undefined | Better HN

0 pointscookiecaper9y ago0 comments

It's a shame that most software can't seem to keep a focus. Lightroom became a RAW development platform as well as a photo manager, etc. I'd really like just a fast, inobtrusive, and performant photo manager to help index my photos. I haven't found anything worthwhile yet.

I use DxO for all of my photography. Because Lightroom slows to a crawl on my imports, I haven't really tried it for RAW development. I guess I should give it a go. However, at this juncture I fully believe that DxO is miracle software. I've gotten far better results with it than I have with anything else. DxO can take a trash shot and make it 80% and it can take a good shot and make it 500%. Far more impressed with it than ufraw and the other RAW development suites I've tinkered with in the past.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

slantyyz9y ago· 2 in thread

Let me chime in with another vote for DxO. The entry cost is reasonable for the base version (discounted every year around Xmas) and it's not a subscription model like Adobe.

The lens/sensor RAW optimizations are fantastic (provided your camera has a bayer type sensor -- sorry, Fuji X users) and it can definitely make your photos punch above their weight. Depending on what you do, it might be worth spending more on the Elite edition -- most people don't need it, IMO. There are paid upgrades yearly, but if you don't need the new features, you can choose to skip a version (or two).

There are a couple of sister products, DxO Viewpoint for perspective fixes and DxO Filmpack (filters). IMO, Filmpack isn't worth paying for, but if you do a lot of architectural/wide angle work, Viewpoint is pretty good.

Also worth looking at is Affinity Photo - it's half the price of DxO. I bought it as a cheap alternative to PS for PSD editing, but it does RAW processing too.

Veratyr9y ago

I find that while most alternatives produce better quality output than Lightroom, none come close to it when it comes to organising and managing your photos.

I also find that when I process with Capture One Pro, I nearly always get better results than when I use DXO, RawTherapee or Darktable. Maybe it's just me but it is consistent.

cookiecaperOP9y ago

I gave Capture One Pro a try due to this comment. There are definitely things to like about it. It is much faster than DxO at everything I tried and appears to include some very convenient features, like an effect clipboard that makes it easy to pick and choose which alterations should be copied between images instead of being forced to use the all-or-nothing approach of DxO's "Copy Correction Settings" / "Apply Correction Settings".

However, IMO DxO's output is leaps and bounds better. I'm sure it's due to the profile of the image, and specifically DxO's PRIME noise filtering since this was a handheld shot at nighttime, meaning high ISO (3200). The noise filtering from DxO is hugely superior to that from Capture One. Without PRIME (i.e., marking "high quality" noise filtration instead of PRIME), the noise filtering is at least in the same ballpark, but DxO maintains a very sizable lead with far less color damage. I did try to set the filtering configuration settings to similar quantities, though the options are a little different in each program.

I may make a blog post with images on this subject soon.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse