Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: stormyboy on October 23, 2013, 08:51:11 pm
-
I just saw that version 9 of DxO Optics pro has been released.
Tom
-
I noticed this oxymoronic gem whilst looking at their site.
"Presets - Give a unique look to your photos"
-
I noticed this oxymoronic gem whilst looking at their site.
"Presets - Give a unique look to your photos"
;D
Love it!
-
I wonder if DxO Optics 9 continues to use Adobe RGB as the internal working colorspace as the previous versions have done. I find that pretty inexcusable in a RAW editing system.
-
;D
Love it!
They also say this....
"You can also express your creativity by using the “Atmospheres” presets to give your photos a special look and feel."
I like to express my creativity by choosing the interior designer who will make my house look beautiful. ;)
-
Has anyone checked the high iso image quality resulting from the new noise reduction algos? It may be worth looking into.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I did a quick test this evening on a 12800 ISO image shot with a 7D. There is an observable difference between DxO's standard NR and the "PRIME" process, and PRIME is better on the whole - and the processed image can be re-sharpened to taste. This was not a rigorous test and is hard to describe without posted samples, but I believe it's worth the effort to download the trial and test on a couple of high-ISO images.
Note that if you do test it, the PRIME effect does not show up in the standard preview (there is a loupe tool that allows this but I did not use it). The preferred method is to process the same image with each method to TIFs and examine them side-by-side. Processing the PRIME-filtered image takes considerably longer (a couple of minutes on my machine).
I was pleasantly surprised, but I'll be doing more testing before deciding if this is worth the upgrade.
DJB
-
I have tested the new noise reduction method - DXO calls it PRIME - on about 40 high ISO pictures from a Canon 40D. I compared their standard method with PRIME and for me the results are amazing. There is a clear and visible difference. Processing time takes about 2-4 minutes on my machine. I can only recommend to download a trial version and see for yourself
-
Some quick questions (DXO users might know yes/no):
1. Does it allows to use external programs for editing and then importing back? Like lightroom - one can export image to Photoshop, do manipulations and then get image back into lightroom.
2. May be DXO offers possibility to use some plugins - for HDR, effects, etc?
-
Some quick questions (DXO users might know yes/no):
1. Does it allows to use external programs for editing and then importing back? Like lightroom - one can export image to Photoshop, do manipulations and then get image back into lightroom.
2. May be DXO offers possibility to use some plugins - for HDR, effects, etc?
[/quote]
1. You can send a file to Photoshop or presumably any other photo-related executable as a DNG, TIF or JPG, but if Photoshop is saving the edited version as a PSD - it appears DxO OP9 will not read a PSD file. Returning a TIF from Photoshop will allow further manipulation in OP9. Haven't tried a round trip with anything else.
2. To my knowledge DxO won't work directly with plug-ins. It will export to a standalone program such as Perfect Photo Suite, but a returned TIF from that program (not a PSD, remember - that's not recognized) on my machine only showed up in the browser in DxO but could not be further processed. Crashed Topaz's Photo fx Lab. My early conclusion - even with plug-ins' standalone cousins - no. Perhaps others have had better experiences. I'm not a DxO expert, so can't claim my anecdotes are authoritative in any way.
I think that DxO's strength is its cameras/lens combination database, and now its PRIME NR engine. I can't say it plays well (or at least conveniently) with others. I use version 8 occasionally for distortion correction, but most of the time there's not enough appreciable advantage over LR (which I use for most of my personal and all my commercial work) to crank it up. Jury's still out for me on PRIME. That may be worth the upgrade price. More real-world testing required in my case
DJB
-
Besides some of the corrections that others have mentioned, I think DXO really shines in its ability to adjust exposure and open up the shadows. There are numerous settings such as shadow radius, local and global contrast of just the fill light, and much more that I find very powerful and incredibly useful for architectural interiors especially. I have not seen that level of tone control in anything else.
-
A first attempt to use DxO 9, so far so good! Of interest is the fact that the Prime noise reduction algo seems highly parallelized in that it used 100% of my 8 cores during the full time of the export.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5516/10591058973_cb29926a19_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I downloaded the trial version ( already have version 8) to see if there were any changes.
Pretty much the same old same old but with more presets - the rest is marketing hype.However there is a bug in the presets that results in flickering of the presets that eventually crashes DxO (tried it on both my desktop and my laptop -same result).
