robert goldstein

November 8, 2009

I consider Lightroom to be rather poor at noise reduction. You don't mention in your post whether you are shooting in RAW, but if you are, the best NR reducing RAW converter by far is DxO Optics Pro. After conversion, you should use one of the excellent NR programs that are available before applying the tonal contrast filter, preferably as the first step after conversion. I like Dfine, but there are others, such as Noiseware, Noise Ninja etc. Personally, I rarely set the TC filter above 30%, and mostly, I use it at 10-20%. Perhaps if you backed off a bit, you would have less difficulty with noise in your images.

Rob

October 14, 2009

Robert thanks for your feedback on DXO. I ran the demo for a week or so last year and was impressed, but not as much as lightroom which I purchased. Out of the 7 or so supported lenses I own several, the 16-50 DA* being the one I'd like to correct the moston the wide end. I see little need for correction on my DA* 50-135 or FAD 50mm macro. And surprisingly not that much on my DA 18-250. And I don't use the two kit lenses. Do you find it genuinely useful on processing images from non profiled lenses? Maybe I need to have another look at it. I'm just not keen on adding another processing engine to my workflow and not sure it's worth $170 to improve one lens. I guess the question is it really that much better than Lightroom ar RAW conversion?

</blockquote>

I have done many head to head comparisons of DxO and Lightroom with images shot with non-supported lenses. I am quite convinced that DxO is superior at RAW conversions. There is just more detail in its images. Contrary to popular opinion, RAW converters use different algorithms and produce different results. I also prefer the way that DxO Lighting boosts shadows by increasing contrast as well as brightness. It's an effect that I have not been able to replicate with Fill Light in LR. You just have to be careful not to overdo the effect.

Regarding whether it is worth $170 for one or two lens correction modules--what I have found is that I have taken to using the DA* 16-50 almost all the time, because the IQ with DxO is better than what I can get with other lenses, including the legendary FA 31 Ltd. Of course, when I need a different focal length or more speed, I will mount other lenses, but other than that, it's all 16-50 all of the time. My next lens will be the DA* 50-135, which gets rave reviews from everyone. I cannot wait to see how it performs with the DxO correction module.

Tom, thanks for the suggestion about creating my own camera profile. I'm not sure that it would be enough for me to abandon Lightroom completely, as I like its adjustments tools and file management features.

Rob

October 8, 2009

The big problem is, the DNG’s DXO save out are demosaiced so you really don’t have a Raw file any longer. Of course, that’s true saving out TIFFs. Its a problem when you wish to use two Raw converters. They can’t understand or deal with differing proprietary processing. So if you decide to stick with DXO, really doesn’t matter if you save TIFF or DNG, that DNG isn’t a Raw data file (its a rendered image, embedded into the DNG container).

</blockquote>

Actually, you do still have a RAW file. It's the original file that came out of your camera and which has all of the adjustments that were made in DxO. You can always revert to this file if you want to re-edit the image from scratch or if you want to re-work it in some other program. True, once the file is processed by DxO, it must take another form, but at some point, all image files must leave the RAW format, if they are to have a life outside of a RAW conversion program. It would be cool beyond measure if DxO had all of the features and the smoothness of Aperture and Lightroom, but it doesn't, at least not in the current version. Still, its RAW processing, especially with lens correction modules, is so superior that it is worth including it in any workflow IMO.

Rob

October 6, 2009

I've been unimpressed with the noise reduction in Lightroom, it doesn't do anything remotely similar to what external tools do. I use Dfine and find it does an excellent job of removing noise and minimizing softness. It appears to choose which areas need noise and which don't, something other tools may do. The LR tool does it globally.

</blockquote>

Another great feature in Dfine is that it can be applied locally or not applied locally, according to one's own preferences.

Rob

October 6, 2009

The tonal separation in the RAW capture image is far superior. I'm not sure what your problem is with that image.

Rob

October 6, 2009

Roger,

I am a huge fan of DxO Optics Pro. If you can wait a few months, there will definitely be support for the K-7 and 16-50. Currently, I use DxO with my K10D. The lens correction module for the 16-50 is fantastic. It truly does correct for all of the lens' flaws, including softness. Since I started using DxO, I can get better results from the 16-50 than I can from the 31 Ltd and the 77 Ltd, two of the elite lenses in the Pentax lineup. By the way, DxO does better with non-supported lenses than any other RAW converter that I have used or tried, and that includes a whole bunch of them.

