Raw & Post Processing, Printing > Digital Image Processing

DxO products 50% off

(1/2) > >>

Rajan Parrikar:
Black Friday sale.

https://www.dxo.com/

mshea:
So I usually use Topaz DeNoise. How does the DxO version compare?

Thanks,
Merrill

Chris Kern:
I don't know about DxO's other products, but I signed up for a free trial of PhotoLab, now that the product can demosaic Fuji X-Trans files.

Frankly, I was underwhelmed by its performance compared to Adobe Lightroom.  (Although, in fairness, I should point out that I only tested it with X-Trans raws.)

To be sure, by default it sharpens the Fuji files more aggressively than Lightroom does.  But I can achieve essentially the same result with Lightroom's Texture and Sharpening (Amount, Radius, Detail) sliders.  And if I invoke Adobe's machine-learning Enhance feature, I usually get a more natural result than what I was able to achieve with the same raw file in PhotoLab despite the fact that Lightroom is delivering a reconstructed image.

DxO's major advantage in the years immediately after it launched was the company's ability to exploit its proprietary optical measurements to compensate for lens defects.  But now that most manufacturers incorporate optical correction information into their lens metadata, my impression is that differences among (1) demosaicing options and (2) easily-overridden default image adjustments are mostly what differentiate one product from another—and that it's difficult for any manufacturer to achieve a significant advantage over its competitors on either of those dimensions.

Rhossydd:

--- Quote from: Chris Kern on November 29, 2021, 08:06:47 pm ---I signed up for a free trial of PhotoLab,
Frankly, I was underwhelmed by its performance compared to Adobe Lightroom.  (Although, in fairness, I should point out that I only tested it with X-Trans raws.)
--- End quote ---
The X Trans support is still described as a beta option within the software, so best not to base any judgement on those files alone.

Did you try it with any older Bayer based files ? particularly anything with medium to high ISO with the DeepPrime noise reduction ?
This is where PL is a big step above LR. DeepPrime's ability to kill noise and reveal detail is really so much better than LR's options it's worth the price alone (especially with the black Friday discount).
The lens corrections are a little more variable, some supported cameras get significantly better results than with LR, some aren't much different, anything unsupported can be better dealt with in LR and a custom lens profile.

I wouldn't use PL as my main imaging program, LR is still ahead on just about every other aspect of processing and image management. However I find running files through other convertors can often lead to different results that can sometimes work well in unexpected ways.


--- Quote --- if I invoke Adobe's machine-learning Enhance feature, I usually get a more natural result
--- End quote ---
YMMV. I've yet to spend very much time with this option as I rarely need larger files, but my experience so far isn't great. I remain to be convinced it really adds anything worthwhile.

Rajan Parrikar:

--- Quote from: mshea on November 29, 2021, 01:25:47 pm ---So I usually use Topaz DeNoise. How does the DxO version compare?

Thanks,
Merrill

--- End quote ---

In my view, DxO's DeepPrime technology is currently the best noise reduction algorithm available. It is included in both DxO PureRAW and DxO Photolab 5 but the latter offers much more control. I have Topaz DeNoise, too.

There's an ongoing discussion on the two products here -

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1730319?b=2

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page