DXO Optics Pro 8

[donaldjledet]

Was thinking about this software. But don't know anything about it.
Is it as good as L.R.4 or the ViewNX2?
Its cost about the same as L.R.4.
Anybody on here use this software for Post Processing & Printing?
Thanks

[Manfred M]

Donald - it is a RAW converter only (and a very good one).

It is a fairly advanced tool and you will still need a editor to manipulate your images. LR4 has its own RAW processor (essentially the same one used in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) that ships with Photoshop). The same can more or less be said about View NX2 (the editing tools are marginal, but it does a very good job for converting Nikon Camera RAW images).

Based on your previous questions, you might want to consider either Photoshop Elements or Lightroom as a primary editing tool. Both have distinct advantages and disadvantages.

[Donald]

Donald - We've had various discussions about on here from time-to-time.

I use it and am a completely devoted fan and advocate. However, I've never used any of the other packages to which you refer.

Some people find DxO too slow (in loading up and in processing, once you've made your changes). That doesn't impact on what I do and the way I work. I can recognise that if you were doing high volume stuff, it could get a bit of a nuisance, if you want to have things turned around in a few minutes rather than in many minutes.

But, if you accept this 'inconvenience' then I think you'll find most people that have come across it, saying that DxO is the possibly the best RAW converter. But (and there are always 'buts'), many people who use ACR, which is, I understand, the RAW converter that sits with LR and Photoshop, swear that it is as good a tool as it's possible to get.

At the end of the day, you probably need to try the trial versions and make your own mind up about it.

[donaldjledet]

Isn't adobe going to start charging for L.R.4 to use it? Like Photoshop where you don't own they do?

[Manfred M]

Actually LR 5 is now out and I believe it is availalble as a standalone as well as being part of the CC rental package. Adobe has said Lightroom will continue to be a retail product (which makes sense; it has a whole different user market than Photoshop and the other Creative Suite programs).

[davidedric]

Not at the moment. Both LR4 and Photoshop Elements are available for one off purchase, and Adobe say they plan to keep them that way

Two replies for the price of one! Surprisingly for CiC they are both the same

[donaldjledet]

So its not like these pro coaches and athletes that say they are not going anywhere or to another team for the money.
Then a few weeks or months later they do just that leave.
adobe says it will stay different so we'll see .
Then I guess itwill be all right to get elements or L.R.5
Also being I have L.R.4 now and learning it, Would it be better to just upgrade to L.R.5
or elements?
Thanks

[Manfred M]

What's wrong with sticking to LR4, seeing as you own it? Master it first before trying something else. LR 5 is going to give you a few more enhanced features (I am not a great fan of LR, so I don't use it that often). If all you are planning to do is minor tweaking to the image; contrast, exposure, vibrance and a bit of colour correction, etc, may be all you need.

If you are looking to get into a bit more advanced work like compositing (combining parts of different images) and doing a bit more major surgery on the images, Elements would be worth considering.

From a technical standpoint, Lightroom is a parametric editor; which is a nice way of saying all changes are made by changing the instructions on how to display the image. Elements is a pixel based editor where you actually permanently change the individual pixels in an image (which is the way Element's big brother; Photoshop works).


The reason that Adobe has gone subscription on the Creative Suite is that it is their professional package that sells for a lot of money; and is primarily an anti-piracy move on their part. Photoshop is supposedly the most pirated piece of software around. Personally, I also think it is a money grab on their part, and helps from a cash flow basis; they would make a lot of money every 2 years when they launch a new version, and revenues would taper off between releases; this way they get a monthly income stream. I doubt that Elements and LR have the same impact on their bottom line.

[donaldjledet]

Ok. Thanks,
The reason I had asked is because in L.R.4 I tried to find the brushes where i can remove power lines, fences,posts, and other things that get in the way of the photo.

[tomkinsr]

I use Nikon ViewNX 2. I shoot RAW (NEF).
The NEF file contains metadata from the Nikon Camera and the Nikkor Lens that ViewNX 2 will use in processing the image data. This data is proprietary and no other application has access to this data. DX Optics Pro come close to a similar metadata for image processing by doing extensive lens testing on various Nikkor lenses.
I do all my RAW processing with ViewNX 2 and if I want to do more sophisticated stuff, I export a 16 bit per channel TIFF image and use Corel PaintShop Pro to do spatial and some spectral processing.

Nikon ViewNX 2 is free and is superfast and is well supported by Nikon. I have been in touch with their technical support people many times and they provide knowledgeable and informative responses and help out with problems. The original company that created ViewNX 2 was purchased by Google, so if you're a fan of Google, how can you not be a fan of Nikon ViewNX 2.

If I were going to make a choice between LightRoom and something else, I would definitely choose Nikon Capture. I used it for the 30 day trial and it has an excellent work flow and excellent tools and User Interface.

Was thinking about this software. But don't know anything about it.
Is it as good as L.R.4 or the ViewNX2?
Its cost about the same as L.R.4.
Anybody on here use this software for Post Processing & Printing?
Thanks

[Donald]

Ok. Thanks,
The reason I had asked is because in L.R.4 I tried to find the brushes where i can remove power lines, fences,posts, and other things that get in the way of the photo.

I know that people rave about the tool in Photoshop for doing this sort of stuff (can't remember it's name). I don't know what's available in LR for this. But DxO's dust removal tool is brilliant. Yes it's for dust spots, but wipe the brush along a power line or up a lamppost and it does a wonderful job of removing it.

[Manfred M]

I
The original company that created ViewNX 2 was purchased by Google, so if you're a fan of Google, how can you not be a fan of Nikon ViewNX 2.

That being said; Google did not purchase that part of the NIK software business, so I'm not sure how strong an endorsement that is.

