed him as such, but because I know him for years, on this forum or else, and I formed my own opinion of him as authority.
If, however, some dude on the Internet said the same, I really, really couldn't care less, let alone expose myself to the trouble of downloading it, installing it, learning the basics, trying it, de-installing it, then chasing and cleaning all the bits and pieces an installation leaves across the system...
-
Wow. What did I ever do to you, Slobodan? Must have been pretty bad.
So I think I'll just bow out here. I'm sorry if I offended anyone else. Just trying to be helpful. Good luck guys.
-
Ok lets put some meat in the dinner !
I have here an image developed in DXO 7.51 and adobe Raw CS6.
what you need to know :
I am working with adobe raw so DXO would need some fine tuning - the colors for instance...
d800e 24mm1,4G d8 1./320sec on tripod liveview-sharp
so about as good as it gets
development in Adobe camera colors ( not adobe )
everything set to zero in the first workspace called Basic( color : as shot)
lenscorrection profile used + removal of chromatic aberration
sharpened 60 % amount 0,6 radius 60 detail
-- photoshop smart sharpened 50%, 0,1,0
development in DXO ( i am never sure if it does what i wanted)
DXO default Neutral color (RAW only)( color : as shot)
it uses its dxo lensprofile
after that in photoshop: 25% smart sharpen 0,1
download HQ full-size Jpegs:
http://www.beeld.nu/LL/dxo-adobe.zip
cheers !
Pieter Kers
-
Interesting, thanks for these. The DXO colors certainly need work. I am left seeing a possible case for DXO, but not enough of one to incline me to stop using Lightroom. I am also left with some sympathy for the OP's reservations about the limited value of comparing individual posted shots. It would be nice, for example, to have a comparison between the best work of experts in both programs - your post gives the impression that you are more expert in Adobe/Lightoom. Still, there is no doubt that we now have something to discuss rather than just vent about.
-
to Ken Cameron: et al
The adobe colours give a very strange unsaturated blue- that is why i use ' camera colours'
so also adobe has a problem i think...
My idea is that the good lensprofile of DXO is what it makes it better.
I see benefits of both but like the workflow and colours of adobe-
I like the differentiation of the treeleaves in DXO but do not like the colours (but probably they can be addressed) nor some other details that are clearly less good.
I had done this test before with a 14-24mm lens and there DXO had less detail. - here it is about even.
To do good testing you have to put a lot of time in it- i do not have...or want.
From one image you cannot make a judgement. But it gives an idea.
to Stewart Hemley: is this in line with your findings?
-
Yes, all this makes sense when I look closely at the posted images. I mean no offence in what I said about your expertise in DXO. Just that you said you are never sure it does what you wanted. Maybe nobody does.
-
for one-button an then just a bit of fine tuning to suit your needs, it's pretty darn good
-
Back again. I was going to bow out but you can't give in to the people who want to bring their own problems to the discussion...
Kers, first, thanks for doing the comparison. As you mention, there are so many variables, and both LR and DxO are quite complicated to really get the best out of, more so DxO! So I stand by my view that it's more instructive for individuals to do their own experimenting. And checking around this forum, there are many posters who don't include examples, in fact most don't, but lets not go there again!
My feelings are roughly this: the developers of DxO make a wrong decision by making it so difficult to go manual. Yes, the auto/default settings are close, to my tastes at least, but you (I) ALWAYS have to fine tune. One reason I spend time checking other converters is that I want the best image I can get, and that is very unlikely to be someone else's (default/auto) settings.
Also agree that it is lens dependent. Some lenses respond better to LR, but I have found (checking about 10 lenses from various makers) that with most, the lens profile in DxO has the edge. Check for things like barrel distortion.
Re colors: looking at my screen, I like Adobe colors but then when I do a side-by-side, I definitely prefer DxO. Especially leaves, grass, the natural colors. Of course, you can get them similar but that's quite a bit of work, including presets/profiles, etc which is just too much for me. And that is always going to be personal taste.
Re workflow: no brainer!!! I would like DxO to have a further option to the simple and advanced they have now. Manual. Then I think we could make easier comparisons. I have a built-in dislike of programs that make decisions for me, so I suppose I must be looking for trouble even trying DxO.
To those who don't want to do the testing, which I agree is time-consuming, that's fine, obviously. And LR (and C1) are good programs so if you stick with them, you're hardly losing out. It's all in the quest of getting the result you (and your clients if you're a pro) like best. Competition is so tough these days that when I'm not being paid to get images I feel it's an investment to see how I can improve the ones I've got. YMMV.
