Software Recommendations

[Sheiky]

Well Brant, I just installed DxO to give it a quick try. I must say that it does a lot to the original photo in the basic settings.
The DxO version of the cat is my favorite of the three, but as I said, DxO does quite a few corrections and in my opinion this isn't a good comparison.
In my case DxO automatically enables things like DxO Lighting and Noise-adjustments. They look good on some photos, but I've also seen a few photos where these settings make the photo worse. In my case I personally prefer to see the photo on my pc as it looked on the back of my camera. Therefor I also do not apply any filters(like lens correction) to any of the photos I import in LR. Perhaps this is also possible on DxO, but I haven't found it yet.
I must honestly say that I don't like the workspace in DxO for now. I'm used to work and view my photos a lot in 100% and just dragging the photo around the screen.(to look for imperfections for example) In LR3 I can do all that with just the left mouse button and without having to click on the hand-tool for example to drag the image around. In DxO it shows the "before" image when I click on it. This does not make a lot of sense to me, since I like to work with what I see and not with what it was before.

I'm definitely going to try DxO out more thoroughly, but for now I cannot really give a good opinion. It does seem quite slow when processing the photos, that's for sure.

Jan

[HDNitehawk]

I have a question for the Light Room users. As far as processing single images, would there be any difference in using LR rather than using CS5 Camera Raw with Photoshop? (Other than LR provides a simpler work flow)

[cls]

I have a question for the Light Room users. As far as processing single images, would there be any difference in using LR rather than using CS5 Camera Raw with Photoshop? (Other than LR provides a simpler work flow)

No difference, the develop tool in Lightroom is ACR. (In Lightroom you run the ACR engine from the LR window instead of from the PS window.)

[HDNitehawk]

cls thanks, it has always appeared to me that the only thing I gain with LR would be a more stream lined workflow. I have CS5 and use bridge for sorting now. But my opinion of Adobe software is this, "any software that you can go to college and get a degree to use is not user friendly".

I am going to throw another software point out:

I own both the PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II and Pro 9000 Mark II. If I process a file (JPG) from my Canon Camera using my Canon Lens using Canon's DPP software, then I print it off on either of these Canon printers using Canon paper, it comes out looking just like it does on the screen.

If I print a JPG processed with Adobe, it is hit or miss. It may come out as it appears on the screen or it may not. Most of the time it does not.

It gets worse if you try and print picture from Photoshop. It is even more hit and miss printing from Photoshop than if you open up Easy-Photo Print for the Canon printer.

I haven't figured this one out yet. Why wouldn't all JPEGS print the same.

[jrw]

I am going to throw another software point out:

I own both the PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II and Pro 9000 Mark II. If I process a file (JPG) from my Canon Camera using my Canon Lens using Canon's DPP software, then I print it off on either of these Canon printers using Canon paper, it comes out looking just like it does on the screen.

If I print a JPG processed with Adobe, it is hit or miss. It may come out as it appears on the screen or it may not. Most of the time it does not.

It gets worse if you try and print picture from Photoshop. It is even more hit and miss printing from Photoshop than if you open up Easy-Photo Print for the Canon printer.

I haven't figured this one out yet. Why wouldn't all JPEGS print the same.[/QUOTE]


Printing with different software packages requires being careful with the settings in the software and also in the drivers for the printer. Places to start would be matching the colour spaces, checking which colour profiles each piece of the system are using, and also whether the settings for controlling the colours in the software or the printer drivers are consistent across all of the software packages used. Do recall spending some time setting things up the last time I bought a new printer and making at least one or two test prints before getting consistent results for all of my software packages.

It may get a bit tedious driving down through menu options but the results will be worth it.

Jeff

[neuroanatomist]

In my case I personally prefer to see the photo on my pc as it looked on the back of my camera. Therefor I also do not apply any filters(like lens correction) to any of the photos I import in LR. Perhaps this is also possible on DxO, but I haven't found it yet.
I must honestly say that I don't like the workspace in DxO for now. I'm used to work and view my photos a lot in 100% and just dragging the photo around the screen.(to look for imperfections for example) In LR3 I can do all that with just the left mouse button and without having to click on the hand-tool for example to drag the image around. In DxO it shows the "before" image when I click on it. This does not make a lot of sense to me, since I like to work with what I see and not with what it was before.

I actually quite like the click for before/after - as you state, it's good to see the original so you can evaluate the effects of the corrections.

On a zoomed image I can just use two-finger scrolling to move around the image, or pinch in-out for zooming - it makes evaluating an image very easy. But, I suppose that's because of the multitouch trackpad on the Mac (is that a feature you get with a 'same spec but much cheaper' PC? ).