DXO Photolab 2 as a raw converter and a complete photo editor.

[jerry1]

Hi everyone, first let me say that I am a rank amateur when it comes to any kind of photo editing. I have looked at many different converter/editor programs on youtube. Photolab 2 looks like an interesting program. I am not interested in doing layers, masking etc. I would use it for making global adjustments, some local adjustments. I would use it mainly for prints, I would be using say Costco for prints. I am not interested in doing editing in one program, and sending it to another editor for further editing. I just got a Panasonic GX8, and from what I have read, M4/3 has some issues with high iso noise, and Photolab 2 deals with that very well.
Any thoughts on what this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance for your input.
Jerry.

[Manfred M]

Jerry - I've used PhotoLab and its predecessor Optics Pro for over 10 years.

The Prime noise reduction is excellent and that is primarily the only reason I use this software. So far as I can remember, the more expensive Elite version has this functionality, while the Essential version does not. It also has excellent lens profile correction capabilities, but these are not used at all for the mFT cameras like the GX8.

I find it is a very good raw convertor, but the editing functionality is a bit cumbersome and convoluted and is targeted to the advanced user. I would never print directly from it (but then I would never print directly from any raw convertor / parametric editor); it does not do local adjustments, which I find are essential to create a good print. It does allow printer / paper profiles, so that will allow you to download the Costco Profiles from DryCreek Photo and use them. Costco tends to use the Fuji Frontier Chromogenic printers with Fuji Crystal Archive paper. The also use the large Epson ink jet photo printers for large prints.

https://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Pr...rofiles.htm#CT

I would not recommend this software for what you are trying to do.

[george013]

Jerry - I've used PhotoLab and its predecessor Optics Pro for over 10 years.

The Prime noise reduction is excellent and that is primarily the only reason I use this software. So far as I can remember, the more expensive Elite version has this functionality, while the Essential version does not. It also has excellent lens profile correction capabilities, but these are not used at all for the mFT cameras like the GX8.

I find it is a very good raw convertor, but the editing functionality is a bit cumbersome and convoluted and is targeted to the advanced user. I would never print directly from it (but then I would never print directly from any raw convertor / parametric editor); it does not do local adjustments, which I find are essential to create a good print. It does allow printer / paper profiles, so that will allow you to download the Costco Profiles from DryCreek Photo and use them. Costco tends to use the Fuji Frontier Chromogenic printers with Fuji Crystal Archive paper. The also use the large Epson ink jet photo printers for large prints.

https://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Pr...rofiles.htm#CT

I would not recommend this software for what you are trying to do.

It does have a local adjustment tab with several modules, PL1.2.

George

[odds]

It does have a local adjustment tab with several modules, PL1.2.

Yes, with "Control Point" interface like Nik Plugins (now owned by DxO) and similar to Nikon's Capture NX. I think they were available in the previous version as well.
--
Odd S.

[Donald]

I think that Photolab could easily fulfill the requirements that you have. I use it as a RAW processor only and do take files into Photoshop for finishing. That is something I think you'll want as you develop your interest/skill/desires etc. But for the moment, Photolab will do what you want.

I agree with all that Manfred says. The posts below Manfred are correct in what they say, but I think the local adjustments that Manfred speaks about are adjustments that can really only be made in a package that offers layers and masks, etc.

It is a great tool.

[Manfred M]

Many parametric editors have something they call "local adjustment tools" and Control Points are the what DxO Labs incorporated into PhotoLab. The problem with these is that the user is limited to feathered round gradients, rather than being able to actually design a mask that fits the shape of the area one is working on. Multiple overlapping control points can be applied, but again, this is a fairly crude way of working. It works reasonably well for some things and not particularly well for others.

When I prepare to print and want to apply local sharpening to areas of the image, they are definitely not precise enough. If I do a portrait and want to sharpen the eye lashes of lips without bleeding over to the adjoining skin, where I don't want to sharpen, this technology simply does not work.

[jerry1]

Thanks all for responding. About 95% of my images are landscape photos, so I thought I could use it as a "standalone" program.
Also I thought the GX8 was listed as having lens correction, obviously wrong about that. As I said I am looking for something that I can make some local adjustments, but as Manfred said use it for noise reduction.
I thank you all for the useful information.
Jerry.

[george013]

Thanks all for responding. About 95% of my images are landscape photos, so I thought I could use it as a "standalone" program.
Also I thought the GX8 was listed as having lens correction, obviously wrong about that. As I said I am looking for something that I can make some local adjustments, but as Manfred said use it for noise reduction.
I thank you all for the useful information.
Jerry.

There's a difference between supported camera's and lens correction. When I open my PL1.2 there're far over 100 modules for the GX8, camera/lens combinations.
CaptureNx2 was famous for its local adjustments using the Nik software. That's now in PL. Install a trial version and see it yourself.
I know DxO is not having the best website and is horrible in its communication.
Google on "dxo photolab local adjustments" for videos and you could make your own conclusion. Maybe you don't miss anything.