-
My feelings are roughly this: the developers of DxO make a wrong decision by making it so difficult to go manual.
My experience so far, as a Lightroom user trialling DXO, is that DXO often gives me a starting point which I like better, but further tweaking is incomparably easier with Lightroom, so the final version which I like better almost always comes from Lightroom. As an amateur who can play as long as he likes with single images, this leaves me thinking I probably won't persist with DXO.
-
I did not find this true with past versions of DxO, but with the latest version and D800e files I am quite impressed. I agree the UI is poor, and ability to fine tune to taste is difficult and non-intuitive.
With some of my files, DxO presets get it right the first time with a click. I can't really understand why or how, and I'm almost ashamed to admit it.
-
If you were using presets that DXO manufactured then you are relying on the program to make decisions as to how your image looks and not using your vision as to how it looks. I don't see the point of having an advanced DSLR and not taking the time to process the output in a way that suits you. It is your image and you should be responsible for the final outcome?
-
Can anyone explain, in plain english, what deconvolution does? I have googled it, of course, but explanations like this (http://www.svi.nl/DeConvolution) don't work for me. And I have tried looking at what it does, by playing with the slider, but can't see any consistent impact.
Hi Ken,
Since your question was left unanswered, I'll have a go at it.
Try visualizing blur (e.g. from our optics) as the signal intended for one pixel, spilling over a bit to neighboring pixels. There is more spill over to the immediate neighbors, a little less to their neighbors, and so on. The distribution of the spill over amounts can be characterized in a mathematical 'formula' (a convolution kernel, AKA Point Spread Function (PSF) ), and that formula allows to mathematically reverse the spill, back to the original pixel, for for each and every pixel. Hence, the restoration of the original detail is called deconvolution (because it reverses the convolution).
That deconvolution operation works best when the exact PSF (shape of the blur pattern) is known. The theoretical benefit of DxO is that it has a more accurate knowledge of how that PSF looks, and differs across the image, and at different focus distances, at each aperture setting. Lightroom/ACR and other Raw converters typically only allow to dial in one shape for that PSF, dictated by the Radius setting and Amount, for the entire image. A Raw converter like Capture One Pro allows to vary the Amount towards the corners to compensate for corner sharpness fall-off.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Now i also have tried two other Raw converters on the same photo above. NX2, Nikons own and the new Photo Ninja.
The outcome differs from type of photo and lens used so it seems. NX2 does a remarkable job on this photo where i found Adobe raw much better in other cases.
It seems that a good lensprofile is key to the success and off course Nikon has the best one in this case. I am a user of Nikons TS lenses and there lensprofiles do not work- so are not used- too bad.
I got very different outcome with a photo shot with a 45PCE lens where photoninja was king and adobe raw turned flat and 2d.
So the more i see the more i get puzzled. Good thing is that there are no real bad converters.
If you really are serious about one photo you could develop it in all 4 and decide.. But also then you probably find parts where one is better than the other.
edit: Photo Ninja is the new kid on the block and seems to be a very good Raw converter- at least in my d800e case. I am new to the software but already get some great results.
-
Back again. I was going to bow out but you can't give in to the people who want to bring their own problems to the discussion...
Get real, buddy. You aren't any kind of victim.
You made a claim. You should reasonably expect that peope would like see the evidence.
Your refusal to share your results is a bit strange and your over-reaction to being asked is even weirder.
Oh well ... Moving on ... Nothing to see here, unfortunately ...
-
This is not why I come here, and not why I posted, so I really have no more to add to this thread.
-
I agree with you Stewart. I rarely post in these forums because of the attitude of the 'veteran' posters who in this case wanted definitive proof of your opinion despite often opining themselves without such niceties. Your initial post prompted me to re-examine DxO and for that I thank you.
Mike
-
Mike, that is very much appreciated. Thank you for taking the trouble.
In fact, I have asked to have my account on this forum deleted. This sort of thing happens too often these days. I had to ask to delay the deletion because I wanted to thank you, but I will now complete the process.
It's a shame that a few people feel the need to be offensive, despite being given perfectly good and acceptable reasons for the actions they disagree with.
I expect there will be responses to this by one or maybe two "contributors" (very loose description) but I will have left LL by then so won't even read it.
Thanks again, Mike.
-
I have asked to have my account on this forum deleted.
Excellent flounce off.
You knew this might be a contentious topic when you started it, why else would it be appended with "(Dives for cover...)" ?
One of the great qualities of this forum is that it generally expects a high level of discourse, not just a simple A's better than B without any practical example or detailed explanation.