Agree with other users comments about RGB.
To be honest I feel DxO has gone backwards since version 7 which I found excellent - luckily you can still access this version
-
To be honest I feel DxO has gone backwards since version 7 which I found excellent - luckily you can still access this version
Interesting how 2 people can look at the same thing in 2 totally opposite ways. ;)
To my eyes the image quality delivered by DxO has improved to a point where I don't feel the need anymore to use C1 Pro. This is especially true at higher ISOs where there is simply no competition.
Filmpack has also tremendously reduced my usage of Nik silverFx and the time I am spending in CS6 is decreasing a lot these days as a result.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A first attempt to use DxO 9, so far so good! Of interest is the fact that the Prime noise reduction algo seems highly parallelized in that it used 100% of my 8 cores during the full time of the export.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5516/10591058973_cb29926a19_o.jpg)
Good how? As without reference to the before image, it's hard to know what the benefits are.
Also if all 8 cores are being used and it's 5 mins an image, it's going to be tricky to do anything else in meantime. Results need to be something really special to warrant that.
I shall download and trial the software as soon as I have some free time to do a proper job.
-
I've owned DXO 5, 6,7, and 8. I was happy until version 8. I don't think I will upgrade again. At least not until I replace my desktop computer.
-
The key values I see in DxO are:
- what appears to be best in class correction of color aberrations resulting in images with outstanding purity, kind of turns very good lenses like the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 in outstanding APO ones, makes me wonder whether I should cancel my Zeiss 55mm f1.4 APO order knowing that it may not be supported by DxO...
- best in class geometric distortion turns good lenses in perfectly linear architecture focused gems... whatever the focusing distance and aperture combination,
- best in class high ISO noise removal/detail preservation,
- integration with filmpack makes B&W images generation very easy,
- geometric corrections work very well,
- very stable so far (zero crash/freeze till now).
I used not to like the colors it produced in versions 6-7 on my D800, but it looks like the D800 may have been the camera they have targeted for version 8/9 because the color profiles seem real good to me.
What I don't like about it is:
- export time, but I am using a 6 years old mac pro with just 32gb of ram, it should be better with a modern machine correctly specified. The fact that it can tap into multi-cores very well makes it a future platform software platform,
- the lack of U-Point like technology to do basic local adjustements. Nothing has gotten remotely close to Nik's U-Point so I am not expecting the same capability, but something close would help,
- a small bug causing files to be saved in the wrong folder.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have posted a few more images converted with DxO 9 after this link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/
In B&W:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2810/10620671993_6abb5a7456_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5521/10620347425_b126f8c5c8_o.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7430/10619609844_022e93f85c_o.jpg)
And in colors:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2830/10620438696_ecd2098bd9_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3726/10620394146_2eb2a64d8d_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3822/10620436156_201cc9633b_o.jpg)
Those images were shot last Sunday around Agra, India. Only had a day which did limit the shooting opportunities.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The noise reduction does a really good job on the iso 6400 files from my Canon 7d. Very impressive.
-
Anyone else having trouble getting version 9 to print to an Epson 3880?
Seems mine launches and acts like it is going to the printer, but it never prints an image. I have Dxo Optics Pro 8 left over too, and same thing. Seems it doesn't want to print with Epson, but it will print with the Canon.
Very odd.
SG
-
The noise reduction does a really good job on the iso 6400 files from my Canon 7d. Very impressive.
I just tried DXO9 on my d800e 6400 files - and i am not impressed:
The grain is less but as usual the noise reduction reduces everything - also loosing and smearing detail in an ugly way.
The grain you see on screen is not so prominent in print ( even at large sizes like over 1 meter wide)
and if you want to use the file on the web you do not need this large file so grain will become invisible.
Coming from the analog film days i even welcome this last bit of grain - only found in my 6400 asa files...
-
To my eyes the image quality delivered by DxO has improved to a point where I don't feel the need anymore to use C1 Pro. This is especially true at higher ISOs where there is simply no competition.
Wow, I will have to give it a go.
-
Wow, I will have to give it a go.
Noise reduction is said to be very good. Just be aware of the Adobe RGB gamut limitation of output files, even if they are converted to ProRGB.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Did anyone publish a side-by-side of the new noise reduction vs other methods?