The only reservation that I have with the program is the color rendering for the K10D. I have learned to leave all of the DxO color modules disabled and then to process the files as DNGs to be imported subsequently into Lightroom, where I prefer the color rendering and adjustment tools. This extra step adds a little time to my workflow, but I consider it well worth doing. Color rendering is a matter of personal preference, and you may not find DxO's to be objectionable.

Rob

July 26, 2009

But perhaps the most impressive thing to me is the Dynamic Range...It is very good and on par (should I say it) with my D700...This feature I have not heard spoken about with the K-7 but then again Pentax marketing is usually out to lunch.., but it impressed me as it is darn close to film...

</blockquote>

I hate to break this bit of news to you, but over at dpreview, GordonBGood has already offered his technical analysis of the K-7's DR, and he states that it is not better than the K20D's at low ISO. Many people found this disappointing, but for most, it is immaterial. I am surprised to hear your favorable comparison to the D700.

To me, the K-7 looks like a fantastic package, and I am sorely tempted to upgrade from my K10D.

Rob

June 30, 2009

I have been using DxO Optics Pro for the past several months, having been a Lightroom fan since it first came out. In terms of RAW conversion, there is no comparison. DxO runs circles around LR and every other RAW converter that I have tried, which includes just about all of the major programs on the market and several minor ones as well. The sharpness, detail and clarity are unmatched, IMO. This is true both for supported and unsupported lenses, but is, of course, especially true for the former. I find that DxO Lighting, which is a kind of fill light with guts, usually gives more pleasing results than I can get with LR. Noise reduction is as good as any that I have seen, and it is done prior to demosaicising, which is said to be a good thing.

The weakness of DOP, in my case, is its color rendering for the Pentax K10D. I just don't like it. For this reason, I leave all of the color modules turned off and then export the files to LR, which does a better job with color. Not all DxO users feel this way about the color, however. I have been able to incorporate both programs into my workflow without much added effort. This also allows me to use LR's file management capabilities.

DOP is designed to work on the principle that preset adjustments can be used to edit the vast majority of images, which is ideal for batch processing. The program comes with several canned presets, but I have created some custom presets of my own which I prefer. It is a simple matter to make individual adjustments to individual images as well, and I find myself doing this with increasing frequency now that I have learned how Exposure Compensation and DxO Lighting work together. I may also do some fine tuning in LR. The DOP user interface is a bit awkward and non-intuitive but can be mastered with only a moderate amount of teeth gnashing.

I have done hundreds of comparison tests of identical image files edited in DxO/LR vs LR alone, and DxO/LR wins by a sizeable margin in 90% of cases. I think that many potential users are put off by DOP's quirky nature, but if you invest sufficient time and effort in trying to understand those quirks, you will be rewarded.

Rob

June 10, 2009

There is a whole scientific field dealing with visual perception, and one of its main areas of inquiry has to do with how the human brain converts a two dimensional representation into a three dimensional one using a variety of visual cues. Artists have long understood, often intuitively, how it is possible to create a sense of realistic depth in their drawings. By varying their technique, they can produce drawings that appear to be relatively flat or deep. It stands to reason that the same can hold true for photographs, i.e. they can convey a greater or lesser sense of depth depending on a variety of factors. As I mentioned in my previous post, this can easily be seen using different software to edit the same image files, but it can also be seen using a single piece of software to edit the same image files in different ways. Just try making simple adjustments to clarity and sharpening while keeping this in mind.

Rob

June 9, 2009

Some people may sneer at the mere mention of a 3D look in photographic images, but I found out that it does exist some years ago, when I got my first set of prints back from a Contax G2 with Zeiss 45/2G lens. My jaw dropped when I saw what appeared to be rich modelling of solid objects and a sense of space around them. My point of reference at that time was Nikon with some pretty decent glass.

Over the years, I have come to appreciate three dimensionality when I see it, but sometimes I cannot see it unless I have something else to look at as a reference. Nowadays, I like to compare different image editing software. I will process the same image file with two or more programs and then view them on my monitor. The differences can be striking. Some software is much better at creating what I regard as a 3D look. My hypothesis is that this look is largely the result of microcontrast with subtle separation of tones. Fine detail helps, but a blurred background is not necessarily part of the equation.

Rob

June 3, 2009

Late, late response for those who may find this thread in a search about linear DNG or DxO.

