DXO Optics 8

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by Buster, Apr 28, 2013.

  1. Buster

    Buster Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 28, 2013
    I just tried (via 30 day trial) DXO Optics 8.

    Some aspects are better than Lightroom.. but others are not that better.

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/88068576@N08/8689434625/" title="DSC00087_DxO by omdandom2n, on Flickr"> View attachment 273508 "1024" height="683" alt="DSC00087_DxO"></a>
  2. tdekany

    tdekany Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 8, 2011
    Very nice shot.
  3. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    I like the colors and the broken - would prefer a bit more of the plant to be in focus. Nice. :cool:
  4. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I've been using DxO Optics Pro since version 6, and LightRoom since version 3. Each has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and up to a point it's a matter of taste. DxO's ace in the hole is certainly the lens/body profiles, if available for your camera. Great quality correction of distortion, any lens softness, CA, and so forth. Better results than the LR lens profiles I've tried for my Canon, and they have more supported combos than available in Adobe's lens database. I also really like the default rendering, although I often back off on the 'lighting' section for my preferred processing.

    That said, some of LightRoom's controls work a little better, and the local adjustments LR can do are more powerful/well developed. Major downside: it's significantly slower in terms of processing, even batch (though well suited to multicore systems). And doesn't do any picture management/tagging, if that's your thing. It's still my 'go to' RAW processor, though I'm pondering moving towards a mixed workflow - LR's cataloguing functions seem far more practical for stuff that's already been processed, so I may processing to JPG and import that to LR, and keep RAWs in my own directory structures. Or to TIFF for things I want to fiddle with in LR after letting DxO handle lens corrections and RAW conversion.
  5. Buster

    Buster Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 28, 2013
    Some unscientific testing..

    Processed in LR4.3

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/88068576@N08/8689930317/" title="lr1 by omdandom2n, on Flickr"> View attachment 273522 "1024" height="683" alt="lr1"></a>

    Processed in DXO Optics 8

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/88068576@N08/8689926037/" title="DSC00067_DxO.jpg by omdandom2n, on Flickr"> View attachment 273523 "1024" height="683" alt="DSC00067_DxO.jpg"></a>
  6. Are you making different adjustments to the highlight recovery between the two softwares? The Lightroom example is showing much better highlight detail.
  7. Buster

    Buster Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 28, 2013
    I'm not really sure.. it's my first day using DXO Optics 8, and I'm trying to get a feel for all the features, etc.
  8. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    DxO's default lighting module is on the aggressive side, and it takes a while to learn to get the best out of it. Recovery seems about equal to me when I process my own images. I'm also better with DxO (more experience) than I am with LR.
  9. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    rob collins
    I have DXO Optics Pro, Lightroom and Photo Ninja. DXO does do some things better than Lightroom but Lightroom's workflow is much better. Photo Ninja is easily the best 'raw converter'.

    I basically use Lightroom and Photo Ninja now. DXO has been left on the shelf. If you just want one piece of software I would go for Lightroom. If you are looking for a RAW converter to add to Lightroom I would go for Photo Ninja.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.