When such examples are given they're usually fairly scrutinised and some interesting and instructional discussion results in that scrutiny. A fine example is the expansion of how deconvolution techniques can be used in this thread.
You might even find that such discussions increase your understanding of the product you're using which may either reinforce your existing opinion, or maybe give you a new insight as to how to get the best out of other products and change your initial views.
But never think this is just a platform for 'if you've nothing nice to say, don't say it' school of "discussion".
-
Quote Stewarthemley
Risking it here but I have to post this, if only for someone to prove me wrong.
Unquote
That was the poster's first words in the thread. If someone is thin skinned then it doesn't help to start out with a mildly provocative statement. I doubt if he will find an easier going forum? If someone is into Nikon gear then the Nikonians is moderated to the point of boredom. ;)
-
Dunno - it seemed obvious to me that the OP's intention was simply to suggest that those of us who have not tried DxO before or recently might wish to give it a(nother) look in case we might find it as useful for our needs as he'd found it for his.
See Mike's post above for an example of what I imagine was the intention of the OP...
I also get his reluctance not to post examples - his standards, requirements and expectations might be very different to yours or mine, and I know I've seen umpteen threads on various fora degenerate into insulting each other for their "low standards, if that's an example of a 'great' conversion..." and I can understand the reluctance to tempt that: it's easy enough to post an example of something objectively bad, but when presenting images as examples of good, it's almost certain that some "experts" would take great delight in tearing them down.
Given some of the uncalled-for crap that came his way anyway, I'd say the OP might well've got that right.
-
My feelings exactly Keith - well put. If a photographer cannot post his experience without coming under attack then what's the point? It seems that many veteran posters just 'fire for effect' - often it appears just to raise their post count. The sadness is that this often sidelines the valuable contributions and other people's related opinions.
Quote from Rhossydd
Excellent flounce off.
'Flounce off' - was that really necessary? All it did was detract from the rest of your post.
Mike
-
A high post count does seem to give some people a sense of entitlement to be a tool in a way which would earn them a richly-deserved knuckle sandwich if they acted the same way in the Real World...
-
Hi,
Just a few comments...
Regarding Lightroom vs DxO I would say that they are different products. Lightroom is a photographers workflow tool. I may be wrong, but I see DxO as a raw converter. If you shoot low volume, it would be OK but if you shoot high volume you need some kind of DAM (Digital Asset Management) tool. Lightroom is a workflow solution and is based on parametric workflow. "Read my lips: NO MORE TIFFS!"
Now, I would suggest that LuLa forums are quite civilized, even if we now and than have some adolescent attitudes. Most posters are civilized and willing to listen.
Best regards
Erik
-
... It seems that many veteran posters just 'fire for effect' - often it appears just to raise their post count...
You bet!
And why wouldn't I?
After first 1,000 posts, I get a 10% discount at the LuLa store. After 2,000 posts I enjoy, you guessed, a 20% discount. I am currently working toward my 3,000th post, for which I'll get a private dinner with Michael Reichmann. However, what I am really looking forward to is 4,000 posts, for which I am going to get to ride Jeff Schewe's bike around the block!
-
A high post count does seem to give some people a sense of entitlement to be a tool in a way which would earn them a richly-deserved knuckle sandwich if they acted the same way in the Real World...
So, Keith, let me get this straight: you are basically advocating physical violence to settle a (relatively polite) difference in opinion? Nice!
You see, I post under my full name; quick googling would get you my full profile, my address, phone number, etc. Hence, whatever I post I do in the same manner as I would say it in your face in "the Real World." Feel free to find me and dish out your form of "justice."
-
no more Westerns... is the title of an art festival that i have to picture soon...
'the end'
Pieter Kers
-
... the attitude of the 'veteran' posters who in this case wanted definitive proof of your opinion despite often opining themselves without such niceties...
I guess you had me in mind?
For the record, this is an example of my contribution to this forum on a very similar subject (i.e., comparison between two raw converters):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=29894.0
That was a while ago. For a more recent illustration on how I support my opinion, see this (my reply is #6):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70974.0
-
... If a photographer cannot post his experience without coming under attack then what's the point?...
Mike,
Let me first state that I appreciate that you found the OP helpful. I respect and strongly support your right to have such an opinion and to express it publicly.
By the same token, I hope you respect my right to have a different opinion (i.e., that the OP was not helpful) and to express it publicly.
What you call "attack," others, myself included, consider a discussion. After all, this is a Discussion Forum, no? A discussion involves opposing, sometimes fiercely so, views. Or you think only acclamation is appropriate?