-h
-
Either it refuses DNG or it is refusing Camera: DNG Converter
I am trying to load this stress test:
http://www.libraw.su/data/porcupine.dng (http://www.libraw.su/data/porcupine.dng)
Tif doesnt work. Anyone know how to get this loaded?
The noise on regular Raws looks good. The detail looks equivalent to AMAZE demosaic, Maybe they have started using it? Only basic USM is offered for sharpening. Colors look a bit strange. That may be me needing more time with it.
-
Here is a side by side screenshot of DxO 9 vs RT Both are using their D600 color profiles.
I would say DxO does well on default color. RT needs some tweaking to get it close to the View NX, DxO colors which are similar.
On detail RT has the advantage. Here is DxO with sharpening 100 while RT has sharpening off, just using mild Contrast by Detail which is richardson-lucy. The difference is clearly visible in the fine veins of the petals.
The biggest strong points of DXO remain the lens corrections for people using zooms or cheap primes that are in the database. The auto corrections save you having to make your own if you need them. Color saturation is still over the top. The NR seems very good. If you like the idea of better than camera jpgs with minimal work DxO is the right product.
-
Try the Neutral or Neutral 2 color rendering.
-
FYI, it seems that DxO has just added support in DxO 9.1 for some of the Zeiss lenses for, at least, the D800.
This includes the new Otus 55mm f1.4 APO, 135mm f2.0 APO, 50mm f2.0,...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm loving these images Bernad...B/W are super!
Well done!
-
I've been using V9 for four weeks now, processed over 100 images, and really like it. V6.2 worked fine on my old machine but I could not get further updates to work. That machine started dying so I got a refurbished Windows 7, 3.1 ghtz processor, 4 gigs RAM and a 1T HD. a very inexpenive computer that works good. V6 would just crash on the new machine but V9 is perfectly stable and runs at light speed compared to the older setup.
I've been with DXO since V3 or V4 and can't stand ACR or other processors.
and I had a few images we took inside a Kiva in Blanding, Utah where the light comes in only through an entrance hole in the roof. I had to set my old Canon 20D, a camera that is near 10 years old now, on ISO 1600 and underexposed to a certain extent to get the shots. PRIME just blows me away. It made those images look great even when I brought up details in deep shadows. Normally I don't go past ISO 800 on that camera. It took away the sensor patterns, all the other noise and kept an amazing amount of details. I used the standard High on the other images, all the noise is gone, all the fine detail remains. I no longer use Noiseware plugin. They have done some stellar work thoughout this entire version.
-
Support for Sony A7R, but NOT for the new Zeiss 35 mm FE, or Zeiss 55mm FE. I have a big investment in Zeiss and minolta A mount glass for my A900. Would it be possibl for DXO to build profiles for the A7R plus Sony LAEA 4 adapter and A lenses? They already have those lens profiles built for the A900. Just wishing...
Dave in NJ
-
Noise reduction is said to be very good. Just be aware of the Adobe RGB gamut limitation of output files, even if they are converted to ProRGB.
Cheers,
Bart
This is important to remember, folks. High end monitors and modern printers easily print well beyond Adobe RGB, therefore you are potentially loosing color information if you use DXO Optics Pro! I find it inexcusable that DXO uses Adobe RGB as its internal working gamut, how myopic of them.
-
I've tried new noise filter and its very good. Here is the test - handheld shot at ISO 25600 with default preset + PRIME NR.
-
For what it is worth, I have spent more time working with DxO vs C1 Pro and have to revise my judgement a bit downwards for DxO.
For the D800, I still find C1 Pro a bit superior at low ISO in terms of colors, tone mapping and detail extraction. I'll stick to the following:
- tripod images -> C1 Pro,
- all others -> DxO
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is important to remember, folks. High end monitors and modern printers easily print well beyond Adobe RGB, therefore you are potentially loosing color information if you use DXO Optics Pro! I find it inexcusable that DXO uses Adobe RGB as its internal working gamut, how myopic of them.
I find this quite astonishing. What year does DxO think this is--1998? I suppose that it won't matter much for people with narrow gamut monitors and printers. There are other inexplicable deficiencies in DxO 9. For instance, it cannot open Adobe DNG files. Why? I have no idea, but it is not a technically difficult feat. Even minuscule freeware raw convertors, such as Raw Photo Processor (RPP), can do it. I bought DxO 9 for the sole purpose of having the Prime NR engine available for very high ISO images with extreme levels of noise. (Even Prime is not without its issues, such as blotchiness in out of focus areas.) But I cannot see any reason to use the program on other images. Color space considerations aside, it is slow and clunky, and the output is not the best.
