DxO Optics Pro vs. Camera RAW

[jeffmoll]

Hey, just wondering how many out there have used DxO and what their opinions of it are and how they think it compares to Adobe's Camera RAW. I have DxO but Have pretty much gone entirely to using Camera RAW. I have the non-elite version of DxO but can't use it since I upgraded to a Canon pro body. Is it worth upgrading?

[Donald]

Is it worth upgrading?

That's clearly got to be a matter of personal choice ... and depth of pocket. I use DxO. Have never used ACR. So cannot compare the two. I think both are more than adequate in terms of providing the means for high quality processing.

If you've already got ACR up and running and like it, there would have to be a very good reason to spend on the Elite DxO to handle your pro body. Despite my liking for DxO, I'm not sure that there would be a good enough reason.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Jeff,

I'm a 100% Adobe person and personally (having used DxO), I have to say I really can't find a use for it;

(a) As far as I know DxO STILL doesn't support DNG as an input file format

(b) The latest versions or ACR and Photoshop have camera / lens correction data, along with some VERY powerful manipulation tools

(c) With Bridge / ACR / Photoshop you get seemless integration between the 3 (including smart objects).

So in my opinion DxO is a bit of an "answer in search of a question" these days.

Just my opinion!

[Donald]

So in my opinion DxO is a bit of an "answer in search of a question" these days.

The question is - What's an excellent bit of software for those who don't want to use ACR?

[proseak]

The question is - What's an excellent bit of software for those who don't want to use ACR?

There are quite a few out there...

http://www.scarablabs.com/scarab-darkroom

http://www.heliconsoft.com/ which uses DNG as one of it's means of dealing with RAW, btw

http://www.rawtherapee.com/

http://www.wizards.de/rawdrop/ is one for those who want to peek under the bonnet a little.

There are more...many more!

[carregwen]

I know CS5 is a big outlay, but consider it an investment. You might be happy to pay £600 for a new lens, so why pull back at spending the same on a processing system that will do everything? The upgrades come out approximately every 18 months and cost about £180 - CS4 to CS5 cost that. That works out at £10 a month for the upgrades. It's not exactly a lot, is it? If you are going to be a photographer for at least the next 10 years, then the total cost of the initial product and the upgrades works out at £1,730 or 47 pence a day. Keep it for more than 10 years and that figure comes down.

If you are just doing family/pet shots, and never aim to do much other than enjoy your shots (nothing wrong with that) then you don't need it. But if you want to put your shots out there in competitions, show at camera clubs, hang high-quality images on your wall, then I think you do need it.

You don't have to upgrade every time. You can skip updates if you feel there is nothing much there for you. You can always upgrade from several levels back.

[jeffmoll]

Thanks for the responses! From my experience I think ACR does a better job and makes finer adjustments. My brother-in-law recently went to using Lightroom 3 from DxO and has been saying I should do the same. Right now I'm using ACR in CS4.

Donald,
I like your work and it intrigues me that you use DxO. I personally found that with the newest version they made the controls a little clumsy since they added so much more range of adjustment to all the different controls. You are obviously more proficient with than I am!

Just a personal note too... I snooped around your site and noticed your comments on shooting B/W since you suffer from a certain amount of color blindness (my father does too, he can't see reds and greens, they just look greyish brown to him.) I personally love the high emotional and visual impact of a well composed B/W image. I love photographs (and endeavor to create them) that are different from the way we normally see things whether it be a tasteful use of wide angle distortion or B/W. So thanks for letting me learn from your work

[Donald]

Jeff

Thanks for your comments.

Re DxO, as I've grown in experience and, hopefully, knowledge I'm better at capturing what I want to achieve as the end result. So, my touch in DxO and, then, in the GIMP is much less and lighter than it once was. I have the DxO modules loaded in for all my camera/lens combinations, so that takes care of an awful lot automatically.

For conversion to B & W, my starting point is DxOs default conversion and I adjust from there. Although I have made a couple of B & W conversion presets of my own, I tend to go with DxO's default. By far and away my favourite tool is the multi-point colour balance. This allows for an infinite adjustment of tone to a very fine degree.

Given it's commerial success and the resources available for investment, I have no doubt that ACR and the other Adobe products offer incredibly useful and sensitive tools. What I use does what I want/need. I cannot see that I could produce better images by having these other tools. So, to that extent, I am perfectly happy and see no need to change. All I ask is that others respect that and don't suggest that because I don't use Adobe products I am somehow a lesser being.

[crisscross]

Hi, you probably breathed a sigh of relief and thought I had gone, but i do come back now and again and recommend CinC to lots of others

This just happened to be up today. I use DxO optics for any of my old 350D images I need to brush up, having originally tested it against everything I could get as a free trial when I was ill for a few weeks 2 years ago (&more recently ACR as found in CS4).

There are 2.5 points to it

(a) if you do (and you may need the posher version for newish cameras) register in your actual camera, you get the Canon RAW converter as found in their own DPP plus corrections gleaned from actual camera and lens tests - whereas ACR is 'generic' and wil do exactly the same for Canon as Nikon etc.

