Canon s95 shot of daughter at Disney World

Jul 21, 2010
31,225
13,087
brando72 said:
Is DxO a worthy investment for processing pictures over something like Lightroom?

Personally, I think DxO is the best RAW converter out there - it does a better job at NR while maintaining sharpness than others. Also, I think the lens corrections are superior - Adobe Camera RAW's corrections are approximations, and many of those in the database are actually based on user-submitted calibrations where you have no idea if they were done correctly (lighting is critical, among other things). DxO's corrections are based on standardized laboratory testing of specific body/lens combinations. They support the S95 (and the S90, and I presume/hope they'll support the S100).

LR may be more convenient, though - DxO is really just a RAW converter, analogous to Adobe Camera RAW, with no real features for library management. But, I use Aperture for my library organization anyway.
 
Upvote 0
I'll echo neuro's thoughts (catch light and tons of CA/ghosting). There is also a white-hot pixel on her left eyebrow. Something looks very strange about this picture. Can you upload an as-shot jpg conversion? What settings were you using in LR, because everything in the background is ghosted (not just highlight/shadow transitions, but all the mid-tone transitions as well)?
 
Upvote 0
B

brando72

Guest
KyleSTL said:
I'll echo neuro's thoughts (catch light and tons of CA/ghosting). There is also a white-hot pixel on her left eyebrow. Something looks very strange about this picture. Can you upload an as-shot jpg conversion? What settings were you using in LR, because everything in the background is ghosted (not just highlight/shadow transitions, but all the mid-tone transitions as well)?

When you say strange, are you referring to possible camera issue?
 
Upvote 0
B

brando72

Guest
neuroanatomist said:
brando72 said:
Is DxO a worthy investment for processing pictures over something like Lightroom?

Personally, I think DxO is the best RAW converter out there - it does a better job at NR while maintaining sharpness than others. Also, I think the lens corrections are superior - Adobe Camera RAW's corrections are approximations, and many of those in the database are actually based on user-submitted calibrations where you have no idea if they were done correctly (lighting is critical, among other things). DxO's corrections are based on standardized laboratory testing of specific body/lens combinations. They support the S95 (and the S90, and I presume/hope they'll support the S100).

Thanks for your input. Do you suggest a particular version? Also, is their good documentation on using the software in a more KISS style or does mastering the program require endless reading material?

Thanks.

LR may be more convenient, though - DxO is really just a RAW converter, analogous to Adobe Camera RAW, with no real features for library management. But, I use Aperture for my library organization anyway.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,225
13,087
In the unedited shot, the CA is still there but less evident. The saturation deepened the blue of the sky, but really enhanced the CA...not a desirable effect, IMO.

brando72 said:
Thanks for your input. Do you suggest a particular version? Also, is their good documentation on using the software in a more KISS style or does mastering the program require endless reading material?

I'm running the current version, v.6.6. I'd guess they're getting close to a v7 based on historical releases.

Knowing how thorough DxO's testing is, I'd guess their documentation is quite thorough...but to be honest, I've never read it. IIRC, I used the 'first steps' help the first couple of times I launched it, and that was it. At least, that should give you some idea of the usability of the software...
 
Upvote 0
brando72 said:
KyleSTL said:
I'll echo neuro's thoughts (catch light and tons of CA/ghosting). There is also a white-hot pixel on her left eyebrow. Something looks very strange about this picture. Can you upload an as-shot jpg conversion? What settings were you using in LR, because everything in the background is ghosted (not just highlight/shadow transitions, but all the mid-tone transitions as well)?

When you say strange, are you referring to possible camera issue?
Yes, I was referring to a camera issue, not your composition or anything. I agree with neuro that the CA is still present in the as-shot, but the contrast/saturation boost does exacerbate the problem. I'd believe in the second picture the CA is not as bad since it is not backlit (like the first).
 
Upvote 0