Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-20-2018, 03:04 PM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 673
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
[...] After a year of using Darktable, I can automatically apply adjustments that give me a very similar result to Lightroom's starting point. Not only that, but I personally prefer the tools on offer and believe I can now get better final results from Darktable in many (but not all) respects than I could from Lightroom. Yet there's more work required to get those results. [...]
And I assume you've created some styles for that, or does that not help?

---------- Post added 11-20-18 at 03:14 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
My Photolab 1 isn't crippled and continues downloading new combinations. I'm not certain what you mean. Sorry it is probably obvious but not clicking with me.
DxO once upon a time provided a page where one could download the lens/camera correction modules. I followed a link to that magical place, but only got a 404, and no cache seemed to have it either. It makes a lot of sense if you're travelling and will be in one of those areas that have electricity but no internet. So the way it works now, you have to remember to load your laptop with the software (not the biggie, but here it comes) and then shoot a test image with every camera/lens combination and import those into DxO so that DxO then downloads it for you to use on the road. Nights do get long without the internet, and you'll want to edit photos, trust me (well, I do - both). Oh, and if you pick up any gear along the road, you'd better hope the batteries are charged so that you can take the test shots, head into an internet cafe, plug in your laptop and do it all over again. In terms of cumbersomeness (what a great word), there are friendlier options. Now, you can say that pictures can be edited without lens corrections and exported later, but I find it makes a difference to the way I crop.

11-20-2018, 03:23 PM   #47
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,574
QuoteOriginally posted by Breakfastographer Quote
And I assume you've created some styles for that, or does that not help?
Absolutely. I have a few styles that I commonly apply to images, each derived from a series of basic adjustments. I also have a number of presets I've created in certain tools for differing levels of tone curves, local contrast, stuck pixel removal, denoising, sharpening etc. that I can apply on an ad-hoc basis rather than having to adjust sliders each time. Plus, I've created lens profiles for some of my lenses (especially zooms, but a few primes also).

Since I'm using a lot of different cameras, I tend to approach photos from each one slightly differently - both for default processing and more detailed work.

It's worth bearing in mind that all of my presets and styles took some time and experience to create based on my own tastes and preferences. Lightroom does a great job on much of this straight out of the box without any user involvement, and it beats Darktable in this respect. But if you have the time and inclination to put in a little work with Darktable, it's a fine replacement IMHO...
11-20-2018, 03:59 PM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,176
QuoteOriginally posted by Breakfastographer Quote
And I assume you've created some styles for that, or does that not help?

---------- Post added 11-20-18 at 03:14 PM ----------


DxO once upon a time provided a page where one could download the lens/camera correction modules. I followed a link to that magical place, but only got a 404, and no cache seemed to have it either. It makes a lot of sense if you're travelling and will be in one of those areas that have electricity but no internet. So the way it works now, you have to remember to load your laptop with the software (not the biggie, but here it comes) and then shoot a test image with every camera/lens combination and import those into DxO so that DxO then downloads it for you to use on the road. Nights do get long without the internet, and you'll want to edit photos, trust me (well, I do - both). Oh, and if you pick up any gear along the road, you'd better hope the batteries are charged so that you can take the test shots, head into an internet cafe, plug in your laptop and do it all over again. In terms of cumbersomeness (what a great word), there are friendlier options. Now, you can say that pictures can be edited without lens corrections and exported later, but I find it makes a difference to the way I crop.
Thats not how it worked in older versions I remember but I could be confused. I'll double check. Inside the program I used to be able to get the modules from the internet.
11-20-2018, 05:32 PM - 1 Like   #49
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 673
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Thats not how it worked in older versions I remember but I could be confused. I'll double check. Inside the program I used to be able to get the modules from the internet.
This is the page that has the link on it that goes to a 404. It explains clearly what the link is intended to provide:
https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/articles/218909108-How-do-I-download-DxO-optics-modules-

11-25-2018, 08:32 AM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,176
QuoteOriginally posted by Breakfastographer Quote
This is the page that has the link on it that goes to a 404. It explains clearly what the link is intended to provide:
How do I download DxO optics modules ? ? Customer Support
You don't need that page if you have the software installed. I'm not sure why no one has contacted DXO to let them know the page is down. Once you install the software there is a menu item called, "DXO Optics Modules" under that is the "Download additional modules" option. Then you select your camera body(bodies) and the lenses you want to download profiles for - this all can happen before you leave the comfort of home.

