# DxO optics pro (8)



## well_dunno (Dec 18, 2012)

Hello all,

I have been trying out Dxo optics pro 8 and found the lens correction part very nice - the contrast seem to decrease somehow with autocorrection though. Considering to purchase it but I have no experience on LR (or any other Adobe software) so I was wondering whether anyone could provide feedback whether DxO optics pro is a good option.

I have 2 OS, windows and linux and use darktable, raw therapee and gimp mainly. Lens correction data I could locate for these programs mainly refer to distortion correction and is not as extensive as the DxO offering. 

Any feedback will be appreciated..

Cheers!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2012)

I'm quite happy with DxO, and use it as my main RAW converter (but not library management, that's Aperture).


----------



## well_dunno (Dec 18, 2012)

Thanks Neuro!


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 18, 2012)

I use DxO Optics Pro (have been using a few versions over the years, and v8 is a good upgrade).

well_dunno - I've never had contrast decrease in the output. Hmmm.. I wonder if that has something to do with your settings (eg does your workflow mainly use RAW original files, or JPEGs?)

I must admit that mainly due to storage and PC limitations, most of my photos over the years have been JPEGs (but have used RAW for tricky lighting and or critical situations). But the way I use DxO (also with 'autocorrect') usually gives a nice boost of contrast, sharpness and saturation where needed, without over-cooking it. I wonder what settings you have (eg affecting micro-contrast, etc?)

Last night I actually just bought DxO's Viewpoint - as I love wide angle shots, and saw it having some good potential (as a registered DxO purchaser / user, they give good discounts!)

A few weeks ago I bought a new PC (running Windows 8) - and plan to be shooting more RAWS and pushing them through DxO 8.. should work faster.

Hope my input is helpful and that you'll get good outcomes (ie both high quality images / photos and enjoyment from photography).

Paul


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 19, 2012)

Damn. Now you guys have me looking at DXO Pro Elite. Remind me to kick your a....... oh never mind. It's just more money for photography. The kids can wear those 'high water' pants another month or two! 

What would you say is your biggest reason for using DXO? I assume this adds a step into your workflow. From original RAW in to DXO out to DNG in to Lightroom (or whatever you use, like Aperture) then eventually out to whatever like custom JPG.

- Just for grins, how does it work on JPGs from P&S cameras?
- Do you usually do all the culling/sorting/deleting in DXO?
- Does DXO convert into DNG faster than Lightroom?
- Does the DNG DXO creates have the RAW file embedded?
- I assume all the changes DXO makes are non-destructive but still integrated into the DNG, correct? (No sidecar files if using DNG?)
- CA adjustment in LR4 is pretty good. Ditto for NR and Lens Profiles. Why do you think DXO is better?
- How well does the dust speck removal work? That would be pretty nice if it worked better than what I have to do manually in LR. (Because I always forget to do dust delete data collection shots in camera.)

- Can the DXO changes be undone later in Lightroom?

What are the features that you miss or think need improvement in DXO?

File sizes after DXO? Bigger? Similar to Lightroom generated DNG files?

Thanks in advance for the info guys.

Rusty


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 19, 2012)

FYI, I got some of my answers from the other thread that discusses this same topic.

Perhaps it might be easier to just shoot perfect pictures every time. Yeah, that's my plan...


----------



## well_dunno (Dec 19, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> I use DxO Optics Pro (have been using a few versions over the years, and v8 is a good upgrade).
> 
> well_dunno - I've never had contrast decrease in the output. Hmmm.. I wonder if that has something to do with your settings (eg does your workflow mainly use RAW original files, or JPEGs?)



Hi Paul, thanks for the input! Using RAW only in the workflow - I did figure out the reason for decreased contrast though - it is this (new?) smart lighting feature that is on by default. It seems to push the shadows up a bit giving the feeling of decreased contrast. By disabling or changing its settings it is possible to undo that effect (if one dislikes it that is).

Also purchased the software now and got a 30 Euro offer for the viewpoint - having never looked at the software, I would appreciate if you share your thoughts on it...

Cheers!
J


----------



## well_dunno (Dec 19, 2012)

Rusty - I am fairly new to the software (being mainly a linux user) and have never used LR.Thus I don't think I can provide useful info for your questions.

In linux there are good pieces of software for library management as well as image processing but I have not been able to locate lens correction data a la DxO. Also, regardless one likes the results or not, DxO is publishing lens and sensor test results and is a source of free info. That is my reason for considering them as the first option...

Cheers!


----------



## 2n10 (Dec 19, 2012)

I have DxO Optics Pro 8 also and like it very much. If you save the processed file to DNG you can undo the DxO changes in LR as best as LR can do. No changes are made to the raw file by DxO and other programs can not read the DxO file that contains the changes you made that I know of.

I also have LR and again think it is a good program.

I got DxO after reading Neuro's glowing praise of it and getting a trial. I got version 7, then trialled LR4 and got it since it seemed to do better than DxO 7. DxO 8 came out and it now appears to do better then LR4 most of the time so it is again my main RAW converter.


----------



## Anthony (Dec 19, 2012)

Using Dxo since V3.
Can't quit this wonderful program


----------



## well_dunno (Jan 9, 2013)

Hi guys,

Below is a raw comparison from DPP and DXO with all corrections off - 100% from an image I took uneasily a few days ago due to wild boars and hunters close by. I am sure many have done similar comparisons. Why would DxO show a softer image?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2013)

well_dunno said:


> Below is a raw comparison from DPP and DXO with all corrections off - 100% from an image I took uneasily a few days ago due to wild boars and hunters close by. I am sure many have done similar comparisons. Why would DxO show a softer image?



