DXO Version 5.2 is Fantastic!

[httivals]

There are a lot of complaints about DXO version 5.2 -- I thought I'd give the other side.  IMHO, it's fantastic (albeit not perfect) software.  It does fantastic raw conversions: (1) sharpness is unparalleled  -- I use lens "softness" set to "0" which based on camera, lens, f stop and focus distance, "corrects" each lens to bring it to a standard level of sharpness -- wow is it sharp and detailed without sharpening artifacts, (2) chromatic aberration is close to perfectly controlled with the same camera and lens specific controls like for sharpness, (3) ditto perfect geometric distortion control, (4) color is great (with many options including many film-specific looks), (5) DXO lighting does the best job I've seen of preserving highlight detail, shadow detail, global contrast, and micro contrast of any program I've seen -- and does it all automatically.  BTW, I've been using Photoshop for over 10 years now and am an advanced user.  I cannot duplicate in Lightroom and Photoshop what DXO achieves automatically.

I know -- there are a slew of complaints about DXO.  It's not especially fast, the interface takes getting used to (though unlike many I prefer the version 5.2 interface to the version 4.5 interface, now that I'm getting used to it), and installation can require trouble-shooting (I had to trouble shoot my 5.2 upgrade with DXO support; but they were very responsive, sending me 3 or 4 emails over a week-end, until I got it going; now it's running perfectly, knock on wood).

My workflow is (1) raw demosaicing in DXO, output to DNG files, (2) further raw conversion in Lightroom (this is still possible, though you can't go the other direction, from Lightroom to DXO), (3) output to Photoshop for additional fine adjustments where needed, output sharpening, and printing.

When DXO has profiles for your body and your lens, it offers an order of magnitude better sharpness, color, and detail than otherwise can reasonably be achieved.  It's so important to my workflow that I wait until my lenses are supported for a new body before purchasing it.  BTW, there are a lot of professional dedicated users -- including Alain Briot.  I don't think it's perfect software, but it's a beautifully flawed jewel.

[Misirlou]

There are a lot of complaints about DXO version 5.2 -- I thought I'd give the other side.  IMHO, it's fantastic (albeit not perfect) software.  It does fantastic raw conversions: (1) sharpness is unparalleled  -- I use lens "softness" set to "0" which based on camera, lens, f stop and focus distance, "corrects" each lens to bring it to a standard level of sharpness -- wow is it sharp and detailed without sharpening artifacts, (2) chromatic aberration is close to perfectly controlled with the same camera and lens specific controls like for sharpness, (3) ditto perfect geometric distortion control, (4) color is great (with many options including many film-specific looks), (5) DXO lighting does the best job I've seen of preserving highlight detail, shadow detail, global contrast, and micro contrast of any program I've seen -- and does it all automatically.  BTW, I've been using Photoshop for over 10 years now and am an advanced user.  I cannot duplicate in Lightroom and Photoshop what DXO achieves automatically.

I know -- there are a slew of complaints about DXO.  It's not especially fast, the interface takes getting used to (though unlike many I prefer the version 5.2 interface to the version 4.5 interface, now that I'm getting used to it), and installation can require trouble-shooting (I had to trouble shoot my 5.2 upgrade with DXO support; but they were very responsive, sending me 3 or 4 emails over a week-end, until I got it going; now it's running perfectly, knock on wood).

My workflow is (1) raw demosaicing in DXO, output to DNG files, (2) further raw conversion in Lightroom (this is still possible, though you can't go the other direction, from Lightroom to DXO), (3) output to Photoshop for additional fine adjustments where needed, output sharpening, and printing.

When DXO has profiles for your body and your lens, it offers an order of magnitude better sharpness, color, and detail than otherwise can reasonably be achieved.  It's so important to my workflow that I wait until my lenses are supported for a new body before purchasing it.  BTW, there are a lot of professional dedicated users -- including Alain Briot.  I don't think it's perfect software, but it's a beautifully flawed jewel.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210562\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My experience is pretty similar. Since I installed DxO 5.2, I've been very impressed.

A lot of people complain about reliability and stability issues. I've only experienced one stability problem with 5.2 in over a week of experimenting with it. This morning, I went to the review section for some processing I did last night, and DxO appeared to freeze up. I had to close it down via task manager, and once I restarted it, everything was back to normal. That freeze could have easily been caused by Windows itself. I'm not saying that other people don't have valid complaints, of course, but 5.2's working well for me.

I don't really mind the interface either. It's not as clean as Lightroom, but I don't have any serious problem with it, now that I read the user guide. It doesn't seem to react as quickly to setting changes as the Adobe products, which probably accounts for some complaints. One complicating factor for many people might be that there are far fewer sources of information for DxO than the Adobe products; the local bookstore here has dozens of different Photoshop titles, and zero DxO books for example.