Rob
-
I find this quite astonishing. What year does DxO think this is--1998? I suppose that it won't matter much for people with narrow gamut monitors and printers. There are other inexplicable deficiencies in DxO 9. For instance, it cannot open Adobe DNG files. Why? I have no idea, but it is not a technically difficult feat. Even minuscule freeware raw convertors, such as Raw Photo Processor (RPP), can do it. I bought DxO 9 for the sole purpose of having the Prime NR engine available for very high ISO images with extreme levels of noise. (Even Prime is not without its issues, such as blotchiness in out of focus areas.) But I cannot see any reason to use the program on other images. Color space considerations aside, it is slow and clunky, and the output is not the best.
Rob
Having recently added to my "arsenal" of cameras a Ricoh GXR with the M-Mount, which mirrors Leica in employing the Adobe DNG raw format, I have been in an ongoing (and quite pleasant) dialogue with a DxO rep on this issue for several weeks. I have been a dedicated user of of DxO up to its Version 8, but have been reluctant though to upgrade to the new Version 9 until (or if) this DNG issue is resolved. She (Alison) tells me their techs are currently working on this (I sent them, at their request, a sample DNG photo from my camera for their inspection) and Alison believes the matter will shortly, eventually be resolved. If I hear anything further, positive or negative, on the matter I'll let the forum know.
Jim
-
Having recently added to my "arsenal" of cameras a Ricoh GXR with the M-Mount, which mirrors Leica in employing the Adobe DNG raw format, I have been in an ongoing (and quite pleasant) dialogue with a DxO rep on this issue for several weeks. I have been a dedicated user of of DxO up to its Version 8, but have been reluctant though to upgrade to the new Version 9 until (or if) this DNG issue is resolved. She (Alison) tells me their techs are currently working on this (I sent them, at their request, a sample DNG photo from my camera for their inspection) and Alison believes the matter will shortly, eventually be resolved. If I hear anything further, positive or negative, on the matter I'll let the forum know.
Jim
Jim,
I have a Pentax K-01 that only produces raw DNG files. DxO9 can open them, but it cannot open Adobe DNG files. The reason for this is that Pentax DNG is not quite the same as Adobe DNG. I suspect that your GXR DNG files would be OK. If you want to send me one, I can try to open it on my computer and let you know how it goes.
Rob
-
Jim,
I have a Pentax K-01 that only produces raw DNG files. DxO9 can open them, but it cannot open Adobe DNG files. The reason for this is that Pentax DNG is not quite the same as Adobe DNG. I suspect that your GXR DNG files would be OK. If you want to send me one, I can try to open it on my computer and let you know how it goes.
Rob
Rob: Many thanks for the kind offer. However, it's because I can't open my DNG files in my DxO -- in practice, not in the abstract -- that I initiated my conversation with the DxO rep. I don't know whether DxO can handle DNG files as produced from the Leica digital cameras themselves, but I have assumed that the GXR DNG files wold have been intended by Ricoh to be the same as the Leica files, as the purpose of their A-12 M-Mount is to use Leica M-Mount lenses. Well, we'll just wait and see. Thanks again. Jim
-
I thought one of the main benefits of DNG files was to eliminate such issues.
-
As an update to my still ongoing dialogue with the "friendly" DxO rep, after more than two months she regularly informs me that they're still "working on it." At her request I've sent them several DNG photos directly from my SD card from my Ricoh GXR M-Mount for them to examine. Needless to say, at this stage I'm no longer hopeful that they'll be able to resolve "their" DNG problem.
-
As an update to my still ongoing dialogue with the "friendly" DxO rep, after more than two months she regularly informs me that they're still "working on it." At her request I've sent them several DNG photos directly from my SD card from my Ricoh GXR M-Mount for them to examine. Needless to say, at this stage I'm no longer hopeful that they'll be able to resolve "their" DNG problem.
After several more email exchanges over the past few weeks with my still-friendly DxO rep, she has finally informed me that:
"We currently support the Leica:
M (Typ 240)
M9/ M9-P/ M-E
and that does include .DNG support because that is the main image format.