The OP started the thread fully aware of how contentious it might be. He even put it in the title ("dives for cover"). He then started it with "Risking it here but I have to post this, if only for someone to prove me wrong." And yet when the OP got what he expected, he immediately cried foul!?
And how exactly did the OP expect "someone to prove [him] wrong"? A claim without proof is easily refuted without proof. All one has to say is "No, actually Lightroom is superior to DXO 'by a surprising margin'." Is that the discussion you would approve of?
We were definitely not against "a photographer posting his experience." We, however, wanted to see that experience, not just read about it. After all, this is a photography forum, with a picture being worth a thousand words, no?
Had the OP said: "You know guys, I can't prove it..." or "I do not have the time to show it to you, but I feel DXO is superior," I would have shrugged it off as another opinion of another guy I do not know an moved on. However, the OP actually said:
"... in side-by-side comparisons of my best efforts with LR (after using it regularly, professionally, on thousands of images from its initial release) and DxO (after about two weeks of playing), DxO is better by a surprising margin."
Well, with that he piqued my curiosity. Pardon me then for actually wanting to see it.
-
Sarcasm is not a debate nor is saying that anyone with less status than Jeff Schewe has to prove his findings or is not entitled to share their findings. Much as I respect Jeff he would hardly be promoting anything as superior to LR or PS!
I think you might have a problem with your spell-checker, i.e., its Auto-Correct part. I think you meant to write:
"Why do I have to be a pain trying to "help" people?
Damn you Auto-Correct!
I rest my case. Your other points were eloquently covered by Keith.
Mike
-
In fact, I have asked to have my account on this forum deleted. This sort of thing happens too often these days. I had to ask to delay the deletion because I wanted to thank you, but I will now complete the process.
It's a shame that a few people feel the need to be offensive, despite being given perfectly good and acceptable reasons for the actions they disagree with.
I expect there will be responses to this by one or maybe two "contributors" (very loose description) but I will have left LL by then so won't even read it.
Please get real.
Nobody did anything to you except ask you to show us what you were gushing on about ... Get over it.
-
Please get real.
Nobody did anything to you except ask you to show us what you were gushing on about ... Get over it.
Well that completely novel remark directed at someone who felt compelled to leave LuLa raised your post count to 1332. Congratulations!
Mike
-
Sarcasm is not a debate nor is saying that anyone with less status than Jeff Schewe has to prove his findings or is not entitled to share their findings...
Humor, including sarcasm, is very much so a rhetorical tool with a long tradition, used in debates since the ancient times.
Oh, trust me, even Jeff Schewe is ultimately expected to prove his case. The difference is that he would be given the benefit of the doubt much easier initially. Authority has its strong impact on influencing others, for better or worse.
-
who felt compelled to leave LuLa
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????
-
Well that completely novel remark directed at someone who felt compelled to leave LuLa raised your post count to 1332. Congratulations!
What was it again that you said about sarcasm? ;)
-
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.
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
-
... 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.
-
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.
-
I think your words "attacked" and derided" are over the top. He chose to leave in circumstances of his own choosing and he bowed out of the thread and re entered again of his own choosing. Possible lessons can be learned mostly about being thick skinned and giving and taking? :)
-
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 ...
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5227_DxO_800w.jpg)
(http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5227_DxO_100c.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Unless you make a comparison with another converter then your post is meaningless? The quickness will mean zilch to most people, the quality is what most photographers are concerned about.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Of course:
-
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.
-
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.
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
-
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."
-
... 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...
I do read posts before replying.
What you were showing may or may not mean what you were trying to show. The only way we could see if it uses the lens distortion metadata is if you would post an image with obvious distortion problems (say barrel) and next to it the same image with that distortion corrected.
Your examples, however, only show CA.
-
The other complication with lens distortion is whether or not it is corrected in camera on raw files. At least wiith panasonic or olympus lenses, I suspect it often is, leaving nothing for ACR or DXO to work on.
Correction: this is wrong, it is only the JPEGs that are corrected in camera. Using an OM-D with an Oympus 12mm f2 lens, Lightroom seems to fix lens distortion automatically but require that the Chromatic Aberration box be ticked and a little work be done with the defringe control to handle color fringes. Photozone.de says this lens has serious barrel distortion: "The "untouched RAW" results, showing the original capability of the lens, are much worse with a barrel distortion as extreme as ~5.4% which is rather disappointing for a prime lens.". The attached files show the presumably distortion-corrected file and crops to show uncorrected and corrected colors.
