Can you tell me about DxO?

[tom in mpls]

I have used C1 with Photoshop for a long time now to convert and process my RAW files. I don't know if I completely understand DxO, but it seems to offer a host of processing features, some specific to the camera and lens combo. Although the A55 is now supported, I see only 5 lenses listed as currently available or planned for this body. I own none of these 5. So is there any good or compelling reason to consider this software?

 

[mhespenheide]

Tom,

I've only used the trial version of DxO, so someone with more knowledge should really answer this. But it's my understanding that the key difference between DxO and other raw converters is their testing and proprietary profiles for specific camera and lens combinations.

Most of the time, I use ACR in PhotoShop. If you're looking to try alternatives, when I have something special that I want to pull out the stops on, I use Iridient's Raw Developer, as its "deconvolution sharpening" seems to do very well.

 

[douglasf13]

I used it for a month last year, and I wasn't thrilled with the demoisacing, myself. Even with all of the NR turned off, things looked a little blotchy to me.

 

[ptomsu]

I installed the trial some days ago. I am very used to LR3.3, PSCS4, C1Pro and even Aperture3 and so it is hard to find lot of things which would be better in DXO. Will give it a try for some more days, but rather think I will not buy it, as LR3.3 for me can do all (same level if not better) IMHO.

 

[Braeside]

Yes limited range of lenses covered for the Sony A900 and what annoys me is that they only add new lens/body combinations to the latest version of the software, forcing you to pay for upgrades.

Having paid for the Pro Elite version 5, I rather thought that as new lenses were added that I would be able to add them to the version I bought. No, I have to fork out half as much again for the version 6. They probably will never cover any of the old lenses that really could do with correction.

Have decided to abandon them and use Aperture for 99% of my processing. There is PTLens for corrections if I need it.

 

[peterv]

So is there any good or compelling reason to consider this software?

Tom, one reason for me is that the colors I get from the combo DXO - A900 are really beautiful. Quite often I like the tones better than ACR. Have to agree with the remarks about the UI, I think ACR is much easier to work with.

 

[Braeside]

Tom, one reason for me is that the colors I get from the combo DXO - A900 are really beautiful. Quite often I like the tones better than ACR. Have to agree with the remarks about the UI, I think ACR is much easier to work with.

What version of DxO are you using I wonder? I am on 5.3.7 here.

The version I used to use suffered from greens in the shadows with the A700 I recall.

That was another reason I gave up and went back to Aperture.

I will revisit it and see how it is doing now.

For my workflow Aperture is the easiest, but for something that needs lens correction I may occasionally try DxO.

[I am in a similar position with my M8 where certain photos with lots of specular highlights process better in C1 than Aperture]

 

[peterv]

I use DXO 6 now, but I liked the colors that came out with version 5 too.
I suppose it's all personal preference
For my workflow ACR is the easiest.

 

[Dave_Anderson]

I tried DxO and hated the clunky UI, though at the time it was marginally better at noise handling than LR2.7. What really killed any enthusiasm for me was a combination of two things... One, they completely ignored my queries about support for older Minolta lenses on Sony. No answer whatsoever. I didn't have any Sony lenses at the time so the whole song and dance about lens corrections meant nothing to me. The second thing was LR3 Beta and rumors of a DIY lens correction approach. I'm very happy with where LR3 and CS5 are in terms of workflow and don't see any need for change.

Instead, I am stuck looking at using 1/5 of my shutter's rated life to fully profile the lenses I have -- most of the online correction profiles are based on a small subset of apertures and often a very close focus distance, and are generated by folks with unknown skillsets taking an unknown amount of care with the process. I'm considering getting all of the necessary charts printed and mounted then renting an a900 body to "take 20,000 for the team".

 

[jonoslack]

I have used C1 with Photoshop for a long time now to convert and process my RAW files. I don't know if I completely understand DxO, but it seems to offer a host of processing features, some specific to the camera and lens combo. Although the A55 is now supported, I see only 5 lenses listed as currently available or planned for this body. I own none of these 5. So is there any good or compelling reason to consider this software?

HI Tom
Either stay where you are, or have a bash with Aperture or Lightroom (both of which I think do better with the A55).

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I checked out the trial and wasn't too impressed. Output quality is good, colors are good but not as good as I get with Nik Viveza 2 run from LR3. There's nothing like Nik Silver eFex Pro, which to me is a workflow disqualifier. DxO's sharpening is very good - undoubtedly a convolution with a filter kernel calculated from a point spread map (aperture, distance, focal length, field position). By the same token I assume their lens corrections are first class. But otherwise I don't see a whole lot in its favor; it's pathetically slow (a minute to process a raw on my 15" MBP? come on - LR3.3 takes maybe five seconds), and it promotes a "project" based (like Windows software anno 1999) workflow. When I go add ProPhoto RGB to the process options it gives me a file browser pointing to my Documents directory, instead of a list of available color spaces. I agree with the sentiment expressed above - the UI is very clunky, if not amateurish. It functions like it was designed by engineers, not an experienced UI designer.

Can it be run as a plugin from LR3, solely for lens corrections and input sharpening? If so, I'd buy it! But as a main workflow tool... I personally didn't find it very appealing. (But, YMMV!)

DxO also has no support for the Leica M9, Mamiya ZD back, or (since I'll likely go there in the future) PhaseOne. I can't see using different workflow tools for different cameras! If I carry the M9 around the neck and A850 with 70-200 over the shoulder, shooting the same things, the last I want is for the files to end up in different workflows. Dealbreaker.

 

[ustein]

DxO produces good image quality. But their support for lenses is very slow. Recently they added the GH2 and supported just one lens (14-140mm).

 

[roweraay]

I have been using DXO for a while now and luckily with the A900, their lens modules cover my lenses really well (except for my Minolta 35/2 and Minolta 24/2.8).

Their Ver.5.x.x had pretty piss-poor UI but it seems to have gotten better from Ver.6 onwards. I now have their latest version, which I use with the A55.

 

[dhsimmonds]

Tom

If you have used C1 for a long time and you have updated to the latest version, I very much doubt that you will find anything else as satisfactory. I am using C1 6.1.1 Pro, and rarely even put my images through Photoshop anymore.

This software is so versatile now, allowing local changes to be made, layers and so much more. However I don't like it for browsing a large number of full size RAW images on my Mac. Adobe Bridge handles this so much more competently. I have spoken to Phase One about this and I am sure that they will eventually deal with it.

But as raw conversion/editing software it handles my A900 and A700 images perfectly.