DxO Optics Pro

[thomas_mulder]

<p>Hello - I currently have Photoshop CS5 & Lightroom 3. I am NOT a master at CS5. So would it be worth while for me to get DxO Optics Pro? I have a feeling that Lightroom 3 is similar to DxO Optics, or do I have it wrong?</p>

[john_a5]

<p>DxO is completely different in the way it works than ACR, which is the base of Lightroom. I use DxO and ACR(CS5) and often also use Canon's Raw processor as well. Each does things differently and working the same image will yield different results.</p>

<p>DxO is better at noise reduction, correcting chromatic abberations as well as its lens correction(distortion) is better (but I have no complaints with ACR in this regard). It also yeilds better micro contrast in many cases. It's DxO lighting can be wonderful or sometimes not so much--you can turn it off but there are images that will be better in ACR or your camera software. You have to test different ones for optimal results.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Yes, I respectfully voice the opinion that you have it "wrong" (even though there's really no "right" or "wrong," just more- or less-appropriate apps for certain types of work/application requirements).</p>

<p>I'm still deciding on my software suite as well, and DxO Optics Pro remains high on the list, mainly for its powerful, and easy-to-use perspective control features. I also like the fact that my body, and my most-often used Nikkors are in their optical corrections database. The application is a bit clunky, and rather slow, but I really enjoy exploring its cool features. That said, it's a far different kind of product than Lightroom, in my opinion--it's more like a specialty app and RAW converter. That's not to say that it <em>couldn't</em> be used in a Lightroom type of workflow--it'd probably just be easier and faster in Lightroom. But, I do like using the DxO product! Here's probably what I'm going to get:</p>

<p>1. Ingest manager/metadata editor/browser/DVD burner: Photo Mechanic.<br /> 2. All-around powerhouse app: Photoshop CS5.5<br /> 3. All-in-one workflow tool for work-for-hire: Lightroom 3.<br /> 4. Landscape/cityscape/architectural/interiors/fine art: DxO Optics Pro.<br /> 5. Just because: Nikon Capture NX2.</p>

[sknowles]

<p>I have DxO Pro, mostly for comparison and testing (something I like to do) and I like it except for one thing. All updates aren't free, even incremental from like 6.5 to 6.6, and new versions of their FilmPack aren't backward compatible so you have to buy the update of DxO for the upgrade of FilmPack. It's not cheap and having to buy updates is questionable when Adobe, Apple and others gives them away, with discounts for version upgrades. Phase One does this too with Capture One, and neither lets you know until you try to get the update. JMO.</p>

[francisco_disilvestro]

<blockquote>

<p>All updates aren't free, even incremental from like 6.5 to 6.6</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is very strange. All updates inside the same major version have been free (5.*; 6.*), even from 6.5 to 6.6. It is only when you go from a major version to another that you have to pay for the upgrade, as is the case with other vendors.</p>

<p>I can't comment about the Film pack since I don't use it.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>IF you want to stick with a pure raw workflow from LR to Photoshop, DxO is going to be a problem! Its going to render data out as a non demosaiced file to apply its corrections before you can get that data into Lightroom (or Camera Raw) and at this point, its no longer raw data. Consider your workflow. </p>

[sknowles]

<p>You're right, the first time I updated DxO they wanted money, but now they don't charge for both updates, to Pro v6.5 to 6.6 and FilmPack v2 to v3. I sit corrected.</p>

[cyril_le_roux1]

<p>Thomas,<br>

Optics Pro can be used on a trial basis for 30 days. It remains functional beyond that point but pictures are watermarked. In the interest of validating a workflow it shouldn't be a problem.<br>

With regards to the workflow itself, in our experience, most users with LR tend to fall in 2 categories. Some use Optics Pro upstream of LR: they process the images as a batch and then import the resulting DNG/TIFF into LR. This takes advantage of Optics Pro’s automated corrections and image settings that aim for a result rather than blindly applying a delta. <br>

Others call up Optics Pro from within LR using the "Edit In" option. It works fine once you understand that the image actually transferred to Optics Pro is the unprocessed RAW, i.e. without any change you might have applied to it with LR. It is designed that way so that Optics Pro can apply the corrections on the RAW and return the image as a TIFF or DNG. For that reason it makes sense to make the changes you need with Optics Pro first.<br>

