1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

DxO or Lightroom for OMD?

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by rogergu, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. rogergu

    rogergu Mu-43 Regular

    94
    Feb 11, 2013
    Just start learning the image processing, so have little knowledge about these. BTW, DxO is having promotion now.

    Thanks
     
  2. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    I don't have any experience with DxO (which I assume is what you mean), but I don't see how you can go wrong with Lightroom. It's a very powerful program that is reasonably easy to learn and use. It is not only a very useful image editing program, but it also does a very good job of managing/organizing your images.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. rogergu

    rogergu Mu-43 Regular

    94
    Feb 11, 2013
    Thanks for your reply. I corrected the name of DxO :)
     
  4. rnagoda

    rnagoda Mu-43 Veteran

    260
    Jun 12, 2012
    Tucson, AZ
    Robert
    It's probably a matter of personal preference. I've been using Adobe products since before Adobe acquired Pagemaker from Aldus ('92?) so for me it's a no-brainer that I go with Adobe - the software they make is very much in tune with how I use software. If you are not yet "programmed," though, that's a good thing and you'll have more flexibility - download the trial versions and try them out and see which is more intuitive/comfortable and which one does more of what you'd like it to do. Some of the features they offer with the DxO Optics Pro look like they might be fun to play with ...
     
  5. BigTam

    BigTam Mu-43 Top Veteran

    773
    Mar 19, 2012
    Dortmund, Germany
    Ron
    I believe you can download both as trial versions. Please do this: only you can decide which matches your personal style better.

    I use DxO. I find the automatic adjustments useful and I can still decide from shot to shot whether I want more individual changes.

    I also prefer to decide myself where I want my photos stored. I have a major directory per year; a sub-directory per day, sometimes multiple per day; the directory name, which I propagate to the shots, is of the form XXX-JJJJ-MM-DD-DESC-NN, where XXX is my initials, JMD is the date, DESC is a simple description, and NN is a sequential number.

    Works for me, I don't need tags and such.
     
  6. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I won both, use both, but tend to prefer DxO output. Except when I don't. Lightroom has the edge for local adjustments, but if I'm going that far, I'm likely to convert from RAW to TIFF and go into photoshop. If you want real content management, use LR
     
  7. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    If you say you are on the learning curve of PP... then I am guessing you are on the learning curve of digital photography.

    I would go for a single program that handles the whole process that will take you from the point you take the card from your camera, plug it into the computer, import the images, let the program put them into a neat folder, allow you to view, them, select the ones you want to delete, then work on the ones you want to, then output them to the web, to print, to create slideshows or layout print a book.

    Maybe Dx0 does this? maybe not....just looked at their mess of a website,,, after going through an ad!!!

    Looks like DXO is full of niche stuff most people will never need and doesn't address any of the real asset management that is so important in digital photography

    Buy lightroom... unless of course you have a mac.... then really really buy Aperture
    :smile:

    K
     
  8. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    DxO is a very good raw converter with excellent lens corrections and a pretty good user interface. It is useless for asset management and can be used in parallel to Lightroom should you wish. And the website is crap. Then again, try finding what you want on adobes site in three clicks or less...;)
     
  9. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    Big tam

    think you are missing the point of the way Lightroom/Aperture works

    Certainly with Aperture you can decide file names for your structure, and then they are neatly put in folders in that structure...the point about lightroom/aperture IS that the KNOW where you image files are.. and if they lose them...say you lose a drive and replace it with a backup, that they can find them again

    There seems to be an weird disconnect that I see often that, copying your files from card to folder on computer and then into an applicationis some how good...

    yet importing same files directly into an app.. which can read all the EXIF data in the image and file that away in a place it knows and will happily reveal to you....its usually one folder.. easy to find, easy to back up, is some how bad.

    anyway... just my thoughts

    K
     
  10. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Many of them have trials. Its really the only way to really know which best suites your needs.

    I chose Lightroom
     
  11. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    Margaret
    +1

    --
    Sent from my phone. Please pardon my brevity!
     
  12. tradesmith45

    tradesmith45 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 13, 2012
    Oregon
    Rogergu, choosing your first digital image processing software is a vastly bigger challenge than choosing a camera because there are virtually no objective tests & there are so many choices. And you'd hate to waste all that time learning to use the "wrong" program.

    Is there something about DxO you feel you must have for your photography that Lightroom or Elements 11, or iPhoto or Aperture don't have?
     
  13. redalien

    redalien Mu-43 Regular

    135
    Aug 23, 2012
    Tamas
  14. BigTam

    BigTam Mu-43 Top Veteran

    773
    Mar 19, 2012
    Dortmund, Germany
    Ron
    Kevin, I'm a little obsessive about knowing exactly what is stored where on my drives - 40 years of IT, mostly in large data centres, will do that to you.

    I prefer to decide where my data goes and then tell the programme, and not the other way round. I can see that many people might prefer the Adobe/Apple 'we know best' approach, but it's not for me.
     
  15. rogergu

    rogergu Mu-43 Regular

    94
    Feb 11, 2013
    Thanks for all your replies. I am using DxO(trial) and OV2, just coverting raw to jpeg with the default setting. As of now, I am only interested in the lens correction, noise reduction, sharpness and contrast adjustment by the default setting(no manual work is prefered).

    DxO does a good job correcting the lens distortion and restoring the details of cloud from the blue sky in high contrast image. However, it produces more noise than OV2 and even OC jpeg.

    I will try lightroom trial soon.
     
  16. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    fully with you about knowing where stuff is and what its doing - just liberated 80 plus gigs of hard disk space clearing up some old Final Cut video files.

    My point is that with Aperture at least, you have the choice of letting it put files where it wants or you can define your own file structure pretty much down to the level of detail you describe, as well as backup to additional sources. Copying files and creating folders is the kind of stuff computers are good at :)

    have a good weekend

    cheers

    K
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    Margaret
    I could have spoken those words myself! :biggrin: I started out with ACDSee Pro, simply because I'd previously used ACDSee. Then I made the switch to Lightroom and have been very happy. I run Windows, so I can put my images, catalog, presets and other settings wherever I like. :smile:
     
  18. tradesmith45

    tradesmith45 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 13, 2012
    Oregon
    (no manual work is prefered)
    Rogergu, from everything I've read, other than OV2, none of the PP software does a terrific job w/ RAW development of OMD files. But this point of view is mainly from experienced digital photogs or those who compare the results of OV2 to something else. One common comment is about reddish cast for skin tones in shadows.

    As the DPR review of RAW converters points out, this kind of problem comes from how well the default software settings match a particular camera sensors characteristics. That same review said DxO seem to be better at that than others.

    The the reverse conclusion is that any PP software can do a great job w/ the right presets. Here's a couple links to these discussions about the OMD:
    https://www.mu-43.com/f92/universal-lightroom-4-om-d-e-m5-preset-archeogeolab-25526/
    https://www.mu-43.com/f74/olympus-viewer-2-vs-lightroom-4-a-39682/

    If you want to use the Universal OMD preset from the first link, you'll need to use Lightroom 4.

    I'm an Aperture newby & wish someone could translate the very complex LR preset to Aperture so I could try it w/ my OMD files.
     
  19. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Rogeru - you control how much noise remains in your images. For whatever its worth, I find out of cam jpg files have excessive noise reduction at the expense of detail - I would rather have a lot of detail than worry about (luminance) noise. As for the OV2 argument I remain entirely unconvinced by its superiority to LR or DxO. It's the easy way to get OOC jpg, but that isn't my goal. It's not up to the software to do a 'terrific job' it's up to the user to learn to use the tool and do a terrific job.
     
    • Like Like x 1