# DxO Optics Pro



## lilmsmaggie (Mar 24, 2013)

Hi,
I’m relatively new to this forum. In the past 8-12 mos., I’ve begun transitioning from film based photography to digital. Even more recently, I purchased a 5D MK II. I was already shooting with a Rebel T3i and the 24-105 f/4L. While doing some research on the camera and the 24-105L f4, I happened to read SLRGear’s review on the later, where the reviewer mentions:

_“Bottom line, the Canon 24-105mm f/4L is a really excellent optic, but once that struggles a bit along the edges and in the corners with full-frame bodies. As such, it’s an almost ideal candidate for use with DxO Optics Pro, particularly if you’re shooting with a full-frame DSLR.” _

I’ve completed a PC build that will be dedicated to image editing but I’ve loaded no software other than Windows 7 64-bit Professional. I need to do some more work on the OS configuration and install all of those lovely windows security updates that I know are waiting for me. In addition to Win 7, I have 16GB RAM (upgradeable to 32), 256GB SSD, and 2-2TB HDD’s.

Although I’ve used Photoshop CS3 in the past, I haven’t yet decided on purchasing the current version. I do have a copy of Adobe LR4 but was curious about DxO Optics Pro. 

So now that I have the 24-105 and _a full-frame DSLR_, and in the process of installing image editing software, I was wondering how many of you out there include DxO Optics Pro as part of your image editing workflow? Do you like the results you’re able to achieve with DxO Optics Pro as opposed to other software image editing tools that you currently use or have used?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 25, 2013)

I've tried it multiple times.

The good - It produces a very nice looking image without tinkering around.

The bad - 
Its very s-l-o-w
You still need image management software
I do not like having all those xmp sidecar files that must be kept with the image file.
Lightroom 4 also corrects for distortion, and DPP has by far the best lens correction package, but you pay for it with a monster sized file.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Mar 25, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've tried it multiple times.
> 
> The good - It produces a very nice looking image without tinkering around.
> 
> ...



I've never used DPP -- and it's free! I'll have to check it out. 

Thanks -- great advice.


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 25, 2013)

I have been using DxO Optics Pro for some time now, and been through a number of upgrades / versions.

For my purposes, I really like it - batch processing - optimising my lens and camera outputs (I have 2 DSLR bodies and 5 lenses - all combinations of which are covered). It matches lenses and body combinations using modules, and produces high quality results. It's really targeted to doing batch work.

It's different to Photoshop. I use Photoshop when I need to apply critical attention to individual photos (my 'favourite photos' that I will upload, share, print, etc). But in many cases DxO Optics Pro does a great enough job.

I use the latest version of DxO Optics Pro on a new 64bit quite fast PC - and it makes a noticeable difference (speed wise) operating under Windows 8 (64bit). My photo management / view program is ACDSee. That way I feel I have the best of all worlds.

That's my take on it. Hope it's helpful!

Paul


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2013)

I'm with Paul on this. DxO's lens corrections and RAW conversion are excellent, IMO better than LR (slightly) and DPP in terms of output. I use Aperture for library management. DxO v8 is substantially faster than previous verisons. If you're looking for an all-in-one solution, LR seems like a good choice. I also use CS6 for creative image processing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm with Paul on this. DxO's lens corrections and RAW conversion are excellent, IMO better than LR (slightly) and DPP in terms of output. I use Aperture for library management. DxO v8 is substantially faster than previous verisons. If you're looking for an all-in-one solution, LR seems like a good choice. I also use CS6 for creative image processing.


I'll try V8. I also upgraded my computer, but its only a little faster.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm with Paul on this. DxO's lens corrections and RAW conversion are excellent, IMO better than LR (slightly) and DPP in terms of output.



LR4 has added better lens correction over LR3, but DxO should be much better if you have a lens with complex distortion because they calibrate individual camera/sensor-lens combinations at different focal lengths. Problem is that it outputs demosaiced files, so instead of a 20mb dng I get a 100mb tif (or linear dng) breaking the raw workflow in LR.

Unless I really need it, I see no reason to even try DxO because I'm very happy with LR's workflow, cataloging and developing (ACR) + LR has many, many good plugins that add what's missing from the core program.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 25, 2013)

I downloaded DXO Pro ver 8 this morning as promised.

