Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk


Are you talking work flow in general with DxO, or the computer opens/closes and moves through images faster with it? Is it a computer thing where DxO just works better on the computer as a program in general.


This was my comment from my previous 'mini bake-off' between DPP and DxO (on my old MBP): "At the back end, there&rsquo;s a noticeable difference in the time it takes to convert the edited images from RAW to JPG - DxO is quite a bit slower.However, this is not a big deal to me since that&rsquo;s unattended time (I can let it run while I&rsquo;m busy during the day, or even overnight).The actual hands-on editing is faster with DxO (I think DPP applies more &lsquo;on-the-fly&rsquo; which slows it down, or it&rsquo;s just not coded as cleanly).I suspect the total time from start to JPG is similar, but with DxO less of that time is &lsquo;attended&rsquo;.<span>"


<span>Actually, DPP seems snappier for image editing now (might be a differential efect of the new MBP, might be the newer version of DPP), in terms of actually opening and moving through images, about on par with DxO now. From a workflow standpoint, I find that DPP is much better for image triage (in DxO, you need to add images to a project before you can rate them, which isn' really triage), but for image editing, the DxO workflow is better for me (e.g. all your tools are right there - cropping, clone/stamp, etc., vs. DPP's separate windows for each).