I did the update, and I'm pleased, except that I'm going to have to do some work improving some older images that I print.
I have been using DXO far less since I started mostly using full frame Sonys, and Adobe has improved. I get good results on my modern work without DXO. However, for my older work from older APS-C and M43 cameras DXO makes a difference. Some of my good infrared work was on older cameras in both those categories.
I tried reprocessing two images from raw with the deep prime, and damn, it is distinctly better. No question. I didn't see any difference on some better files, but these two old Nikon DSLR files are just way better processed this way.
But I just did another one, from a different older DSLR, and ACR did a much nicer job. The ACR is noisier, but it looks natural and real, while in this case the DXO looks a bit synthetic. So I guess as always caution is warranted and one size never fits all.
Curious has anyone experienced this problem Bought PhotoLab 4 I have to re-enter activation code each time I open program and the water marking DXO Clear View Plus or FX tab is not there also will not transfer an image from LRC to Photolab4 on the DXO site it says I have the Elite version I paid for it but not sure I have the Elite version the download was 417MB I contacted support so waiting for an answer something is weird Running Windows 10
I just went to open a .dng file, and I get a message that says "cannot be processes ... unsupported camera ... "
Is there an issue with DXO not being able to open .dng
The file was shot on a Leica CL if that makes any diff. Does DXO not play nice (history for PL3, etc.) with .dng or Leica ... or is there something else
I just went to open a .dng file, and I get a message that says "cannot be processes ... unsupported camera ... "
Is there an issue with DXO not being able to open .dng
The file was shot on a Leica CL if that makes any diff. Does DXO not play nice (history for PL3, etc.) with .dng or Leica ... or is there something else
DxO supports DNG files but not all cameras. I just checked on their website, and I do not see the CL on the list.
Check it out here:
My understanding is if you have a DNG file from a camera on the list (straight out of camera), you should be ok. Otherwise, it will not work... You should probably raise the question on the DxO forum for a definite answer.
You are correct. It looks like Leica is writing out the sensor data to Adobe DNG
That could lock you into using Adobe ACR
p84 for the CL manual
USING RAW DATA (DNG)
You will need the right software if you want to edit data in DNG
format, e.g. the professional raw data converter Adobe® Photoshop
® Lightroom®. The software allows you to convert stored raw
data in excellent quality and also offers quality optimized algorithms
for digital color processing which create very low noise
results coupled with astonishingly high resolution.
During editing, you can adjust parameters like gradation, sharpness
etc. to achieve the best possible image quality.
I'm a big fan of DXO since PL 2 and the improvements in this new version are substantial :
- the revamped workspace
- the new deep prime
- the ability to (finally !) copy paste selective settings from one image to another
The software is also a little bit faster (it already started with DPL 3 compared to DPL2). I'm still a big fond of their color rendition with my sony files (defaut, neutral and provia are my favorites), by far the best colors out of the box compared to LR and C1.
It is still way slower to operate than C1.
But as suggested earlier in the thread, exporting my files in DNG using Deep prime and working with it in C1 is the perfect workflow for my weddings.
Does it still have the same bug that DX) v 3 has, in that if you export a tiff or a DNG out of DXO, then it can't any longer see it to do further adjustments?
Oh, and BTW my copy of DXO v3 can copy paste selective settings from on image to another all day long Ayoul, so that is not a new feature.
Oh, and BTW my copy of DXO v3 can copy paste selective settings from on image to another all day long Ayoul, so that is not a new feature.
In v3 you can only copy all the selective settings at once, with v4 you can choose which selective setting(s) you want to copy. It's quite a difference to me.
Pavel wrote:
Does it still have the same bug that DX) v 3 has, in that if you export a tiff or a DNG out of DXO, then it can't any longer see it to do further adjustments?
Oh, and BTW my copy of DXO v3 can copy paste selective settings from on image to another all day long Ayoul, so that is not a new feature.
Chris Dees gave you an answer on your second point. On the first point, yes, DXO is now able to read the DNG files that it generates. However I never noticed that it couldn't read its own tiff so I didn't check.
Ayoul wrote:
However I never noticed that it couldn't read its own tiff so I didn't check.
It can read them and it actually does a better job processing them than it does its own dng files, based on this sample of 1.
I've been thinking about the best way to capitalize on DxO's strengths (noise reduction and lens corrections) while minimizing its weaknesses. I don't care, for example, for DxO's shadow recovery. It's too different from C1 for my liking and it requires more adjustments from multiple sliders in order to arrive at something similar to what C1's Shadow adjustment can do on its own. So the question for me was, is it better to export a dng or a tif to C1? Answer to follow (or skip ahead if I'm already boring you).
I took an image, D810 NEF, with blown highlights (unrecoverable), and made dng and tif copies from within PL4. There were no other adjustments to the exports other than the aforementioned lens corrections and NR. While still in PL4, I moved the Highlights adj. slider all the way to -100 for all 3 files: nef, dng and tif. The results were interesting. PL4 handled the nef and tif in similar fashion, but it imparted a nasty pink cast to the dng highlights:
tif
dng
Moving to C1 yielded an opposite result. C1 handled the DxO dng file very closely to the nef, but it absolutely hated the DxO tif file. The highlight recovery was abysmal, turning the bright areas into a featureless mass. The shadow recovery, not shown here, was much less objectionable but not on a par with C1's shadow recovery for both nef and dng.
It may be too soon to draw any real conclusions, but for now, my exports to C1 via DxO will be dng.
Indeed, shadow and highlight recoveries in DPL are clunky, and I much prefer exporting a DNG and make the adjustments in C1 if I have a lot of files to work with. (C1 is way faster)
It's strange that DPL doesn't use well its own DNG files. But it doesn't really matters to me. If I export in DNG, it means that I want to continue my post processing with another software.
