DXO 2 & Calibrated Sigma 18-35mm

[Abitconfused]

Scary sharp at 948kb...



The New DXO seems better organized and the Prime noise reduction works very well.

[Abitconfused]

Image 25600 ISO, the highest ISO on the Nikon D7100. Sigma 18-35mm & DXO 2 Prime noise reduction...

[Manfred M]

The New DXO seems better organized and the Prime noise reduction works very well.

The current organization of the software has been around for a few years, as has the Prime noise reduction (the main reason I use DxO). The big addition in this year's version is the addition of control point technology, although we saw early moves of this in the previous version. When it comes to noise; check it with an image that has a lot of very dark tones, that's where the problem crops up most often in high ISO images and is most challenging to deal with.

The sharpness you see is simply your technique and your equipment.

[Abitconfused]

I know you are correct Manfred but I am so a fan of DXO that my perspective is addled!

[Manfred M]

I know you are correct Manfred but I am so a fan of DXO that my perspective is addled!

Donald is another user who likes the product. It may not be as popular as Lightroom / ACR or Capture One, but it has its strengths as well. I don't use it for every shot, but I would say I use it in around 5% - 10% of my work, especially when I shoot at night or at higher ISO settings.

[billtils]

I'm curious to see where the DxO - NIK thing ends up. I have DxO PL and used it mainly for noise reduction but while impressed with the results, found that Dfine2 did all I wanted and was easier to use.

The answer to most (if not all) cases of "which is better" will always be coloured by the user's familiarity with the product and how well it fits with their established or preferred workflow, which means that you are NOT confused E. James. just normal

[Donald]

Donald is another user who likes the product.

I do indeed and I use it for 100% of images.

My workflow is now to start in DXO, doing what, I believe, DXO does better than any other tool I've used. Save the file as a .dng. The .cr2 (Canon) file can then be stored away for any future use.

When I open Photoshop it automatically goes to ACR and I can do what I believe ACR does better (removing dust bunnies for example). Then the .dng is worked in Photoshop (and ACR) until it's completed at which time it is saved as as .psd.

[Arjung]

I do indeed and I use it for 100% of images.

My workflow is now to start in DXO, doing what, I believe, DXO does better than any other tool I've used. Save the file as a .dng. The .cr2 (Canon) file can then be stored away for any future use.

When I open Photoshop it automatically goes to ACR and I can do what I believe ACR does better (removing dust bunnies for example). Then the .dng is worked in Photoshop (and ACR) until it's completed at which time it is saved as as .psd.

I do use DXO but find it to a bit on the slow side to review photos. I recently started using Photo Mechanic as I find that a lot faster to review and sort photographs. Do you have any views / suggestions on this?

[Donald]

I do use DXO but find it to a bit on the slow side to review photos. I recently started using Photo Mechanic as I find that a lot faster to review and sort photographs. Do you have any views / suggestions on this?

DXO is not for reviewing and sorting photos. It is a RAW processor. Don't blame it for not being very good at something it is not designed for.

I sort and review all my images in Bridge. Then I begin finishing with DXO as per my post above.

[davidedric]

I've adopted a similar workflow to Donald, though in my case may core software is Lightroom.

If I start in Lightroom, then I have to pass the images to DxO one at a time, and then wait for it come back. But if I start in DxO then I can batch up the processing and carry on in Lightroom as soon as the first one arrives.

At the moment, I just use a preset in DxO with PRIME and a touch of smart lighting (I hope I've got the name right), and of course the lens corrections.

A couple of questions:

If you use DxO as a front end, what adjustments do you do?

What are the relative merits of passing a TIFF or a dng back to your other software?

Thanks, Dave

[Arjung]

I've adopted a similar workflow to Donald, though in my case may core software is Lightroom.

If I start in Lightroom, then I have to pass the images to DxO one at a time, and then wait for it come back. But if I start in DxO then I can batch up the processing and carry on in Lightroom as soon as the first one arrives.

At the moment, I just use a preset in DxO with PRIME and a touch of smart lighting (I hope I've got the name right), and of course the lens corrections.

A couple of questions:

If you use DxO as a front end, what adjustments do you do?

What are the relative merits of passing a TIFF or a dng back to your other software?

