# Lightroom and DXO OpticsPro workflow question



## Random Orbits (Dec 20, 2014)

I've used LR for a few years, and I've gotten used to how ACR renders RAWs. However, I've always wanted better noise removal performance at higher ISOs, so I downloaded the trial copy of OpticsPro 10 to test out. I like how OpticsPro's prime noise removal seems to do a better job than LR, and some of the distortion tools seem to be better as well, but I like LR's local adjustments and other tools better. How do users that use both these programs do it?

Is the best way to weed out/catalog in LR, denoise and apply lens profile in DXO OP, and the do all other adjustments in LR (crop, brushes, etc.)?


----------



## candyman (Dec 20, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> I've used LR for a few years, and I've gotten used to how ACR renders RAWs. However, I've always wanted better noise removal performance at higher ISOs, so I downloaded the trial copy of OpticsPro 10 to test out. I like how OpticsPro's prime noise removal seems to do a better job than LR, and some of the distortion tools seem to be better as well, but I like LR's local adjustments and other tools better. How do users that use both these programs do it?
> 
> Is the best way to weed out/catalog in LR, denoise and apply lens profile in DXO OP, and the do all other adjustments in LR (crop, brushes, etc.)?




I would say that may differ from person to person.
I use both packages. I start with DxO (lensprofile, noise removal and some other adjustments - like cropping) I then open it in LR for some minor tweaks and sometimes adding some interesting presets I downloaded from the net. I hate the file management in LR where I often need to 'synchronise'. DxO just is seeing a new file immediately.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 20, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> How do users that use both these programs do it?



I tried DxO's PRIME (as of v9 of their software) and found it only really useful for very high iso, and not(!) for all shots alike. For some, I could hardly see a difference to ACR's denoising, though with ACR it's annoying to tweak around until you've found the best denoising & sharpening combinations with so many sliders involved.



Random Orbits said:


> Is the best way to weed out/catalog in LR, denoise and apply lens profile in DXO OP, and the do all other adjustments in LR (crop, brushes, etc.)?



Unless you depend on DxO for all shots, I guess that's the reasonable approach. DxO added tighter LR integration lately for a reason, obviously they've given up on convincing LR users to switch over completely. If they'd only add the ability to read dng raw files now...


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 21, 2014)

Prime, lens correction and Smart lighting are my top in DxO. Any RAW files with high ISO(5D III >3200ISO, 1DX >6400ISO) I run them through DxO then switch to LR.

Without DxO prime, I doubt I would be able to save a photo like this. 5D III + old 16-35 f2.8 II(f3.2 1/60 12800ISO). Not great, but good enough to keep.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 21, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> 5D III + old 16-35 f2.8 II(f3.2 1/60 12800ISO).



Well, the 16-35L2 f2.8 isn't old because there's no f2.8 L3  But if there'S a reason to add is to lenses, it's shots like these.



Dylan777 said:


> Not great, but good enough to keep.



Before troubling dxo with these, I'd say it doesn't hurt to try LR with the correct settings. I expect your computer setup is high-end, too, so in your case it doesn't really hurt - but for others it's overhead you can probably skip while retaining a raw workflow

The shot is clipped black and white, and I really don't see any details that would have been recovered by superior noise reduction ... but it added noise in the clipped areas, strange enough. I know this effect from my own dxo experiments, and imho this "film noise" it's more a matter of taste than good or bad nr.

If you're dealing with areas of colors or gradients, iso noise doesn't really matter, it's more about color reproduction - and dxo cannot save this.


----------



## candc (Dec 21, 2014)

there is an article called "lightroom workflow" in the help files for dxo10. 

dxo installs a plugin for lightroom. 

the suggested workflow is that you import, sort, catalog in lr. click a raw image and then select file/plugin extras/ transfer to dxo. the raw is transfered to and opens in dxo where you do your raw conversion then click the button on the bottom right that says "export to lightroom" dxo then sends the .dng back to lr where you can make local adjustments and convert to jpg


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 21, 2014)

candc said:


> then sends the .dng back to lr



Do take note that this dng is *not raw* anymore, but a large demosaiced file with lossless wb adjustment gone for good. You could as well use tiff even though dng compresses better and has some other goodies. That's the main concern with combining dxo with acr - it breaks the raw workflow.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 21, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > 5D III + old 16-35 f2.8 II(f3.2 1/60 12800ISO).
> ...



With LR, I have hard time getting a decent IQ when photo reaching ISO12000ish in low light. There is no doubt, the causes could came from operator


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 21, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > 5D III + old 16-35 f2.8 II(f3.2 1/60 12800ISO).
> ...



What do you think?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 21, 2014)

I've tried DXO several times, it does a very good job of processing a raw image out of the box, but does not really do any better of a job than LR with manual adjustments.

I'd use it, but find it extremely slow to transfer 1000 images to LR, and its not a file organization tool, when you have a huge number of images, organizing them in folders on a computer breaks down, and its difficult to find them. There are many many ways to find a image in LR, that's one of its strengths. I found the catalog idea difficult at first, it took me at least a year to really become proficient at understanding and using it, but now its 2nd nature.

the new DPP 4 shows promise with its improved interface, but it does not organize images, so its for those who use other software to organize images, or for those who organize by folder.


----------



## candc (Dec 21, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > then sends the .dng back to lr
> ...



true but at least the original raw is still retained while the dng becomes part of a "stack". and as mt spokane said, it would be cumbersome doing this as standard workflow. i use dxo but sometimes i have been exporting to lr (you don't have to start out in lr) to make a localized adjustment instead of exporting to photoshop.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 21, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> What do you think?



I think take a (mini-)tripod with you next time, do hdr and stitch them to a panorama -then we're talking 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I found the catalog idea difficult at first, it took me at least a year to really become proficient at understanding and using it, but now its 2nd nature.


 
+1, I would be lost w/o LR's cataloging and tagging system - but you have to put some though into it how do adapt it to your own needs. I have absolutely no idea how folks handle their collection using folders and post-processing software tuned for editing individual images like dxo or dpp.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 22, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think?
> ...



That would be too easy


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 22, 2014)

After playing with it on about 100 pics over the weekend, I like some of the things that OpticsPro does, but I'd still rather do most of the editing in LR. Where is shines is denoising (Prime) and then lifting the shadows locally in LR. I don't like the preview in Optics Pro. The pics look flat The denoising preview was a bit different than what it produced, so it took a while to play with the settings to get what I was looking for, and since it takes about 2 minutes to process a file, it took a while. In batch, the average time drops because it processes multiple files at once. I guess I'll use it for processing high ISO pics esp. those that require lifting the exposure or subrange quite a bit.

I have yet to play with the volumetric correction using wide angle lenses.


----------