George

[DanK]

One can make fairly substantial local adjustments in Lightroom, although nowhere nearly as precisely as with Photoshop. You can paint over areas, apply radial and linear gradients, and now, in the newest versions, select by either color or luminance. The painting tool allows adju7stments to exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, black, white, clarity, saturation, sharpness, noise, and defringing; it provides for control of density, flow, and feathering; and it has an "automask" feature which in some cases works as a substitute for regular selections.

My suggestion would be that you download a trial installation and see whether it does what you need.

[Manfred M]

There's a difference between supported camera's and lens correction. When I open my PL1.2 there're far over 100 modules for the GX8, camera/lens combinations.
CaptureNx2 was famous for its local adjustments using the Nik software. That's now in PL. Install a trial version and see it yourself.
I know DxO is not having the best website and is horrible in its communication.
Google on "dxo photolab local adjustments" for videos and you could make your own conclusion. Maybe you don't miss anything.

George

George - the way that mFT cameras work (i.e.Olympus and Panasonic cameras) is that they embed the manufacturer's lens correction parameters right into the raw data. They were the first camera / lens makers to go with a combination of optical correction through lens design AND software lens correction at the raw conversion state. Other camera companies applied corrections, but only in JPEG files; never the raw files, although some people suspected Sony applied lens corrections in raw files as well.

In the early Optics Pro days when I first tested the Panasonic cameras and lenses there were no Panasonic profiles and the software used the camera data only.

I just went back and tested the same image and now they seem to offer two modes, the camera supplied profile and the DxO supplied profile. From a geometry correction view, there is very little difference between the profiles. Applying the lens correction on my Nikon lenses is much more noticeable. I don't know which profiles are more accurate; the manufacturer supplied ones or the ones that DxO has generated; I personally suspect the manufacturer supplied profiles are more accurate.

Adobe (in Lightroom and Camera Raw) do not allow the user to over-ride the manufacturer's lens correction and there is no way to avoid this. No Adobe camera / lens corrections are available.

[george013]

George - the way that mFT cameras work (i.e.Olympus and Panasonic cameras) is that they embed the manufacturer's lens correction parameters right into the raw data. They were the first camera / lens makers to go with a combination of optical correction through lens design AND software lens correction at the raw conversion state. Other camera companies applied corrections, but only in JPEG files; never the raw files, although some people suspected Sony applied lens corrections in raw files as well.

In the early Optics Pro days when I first tested the Panasonic cameras and lenses there were no Panasonic profiles and the software used the camera data only.

I just went back and tested the same image and now they seem to offer two modes, the camera supplied profile and the DxO supplied profile. From a geometry correction view, there is very little difference between the profiles. Applying the lens correction on my Nikon lenses is much more noticeable. I don't know which profiles are more accurate; the manufacturer supplied ones or the ones that DxO has generated; I personally suspect the manufacturer supplied profiles are more accurate.

Adobe (in Lightroom and Camera Raw) do not allow the user to over-ride the manufacturer's lens correction and there is no way to avoid this. No Adobe camera / lens corrections are available.

So pl does have camera/lens modules for the GX8, far over 100. And does have rather sophisticated local adjustment tools.
I didn't know about the lens corrections being build in the lens for the 4/3 camera's. It's not a must as I understood.


George

[davidedric]

Hi Jerry, in my experience PhotoLab does do an excellent job on micro four thirds RAW images.

I still use Lightroom for most of what I do, for a variety of reasons, but I'm trying to decide whether to use PhotoLab as a front end to Lightroom for all images, or only as a plugin for important or difficult ones.

Dave

[DanK]

Thinking about this more, I think I would approach this differently.

One of my cameras (Lumix LX-100) is a micro fourth-thirds, and it certainly is the case that it has more problems with noise than my larger cameras. What I notice most is that the visible noise starts at a considerably lower ISO.

Take what follows with one grain of salt: I haven't used Photolab, although I did consider it because its noise reduction is reviewed so well. However, in the end, I didn't bother switching. The fact is that most modern noise reduction software is quite good. Lightroom's has evolved to the point where if you use it carefully, it gives excellent results. (I say "use it carefully) because gives the user a lot of control, with 3 sliders each for luminance and color noise.) I think what will prove more important over the long run, if you want to use a raw converter as your only editing software, is the range of editing capabilities it has. I can't speak to what Photolab offers, but I think that is the criterion I would give the most weight in making a choice.

[Manfred M]

I didn't know about the lens corrections being build in the lens for the 4/3 camera's. It's not a must as I understood.

I went back and got some shots done with my GX7, which is the model before Jerry's GX8 and did some testing in PhotoLab 2.1.0 (the most current release) and found very little difference in the geometry of the images between the raw images with / without the DxO lens profile data applied. Just to go a step further, I repeated the process in Adobe Camera Raw, where there is no opportunity to use anything other than the Panasonic profile. There is little difference between the output of all three processes.

You will note the camera raw message....




I have no understanding as to why DxO would create their own profiles, as I would expect the Panasonic (or Olympus) ones to be the most reliable given that they understand the lens performance better than any third party.