DxO software 50%+ off!

[wjgollatz]

This is the premier RAW converting software, and its two cousins Viewpoint and Filmpack If you use a DSLR or any digicam creating RAW's, you probably heard of DxO somewhere. This is an awesome deal! They may be in the middle of an of a new product rollout - no Dx0 11 has been announced - but the current DxO is just awesome. Keep in mind that there is a significant feature difference between the Elite and Essential edition. This, and Lightroom is about all one needs (and On1 for masking, or Topaz plugins). I might be cheerleading it, buts it a product I use myself, and the link is not an affiliate or referral link, straight to the product websites.

It is best on RAW, but can also work on jpegs.

Link goes to just DxO OpticsPro 10, but all of their software is 50% off.

http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/photo-software/dxo-opticspro

B&H Photo has same prices, but an even bigger discount for the DxO Elite Edition Collection at $178 (OpticsPro, Viewpoint and Filmpack).
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1110243-REG/dxo_elite_edition_collection.html

 

[tdawg]

I'm officially intrigued. So you use this in combination with Lightroom? What do you notice that works better in DxO than in Lightroom. Have any highlights of what DxO offers that Lightroom simply doesn't (besides the add-on Viewpoint and Filmpack)?

Thanks

 

[wjgollatz]

DxO can be used like a plugin to Lightroom. Or one can us DxO to batch convert images to tiff files for import to Lightroom. No matter what, Lightroom has to convert the RAW files, through its own algorithm (Adobe Camera Raw). Photoshop also uses ACR. A RAW converter is propriety and have to reverse engineer the RAW conversion, and in the process get different colors or information than what the manufacturer might produce.

I use a Nikon, and Nikon's RAW converter is NX-D. It can do a good job, but it is clunky, and slow, and lacks features of DxO. I find DxO does a fine job comparable to NX-D with colors, but with the noise reduction and clarity features, it can produce better images. Images seem to come out better than when converted in Lightroom. Lightroom seems to produce a softer image but that can be adjusted, but the colors will start out different coming from DxO (or NX-D). I get better control over shadows and highlights. (but not all the time, it can really be image dependent) Lightroom has a dehaze feature and the non-cloud can get presets for dehazing, but I find DxO gets a cleaner overall result. As for reducing noise, I prefer DxO to Lightroom

I would say the consensus is that DxO does a better job than Adobe does within Lightroom or Photoshop. It might not be the best converter and its chief competition for RAW converting would be Phase One's Capture Pro (but cost a lot more at $300 because it is also does what Lightroom does).

I would not buy DxO as an alternative to Lightroom, only as a compliment. Lightroom can produce and fix images very well. DxO just helps by bringing a more crisp image to it. I am not a professional photographer so I have not got into batch conversion. When I am using Lightroom, all my images go there first, and images I like, or images I hope to fix, go to DxO. I might be working on an image, then decide I really like it, then start the whole process over after sending the original file to DxO) It is an extra tool, and even at 50% off at $99, can be considered pricey - but its still a great tool. Just about any plug-in for Lightroom is going to cost that. Lightroom can produce perfectly acceptable images on its own, DxO help by helping you to subtlety start off with a better image.. Personally, I don't think the entire suite is needed, unless you are into the filmpack, and do not like what Lightroom presets will produce. And for Viewpoint, I do not have an expensive wide angle type lens (nor do I do heavy architecture work) that I felt a need for it. DxO Optics Pro 10 itself is a good buy and comes with its own lens distortion correction (have to go to their website to see the camera and lens combo - but they are very extensive and do a lot of testing). I don't use DxO for every image. And it won't improve every image either.

I would do this:
Download a trial of DxO, Download your manufacturer's conversion software. Select 10 RAW's. Convert those raws into 32 bit .tiff images in Lightroom, DxO, and camera's software. Then compare them, and compare them to how well you could enhance them in those applications.

 

[ControlD]

I have been a DxO user for several years as well.

Honestly, I just pretty much use it as a "fire and forget" solution. I batch process all of my raw images, usually converting to jpeg and that's it. For tougher pictures I will process with DxO and then go to another program to fine tune the results, but really 99% of the time my DxO output is all I need. I'm just an amateur though, and if I had to process each raw image individually I would simply shoot jpegs.

 

[CuriousMike]

I would do this:
Download a trial of DxO, Download your manufacturer's conversion software. Select 10 RAW's. Convert those raws into 32 bit .tiff images in Lightroom, DxO, and camera's software. Then compare them, and compare them to how well you could enhance them in those applications.

I think I'll take this advice tonight and see how it goes compared to my normal Lightroom only option.
(Thanks for your detailed synopsis.)

 

[CuriousMike]

Going from LR to DxO isn't a straight-forward process - definitely a new learning curve.

DxO seems to need time to do an adjustment - I can't just ( for example ) drag the contrast and watch it adjust in realtime.

Also, is there a "brush" in DxO, so you can selectively apply edits?