Cliff L. wrote:
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.
Good to know Cliff. I've heard from those proficient in both programs (when using FF bodies) the difference is very very minimal between the two. It sounds like DXO might be a little more customizable when it comes to sharpening profiles with lenses (per Stan) so that's a win for DXO, but I've heard masking is better in LR so there are pluses and minuses to both. I'm still interested in DXO PL but haven't had the time to give it a try.
artsupreme wrote:
Good to know Cliff. I've heard from those proficient in both programs (when using FF bodies) the difference is very very minimal between the two. It sounds like DXO might be a little more customizable when it comes to sharpening profiles with lenses (per Stan) so that's a win for DXO, but I've heard masking is better in LR so there are pluses and minuses to both. I'm still interested in DXO PL but haven't had the time to give it a try.
I have DxO PL6, but rarely ever use it because I find the workflow too painful and it has no cataloging capability; because of those limitations I didn't bother upgrading to the latest version.
Likewise, I stopped using PureRAW when I sold the last of my Fuji and Micro Four Thirds gear, as I saw no tangible benefit compared to LR with my Canon and Sony files.
DxO PureRAW was a real game changer when it first came out, but LightRoom has improved to the point where the difference is insignificant for what I'm shooting. Nowadays, I tend not to go looking for solutions until I actually run into a problem.
Well indeed version 8 of Photolab is leagues beyond your version 6. Aside from the NR which once again at higher ISO's is a real game changer as compared to Adobe. Try shooting at ISO12,800 and process that through your Adobe and compare it to PureRaw or Photolab 8 and it's like next level. But sure, if you're sticking below ISO3200 perhaps the differences aren't that huge. But indeed the lens profiles in DXO are prized for their accuracy. I suppose if Adobe trips your trigger Cliff then carry on. Besides, for many years now in regard to cataloging I have always preferred good old named folders. Easy to keep and name accordingly. No need for some exotic methods otherwise. I have a couple of presets I put together in DXO which gets me at least 90% or more of the way to a completed image using this R5MkII. I've had Fuji's and Olympus OM1's before and felt much the same.
Cliff L. wrote:
DxO PureRAW was a real game changer when it first came out, but LightRoom has improved to the point where the difference is insignificant for what I'm shooting.
This is exactly what I was pointing out to dcisive in that DXO was a game changer back in the day, but Adobe has really closed the gap in recent years to the point the differences are negligible.
dcisive wrote:
Well indeed version 8 of Photolab is leagues beyond your version 6. Aside from the NR which once again at higher ISO's is a real game changer as compared to Adobe. Try shooting at ISO12,800 and process that through your Adobe and compare it to PureRaw or Photolab 8 and it's like next level. But sure, if you're sticking below ISO3200 perhaps the differences aren't that huge. But indeed the lens profiles in DXO are prized for their accuracy. I suppose if Adobe trips your trigger Cliff then carry on. Besides, for many years now in regard to cataloging I have always preferred good old named folders. Easy to keep and name accordingly. No need for some exotic methods otherwise. I have a couple of presets I put together in DXO which gets me at least 90% or more of the way to a completed image using this R5MkII. I've had Fuji's and Olympus OM1's before and felt much the same....Show more →
I'm still interested but I do have buddies who use the most recent versions of both and tell me there's not much difference. So I would like to see a comparison where DXO really shines over LR.
goalerjones wrote:
Caught the Borrego Springs leg of the Race Across America Tuesday
Wow, it seems like there's a lot more grain in those images than in some of the other high ISO images in this thread. What ISO were you at, or is there something else going on?
Caleb Williams wrote:
Very cool. Was this on display somewhere?
No, not on display. The image was taken for the Flickr Macro Monday challenge and the watch was propped up on a black mirror (black perspex sheet) so that the top 3 elements of the watch you see are a direct view and the view you have of the face and through the cover glass are reflections.
