dcisive wrote:
Run that through DXO Photolab 8 from RAW and you'd be floored.
Do you mean from an NR and sharpening perspective or from a whole RAW workflow perspective? I imagine PL8 has the same NR and sharpening performance that Pure Raw 4 has?
Does PL8 make it easy to import LR catalogs or do you have to start from scratch? Where do you think PL8 is superior to LR? What about masking?
artsupreme wrote:
Do you mean from an NR and sharpening perspective or from a whole RAW workflow perspective? I imagine PL8 has the same NR and sharpening performance that Pure Raw 4 has?
Does PL8 make it easy to import LR catalogs or do you have to start from scratch? Where do you think PL8 is superior to LR? What about masking?
Maybe you can nudge some of us to give PL8 a try.
I’m going to give it a whirl but, truth be told, there was very little noise in the image to start with. I don’t remember the original R5 files being so clean.
robert_in_ca wrote:
First outing this morning with the R5ii and performed really well.
Can we assume you're using the 1.0.3 firmware in camera at this time getting those great results? I've also noted there's no issues with the current firmware. Seems there is a number of folks out in the internet trying to drum up issues with it.
artsupreme wrote:
Do you mean from an NR and sharpening perspective or from a whole RAW workflow perspective? I imagine PL8 has the same NR and sharpening performance that Pure Raw 4 has?
Does PL8 make it easy to import LR catalogs or do you have to start from scratch? Where do you think PL8 is superior to LR? What about masking?
Maybe you can nudge some of us to give PL8 a try.
For starters the adjustment levels and quality of them in DXO are considerably more accurate and useful then anything Adobe produces. The Noise Reduction is in a whole different zip code of quality to say the least, and is one of the most desirable things about Photolab as it now uses the same algorithms as the PureRaw program. Color adjustment is not only more intuitive but superior all around. I have NO idea about the cataloging thing. Haven't touched LR in years and never was into cataloging with it in the first place. I use folders. Masking is quite efficient in DXO Photolab as well and the adjustments are vast. All in all I continue to shake my head as to why in the world anyone would still want to use Adobe. They all see just stuck in their ways and don't want to risk changing or relearning. Once you have you won't wonder why I have the stance I do about it. I've set some presets of my own (landscape, portraits etc.) and find it so darned quick and easy to process RAW images this way. And it's so dang easy to make them instead of buying these turkeys on Youtube that like to sell their presets for LR all day long. There's enough suckers out there I guess it makes a living for them.
dcisive wrote:
For starters the adjustment levels and quality of them in DXO are considerably more accurate and useful then anything Adobe produces. The Noise Reduction is in a whole different zip code of quality to say the least, and is one of the most desirable things about Photolab as it now uses the same algorithms as the PureRaw program. Color adjustment is not only more intuitive but superior all around. I have NO idea about the cataloging thing. Haven't touched LR in years and never was into cataloging with it in the first place. I use folders. Masking is quite efficient in DXO Photolab as well and the adjustments are vast. All in all I continue to shake my head as to why in the world anyone would still want to use Adobe. They all see just stuck in their ways and don't want to risk changing or relearning. Once you have you won't wonder why I have the stance I do about it. I've set some presets of my own (landscape, portraits etc.) and find it so darned quick and easy to process RAW images this way. And it's so dang easy to make them instead of buying these turkeys on Youtube that like to sell their presets for LR all day long. There's enough suckers out there I guess it makes a living for them. ...Show more →
Based on the fact you haven't used LR in years, you might be missing out on how good LRc has become lately. I believe the LR masking is better than DXO and now Adobe has recently come out with adaptive color profiles which is cool at first glance. So they are definitely continuing to improve their platform. I believe LR's NR and sharpening could be very close now to DXO, but I can't say for sure.
I'm still interested in DXO, but what I would like to see is the same RAW file processed in both programs to see the final edited product. Maybe I'll start a new thread dedicated to this as I think many would be interested.
artsupreme wrote:
Based on the fact you haven't used LR in years, you might be missing out on how good LRc has become lately. I believe the LR masking is better than DXO and now Adobe has recently come out with adaptive color profiles which is cool at first glance. So they are definitely continuing to improve their platform. I believe LR's NR and sharpening could be very close now to DXO, but I can't say for sure.
I'm still interested in DXO, but what I would like to see is the same RAW file processed in both programs to see the final edited product. Maybe I'll start a new thread dedicated to this as I think many would be interested....Show more →
I believe LR's NR and sharpening could be very close now to DXO, but I can't say for sure.
Nope not even close. AS for LR I did play around with it just a few years ago to see what they'd done. I'll stand by my comment in general.
dcisive wrote: I believe LR's NR and sharpening could be very close now to DXO, but I can't say for sure.
Nope not even close. AS for LR I did play around with it just a few years ago to see what they'd done. I'll stand by my comment in general.
I'm pretty sure Adobe really narrowed the gap recently (they have come pretty far in the last couple years), but I'll wait to see if there's members here who are proficient in both platforms to confirm.
artsupreme wrote:
Based on the fact you haven't used LR in years, you might be missing out on how good LRc has become lately. I believe the LR masking is better than DXO and now Adobe has recently come out with adaptive color profiles which is cool at first glance. So they are definitely continuing to improve their platform. I believe LR's NR and sharpening could be very close now to DXO, but I can't say for sure.
I'm still interested in DXO, but what I would like to see is the same RAW file processed in both programs to see the final edited product. Maybe I'll start a new thread dedicated to this as I think many would be interested....Show more →
The reason why I still use DXO PR is not only the NR but also the lens specific sharpening. You can tone it down to your liking, and it's much better than what LR can do, simply because it has lens specifics.
You can download a free full demo of the app, so you can try for yourself on your own images. It possibly depends greatly on what you shoot.
stanj wrote:
The reason why I still use DXO PR is not only the NR but also the lens specific sharpening. You can tone it down to your liking, and it's much better than what LR can do, simply because it has lens specifics.
You can download a free full demo of the app, so you can try for yourself on your own images. It possibly depends greatly on what you shoot.
Yeah that's but ONE great reason to dump Adobe. The profiles DXO provides are known to be the most effective and accurate. Sure speeds workflow up
dcisive wrote:
Can we assume you're using the 1.0.3 firmware in camera at this time getting those great results? I've also noted there's no issues with the current firmware. Seems there is a number of folks out in the internet trying to drum up issues with it.
Thank you. Yes that's correct, the firmware is 1.0.3. What issue are people saying they're experiencing?
It would seem that most often with very long primes (like a 600mm and such) they claim while the box goes on a subject the lens won't focus and they lose shots. So far I've only seen one person that complained about it doing that with a 100-500L lens. I use that lens and it sure doesn't wait to focus with the 1.0.3 on my R5MkII
artsupreme wrote:
I'm pretty sure Adobe really narrowed the gap recently (they have come pretty far in the last couple years), but I'll wait to see if there's members here who are proficient in both platforms to confirm.
With some ultrawide lenses, the DxO corrections are definitely better, but for others the difference is too small to notice. Same goes for noise reduction - DxO is better for m4/3 files, but I've found that LightRoom is just as good when it comes to full-frame images from Canon and Sony cameras.
Rufous Hummingbird (processed with my standard presets in Adobe LightRoom Classic)
Canon EOS R5m2RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM lens400mmf/6.31/800s2000 ISO0.0 EV
