Quote Originally Posted by cls View Post
Hi, if I understand you correct, that comparison isn't really fair in my opinion. As I understand it, you convert to JPEG in each tool without any adjustments. This means that LR and DxO will use some general default setting while DPP uses the exact setting you used for the shots. LR and DxO don't know any picture style, ALO or other settings that you preferred for the shots. DPP has all that info. Of course, this is an advantage that DPP has also in real life, but for comparison of the conversion you should consider applying settings for LR and DxO that are similar to the ones used in DPP.
That assumes one prefers the output from DPP. It would be possible to tweak each so it looks like the others in most respects (except perhaps NR). I think the better question is which program gets you to the output you like best with the minimum amount of effort. From that standpoint, it's a perfectly fair comparison. Then, I think one should ask which program makes it easiest to tweak that best initial default, and/or offers desired manipulations (does DPP have a vibrancy adjustment?).

I think we can all agree on the analogy between a film negative and a RAW file - both need some form of development. There's no 'correct' output, just an individual's preferred output. IMO, the program that gets your images to your desired output the easiest/fastest is the best (for you).