I use DxO Optics since version 1, been quite happy with the results (one of the best RAW engine as far as I know, better than LR2 but I hear it's been much improved with LR3 and LR4). I tried LR since it is the standard (for once Adobe sells an affordable software), but I am not very happy with the ergonomic. When you get used to something.....
Plus DxO has excellent lens correction modules, as well as a practical geometry correction module to straighten architecture.
Can be tried free for 30 days.
Has anyone else tried it or does the fact it is related to DxO mark make it the evil software ?
Though I don't do all my photography in RAW - I do use DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversions too. Since I first downloaded the first demo (a long time ago) - I loved it... for the various lens tools, corrections, tweaking, etc - that it has available. Particularly the last version is getting better interface, functionality, etc.
For my purposes, most of my photos I actually shoot in JPEG (not RAW).... but DxO conversions work great on both RAW & JPEG. As Neuro has stated in various posts, the DxO engine is good for low noise.
While I take the DxO overall sensor score with a grain of salt (if that) - I do like their software very much
Just curious....given that you have the option of shooting RAW....why do you shoot with jpeg?
I'm not really understanding why anyone would shoot less than RAW these days...memory is pretty cheap these days....and if shooting jpeg, well, you've automatically lost potential things you can do in post....
I can maybe understand if you're taking 1000's of shots for a time lapse thing...but for just normal stills pics....why would you shoot anything but RAW if you have the capability?
Sure.... I understand your question and appreciate your curiousity!
Most of my photos (as in... more than 50% of the photos I take with my 7D and 350D cameras) are either for events (like children camps, church events, sporting or outdoor occasions, and some family holidays).
Thus my priority for these type of photos is to have these ready as soon as possible to share with others (or give to, and occasionally sell to others)... So JPEG is quicker (in terms of my computer mainly - viewing and post processing).
Generally the IQ difference between shooting RAW and JPEG for THOSE type of photos is not so critical as time
I think if I get (or if they will invent) much faster computers, I would use RAW a bit more often than JPEG, because many times I need to process several hundred if not thousands of photos after an event, and have the photos ready ASAP. I have read that even Olympic photographers shoot in RAW AND
JPEG, with many of the JPEG images being used in time critical applications (eg images directly uploaded to news websites, blogs, etc).However,
when I do my "own" photography; and where time is not critical - eg landscape, macro, wildlife and 'special product / nature photography' (particularly in tricky lighting / white balance, or where maximum dynamic range or sharpness is required) - then I will use RAW more often. And I find it has benefits, especially in some compositions.
I hope this satisfies your curiousity.
Wishing you a good weekend. It's nearing Friday evening here in Australia! Yay!!