# DxO Optics Pro 9, Elite Edition



## Dylan777 (Jun 29, 2014)

Most of my photos are indoor & low light. I'm thinking about DxO Optics Pro 9, Elite Edition as PP software(never use DxO before). I'm a LR user.

For those using DXO, can you guys share your thoughts on this Vs LR5?

Thanks in advance,
Dylan


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2014)

I prefer DxO for the excellent NR and better lens corrections (with the available modules - LR has more, but some are user-submitted). 

DxO doesn't do library management, though.


----------



## jwilbern (Jun 29, 2014)

DxO can now be used as a plugin for Lightroom, so you can easily export from DxO to Lightroom.


----------



## candyman (Jun 29, 2014)

I have both DxO Optics Elite and LR 5 (I got it for free when I bought the Canon 6D)
I use DxO Optics always first (part for the lenscorrection - as Neuro says, it has a very good lens correction - easy to install modules). I like the NR as well. 
I included the LR plugin and the DxO filmpack. This makes DxO even richer for postprocessing. I use LR as a second. Both great software.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 29, 2014)

Does DxO do anything special when it exports to LR? (I don't use LR so don't know what this is about). I just export DxO as a jpeg and then open with PS.


----------



## candyman (Jun 29, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Does DxO do anything special when it exports to LR? (I don't use LR so don't know what this is about). I just export DxO as a jpeg and then open with PS.



As far as I know - no (EDIT: except maybe applying some default LR5 profile settings if you have set so)
After you export to LR5, it opens automatically LR5 ready to do some adjustment in LR5


----------



## Meh (Jun 29, 2014)

AlanF said:


> "export DxO as a jpeg and then open with PS"



Blasphemy! If Thou intend to further edit in PS then Thou shalt export in a lossless format! Be this the proclamation!


----------



## AlanF (Jun 29, 2014)

Meh said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > "export DxO as a jpeg and then open with PS"
> ...



Your grammar is worse than blasphemous: Thou intendest, not Thou intend; to edit further, not to further edit (no split infinitives are to be found in the works of Shakespeare, Spenser, Pope, or Dryden, or in the King James Version of the Bible).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 29, 2014)

Meh said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > "export DxO as a jpeg and then open with PS"
> ...


 
DXO is not really a full featured editor, but it does a excellent job of converting the raw image, and doing NR. Uploads to sites like Smug Mug were not supported when I tried it, it does not have a full featured print module, and a lot more.
Lightroom has a lot more tools that can be used to actually edit the image, and in particular, a often overlooked organizer. Once you get 10's of thousands or hundreds of thousands of images, you will need to be able to find the ones you want.


----------



## Meh (Jun 29, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Fair enough


----------



## AlanF (Jun 29, 2014)

Meh said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Meh said:
> ...



Good sport! And I agree that for serious editing lossless is better, but I usually do minor stuff in PS.


----------



## Meh (Jun 29, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Definitely. I was just joking around that AlanF said he exported from DxO as a JPEG (lossy compression) and then reopened in PS for further editing.


----------



## Meh (Jun 29, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



No worries. Great jab back at me


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 1, 2014)

DXO Pro 9 updates now include bi-directional import/export with Lightroom. Pro 9 is killer for noise reduction while preserving the original sharpness. Most notably, it's ability to dig deep into blacks for image information is remarkable. I originally started with Pro 8 after spending a lot of time researching this software. I was blown away with the ability of DXO to not only maintain the sharpness, but to boost color saturation without destructive side effects.
Here was my first test. Into the setting sun and deep shadows...



DXO test comp Warbird Sunset © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 1, 2014)

I downloaded the new version, and played with it a bit. I've used ver 9 before. B&H has a $150 price for it right now.

The export to Lightroom seems like a bad joke. The first two times, I thought it wasn't working, but then I waited for a long time (I did not time it), and it did open lightroom with the image. Then, I tried a D800 image. I timed it this time and it took exactly 4 minutes to export it to Lightroom! I have a tough time even imagining trying to export 1500 images that I shoot at a event recently with my 5D MK III. My computer is reasonably fast, 4th generation i7, SSD, and 24 GB of memory, so it should be reasonably fast.

The first image was a portrait and the skin tones were awful in DXO, but looked fine in Lightroom. Then I compared the skin tones of several images, and found the same thing. Poor rendering in DXO, and I could not correct them to look decent.

That's not something I've noticed in the past.


At this point, I don't really see any practical use for the export to lightroom feature.

I did try exporting a smaller file from my old 10D from Lightroom to DXO. It only took 10 seconds. Not much benefit though.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 2, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Most of my photos are indoor & low light. I'm thinking about DxO Optics Pro 9, Elite Edition as PP software(never use DxO before). I'm a LR user.
> 
> For those using DXO, can you guys share your thoughts on this Vs LR5?
> 
> ...



awesome thread i'm in the same boat and have been thinking of learning DxO in parallel with LR incase the Adobe Licence Nazis get too belligerent and impose more stupid limitations forcing everyone into the cloud of doom.


----------

