DxO vs. ACR

Ric Grupe

After looking at these shots processed with DxO...I decided to have another look at this program that I used to be interested in and have since dismissed.

This video made me think...:wow

While this review left me...:confused

Of course the video compares DxO to older versions of ACR and Capture NX...so maybe that's where the discrepancy comes in...still those Pelicans look darn good to me.:dunno

pathfinder

Ric,

The pelican images seem very warm, not bad, but definitely with a warm tonality.

I think a lot of Nikon bird shooter's images are warmer in tone than those of use who shoot Canon. I notice when shooting with Harry that his images are warmer than mine frequently. Not sure if this is due to processing, or lens effects or what, but I do see it not infrequently.

I also think the Sigma 120-300 tends to give a warmer tone than Canon glass and I own both. My wife shoots with a 120-300 frequently while I make do with EOS glass. Actually, just looking down through the tube of the 120-300, the overall tone of the glass looks warmer to me also.

All of the above discussion does not really mean very much, as the final warm/cool tone is up the person doing the final image processing anyway.

The video showing IS0 51,000 was very impressive. I may have to reconsider givng DXO a shot. I just never felt that limited with ACR but maybe I ought to look again. On the other hand, I really rarely find it necessary to shoot at ISO's higher than 800, and usually use 100 or 200.

I was impressed that they realize it must integrate into the LR/ PS workflow to succeed in the marketplace.

I do find correction of chromatic aberration very important and useful in ACR, and would not want to give it up.

When shooting HDRs, one of the things I miss, is the correction for chromatic aberration, because it is present in some highly regarded and expensive lenses. And yet, sometimes absent from some non-OEM lenses that you would think would display chromatic aberration.

Anyway, thanks for your interesting post of a topic I had not been following.

kdog

pathfinder wrote:

When shooting HDRs, one of the things I miss, is the correction for chromatic aberration, because it is present in some highly regarded and expensive lenses.

When you see it, you can always correct it in ACR, and export the images as 16-bit TIFFs and HDR those. Photomatix claims that's a better workflow anyway.

(Sorry for the thread hi-jack)

Cheers,
-joel

dlplumer

Ric Grupe wrote:

After looking at these shots processed with DxO...I decided to have another look at this program that I used to be interested in and have since dismissed.

This video made me think...:wow

While this review left me...:confused

Of course the video compares DxO to older versions of ACR and Capture NX...so maybe that's where the discrepancy comes in...still those Pelicans look darn good to me.

Very compelling. I wonder how it compares with Aperture which is what I use.

Ric Grupe

pathfinder wrote:

Anyway, thanks for your interesting post of a topic I had not been following.

You're welcome.:D

Having just converted to photoshop after years of Corel Photo-Paint has encouraged me to look at the plugin add ons that I felt might be an advantage to switching. Well the more I use PS CS4 the more I think that plugins I use to consider as desirable, like the ones from Nik and OnOne, are almost irrelevant due to the adjustment layers in CS4 and the adjustment brush in Camera Raw.

The one thing about DxO that I found compelling is how it applies noise reduction. But...that alone is not enough a reason to dump ACR...not even close. Maybe I'll play with a trial of DxO...right now it cost $200 thru the 12th...less than some plugins cost!

Ric Grupe

kdog wrote:

(Sorry for the thread hi-jack)

I'll take all the good info I can get.

Ric Grupe

dlplumer wrote:

Very compelling. I wonder how it compares with Aperture which is what I use.

I wouldn't have any idea, Dan.

That would be comparing Apple's to......

pathfinder

If your only reason for DXO was noise reduction, give Noiseware a careful look. It is cheaper than DXO and I think does a splendid job.

Andrew Rodney speaks highly of Noiseware also.

baldmountain

dlplumer wrote:

Very compelling. I wonder how it compares with Aperture which is what I use.

It's interesting that you ask since I use Aperture too. I've been having a look myself. I think you would still want to use Aperture for your image management and some correction, but that you'd let DxO do the first conversion. Here are a couple images that I'm using to convince myself. Image on left is Aperture's Nikon Raw conversion. On the right is the imported jpeg processed by the DxO trial after Nikon transfer to get the images off the camera. You can see the full size in my smugmug SmugShots gallery.



The part that impresses me most is that DxO removed the bowing in the doorframe. It corrected the lens spherical aberration. (I think that is the right term.) DxO happens to have setting for my camera and this lens. Nikon D50 with 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 zoom. If you hold a sheet of paper to the doorframe you can see that the door is straght in the DxO image and bowed in the original.