I hope this helps,<br>

clr<br>

Disclaimer: I'm with DxO looking after product management. My options are proudly biased!</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Others call up Optics Pro from <strong>within</strong> LR using the "Edit In" option. It works fine once you understand that the image actually transferred to Optics Pro is the unprocessed RAW, i.e. without any change you might have applied to it with LR. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unclear. Its sending rendered data to <strong>your</strong> product OR it just hands off the raw file untouched (no LR processing)? What’s confusing is the <em>Edit In</em> option, assuming you are talking about the command in LR specifically sends rendered data to the other app, not a raw. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is designed that way so that Optics Pro can apply the corrections on the RAW and return the image as a TIFF or DNG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In this context, the DNG is a rendered data in a DNG container (its not raw), correct? </p>

[cyril_le_roux1]

<blockquote>

<p>Unclear. Its sending rendered data to <strong>your</strong> product OR it just hands off the raw file untouched (no LR processing)?What’s confusing is the <em>Edit In</em> option, assuming you are talking about the command in LR specifically sends rendered data to the other app, not a raw.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LR normally only sends rendered images but we identify the RAW file from that information and actually load the RAW file. This allows Optics Pro to load an untouched file with no LR processing and therefore apply the corrections properly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In this context, the DNG is a rendered data in a DNG container (its not raw), correct?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Technically it's a demosaiced linear file.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>LR normally only sends rendered images but we identify the RAW file from that information and actually load the RAW file.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don’t understand. LR is sending rendered data. You then call up the raw too? And do what with which? You load the raw and then you process it and do what, hand off a demosaiced file back to LR? (ending the raw processing at this point)</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Technically it's a demosaiced linear file.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a><br>

That’s not raw data, demosaiced is the key. The gamma encoding isn’t really pertinent. I could save off a linear demosaiced file from LR’s export (just create a linear variant of say ProPhoto RGB, export as DNG). Other than the gamma encoding, its the same as saving out ProPhoto 1.8 TRC, its no longer raw. IOW, the container here (DNG) has no real benefit. The raw is no longer raw here. <br>

The bottom line here is Dxo nor any other 3rd party product has access to the ACR engine. You either hand a 3rd party product a demosaiced file and you are done raw processing or you render the image in LR and hand that to the product (the same as conducting the edits in Photoshop with a rendered image and any 3rd party plug-in). <br>

The workflow ramifications are not inconsequential. </p>

[cyril_le_roux1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don’t understand. LR is sending rendered data. You then call up the raw too? And do what with which? You load the raw and then you process it and do what, hand off a demosaiced file back to LR? (ending the raw processing at this point)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Optics pro finds and loads the RAW file and ignores the one LR wants it to take. It then hands off a demosaiced file to LR whether it's TIFF or DNG. There is no claim here to handoff a RAW file to LR and I agree with you it is not inconsequential. I'm just pointing out 2 different ways of working with LR/Optics Pro.</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<p>OK that makes sense now. So when you use <em>Edit In</em> in LR, Dx0 doesn’t take a rendered and processed LR file, it finds the raw. It applies its <strong>own</strong> raw processing engine and hands off rendered data back to LR. <br>

So how can you maintain color appearance between the two? LR has presumably user presets (white balance, exposure, Vibrance). You grab the original raw but your engine isn’t the same. I would expect the file you hand off to LR doesn’t match the original. <br>

Or the idea is, use LR as your DAM. Send raw to Dx0, process all there as if you were in LR or another raw processor (because you are). Back in LR, the color appearance and corrections are what you saw in Dx0 of course, you ignore the ‘original’ raw in LR as your ‘<em>before</em>’ image. </p>

[cyril_le_roux1]

<p>Let me correct myself on one point. When using the <em>Edit In</em> function in LR, the only format available is TIFF and therefore Optics Pro hands back a TIFF file to LR (not a DNG). That said this approach introduces the risk of colour consistency which you pointed out. If this is important to your flow then the best approach is not the <em>Edit In</em> function but rather processing the batch with Optics Pro first and importing the resulting DNG/TIFF into LR which you can use for DAM purposes.</p>