What I find makes for the best such images is to create two versions of the same picture -- one biased for highlights and one biased for shadows saving each in differently named folders then combine them myself in Photoshop to match my own "look". Unfortunately, there is no way to do this with a single click in DxO. Hopefully they might add such a feature in the future. Actually, it was natural. But from v7 they stuffed up the color management. What you see within DXO is no longer what you see in the output with your calibrated monitor profile.
Thank you for your feedback. I will transfer your info to the Product team. I agree with castleofargh This is a critical feature to have back. In detailed comparisons I detected that their claim never could reach the original raw converters as from Olympus, Nikon, Canon, or Sigma. The noise reduction algorithms from DxO ruined many of my landscape tonalities. The parallel processing took eternities.
I found them a marketing gag with no substance. DxO quietly died away from my workstations about one year ago. I've had the same experience with Nikon Capture. I suspect that the camera manufacturer's raw converters take into account the noise characteristics of the camera, something that '3rd party' software is unable to do. Our goal at DxO is to provide you with Image Quality superior than any other brand you have mentionned. So, I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad experience with the version you used.
If you have some time for a new try, I would suggest you to download the trial of version 8. In case there is something that goes wrong on your images, I would recommand you to report the information to the technical hotline team -they will be welcome to help you. Hence, we take into account all the noise characteristics of the camera.
I assume that the camera is supported by DxO Optics Pro.
I used DxO 7 for a long time, and took the time to learn the meaning and fine details of all of the complicated controls, but something about the tonality was never right. There is no way to make it look natural without clipping one of the two, it has a weird grunge look to it. Eventually I tried Lightroom, and was instantly converted.
That same boat picture in Lightroom would look great, with the entire dynamic range used, yet contrasty and punchy. Probably many other software would fare fine too, but DxO just cant compress dynamic range and look natural. I think you've put your finger on it right there.
Tonality is a hit your gut or miss proposition, and DXO cannot hold a candle to LR4 in that department, to say nothing of the dozens of extra clicks one needs to produce a finished product. I keep waiting for DXO to get better, because I like the geometry correction, but so far they've been highly resistant to change. I am really considering uninstalling the version 7 from my Mac. In this time of crisis, you can do a lot with the money. I have yet to find another converter that will automatically adjust images in seconds accordingly to specific camera and lenses.
FREE DxO Optics Pro 9 Elite Edition (for PC & Mac) @ SharewareOnSale
Get a decent computer, and NO laptops are not considered decent in photoediting world. No, it's not. That's why I just switched to Capture One after test-driving both new releases for some days. Capture One is way faster.
You may also like
SSD vs. This is quite near the point I'm most interested in: performance. LR4 can do pretty much all I want to do but it's a resource hog and sometimes stalls, wondering if DxO Optics is any better. From my experience, DxO is probably the fastest RAW converter that will give you excellent results from camera raw files, with unparalleled corrections tied to specific lenses and camera sensors.
It is not perfect tool, but whatever is doing - is doing almost perfectly, especially in noise reduction, geometry correction, chromatic aberration and recovering of image detail. Did you test C1? It's so much more responsive. Or do you mean workflow-wise?
I used DxO for the last 5 years exclusively but switched after the new release still wasn't responsive enough. C1 is way better in this area. The printing feature is totally pathetic compared with what is available in other programs such as ACDSee.
You cannot add a header or a footer to proof sheets. And there is very little customization of file name, appearance, etc. Definitely something I would never use. The only reason I can see for me to pay the "upgrade" price for version 8 is if it eventually supports my new Nex 6 camera. This should never have been considered a new version in my opinion But they say I must move on to new versions even if I feel I they are taking me backwards in efficiency. I've been using DXO for a long time.
I have benn pretty upset that version 7 and version 8 have removed some useful features that were in version 6. The usability in "Projects" mode is not as good either. That being said I compared version 8 with version 7 and don't see much reason to upgrade. The interface looks better but has not added any new features I could not see any difference in image quality and I was carefully studying both programs side by side using identical settings in each one.
As well, DXO needs to improve their interface big time. Way too many clicks compared to LR. My main photo editing software are PS, Nik and Topaz. Is there any other RAW processing program that requires a more expensive version to allow functionality with a FF camera? Also, as mentioned the printing module is less than adequate.
We have about 6 labs in the US and in Europe to be able to do all the calibration As a consequence, the software applies corrections dedicated to both the hardware you are using in every shooting conditions and the content of the image. As you can imagine, it has a cost and that is the reason why decided to do a split in 2 editions. The target is third week of december if everything goes well. I think the problem comes down to the sensor.
I'm not a boffin where this is concerned, but given the XPro-1 and XE-1 use an X-Trans sensor rather than the normal Bayer sensor, I assume the whole approach to processing RAW files differs considerably from other cameras. If that is the case, DXO might consider it not viable to do all the coding for a little used sensor with possibly very different processing needs. The little extract that designdog posted from the website seems most helpful in clarifying their intentions. Expect nothing soon. Perhaps someone knows if there is some workaround, such as converting the RAW files, that would enable the DXO features.
To our knowledge and the feedbacks that we get from photographers and some people at Fuji itself I mean, not only supporting the new format but giving a satisfactory result. For Amadou Diallo, please include Photo Ninja into the comparative as it is another excellent high-end converter. Corel AfterShot Pro would be a good idea too as it is the fastest of all. Some users need quality above all, others speed I tried it, but its too simple, quite slow, not special in any way and very "beta-ish".
Not sure if Photo Ninja is based on DCraw or not, but its not better then those based on it. Pictus, thanks for the suggestions.
The modular approach
It's likely we'll limit the raw converter shoot out to the three apps I mentioned, as they're the most popular and mature cross-platform options. But I'll consider whether we can incorporate Photo Ninja in some way, as many users are probably not aware the "Ninja" is now a raw converter as well. LR has polished , well designed UI but now it has to step down and make room for new player. What is missing, unfortunately discovered by me after I purchased it, is support for the Fuji X Pro Maybe you should have got informed before purchasing it.
But don't despair, new modules are coming all the time. And you may do your corrections manually until support for your gorgeous X-Pro 1 comes. The 'Fuji X Pro 1' surely deserves to be added.
- New Registrants Please Read Before You Register!.
- rootear nexus 5 con mac!
- how to record streaming video mac;
- You may also like.
- How To Uninstall DxO Optics Pro from Mac OS.
- DxO Optics Pro 8.1.3 update packs 260 new modules and support for multiple new cameras;
The Fuji FinePix X module, after all, is also available. If you burrow down deep on their web site, which I just did this afternoon, you will discover a document that explaims their position. Here is the final sentence:. I have sent them an email asking for a refund, and requesting a bit more clarity on their web site.
FREE DxO Optics Pro 9 Elite Edition (for PC & Mac) @ SharewareOnSale - abordu.tk
Designdog Hmmm Funny coming from DxO. They're usually pretty reactive to provide support for raw files and optical correction, after all that's the main thing about the soft I'm interested in the Fuji X series, and I've been using DxO OP7, so could you please post the link here about DxO not supporting fuji, and why, if they give reasons , it might help other readers. PS : I just checked and actually neither the X-Pro1 or the X-E1 are listed among the Fujifilm supported cameras for lens correction, so not there not supported, all right.
But I could not find the additional details you mentioned, and that's the interesting part, I mean: short term?