However, the GXR using the A12 Mount will not show up as supported, so unfortunately they will not be able to be corrected. I am not sure why we did not support the GXR and you are correct that since it is being discontinued I doubt the module will be created.
Please let me know if you have any questions."
So, I guess the case (for me anyway) is closed. But she does, as you note, claim they do support DNG files from the various digital Leica models themselves."
-
I thought one of the main benefits of DNG files was to eliminate such issues.
several manufacturers of raw converters take a stance that they will only support raw files the way a camera's firmware wrote them (let us call this OOC raw, like OOC jpg)... so it is not about DNG or non DNG - it is about OOC raw (DNG or not - however where camera produces both DNG and non DNG, like Pentax used to, some decided to support only non DNG raw - now that probably was more political) vs converted DNG (from OOC raw)...
-
I can see both sides of the issue concerning DXO's not including the ability to read files that were converted to dng. DXO probably does not want that variable (conversion to dng) in the workflow that is producing either the customer's satisfaction or dissatisfaction. In other words, if a customer is having an issue with the processing of a raw image, DXO may not want to have the Adobe variable in the mix.
Personally, I think not including the capability to read/process a file converted to dng is just as shortsighted and closed minded as limiting users to AdobeRGB as the largest color space and not incorporating ProPhotoRGB as a legitimate option.
It is a real shame because DXO Optics could be SO much better. It COULD be a contender for the best processor against Lightroom/ACR and Phase 1.
DXO does have a really nice customer service rep. I can not remember her name, but she is a good one....lol...very patient being in the middle of pixel peepers and engineers..... :o
-
several manufacturers of raw converters take a stance that they will only support raw files the way a camera's firmware wrote them (let us call this OOC raw, like OOC jpg)... so it is not about DNG or non DNG - it is about OOC raw (DNG or not - however where camera produces both DNG and non DNG, like Pentax used to, some decided to support only non DNG raw - now that probably was more political) vs converted DNG (from OOC raw)...
Unless I don't understand the terminology correctly, my Ricoh GXR M-mount's firmware DOES write the files in DNG, the same as the Leica cameras do. It does not "convert" them to DNG. What am I missing?
-
Unless I don't understand the terminology correctly, my Ricoh GXR M-mount's firmware DOES write the files in DNG, the same as the Leica cameras do. It does not "convert" them to DNG. What am I missing?
You can also convert a .nef or .cr2 file to DNG and it appears that converted to DNG files are persona no grata.
DXO could simply have a [dismissible] warning dialogue saying they prefer the original out of camera raw file and the user could carry on if they want to.
Though does it really make that much difference, as I thought the file types were more of a wrapper for the raw information? Which is a common thing with video/music files and converted DNGs were likewise simply rewrapped.
-
You can also convert a .nef or .cr2 file to DNG and it appears that converted to DNG files are persona no grata.
DXO could simply have a [dismissible] warning dialogue saying they prefer the original out of camera raw file and the user could carry on if they want to.
Though does it really make that much difference, as I thought the file types were more of a wrapper for the raw information? Which is a common thing with video/music files and converted DNGs were likewise simply rewrapped.
So, if I convert my DNG files from my camera card to TIFF (using Lightroom or Photoshop for that purpose), then feed the converted TIFF files to DxO (which has been my current work-around), am I losing anything in the DxO processing from not having a RAW file accepted? I can't compare results, as DxO won't accept my camera card's DNG files.
-
Well you are not working on the raw data so things like white balance adjustment, highlight recovery will be severely compromised as a Tiff is no different from a high quality jpeg in this context.
Is DXO even worth the effort is what you should be asking. I've played with it in the past and found it clumsy in use, so stayed with LR and now wouldn't even consider it with its DNG limitations.
I do not convert my files to DNG, but I do not want to not be allowed the option of doing so.
-
Well you are not working on the raw data so things like white balance adjustment, highlight recovery will be severely compromised as a Tiff is no different from a high quality jpeg in this context.
Is DXO even worth the effort is what you should be asking. I've played with it in the past and found it clumsy in use, so stayed with LR and now wouldn't even consider it with its DNG limitations.
I do not convert my files to DNG, but I do not want to not be allowed the option of doing so.
I hear you. Many thanks. I think I must rethink my processing procedures. I'm stuck with DNG for my Ricoh GXR M-Mount, and with Sigma Photo Pro (SPP) for my Sigma SD15 Foveon sensor (which also isn't recognized by DxO!) However, DxO works fine with my Sony Nex 5n raw files. Oh, well....