---------- Post added 11-25-18 at 10:43 AM ----------

I have opened a ticket with their support to resolve the 404. In the meantime the method inside the program should work. I have just upgraded to Photolab2 but only tested this in version 1.2.2 so far.

---------- Post added 11-25-18 at 11:12 AM ----------

Confirmed to work in Photolab 1.2.2 and 2.0.1

Last edited by UncleVanya; 11-25-2018 at 09:13 AM.
11-25-2018, 10:55 AM   #51
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Larrymc's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mississippi, USA
Posts: 5,245
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
You don't need that page if you have the software installed. I'm not sure why no one has contacted DXO to let them know the page is down. Once you install the software there is a menu item called, "DXO Optics Modules" under that is the "Download additional modules" option. Then you select your camera body(bodies) and the lenses you want to download profiles for - this all can happen before you leave the comfort of home.

---------- Post added 11-25-18 at 10:43 AM ----------

I have opened a ticket with their support to resolve the 404. In the meantime the method inside the program should work. I have just upgraded to Photolab2 but only tested this in version 1.2.2 so far.

---------- Post added 11-25-18 at 11:12 AM ----------

Confirmed to work in Photolab 1.2.2 and 2.0.1
Its good to see they got this corrected. I tried Sunday night in ver 2.0.1 and got the error message, tried it just now in ver 2.0.1 and it worked like it used to.

The other small improvement I was glad to see is the ability to use DCP profiles they can be set up in the color rendering section. PL1 had no provision for DCP profiles and I didn't check version 2 to see if they were available in it before I updated last week.
11-26-2018, 12:51 PM - 1 Like   #52
Veteran Member
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
I commend the effort of the OP, but I too find these types of evaluations a bit limited, and especially some of the other items. Most of the RAW software I've used (which have all been good for various reasons) were discounted in this review.

I currently use DxO and of all the RAW processors, I believe it is actually best at Noise Reduction. Their PRIME is fantastic, and I've gotten great photos from my K3 out to 25600 ISO that I've not gotten out of any other software. Topaz and Noiseware have helped as plugins elsewhere, but PRIME just works. As for the modules for lens and bodies, DxO needs to call home because you would end up with GB's of information to install if all the modules were available up front. The setup isn't perfect, but once you have the modules you need for all your lens and bodies, you don't need the internet again. For instance, I spend a 4 to 6 weeks each year out of internet service, but I can use DxO problem free.

As for a comparison of baseline, I don't find it super useful. I can understand why one might start that way (23 is a lot of programs to test), and I could understand discounting a software that is way off base at a start (i.e. it would take more work to get to the end). I really think RAW software is best compared on user interface, where an image starts, and how easy it is to get to an end--all together). When I switched from LR a few years ago, my test was taking in about 10 different photos to the different software I was trying (C1, RawTherapee, On1, DxO, LightZone, SilkyPix) and seeing how easy and well I could get the photo to match a similar point I had in LR (or further if the software had features that LR didn't). All those programs could really get to a similar spot, although some did better (e.g. noise removal), and some were much quicker for me to get there. The initial rendering of an image mattered least because the user interface and speed to get to the end would reflect the quality of the start often times or the quality of the interface. For instance, a long time ago, I thought LR was just plain bad at its initial import, but I chose it (LR 3.x at the time) because an initial auto-correct often made a huge leap that required few steps afterward. Cost, however, is also a factor, and thus my jumping from LR, and that is important to all of us at levels only we can know.