And then there are the results. I have a lot of plug-ins and tricks for tweaking images in Photoshop that seem to be made obsolete by DxO. I still need all of those things though, for dealing with images that come from cameras and lenses that DxO can't handle. However, if you have a shot that DxO fully understands, the sharpness/noise and distortion corrections cannot be beat.

[The View]

There are a lot of complaints about DXO version 5.2 -- I thought I'd give the other side.  IMHO, it's fantastic (albeit not perfect) software.  It does fantastic raw conversions: (1) sharpness is unparalleled  -- I use lens "softness" set to "0" which based on camera, lens, f stop and focus distance, "corrects" each lens to bring it to a standard level of sharpness -- wow is it sharp and detailed without sharpening artifacts, (2) chromatic aberration is close to perfectly controlled with the same camera and lens specific controls like for sharpness, (3) ditto perfect geometric distortion control, (4) color is great (with many options including many film-specific looks), (5) DXO lighting does the best job I've seen of preserving highlight detail, shadow detail, global contrast, and micro contrast of any program I've seen -- and does it all automatically.  BTW, I've been using Photoshop for over 10 years now and am an advanced user.  I cannot duplicate in Lightroom and Photoshop what DXO achieves automatically.

I know -- there are a slew of complaints about DXO.  It's not especially fast, the interface takes getting used to (though unlike many I prefer the version 5.2 interface to the version 4.5 interface, now that I'm getting used to it), and installation can require trouble-shooting (I had to trouble shoot my 5.2 upgrade with DXO support; but they were very responsive, sending me 3 or 4 emails over a week-end, until I got it going; now it's running perfectly, knock on wood).

My workflow is (1) raw demosaicing in DXO, output to DNG files, (2) further raw conversion in Lightroom (this is still possible, though you can't go the other direction, from Lightroom to DXO), (3) output to Photoshop for additional fine adjustments where needed, output sharpening, and printing.

When DXO has profiles for your body and your lens, it offers an order of magnitude better sharpness, color, and detail than otherwise can reasonably be achieved.  It's so important to my workflow that I wait until my lenses are supported for a new body before purchasing it.  BTW, there are a lot of professional dedicated users -- including Alain Briot.  I don't think it's perfect software, but it's a beautifully flawed jewel.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210562\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for posting this, especially your points on image quality/conversion quality.

Ease of use is overestimated by many, who even sacrifice quality for it - or aren't quality concerned in the first place (like a "consumer reports" review, where mediocre products regularly beat excellent products for their "ease of use").

I'm currently using DPP as I can't do too much testing at this time, but I'm going to download the trial of DxO, and compare it to Capture One Pro and see, which one of these I'm going to use in future (along with DPP or not, I'll see.

I'd just be interested why you don't do all the RAW work in DxO, but go to Lightroom from there, and to Photoshop.

[BruceHouston]

Thanks for posting this, especially your points on image quality/conversion quality.

Ease of use is overestimated by many, who even sacrifice quality for it - or aren't quality concerned in the first place (like a "consumer reports" review, where mediocre products regularly beat excellent products for their "ease of use").

I'm currently using DPP as I can't do too much testing at this time, but I'm going to download the trial of DxO, and compare it to Capture One Pro and see, which one of these I'm going to use in future (along with DPP or not, I'll see.

I'd just be interested why you don't do all the RAW work in DxO, but go to Lightroom from there, and to Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ditto to the question posed by the last poster, specifically what functions do you find better-performed in Lightroom?

Bruce

[httivals]

Ditto to the question posed by the last poster, specifically what functions do you find better-performed in Lightroom?

Bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use Lightroom primarily for image selection; it's database/search functions are great.  Also, I am very comfortable with the image adjustment controls in lightroom, since I've been using Adobe Raw since it's very first version, and read Bruce Fraser's book, Adobe Camera Raw.  Lightroom updates the preview image almost instantaneously, whereas DXO is much slower.  I therefore find Lightroom better (easier) for fine tuning exposure, fill, shadow point, etc.

[Misirlou]

I use Lightroom primarily for image selection; it's database/search functions are great.  Also, I am very comfortable with the image adjustment controls in lightroom, since I've been using Adobe Raw since it's very first version, and read Bruce Fraser's book, Adobe Camera Raw.  Lightroom updates the preview image almost instantaneously, whereas DXO is much slower.  I therefore find Lightroom better (easier) for fine tuning exposure, fill, shadow point, etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Also, there's no equivalent to the print module in DxO.

[Farkled]

I am an inexperienced user of DPP, ACR and DxO.  I've also tried Bibble and Lightzone (which won't run on my P4 machine)  DxO gets better results on auto than I can get get with the others - or at worst equal.  As stated, it can be slow, glacial on a P4 1GB machine, but it runs and runs well with other processes running, including heavy FireFox use.  I. too, output DNG for anything that I expect to to further editing on - just to preserve options.

I am impressed enough to have bought it.