-
I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree here. It's not the DNG format that DxO is rejecting. The real problem is that they haven't developed a set of corrections for that camera platform. They take a whole series of measurements to generate specific corrections for every single sensor/lens combination they support. That one probably just hasn't risen to the level of adoption that caused them to become interested.
-
I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree here. It's not the DNG format that DxO is rejecting. The real problem is that they haven't developed a set of corrections for that camera platform.
An issue appears to be cameras they do support, but not if their files are converted to DNG. A slightly different problem from the usual, camera not supported.
-
I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree here. It's not the DNG format that DxO is rejecting. The real problem is that they haven't developed a set of corrections for that camera platform. They take a whole series of measurements to generate specific corrections for every single sensor/lens combination they support. That one probably just hasn't risen to the level of adoption that caused them to become interested.
It's interesting that DxO didn't begin to support Leica digital cameras (and DNG) until its recent issuance (at the end of 2013) of its current Version 9. It's not as if Leica is a latecomer to the industry!
-
I don't think it's a matter of "new." It's a matter of potential customer base. Best Buy probably sold more Rebels last week than the entire production run of M8s.
-
That is very probably true, but seeing as DXO like to be seen as a processor of high quality imagery, then to snub Leica is a daft move. Particularly as many Leica owners are very likely to possess a camera that DXO does support and so they are getting rid of those Canikonpus users too.
-
That is very probably true, but seeing as DXO like to be seen as a processor of high quality imagery, then to snub Leica is a daft move. Particularly as many Leica owners are very likely to possess a camera that DXO does support and so they are getting rid of those Canikonpus users too.
Well, I suppose Leica owners could think of it as a "snub" against them, but if you ever cruise the DxO boards, it would appear that everyone is disgusted that some lens/camera combination of theirs is not supported, Nikon and Canon owners included. It will probably always be that way. I don't know how DxO chooses their testing priorities, but I'm sure glad that's not my job.
-
Well, I suppose Leica owners could think of it as a "snub" against them, but if you ever cruise the DxO boards, it would appear that everyone is disgusted that some lens/camera combination of theirs is not supported, Nikon and Canon owners included. It will probably always be that way. I don't know how DxO chooses their testing priorities, but I'm sure glad that's not my job.
I've been using DxO satisfactorily for years now with my Sony Nex 5n which I employ only with legacy manual-focus (35mm film) lenses, for which DxO has never worked out specific lens/camera combinations. The fact that the Nex camera in itself is supported enables me, though, to benefit I believe from most, if not perhaps all, that DxO has to offer. Their not subsequently supporting my DNG files when I acquired my Ricoh GXR was, and still is, a real disappointment.
-
So has anyone here compared LR + DXO recently to see how they stack up?
-
So has anyone here compared LR + DXO recently to see how they stack up?
I'm not much of a tester, but about a week ago, I shot a brick wall in the alley behind my house at night with a 6D and a 50 1.4. 6400 ISO I think. Then I ran the shot through LR and DxO. The noise reduction in DxO was clearly superior. Surprisingly, the lens correction appeared to be kind of a wash.
-
I'm not a fan of noise reduction as yes there may be less noise, but usually the image degrades horribly in the process. Which is what I've seen with DXO examples.
But then I used to shoot high speed film and then pushed it further to get nice grain, so I don't have an issue with noise/grain per se.
Colour noise [very easily removed] and sensor banding however always look cack.
-
I'm not much of a tester, but about a week ago, I shot a brick wall in the alley behind my house at night with a 6D and a 50 1.4. 6400 ISO I think. Then I ran the shot through LR and DxO. The noise reduction in DxO was clearly superior. Surprisingly, the lens correction appeared to be kind of a wash.
I agree with Misirlou. In my opinion, on my own shots, DXO has a definite advantage in noise reduction on noisy images. This advantage does come at a price though. Processing time is a good bit longer when you use the Prime noise reduction. I still use Lightroom for all images except the really noisy ones. I still believe that Lightroom has the best overall package. DXO is easy to use and may offer a bit more control when compared to Lightroom. Image quality is very good from both LR and DXO. But, as mentioned earlier, there is the lack of ProPhoto support in the DXO workflow. This is a big minus to me.
You should try both and decide for yourself which is the best for you, your workflow, and your images.