[Sagitta]

I've been mucking about with the DxO trial version, and so far I'm fairly impressed.

I ran a few of my old shots through it to see what I could do with it, and was wondering if anyone had any advice about any of them or with DxO in general.


I was going for a moody feel with this one. Not sure if it worked, but the end result is kind of cool, and I never realized a 5/2 crop was a 'thing' when I saw it as an option.


Generic lens glamour shot. Again, I like the results, but I'm sure I could have gone differently with it.


This shot bugged me for a long, long time as I never could quite get the end results just how I wanted them. I'm still not 100% on it, but here it is.


This is a redo for a shot I already worked on a few years back. Last time I used a gradient to pull up the shadows - I skipped that this time just for kicks.


Finally this shot - its a mix of DxO and Topaz just to see how well they played together (very well, it turns out). This was shot at or shortly after sunset, and the shot was very, very blue (hence the term 'blue hour', I guess). I nuked the blue as best I could, and the end result was interesting, to say the least. I think if I ever do a weekly post process challenge, this shot could be a candidate to see what people can do.

[Rimfiredude]

This guy looks like a little fishy

[Ex Finn.]

DXO seems interesting with a lot of features.
I like your "moody" shot and your "frozen goldfish" shot.

[r0ckstarr]

Just curious if you also use Lightroom, and if so, what your opinions on DXO are when compared to LR?

[j2photos]

Just curious if you also use Lightroom, and if so, what your opinions on DXO are when compared to LR?

As I know you didnt ask for my opinion, but I have been a lightroom user since version 3. I just downloaded DXO 10 trial and I must say that I like DXO far more. I currently have LR 5.7 The one thing I have noticed is that my images wind up coming out of DXO sharper and less noisy. Although, I do feel that Lightroom is better with white balance and exposure.

[r0ckstarr]

As I know you didnt ask for my opinion, but I have been a lightroom user since version 3. I just downloaded DXO 10 trial and I must say that I like DXO far more. I currently have LR 5.7 The one thing I have noticed is that my images wind up coming out of DXO sharper and less noisy. Although, I do feel that Lightroom is better with white balance and exposure.

Thanks for the input! (I also started with LR3 and am currently on the latest update for 5.)

[Sagitta]

DxO seems a lot more intuitive (for lack of a better term) than LR is. I like how it also reads the EXIF and goes "Oh, you shot that one with a K-30 and Sigma 10-20 f/3.5? Heres the lens corrections for you..."

Lightroom still reads the Siggy as an unknown lens.

[Des]

I like how it also reads the EXIF and goes "Oh, you shot that one with a K-30 and Sigma 10-20 f/3.5? Heres the lens corrections for you..."

I like this too, but auto-correction depends on whether there is a module available for your lens/camera combination. (We are talking here only about processing RAW files.)

Pentax camera coverage is quite good. The MX-1 and all Pentax DSLRs (not mirrorless cameras like the K-01 or Q series) from about the K200D onwards are supported. (It takes a while to catch up with new models, but the K-S1 is now supported.)

The main limitation is the lens list. It is confined to current or fairly modern lenses. For example for the K-30, there are 77 lenses listed, which includes a degree of doubling up (e.g. the 18-250 is listed separately with its Tamron, Samsung and Pentax badges). Most DA lenses are listed, plus 10 Tamrons, 21 Sigmas and 3 Samyangs. There are only 5 FA lenses (the 3 amigos plus 35 f2 and 50 f1.4).

Neither my Sigma 170-500 nor my Sigma 400mm f5.6 is supported, but all my other AF lenses are.

If you have a bag of legacy glass, forget it. There are no Pentax K, M, A or F lenses, and of course you can forget M42s. No Voigtlander, Zeiss, Cosina, Tokina, etc. There are tools in DxO OP for manual correctoin of vignetting, distortion, CA, etc, but it has no advantage over other programs in this regard. You might as well use Silkypix or Pentax DCU for these sorts of corrections.

But if your camera/lens combination is supported, the auto-correction in DxO Optics Pro works well. Really, really well. And the presets are good too (e.g. one-shot HDR, high-key portraits, various treatments for B&W landscapes, etc etc). There is also a wealth of customizing available too (individual colour channels, dust removal, horizon correction, unsharp mask, tone curves, white balance finessing, vignetting controls, etc etc).

You can also add the FilmPack plug-in for more treatments and the ViewPoint plug in for advanced correction of distortion for wide-angle shots.

I started with v.9 and now have v.10. I haven't tried v.8 (which has been offered for free recently), although I gather the layout is similar. But v.8 lacks two of the features that I like most:
- PRIME noise reduction (it's some contrived acronym, nothing to do with prime lenses), which was introduced with v.9 and much improved in v.10. This provides superb noise reduction. (Requires a fair bit of processing power, so you need a fastish computer.)
- ClearView, which was introduced with v.10 (Elite edition only). This does wonders for atmospheric haze. It helps even when the haze is not particularly bad - e.g. I would try it on the "Blue Hour" shot above.

If you like the look and feel of v.8, an upgrade to the current version is well worthwhile (Elite edition only - forget about the base one, which lacks several key features).

I haven't used LR so I can't compare.

BTW, like your work @Sagitta.

[hjoseph7]

I think there are software packages that can do almost everything that DXO can do at a much lower price. Then again last time I downloaded DXo was version 8, maybe version 10 is a bit better ?

[Sagitta]

- ClearView, which was introduced with v.10 (Elite edition only). This does wonders for atmospheric haze. It helps even when the haze is not particularly bad - e.g. I would try it on the "Blue Hour" shot above.

That shot actually had both ClearView and a dose of Topaz Clarity thrown at it. The original was really, really rough. When I can get to my main PC I'll have to see if I can upload the in-camera JPG for comparison. It actually looks a LOT better than what I started with.

[Des]

I think there are software packages that can do almost everything that DXO can do at a much lower price. Then again last time I downloaded DXo was version 8, maybe version 10 is a bit better ?

If there is a free or cheap program that does great lens-specific automatic corrections, does excellent one-shot HDR, has stellar noise-reduction and a nifty haze reduction feature, we'd all like to know about it.

It is strange how we are willing to spend plenty on hardware, but grudge spending $99 on software.

For improving the quality of my photos, DxO OP has provided great value for money.

[Des]

That shot actually had both ClearView and a dose of Topaz Clarity thrown at it. The original was really, really rough. When I can get to my main PC I'll have to see if I can upload the in-camera JPG for comparison. It actually looks a LOT better than what I started with.

I misunderstood - I thought you were using the free v.8 rather than a trial of v.10. I've been preaching to the choir.

I find a light touch is required with ClearView. The default setting of 50 is too high for the photos I have used it on.

Here's a sort of before and after (using an unsupported lens, as it happens). Jpg straight from camera v jpg output from processing the RAW file. ClearView at about 25-30 from memory. ("After" is first because one is attachment and the other link from album.)