11-26-2018, 06:28 PM   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 673
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
As for the modules for lens and bodies, DxO needs to call home because you would end up with GB's of information to install if all the modules were available up front.
How so?
11-26-2018, 06:33 PM   #54
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,176
QuoteOriginally posted by Breakfastographer Quote
How so?
Every supported body and every lens on those is a lot...
11-26-2018, 06:50 PM   #55
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Larrymc's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mississippi, USA
Posts: 5,245
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Every supported body and every lens on those is a lot...
But that's not needed, from inside the program, you can access individual camera and lens modules once and have it on you system and then work off line at any time. Its a one time operation unless you acquire new equipment.
11-26-2018, 08:28 PM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,176
QuoteOriginally posted by Larrymc Quote
But that's not needed, from inside the program, you can access individual camera and lens modules once and have it on you system and then work off line at any time. Its a one time operation unless you acquire new equipment.
I agree but I'm not advocating, only explaining why the system worls as it does. Rather than include all the profiles it uses this system of on demand downloading. You can download a bunch up front but not every profile which would be silly large.
12-07-2018, 10:58 AM   #57
Veteran Member
Pentaxke's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 476
QuoteOriginally posted by Breakfastographer Quote
Hi All,

I've been writing a frequently Pentax-themed blog for over five years now, and also read his forum every now and then. I just produced a longer piece that I think might really be worth reading, so I'll for once commit the sin of self-promotion in the hope that the information is useful enough that I can be forgiven.

I tested 23 RAW converters for Pentax - if this generates some interest, there may be further parts to the series - part 1, see here:

23 RAW converters compared, including On1 Photo RAW 2019 – breakfastographer

And thanks for the times you've linked to my blog in the past!

Looking forward to your opinions and feedback
Thanks for the effort and time you spend on this. I didn't read all the comments, but don't let the people who attack you for leaving out LR get you down. This is very useful information!

Basing on this, seems I made the right choice: for me C1pro all the way. (by the way C1 is able to output 16 bitt TIFF's...)
12-07-2018, 05:57 PM   #58
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PNW USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,126
Almost every image processing software can produce TIFF's. Even the 2006 era Microsoft Digital Image suite was able to import and export TIFF's in both 8 and 16 bits. I used the Digital Image suite in the 2006 - 2011 era (on XP and Vista) to get TIFF's out of LR, add text and re-import to LR for Christmas cards.

The TIFF format a basic requirement for image processing. I use it to day to go back and forth between Capture One and Affinity Photo - to add text into Christmas cards and such.
12-08-2018, 03:18 AM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 673
Original Poster
And the article has always correctly stated, "I did not notice any program not supporting 16 bit TIFF output". Should I put the "not" in italics?
12-08-2018, 11:47 AM   #60
Veteran Member
Pentaxke's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 476
QuoteOriginally posted by Breakfastographer Quote
And the article has always correctly stated, "I did not notice any program not supporting 16 bit TIFF output". Should I put the "not" in italics?
Ok, I misread that. My mistake...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
blog, camera, converters, converters for pentax, darktable, dng, download, dxo, images, internet, laptop, link, nikon, optics, page, pentax, photography, photoshop, profile, raw converter, raw development, raw editing, results, road, software, support, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does the switchable AA filter pose difficult problems for RAW converters? Paul the Sunman Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 12 01-20-2014 02:10 PM
K30 and Raw Converters KMMD Pentax K-30 & K-50 2 04-01-2013 07:43 PM
SMC Pentax-DA 18-270mm not recorded in EXIF (latest Firmware 1.13.23.23) Alfie Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 9 12-31-2012 09:36 AM
Comparison of almost all raw converters fotoreporter1975 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 4 12-12-2012 05:17 PM
high end raw converters Gooshin Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 5 03-01-2008 08:59 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top