DxO Optics Pro is currently up to version 5.3.3. It can still produce linear DNGs which are most definitely readable by Lightroom/ACR. It is important to understand that these are not RAW files, and some information may not be carried over into the DNG. For instance, if Dxo clips highlights, the highlights will remain forever clipped in LR or any other digital editor. Clipped shadows, in contrast, are virtually completely recoverable, a disparity that I do not understand. On the other hand, DxO can do a superb job at highlight recovery, far superior to LR/ACR in my experience. So, the trick is to set DxO's "Exposure Compensation" control to "slight" so that it will automatically recover highlights. On some images, you may need to go to a stronger level to accomplish this, but the software is very good at pulling detail out extreme highlights.

So is it worth the effort to use Dxo as a prelude to LR/ACR rather than just processing directly in the latter? My answer is a very strong "yes." The RAW conversions from DxO are far superior to what I can get in LR, no matter how hard I try. I have done a great many comparisons, and believe me, the DxO processed images are much sharper, cleaner and more detailed, and they have a level of 3D modeling that I have not seen with any of the RAW processing programs that I have tried.

Rob

June 2, 2009

the other raw processor i use the most handles these issues quite well (but lacks considerably on other levels), but doesn't have half the camera support available with acr.

</blockquote>

Is your other RAW processor DxO Optics Pro? This is what I use in conjunction with Lightroom/ACR. I find that Dxo, with its lens/camera correction modules, does an excellent job correcting lens defects, and it is easily the best RAW converter that I have tried. You are right that camera support is not as broad as with ACR, but if DxO supports the cameras that you use, it is hard to beat.

Rob

May 31, 2009

The jury is still out on the K-7's IQ. From what I gather on the rumor sites, it may not be substantially better than the K20D's, which is plenty good, believe me, but not head and shoulders above the competition. The major question has to do with high ISO noise. It is absurd to think that this APS-C sensor will be able to match that of the D3/D700 in that regard.

Rob

May 26, 2009

I agree that Color Efex Pro is a good place to look. In addition to the "Glamor Glow" filter, it has many other filters--some weird, some wonderful, and some both.

Rob

May 17, 2009

"If you're impressed with the sharpness of DxO, just try the $125 RAW Developer (demo at www.iridientdigital.com), and use DoG sharpening. Blows Lightroom & DxO right out of the water for my Canon 5D, Rebel XTi, and/or Panasonic LX3 files."

</blockquote>

Funny you should mention RAW Developer, as that was my program of choice until Lightroom came along. I liked it very much at the time, but it did not have all the features and organizational tools of LR.

At any rate, I just downloaded the latest version of RAW Developer (v 1.8.3) and tested it on several files that I had also converted in DxO. RAW Developer is sigfificantly better than when I last used it, but it still does not equal DxO in the rendering of detail. And I am not referring simply to the amount of detail, but also to how fine detail is rendered. DxO has a unique method of creating microcontrast that I have not seen with any other RAW converter. This gives the image a three dimensional quality. With RAW Developer, I have to apply sharpening as you suggested to even approach DxO with NO sharpening whatsoever. And still the RD image looks flatter.

Another huge advantage of DxO over RAW Developer is the availability of correction modules for specific camera/lens combinations. These correction modules automatically fix noise, lens softness, chromatic aberration, vignetting and lens distortaion at all focal lengths. This really works and is unique to DxO. For these and other tools, I rate DxO Optics Pro as the best pure RAW converter. BTW, I still use Lightroom for color, lighting and contrast adjustments.

Rob

May 11, 2009

Addendum to above post:

DxO's individual camera/lens correction modules really work and are unique. Vignetting, chromatic aberration, lens distortion and lens softness are largely eliminated automatically.

Rob

May 11, 2009

The answer is really simple. If you've already got CS4 and LR than buying DxO is a waste of money because it's nothing more or less than a LR clone.

</blockquote>

I strongly disagree. DxO Optics Pro is anything but a clone of CS4 and LR. It should go without saying that CS4 is a full spectrum image editing program, which neither of the other two is.

DxO takes a different approach to image editing and has a very different user interface than LR and CS4. It is also far superior to LR/ACR in terms of pure RAW conversion, i.e. the rendering of image detail from a RAW file. It is not as good at color management, at least with my Pentax K10D, so I use Lightroom for that. This simply involves turning off the color modules in DxO and processing for DNG output that can then be imported into LR. The extra step of using DxO for RAW processing is not a big deal and is very much worth the added effort.

Warning: DOP is a bit quirky and requires some effort to learn, but do not be intimidated. Once you have settled upon an adjustment Preset to your liking, it is completely automated for batch processing. No individual image adjustments will be necessarily, unless you choose to do so, which should be the exception to the rule.

