DxO Photolab

[Pete B]

They have a 25% off sale for the next few days so I hit the buy button on the pro version

 

[Box Brownie]

They have a 25% off sale for the next few days so I hit the buy button on the pro version

Hi Pete

I look forward to any updates in PP that you have?

PS When you say 'pro version'.......all I can see is Photolab Essentials and Elite (this latter amongst other features has the Prime de-noising) so which version are you refering to and as such in your bee comparison was it the standard(?) noise reduction or the Prime process one???

 

[Pete B]

Hi Pete

I look forward to any updates in PP that you have?

PS When you say 'pro version'.......all I can see is Photolab Essentials and Elite (this latter amongst other features has the Prime de-noising) so which version are you refering to and as such in your bee comparison was it the standard(?) noise reduction or the Prime process one???

Elite

 

[gramps]

My experience with DXO Photolab is variable, what really bugs me is that they have taken away the adjustable loupe that they had in Optics Pro and also that when selecting the file to load without any adjustments it immediately adjusts it!

 

[Box Brownie]

I downloaded the trial and coming to grips with the GUI, only looked at how it handles a couple of images so not a review but initial observations.

1) The default rendering with DXO Standard was quite something, I looked at the fly on the leaf picture posted before and at 1:1 viewing I could count the hairs on the legs of the fly.......without double checking I don't recall that in the LR PP'ed image....plus the noise reduction looks well controlled.

1a) As I understand it ~ if altering the default settings as needed, it can be "saved as" a user named preset???

2) Re: default sharpening as above:- this surprised most of all especially as drilling down I realised the only sharpening being applied was 'Lens Sharpening' i.e. the body & lens profile based sharpening. (NB I found the USM in another panel and it was not "active"!) So in process terms the "Capture Sharpening" is very good

3) I did not examine, by switching on/off the various elements of the preset panel to see the effect of each

4) Minor niggle ~ though this is a workflow question(?). In LR when you use a slider to tweak the effect, if you want to reset it you double click the slider name I surmise in DxO I will have use CTRL-Z to go back a step, AOK?

Summary:- my approach to processing has always been KISS principal so DxO does look like a worthy contender as a raw processor, costly even with the 25% discount but if my workflow and the end result "works" then might be a must have???

 

[Box Brownie]

OK here is the the Fly comparison ~ I did look at the DxO PP compared to the one I did a few days ago and the default Lens Sharpening exceeds the carefull PP I did in LR to keep noise under control and only sharpen the edges of the subject via the detail & masking sliders. There was marked and IMO welcome improvement for a subject that occupies such a small area in the full image size

#1 this was the original one I posted on the main MFT thread ~ it was PP in LR with sharpening to taste > into PS to make some minor contrast & resizing plus web sized sharpening to suit


#2 This is the DxO (pp'ed as mentioned in my post above but then simply resized in PS to web sized as needed i.e. no further output sharpening applied)
Note the different size/crop presented ~ this is at 66.7% crop [approx?] of the original compared to lower in the one above.


The conclusion IMO is that DxO clearly(no pun intended ) has something special to offer a raw converter/processor with the Olympus .ORF files..........especially bearing in mind that I have just used default DxO Standard preset...................may yet have to re-visit my Canon 5D3 files

PS the other thing I have noticed ~ I shoot the E-M1 mk2 with 3:2 ratio selected so that I can compose in the viewfinder with printing in mind at that ratio. In LR it 'honours' that crop though I can deselect to reveal the whole frame. But DxO shows the whole frame as default i.e. it does not 'honour' the crop which I surmise is in the EXIF somewhere???

 

[Pete B]

After spending the afternoon playing I find I'm getting better results faster than before
A Comparison:-
Fast mover by Pete Banks, on Flickr
P8210064_DxO by Pete Banks, on Flickr

 

[ancient_mariner]

After spending the afternoon playing I find I'm getting better results faster than before
A Comparison:-
Fast mover by Pete Banks, on Flickr
P8210064_DxO by Pete Banks, on Flickr

The DXO produced image has artifacts/banding in the sky, moving in waves away from the pigeon. there's also a halo around the bird. It might be the compression used to output the image or it might be the processing.

 

[Pete B]

The DXO produced image has artifacts/banding in the sky, moving in waves away from the pigeon. there's also a halo around the bird. It might be the compression used to output the image or it might be the processing.

Seems to be on one of the jpeg conversions

 

[Box Brownie]

I did post in the MFT fora but here are two that had their I initial PP in DxO

I have looked at these two images as follows LR > DxO Plugin > processed in DxO > exported as 16 bit TIF to LR > opened for finalising in PS6 > saved as 8bit JPEG (NB in PS I cropped to approx 50% of the original size and unlike my first DxO experiment (shown on the other thread) I applied at web sized as showing below some Smart Sharpening..............on the Fly image Smart Sharpening did not seem to help and I surmise because the Fly was such a small object in the overall frame?

#1 Moon Shot

#2 Bee feeding on Buddlia

FWIW I have found DxO a boon when it comes to initial PP to 'bring out the best' (as I see it ) in the .ORF files

 

[gcogger]

That seems a complex workflow:

Lightroom -> DXO -> Lightroom -> Photoshop -> output​

rather than just::

DXO -> output​

What was it that you wanted to do in Lightroom and Photoshop that you couldn't do in Photolab? (Genuine question, I'm not trying to make a point!)

 

[chris malcolm]

I bought DXO Photolab on one of their previous 25% off sales. I'm still settling into it, still learning, and still finding it impressively good. Has some annoying quirks in its interface (what doesnt?), but it does continue to get more out of my images more easily than anything else I've tried.

 

[Box Brownie]

That seems a complex workflow:

Lightroom -> DXO -> Lightroom -> Photoshop -> output​

rather than just::

DXO -> output​

What was it that you wanted to do in Lightroom and Photoshop that you couldn't do in Photolab? (Genuine question, I'm not trying to make a point!)

Bearing in mind my workflow has been to use LR as my DAM program (though for speed of initial culling I have been using Faststone) doing my capture sharpening and then finalising in PS as needed. LR is IMO not the best for managing noise but what noise was there in my Canon files it was good.

Now having the Olympus though the noise is much more like film grain and I felt the LR capture sharpening was handling it nicely i, based on @Pete B feedback about DxO gave it trial and as noted above with my fly image it's default processing was impressive!

So back to workflow......I am still learning & appreciating what DxO can do but I doubt it will ever be a straightforward as you indicate because LR is used as my DAM and I have yet to fully explore DxO. But for now (in common with others?) have generally found that no one PP program does everything perfectly (? ).

Note ~ I can already think of one thing in regard to the way DxO hands the file back to LR could be ''improved" IMHO

 

[droj]

I have tried DxO and have no doubts about it's competence as a replacement for LR, and like it a lot. I'm slightly annoyed by having the sidecar files that record its adjustments (they constitute folder 'clutter'), whereas LR's adjustments are stored in the catalogue, ie more in one place. Well worth the money though.

My policy is to keep my raws so that they can be re-visited / tweaked / exported differently, and the adjustments to those files that have been processed in LR will not translate to Photolab. That's the only handicap for me, really.

I'm not fussed about having a DAM, though - my pre-existing folder structure is sufficient, so that's ok.

 

[Canon Bob]

I've also spent the past few months making the move from Lightroom (perpetual licence) to DxO Elite. I'm certainly slower at the moment but the final output isn't inferior. I agree about the sidecar files....would be nice if you could specify a sub-directory for them.

Bob