I created a duplicate folder of my D800 NEF images to see how it did with them. By doing that, there were no side cars or other remains of previous editing.
My new computer was faster, the timer on the process button read 18 seconds to process them.

Then, I did the same with LR 4. The images loaded and rendered instantly, and the NR sliders and other settings were also instant. What a huge improvement over my older generation of Intel i7 processor. The new pc also has SATA 6GB, which is much faster to read files from both my SSD and hard drive.

I gave DXO a big advantage by copying the files to my SSD, while I kept the other set on my much slower 3TB mechanical drive.

Speed of processing aside, I did not like the rendering of the files. The first was dull and lacked any punch, the second image was badly over sharpened. I viewed a few more, but by then I had already decided that It wasn't for me.

One thing I like is the ability to upload or sync files and directories directly to Smug Mug or even Flickr from within Lightroom. 

DXO isn't bad, but I'm unable to see anything that would cause me to change.


----------



## risc32 (Mar 26, 2013)

I'm using DXO 7point something on my win7 64bit box. i like it very much, but you will likely need at least one other program to do some things. For instance, i've had very poor luck with the "dust" tool in dxo. i use photoshop elements for some things(like panos and dust removal), "faststone" for culling though thousands of shots(the one click to get to a 100% view is awesome!), and even picasa sometimes. i find picasa good enough most of the time for fixing red eye on not critical stuff, and within picasa it's easy to adjust timestamps by whatever offset you want. thats handy for synching 4-5 cameras ...

one thing though, my older computer was VERY slow, my newer one is MUCH faster, but still not fast.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Mar 26, 2013)

Well, on my current PC I'm running PS CS3 and I have to use Adobe's DNG converter before I can open my Raw images in ACR. Not sure if its the converter or lack of RAM but the DNG converter can be quite quirky.

After watching a YouTube demo on how simple (on the surface anyway) it was to recover detail, etc. with DxO Optics Pro, I was impressed. Looks like a very useful tool.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 26, 2013)

lilmsmaggie said:


> Well, on my current PC I'm running PS CS3 and I have to use Adobe's DNG converter before I can open my Raw images in ACR. Not sure if its the converter or lack of RAM but the DNG converter can be quite quirky.
> 
> After watching a YouTube demo on how simple (on the surface anyway) it was to recover detail, etc. with DxO Optics Pro, I was impressed. Looks like a very useful tool.


 
You should realize that videos only show the images where it works well. 

Its a free download and a 30 day trial. Try it with multiple images and see how you like it. It does do a good job on many images, but the two I picked to start turned out bad.


I'd suggest copying a few dozen into a separate folder, each image you edit gets a sidecar, and if you decide you do not want it, you can just delete the whole folder, images, side cars and all. Otherwise, you have to locate and remove the sidecars, and other editing software like DPP may also have created sidecars, so you could have a mess.


----------



## drjlo (Mar 26, 2013)

lilmsmaggie said:


> I've never used DPP -- and it's free! I'll have to check it out.



I use many photography software including Nik and Topaz, and DPP is one of the favorites; the fact it's free is a bonus. Some people tend to dismiss it right away due to it's "free" oem nature, but the latest DPP's really is a great program, especially the DLO (digital lens optimizer) feature. I do wish third-party Photoshop plug-in's could be used directly in DPP, but if I need a plug-in, such as Silver Efex Pro, DPP has a button to "Transfer to Photoshop."


----------



## Pi (Mar 26, 2013)

I have been a long term DXO user, since v.4.5. I liked it then a lot but lately, I rarely use it (and I have the latest version). The main reason - it does not do anything better than LR4, except for the Volume anamorphosis correction. 

The main weakness is poor colors. It has dozens of color rendering profiles; neither one is as good as LR4 or DPP. Highlight compression is poor compared to LR4 but still better than DPP. Their lighting was an interesting pseudo-HDR tool but its current version is not so impressive. Its sharpening is interesting and variable across the frame - stronger in the borders, but ... I stopped worrying about 100% zoom sharpness a long time ago. The 24-105 is good enough for most purposes; and you do not really _need_ DXO for it.


----------

