Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 2014-Lightroom vs DxO (Elite Version)  (Read 2855 times)

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 826
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
2014-Lightroom vs DxO (Elite Version)
« on: January 24, 2014, 09:53:26 pm »

Would like up-to-date opinions from those who have compared these recently for RAW processing. I hear
the latest version of DxO has greatly improved noise reduction. And, for a long time DxO is has reportedly
had excellent distortion correction profiles. What else to consider?

I am using Canon full frame cameras (5dII and 6d) and lenses if that makes a difference.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 09:55:36 pm by David Eichler »
Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: 2014-Lightroom vs DxO (Elite Version)
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2014, 02:16:00 am »

I've been using both of those since their earliest days. Both have come a long way, but in my opinion, their relative difference have remained remarkably consistent. In general, Lightroom is faster and easier to use, but DxO produces images with just a hair better quality in some specific areas.

The latest DxO noise reduction is remarkable. Combine that with the 6D's inherent outstanding low noise at high ISOs, and you enter a whole new world of low light image possibilities. I also find that if you are willing to put in the time, DxO can recover a little bit more detail than Lightroom (say in the corners of shots from fast lenses), but that will be visible mostly in large prints. DxO really improves images made with mediocre lenses via its correction processes (kit lenses suddenly become useful), but doesn't improve L lens images as much. Still better than Lightroom though.

On the other hand, you have to monkey with about a gazillion sliders to accomplish all that, and those who prefer a streamlined workflow always seem to lose patience with DxO. Lightroom default colors are usually a better starting point for me, for example.

Here's what it comes down to for me. I do all my DAM work in Lightroom, and process most of my shots there as well. But if I'm going to print something, especially something large, I almost always run it through DxO first. The only exceptions are shots from gear that DxO hasn't gotten around to analyzing (i.e. Sigma Merrill images).
Logged

Steve House

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247
Re: 2014-Lightroom vs DxO (Elite Version)
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2014, 10:50:16 am »

Lightroom works in the ProPhoto colour space while DxO max out with AdobeRGB. Could be a point in favour of LR if prints are your output of choice.
Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: 2014-Lightroom vs DxO (Elite Version)
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2014, 11:10:34 am »

Lightroom works in the ProPhoto colour space while DxO max out with AdobeRGB. Could be a point in favour of LR if prints are your output of choice.

Hasn't been a problem for me, yet.
Logged

Cem

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
    • Photographs
Re: 2014-Lightroom vs DxO (Elite Version)
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2014, 11:41:19 am »

I've been using both of those since their earliest days. Both have come a long way, but in my opinion, their relative difference have remained remarkably consistent. In general, Lightroom is faster and easier to use, but DxO produces images with just a hair better quality in some specific areas.

The latest DxO noise reduction is remarkable. Combine that with the 6D's inherent outstanding low noise at high ISOs, and you enter a whole new world of low light image possibilities. I also find that if you are willing to put in the time, DxO can recover a little bit more detail than Lightroom (say in the corners of shots from fast lenses), but that will be visible mostly in large prints. DxO really improves images made with mediocre lenses via its correction processes (kit lenses suddenly become useful), but doesn't improve L lens images as much. Still better than Lightroom though.

On the other hand, you have to monkey with about a gazillion sliders to accomplish all that, and those who prefer a streamlined workflow always seem to lose patience with DxO. Lightroom default colors are usually a better starting point for me, for example.

Here's what it comes down to for me. I do all my DAM work in Lightroom, and process most of my shots there as well. But if I'm going to print something, especially something large, I almost always run it through DxO first. The only exceptions are shots from gear that DxO hasn't gotten around to analyzing (i.e. Sigma Merrill images).
As a long time user of both, I fully agree with the comments made by Misirlou. LR is my DAM software and also the main raw converter, especially if I'm only going to post some images on the web. The main reasons for me to use DxO are the noise reduction and the lens correction of the problematic lenses including the deconvolution capture sharpening.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up