I would be interested in DXO if I thought it would do a significantly better job significantly quicker.
-
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."
Thanks for the clarification. I agree and it would be interesting to compare the image after being fully processed in each program.
Mike
-
... Using an OM-D with an Oympus 12mm f2 lens, Lightroom seems to fix lens distortion automatically but require that the Chromatic Aberration box be ticked and a little work be done with the defringe control to handle color fringes...
That was the point I was making. Thanks for clarifying.
-
You can't really compare DXO's distortion correction with camera raw or lightroom's.
Also, this goes for Capture NX2 vs lightroom/ACR's distortion correction for supported lenses.
DXO and the Nikon software do a far better job of correcting distortion than the adobe software does--they waste less of the image as well. Note that this might vary per lens, I don't know. Download the trials and try for yourself. Unsure on ACR vs DPP (canon) haven't tested that.
I rarely use distortion correction though, and lightroom / acr has an easier time of correcting highlights.
DXO 8 does a good job, C1 7 does good job, acr7 does too, so does RT. Not sure if I like c1 or dxo8 enough to buy them, i'm evaluating the trials. C1 7 is impressive..
-
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.
ACR/LR (as of ACR 7.2) does not have a matching profile for an Olympus/Panasonic camera-lens combination. The metadata may be there and ACR may be able to read it, but there is no correction profile available. See screenshot.
Adobe make a free application to make your own correction profile (Lens Profile Creator) and search the online database of profiles:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html#resources
This may change in the upcoming release of ACR/LR (I believe it is in RC right now), I don;t really keep on the bleeding edge of ACR and don't use LR.
In contrast, DXO8 offers a wide variety of correction modules for the OM-D and several lenses, including many Panasonic variations.
http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/for_your_equipment
Go to the SUpported and Planned tab and configure your specific camera body and lens makes.
kirk
-
ACR/LR does not have a matching profile for an Olympus/Panasonic camera-lens combination. The metadata may be there and ACR may be able to read it, but there is no correction profile available. See screenshot...
It doesn't seem you read the previous discussion, specifically from posts #75 to #83, i.e., you seem to be repeating what was already discussed and resolved.
-
It doesn't seem you read the previous discussion, specifically from posts #75 to #83, i.e., you seem to be repeating what was already discussed and resolved.
I read them several times. I tried to elaborate on the somewhat confused and incomplete responses. The profiles are either available or they are not. You can make your own to supplement what Adobe does not create for you - it takes effort, but if you want to make a meaningful comparison, you can actually go through the exercise of printing the targets and imaging them and using the Adobe software to build your own profiles. Having done this for the 5D + Canon 15mm full frame fisheye, I thought I'd share the information. When you pointed out with your "Of course" comment with red arrows on the screen shot of the lens correction menu, you cropped out the most important part of the screen shot - no profile was available. You can make one available if it exists, or more importantly, if you create it and make it available - that's the reason for the links I included for the OMD user who may not be aware of these resources. I apologize for trying to help the OMD user get the most out of ACR, which is lacking for him at this time.
Since none of us have access to the OMD image used in the example, I can only draw from my own images. DXO and ACR have correction profiles for an obviously distorted combination of a 5D2 (or 5D) and Canon 15mm full frame fisheye. In the most recent incarnation of ACR (7.2) and DXO (v8 ) both are corrected automatically with the manufacturer-supplied profiles based, presumably, on the metadata contained in the file - that is, I do not need to configure anything manually to get the correction applied (in ACR I have to tick the "Enable Corrections" box - in DXO this option is on by default). Both give the user control over tweaking the geometric correction, and both give the user the ability to tweak lateral chromatic aberration and purple fringing. Both give the user the ability to control the crop around the corrected image (ie, addressing the comment above about "wasting" less of the corrected image). Only DXO gives the user the ability to recover anamorphic distortions that may occur under certain lens-camera combinations at the edges of the image.
Since the recent posts seem to indicate that this kind of comparison would be interesting, especially because the point of the discussion seemed to be the ability of both applications to utilize metadata for distortion and lens correction, I hope this additional information is helpful to someone.
Kirk
-
I think both you and I (and other posters) are trying to help, each in its own way, so no issue with that. The rest is probably just a miscommunication or misunderstanding.
The gist of what I was trying to say, and Ken seemed to support, is the following: the fact that no profile is available in the drop-down menu does not mean that actually no profile is available. It means that the profile (for geometric distortion) is "baked" into the file, therefore it would be redundant to have it in the drop-down menu. It also means there is no need to make your own profile, unless you think you can do it better than Olympus or Panasonic can.