Thanks, Dave

Photo Mechanic for culling and reviewing. After deciding which photos to process, I use DxO for 100% of my RAW adjustments. Files are then converted to JPEGS so they can be viewed with any software - primarily Photo Mechanic

[george013]

How do you deal with that 75% border in DxO. Under the 75% zoom my pictures are getting much less sharp as above. What I understood opencl related.

George

[Donald]

I don't have that problem. My images are at the same sharpness no matter what level I am viewing them at.

[george013]

I don't have that problem. My images are at the same sharpness no matter what level I am viewing them at.

I don't understand why I do. And I'm not the only one I know.
https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/art...h-DxO-PhotoLab.

George

[Arjung]

I don't have this problem either

A question to Donald. Is it worth migrating to DxO PL2?

[Donald]

A question to Donald. Is it worth migrating to DxO PL2?

Members other than me will have a view on this.

If the Clearview (Haze control) tool is important. If Photo Library (which is what your original post was about) is important. Then, Yes, it is well worth migrating. These are the new/improved features that are headlining this version.

The other tools may have minor adjustments to improve them but you can still work perfectly satisfactory with the version that you already have.

For me the most important features are noise reduction, automatic chromatic aberration control and automatic distortion control and automatic capture sharpening, the last two of which are based on the camera + lens combination as identified and applied by DXO.

[Manfred M]

Let me add my comments to this discussion. I've only recently upgraded to PhotoLab 2, but to me, they have now implemented .dcp profiles, which was one thing I always use (in Camera Raw) so this is a significant step forward for me. The new browser functionality in the Library is also very much appreciated. I have yet to test the new ClearView Plus dehazing functionality, but am glad that they are working on this aspect of the software as well.

My workflow is similar to Donald's as I use Adobe Camera Raw, rather than Lightroom as my link from PhotoLab to Photoshop.

In my workflow I export the work done in PhotoLab as a dng file. I do no additional work there and in fact turn off the default sharpening as I don't want to sharpen the same image twice. Now that DxO has incorporated the .dcp profile, I will look at exporting the file as a 16-bit TIFF as I no longer need to handle that part of the operation in ACR.

The main reason I will continue to use PhotoLab 2 from time to time is the superior noise reduction associated with Prime and the superior camera / lens profiling that software offers (including CA reduction). At this point I see no advantage to Other than that, I will stick to the ACR / Photoshop workflow in most of my work.

[davidedric]

With my micro four thirds cameras I'm convinced that PhotoLab does a better RAW coinversion than Lightroom / Camera RAW, irrespective of noise, which is why I use it on all my images. Others in micro four thirds forums have formed the same view, and there is no cost to me in time - in fact some saving since I only pass potential keepers to Lightroom.

A question I asked earlier got a bit lost. Can anyone comment on the pros and cons of passing a dng or a TIFF from PhotoLab to another programme?

Thanks, Dave

[Donald]

A question I asked earlier got a bit lost. Can anyone comment on the pros and cons of passing a dng or a TIFF from PhotoLab to another programme?

I don't think there is any great difference. However, the thing about using .dng is that the transfer into Photoshop means that it first of all opens up in ACR. There I do things that I like to do first in ACR (e.g. get rid of dust bunnies). I could do that as a .tiff, but it would mean opening it up in Photoshop and then in ACR. The other plus for me is that all of work in Photoshop is done with the file remaining as a .dng. Only when I flatten all the layers, adjust size and want to file it as being complete, do I save it a .psd.

So there is no real difference as far as I know, it is just a preference.

Someone will come on now and tell us what the differences are.

[xpatUSA]

George wrote: How do you deal with that 75% border in DxO. Under the 75% zoom my pictures are getting much less sharp as above. What I understand is openCL related.

I don't have that problem. My images are at the same sharpness no matter what level I am viewing them at.

It may be that you all define "sharp" differently.

Certainly, zooming an image in or out involves re-sampling (algorithm often unknown) and re-sampling does affect "sharpness". Putting that more bluntly, what you seen on your screen is not what's in the file unless you select 100% (no zoom, 1:1 ratio).

When I post seriously sharp images both here and on DPR, they get softened when they appear in a post, Lytebox or not.

I avoid re-sampling like the plague. I am lucky that my Sigmas are only 2640x1760px and I don't print. Keeps life very simple.