Bruce n Philly Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
dmcphoto wrote:
I think DXO handles noise, highlights, and fine details very well - better than the Adobe products. I think you can get better results from "problem images" with DXO but to do it you still need to do lots of tweaking rather than accept the automatic default settings. For most images (low noise, well exposed, sharp) it doesn't make much difference. If you often shoot long exposures and/or at ISO extremes it might be worthwhile, for instance. Proper exposures of a fraction of a second at low ISO settings using a decent camera won't benefit enough to justify it, IMO. YMMV. ...Show more →
I am a longtime LR user and have DXO and use it as a DXO plugin. Yes, for me it all about problem images particularly noise (especially from dark images). DXO Prime noise reduction is IMO far superior to LR and is really worth if for me.
DXO Prime noise reduction changed the way I shoot sometimes.... I now am not afraid of shooting at higher ISOs. As a bird photographer, bird bodies can be dark and parts of them can be white.... so it is not unusual to use the LR brush on dark underwings.... only to have them look cartoonish and a mess with noise. Further, shooting birds require cropping and that just makes any problems appear worse.
I pop the RAW over to DXO.... DXO auto applies a bunch of stuff so I had to set it up to not do anything, then I crop, maybe increase shadows, and then apply Prime Noise reduction and the import back in to LR (as a 16 bit TIFF as per DXO recommendation). This is just SO SO much better than LR.
Overall, I think DXO is superior to LR that if they had a brush like LR, I believe I would probably dump LR. DXO is missing a brush, that gradient tool, and some other nice things... but their sliders just seem better at stuff overall.... but its their Prime noise reduction that is worth the price of admission.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
|