If I had to guess, something is not turned off...

Here's one I just did, sharpness looks the same (full image and 100% crop below). In DxO, I used the No Corrections preset. In DPP, I set all the sliders for sharpness/unsharp mask, NR, etc., to zero (or 100, in the case of saturation). There's no 'none' option for Picture Style, I used Neutral, but that's still a style, and that's why the colors are flatter in the DPP conversion. If anything, it looks like DPP's Neutral style is reducing the contrast slightly.


----------



## well_dunno (Jan 9, 2013)

Really helpful, thank you Neuro! I will check the settings over...


----------



## jwilbern (Jan 9, 2013)

I use Dxo and Aperture. What is the best file format to export from Dxo to Aperture?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2013)

jwilbern said:


> I use Dxo and Aperture. What is the best file format to export from Dxo to Aperture?



What do you plan to do to the images in Aperture?


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 9, 2013)

All depends on the workflow you like. I find DXO to be very useful because I can use the basic parameters I like, and let it run a batch of hundreds of photos while I do something else. Then, all the lens corrections are done and the basic tweaks are done literally while I am not there. Afterwards, I can use LR or PS if needed on individual images.

On the other hand, the newer versions of LR do quite a good job but I find I often do pics one by one. The customization is better but the time factor is longer.

Just depends....


----------



## jwilbern (Jan 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jwilbern said:
> 
> 
> > I use Dxo and Aperture. What is the best file format to export from Dxo to Aperture?
> ...



I use Dxo for white balance and corrections (noise reduction, etc...), and Aperture for color, contrast, etc...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2013)

jwilbern said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jwilbern said:
> ...



In that case, I'd export 16-bit TIF files (or DNG, if Aperture takes them from DxO, they should, but I've never tried).


----------



## Meh (Jan 10, 2013)

For those you use DxO and Lightroom/Aperture for editing.. what do you do in DxO vs. what do you do in Lightroom/Aperture? In other words, what are the relative strengths of DxO that justify the extra step in your workflow?

The DxO lens corrections are an obvious strength... what else?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2013)

Meh said:


> The DxO lens corrections are an obvious strength... what else?



Better NR with maintained sharpness, compared to Aperture at least.


----------



## Meh (Jan 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > The DxO lens corrections are an obvious strength... what else?
> ...



So, lens correction and noise reduction in DxO and then Aperture (or Photoshop) for everything else?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2013)

Meh said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Meh said:
> ...



Personally, no...I go all the way to RAW in DxO, and Aperture is for library management only (for images needing TLC or creative processing, I use TIF to CS6).


----------



## Meh (Jan 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



ah, got ya.... ok, a twist... let's say you open an image in DxO and you know you're going to take it to Photoshop for something... would there be any of your standard PP you'd normally do in DxO that you'd then prefer to do in PS, and why?


----------



## corpusrex (Jan 10, 2013)

I tend to load everything into LR Sort/Cull/Keyword etc and apply any presets I want. I then might use DXO (v7 at the moment) to do any lens correction and apply the DXO Lens softness module and noise reduction then re import it back into LR.

I prefer DXO for the lens adjustments as that seems (imo) to be what it does better than LR4, Noise Reduction in both is probably even but if I going to do the lens softness adjustments in DXO, which I usually am, I find it easier to do some NR at the same time so I can see the results of the sharpening better. 

I wouldn't be surprised to find there are better/more efficient ways of achieving the same effects but it works for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2013)

Meh said:


> ah, got ya.... ok, a twist... let's say you open an image in DxO and you know you're going to take it to Photoshop for something... would there be any of your standard PP you'd normally do in DxO that you'd then prefer to do in PS, and why?



Not too often - mostly, I prefer to manipulate the RAW file. But, where PS comes in is selective adjustments - lifting shadows in just one part of the image with layer masks, etc.


----------



## well_dunno (Jan 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> If I had to guess, something is not turned off...
> 
> Here's one I just did, sharpness looks the same (full image and 100% crop below). In DxO, I used the No Corrections preset. In DPP, I set all the sliders for sharpness/unsharp mask, NR, etc., to zero (or 100, in the case of saturation). There's no 'none' option for Picture Style, I used Neutral, but that's still a style, and that's why the colors are flatter in the DPP conversion. If anything, it looks like DPP's Neutral style is reducing the contrast slightly.



Verified that the results are almost identical - must have overlooked some setting. Thanks again Neuro!!


----------



## sdsr (Jan 11, 2013)

Meh said:


> For those you use DxO and Lightroom/Aperture for editing.. what do you do in DxO vs. what do you do in Lightroom/Aperture? In other words, what are the relative strengths of DxO that justify the extra step in your workflow?
> 
> The DxO lens corrections are an obvious strength... what else?



I preferred DxO (I used 6, 7 & 8) to LR until LR 4 came out, but now use LR4 almost exclusively. DxO may be a little better at correcting lens distortion when it has a lens/camera module (but it doesn't always have one - it was seeking such a thing for my Sigma 50-500 OS that prompted me recently to give LR another try), but I prefer LR for the sorts of tweaks I do. Often the differences (in photos processed from RAW, which is all I use them for) are subtle, and sometimes all but indistinguishable, but at others not - when it comes to recovering detail in overexposed highlights, LR strikes me as being far superior to DxO, finding more detail and in better colors too.


----------