Rob

May 11, 2009

Focus Magic also has a feature for dealing with camera motion. I have not compared it to Smart Sharpen. Just don't expect miracles from any software.

Rob

Posted May 9, 2009 · May 9, 2009

I'd like to use Aperture more integrally in the flow for culling and enhancement, likely using DXO less often and only for shots where I don't think Aperture's done the job. This would be greatly simplified if DxO/Aperture links were better, but that's out of my control. Lack of an easy loop there is why I use the fairly linear flow through DxO to Aperture. DxO's results are wonderful when tweaked properly, and I'm getting fairly good at that, but it's awful for organization. The batch flow processing in DxO is also a big plus. Aperture excels at orgazation, and I'd like to use more of Aperture's processing facilities to reduce the number of steps.

</blockquote>

I would not give up DxO, simply because it is superior to Aperture in the terms of pure RAW conversion. Look closely (pixel peep) at files converted by both programs, and the differences are undeniable. As I see it, this more than compensates for the extra step of processing images in DxO before importing them into Aperture. In my case, I use Lightroom, but the principle is the same. Since I use a custom DxO preset with no individual image adjustments, and I batch process, there really is not much added effort. Occasionally, I will use the geometric tools for correcting keystoning, but for the most part, all that I want from DxO are its superb rendering and its camera/lens specific correction modules. Lightroom (and presumably Aperture) are better for color management, organization etc.

Rob

May 9, 2009

It seems to me that DXO offers the wow effect within it's own program, outside of this it is just another image processing tool that dose correct image distortion via it's modules, but the image still needs working on within Photoshop to make it stand out.

</blockquote>

I find this completely mystifying. When I process files in Dxo Optical Pro 5.3 for DNG output and then import them to Lightroom, they look just as detailed and as sharp as they do in DxO and much better than the same files brought directly into LR. If I then export to Photoshop, they lose nothing in IQ.

Rob

May 6, 2009

I had a similar problem with a superbright iMac, and Eye One could not adjust the luminance to a proper level. ColorEyes did the trick, and I have been using it ever since, albeit on a 23 inch Cinema Display. I have no knowledge about Basic Color.

Rob

May 6, 2009

I would just remind you that there is a huge difference between 12mm and 15mm. So don't think that the 15mm will somehow give you anything close to the angle of view that the 12-24 will.

And just for the sake of discussion, I would also suggest consideration of the DA*16-50 as a wide angle lens alternative that also happens to be a terrific general purpose lens. It has quite a bit of distortion and chromatic aberration at the wide end, but if you use DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversions, those lens defects are automatically corrected.

Rob

April 15, 2009

Hi, my name is Rob, and I am a Nik addict. I love all of their programs and use most of them on a regular basis. My practice is to move worthy images out of Lightroom into CS3, where I apply various Nik tools in a sequential fashion, sometimes repeating them over and over until I get just the look that I want. At that point I save the file as a TIFF. If ever I want to alter the image in some major way, I still have the original RAW file in LR and can just start the process over again. It's not that big a deal, at least not for an amateur like me with too much time on his hands.

As I see it, image editing in RAW is nice but is not an end in itself. If I can get superior results with greater ease working on a TIFF file in Photoshop, then so be it. If, and when, the same capabilities are available within a strictly RAW workflow, I will probably adopt them.

Rob

April 15, 2009

there's little you can't do manually in PS assuming you want to dump in the time and even have the skill/knowledge to pull off well.

</blockquote>

I've got another one of those clever analogies showing why using PS plugins makes sense:

Hey, I could brew beer from scratch if I wanted to, but it's much easier to buy a six pack of Anchor Steam at my local Whole Foods Store, even if it is overpriced.

Well, yeah, buying a finished product is not quite analogous to buying a useful tool, but Anchor Steam is sure a lot better than any beer I would be likely to brew myself.

Rob

April 13, 2009

"You don't need both and in fact, there's nothing the LR version does that's useful that you can't do in Photoshop. Its applying all the effects AFTER rendering, not in the Raw processing pipeline. If you didn't have PS, then it might be useful, otherwise, the only differences are the host software the plug-in is being used."

That is exactly correct. I see no real advantage to using the Nik programs as plug-ins over applying them to the image in PS and then bringing it back to LR as a TIFF. I do this all the time, although sometimes LR forgets to import the edited image.

Rob

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by robert goldstein