[donaldjledet]

Thanks Donald and Manfred that answered a lot of what I'm trying to Learn.

[donaldjledet]

See things like this mess wire would like to get rid of.

[Manfred M]

Donald - the basic rule in photography is "get it right in the camera".

I would classify what you want done as "major surgery" and if I were to attempt it at all, it would be in a fairly labour intensive exercise using full a full version of Photoshop; as everything that is obscured by the fence would have to be rebuilt by hand.

This is not something one could use View NX2, DxO Optics Pro or Lightroom for. There is no "get rid of fence" function in Photoshop.

[Donald]

I would classify what you want done as "major surgery"

Manfred

I could not agree with you more. I am very 'anti' fiddling with things in the picture to extract things that are in the frame. I think i have written on here before that if I'm not good enough to compose the image so that the things in the viewfinder should be there and the things that I don't want are excluded, then I shouldn't press the shutter. Indeed, I have become more 'obsessive' about that over the past year or so and cannot remember when I last did cloning of this nature. I'd be terribly disappointed and hurt if people thought I engaged in that degree of 'manipulation'. Although it is a perfectly legitimate activity in which to engage.

My comment above was merely to illustrate that, in my opinion, DxO is very, very good at doing the job, not that it is an approach to photography that I take.

[donaldjledet]

OK. Thanks that is what I was trying to find out.

[davidedric]

Hi Donald,

A couple more comments:

The reason I had asked is because in L.R.4 I tried to find the brushes where i can remove power lines,

The "content aware" healing brush in PSE does this sort of thing. Sometimes (for me) it works brilliantly, sometimes it's a disaster. There is a "paint on" brush in LR 5, but that's designed for seletive editing, not cloning/healing.

I'd stick with LR4 at least till the "5.1" release comes out: some folks have done fine with LR5, some have struggled. I stay where you are.

Lastly, as has been said, there's no tool that will rescue your image. I recall that taking creatures behind, and wanting not to see the fence, the critical thing (if you are filling the frame) is the relative distance fence-to-creature and you-to-the-fence. It needs to be at least 3x - of course, the nearer you are to the fence, the less likely it will interfere badly with the shot

[jcuknz]

Ok. Thanks,
The reason I had asked is because in L.R.4 I tried to find the brushes where i can remove power lines, fences,posts, and other things that get in the way of the photo.

I simply used the 'clone' tool with a soft edge at probably around 50% density here Back in the fray and with a new lens Whoohoo!

But I am using Paint Shop Pro which was vastely superior to earlier PSE versions, comparable with PS, though I have not seen current versions of either to know if that is still the case... you can usually get 'last years' version of PSP cheaper than PSE on Amazon. I am running with PSPx4 and do not really see a need to buy PSPx5 .... also have a copy from Amazon of PSPx3 in my notebook and have not noticed any great difference to PSPx4 in my desktop.

Edit ... If you have a 'proper' editor [ my emphasis ] such as PSP, PS, GIMP, Paint Net [ a free download of limited ability ] then you can do lots of useful things and things in front of the subject depends on how good you get with the programme. PSP is considerably cheaper than PS and as above even PSE.
On reflection I can see some things I would do differently with this character as he was "Breaking Out!" but for now that's it

Or "Deerie" standing behind a deer fence ...

[Manfred M]

Donald – While I understand Donald MacKenzie’s view (and is held by a lot of people), it is not one I follow. Photographers impose particular restrictions on the methods that they use in their own work flow / creative process. I know some that refuse to use filters, tripods or use supplemental lighting or light modifiers. Others restrict what they do in post-processing, allowing only minor tweaks (if any at all) to what comes out of their camera. Who am I to tell them how to pursue their own work? The only time I sometimes worked up is when people start discussing the “ethics” of retouching.

I have no issues whatsoever in removing unwanted elements or replacing something part of an image with something else to create something that is more esthetically pleasing. I find that I often need a combination of a good capture and careful post-processing to get an image that I want. In fact, I have post-processing in my mind every time I press the shutter release; it’s just the way I shoot; to me, the final product is a combination of the image capture and the post-processing step.

If my work is a bit whimsical (a phase in my work that I am actively exploring right now), the post-processing work is often quite obvious. On the other hand at other times it is far more subtle sometimes because I have done very little to the capture other than a few tweaks, but at other times, I will get into some really heavy duty “surgery” on an image to get the effect that I want. I have spent hours reworking an image when I am trying to do something special. I do understand the limitations of the post-processing tools that I use and my own abilities using them.

What is important to understand in post-processing is that the best input (image) will provide the best output. I never shoot with the view that I can fix anything in post; but often I will shoot knowing that I will be fixing something specific in post. Unfortunately, power lines, signs and other obstructions are a reality, and one can chose to not photograph a scene with a minor blemish, or one can fix things up in post. This is not a decision made lightly, because fixing something like this during capture is a lot less work than trying to do it in post; but sometimes there simply is no alternative. My experience is that in most cases, spending an extra minute spent shooting will save me 10 – 20 minutes in post.

Getting to be competent in post does take a lot of hard work and time. “Serious surgery” with post-processing software does not involve magic (well, the latest Adobe content aware functionality comes close); it generally involves painstaking attention to detail while manipulating small groups of pixels at a time; working and reworking them to get the desired results. Fixing shots like your leopard; that would be a lot of work, and frankly, I don’t see the raw materials available (nicely said, enough pixels to use) to get a decent result.

Now to comment on jcuknz’s examples; you will notice that the amount of fence versus the amount of animal is fairly small; lots of area to sample and clone from; on top of the colours being fairly even. The wide spread of your shot so close to the fence means that the fence partially obscures a lot of the leopard. The other issue is that leopards have spots; while birds do not, so there is less of an issue matching colours during the cloning operation.

There are other ways of getting clean shots of leopards.