DxO optics pro (8)

[JPAZ]

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]

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?

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

[neuroanatomist]

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?

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

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).

[dilbert]

I have 2 OS, windows and linux and use darktable, raw therapee and gimp mainly.

Darktable does not do colour management correctly so it will not be providing you with the results you expect.

Lens correction data I could locate for these programs mainly refer to distortion correction and is not as extensive as the DxO offering.

That's why I use DxO - far better correction of images when it has a lens profile.

[Meh]

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]

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

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

[Meh]

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

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

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

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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).

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]

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]

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.

[dilbert]

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

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

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

At the moment I'm using Lightroom to get all of the colour right and then exporting to DxO to sharpen and correct distortion. Really, I need to spend more time with DxO to learn how to get the same colours from it as LR.

[well_dunno]

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]

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 & 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.