(b) if you are allergic to adobe (as I admit to) on grounds of either unaffordability or unusability (both inexcusable), you have an economic route to whatever main processing software you like (in my case Nikon Capture NX2)

(c) the longer I read blurb about how you do whatever it is in photoshop, the more I get the impression it is a matter of learning by rote a series of procedures and not necessarily understanding why you are doing something from a point of view of management of colour and light or even artistry, but I could be entirely wrong, hence .5 of a reason

[Donald]

... but i do come back now and again and recommend CinC to lots of others

Chris

Good to see you dipping a toe in the water again.

[crisscross]

Hi Donald

I have mostly moved to http://www.juzaforum.com and recommend it to anyone interested in Wildlife, Macro & landscape (with a general presumption against man-made other than incidentally). It is pleasingly international, has advanced tutorials by the site owner, a professional wildlife & landscapist....but the standard of posts is pretty high, not really beginners. Fine for fast learners.

[Colin Southern]

I know CS5 is a big outlay, but consider it an investment. You might be happy to pay £600 for a new lens, so why pull back at spending the same on a processing system that will do everything?

I agree. I think the same logic needs to be applied to training too; so many will spend thousands on equipment, but won't invest hundreds in learning how to use it.

[carregwen]

I think the same logic needs to be applied to training too; so many will spend thousands on equipment, but won't invest hundreds in learning how to use it.

Agree with that one. I went on a 2 day course in studio lighting last year for £270. I learnt an incredible amount about lighting and composition. It was cheap.

[Colin Southern]

ACR is 'generic' and wil do exactly the same for Canon as Nikon etc.

Not really - Adobe test each supported camera and include a profile for it with ACR. One can also add their own custom adjustments based on camera serial number.

[Geoff F]

Well, for some time, I have been wondering if it would be worth considering switching from Serif Photo Plus to one of the latest Adobe programmes before the Vat increase.

I had a look around at prices and versions tonight. Wow! Am I confused!

CS5 appears to be selling just short of £1000 although there are 'special offers' which appear, on close inspection, to just be upgrades, student versions, or even overpriced operating instruction books that look like they are actually the software.

I thought perhaps CS4 might be selling at a discount but just found the same confusion.

Perhaps I will have another look tomorrow if my brain stops spinning. However, my current, reasonably priced software does most of what I need, so I do wonder if I would use that much more anyway; even if I could understand it.

But to go back to Jeff's original question. I am currently using Raw Therapee 3 for conversion and I have finally almost conquered this rather unstable software. I looked at DxO at the same time as Donald but found that the download trial programme wouldn't work on my computer.

An updated stable (allegedly) version of RT 3 is promised soon. Trial versions are available as free downloads. I have managed to download it but have absolutely no idea how to get the software to install and operate on my computer. I have tried to join the RT Forum but, so far, I haven't even mastered how to register for the forum!

As I have said previously, I am from a pre digital age and, although I am reasonably happy with digital cameras, 90% of modern technology just passes way over me.

[saltyone]

I use lightroom 3 and am impressed with it, but a friend swears by DXO in particular he rants about its grain/pixel recovery and shoots everything at 6500 iso and DXO recovers it, as if shot at 100 iso.
I find lightroom does well, but does anyone else have experience of this?

[jeffmoll]

I use lightroom 3 and am impressed with it, but a friend swears by DXO in particular he rants about its grain/pixel recovery and shoots everything at 6500 iso and DXO recovers it, as if shot at 100 iso.
I find lightroom does well, but does anyone else have experience of this?

Yes, I would also say that that is one of its strongest points, it does a remarkable job with noise reduction. 6500 to 100 sounds a little stretchy... but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Especially with some of Nikon's noise handling (hey now, I am still a Canon only guy... just trying to give them at least one thing to brag about )

[crisscross]

I use lightroom 3 and am impressed with it, but a friend swears by DXO in particular he rants about its grain/pixel recovery and shoots everything at 6500 iso and DXO recovers it, as if shot at 100 iso.
I find lightroom does well, but does anyone else have experience of this?

I have found DxO good for modest light recovery as one might do later on with shadow recovery; have not tried huge shifts, but have one or two 'suitable subjects for treatment' and will try later and report back

[crisscross]

CS5 appears to be selling just short of £1000 although there are 'special offers' which appear, on close inspection, to just be upgrades, student versions, or even overpriced operating instruction books that look like they are actually the software.

I thought perhaps CS4 might be selling at a discount but just found the same confusion.

Perhaps I will have another look tomorrow

See the spawned thread Do you spend thousands on your equipment and training? I found CS4 down to £200/300; obviously care needed, but ebay shops will always answer detailed questions &, believe it or not, some people get given it for Christmas and don't want it!!

[carregwen]

CS5 appears to be selling just short of £1000 although there are 'special offers' which appear, on close inspection, to just be upgrades, student versions, or even overpriced operating instruction books that look like they are actually the software.

Geoff

Where are you looking at that price? Amazon have it for £606 http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_...5+photoshop+pc