Mini bake-off: DPP vs. DxO

[Richard Lane]

DxO does come with many presets to suit individual tastes...
<p style="CLEAR: both"]

Thanks Denise!


It looksnice for lens correction and noise reduction, and as long as it has customizable sliders, then one can certainly tailor the photo to suit their needs.


Rich

[neuroanatomist]

Are these your own edits or are they presets?...It seems that the program is adding contrast, sharpness, saturation, vibrancy while removing somenoise.

For both DPP and DxO, I used 'default' settings. For DPP, that included the Standard picture style (which increases contrast and saturation relative to Neutral or Faithful, for example). For DxO, I used the Default v2 preset. Although I didn't use them for the test shots I included, DxO has sliders for everything - the 'presets' just pre-populate those sliders with a set of values, but everything can be adjusted to taste (and saved as a custom preset, if desired).

They are specific to the camera, but there are several important differences...Overall, DXO has a significant advantage in this area, as long as the user's bodies/lenses are covered.

Thanks for the clarification, Daniel!

[Firestarter]

Firestarter - since you clearly did not end up with DxO ( [img]/emoticons/emotion-6.gif[/img] ), did you end up with Aperture or Lightroom, or something else entirely? I had considered Aperture as well, but it doesn't offer lens corrections, something I'm not willing to trade even for the Apple UI. Personally, I do use iPhoto for organizing my library (of jpgs, following RAW conversion - the RAW files are stored on external drives).

At the time Aperture was in version2 and Lightroom just freshly released version1, I have bought and tried both of them because I knew right from the beginning that that kind of application will be paramount for my photographic work and I wanted to be sure that I get the best program I could get. After a short while, I decided to stick with Lightroom and abandon Aperture. Main reason for me was that Lightroom was designed more logically, with clearer GUI and supported a workflow that suited me in every way. However, that was basedcompletelyon my personal preferences. Both programs basically do same things in similar ways, though, so Aperture may be a better choice for any number of people.


Besides Lightroom 2.7, I use Photoshop CS3 (yes, I know they are dinosaurs, but I will have to upgrade my computer first, which is 6-years-old PowerMac G5, working flawlessly all that time and I am heartbroken when I have to decide to scrap it). Nowadays, probably close to 95% of my editing is done in Lightroom. I use Photoshop only for compositing and whenever I need to get into layers, selections, masks, channels and that sort of things.


I do not have any use whatsover for iPhoto. When I need JPEGs for internet, I export them from Lightroom, keep them filed on my hard drive for a while and then I just delete them.

[Chris White]

Great review, John.


Does the trial 30-day trial work with the 5D II? It is not real clear on the website, or at least I did not find it.


Thanks,


Chris

[neuroanatomist]

Does the trial 30-day trial work with the 5D II?

Yes, it does.

[jimr]

Nice topic. I like the side-by-side visual comparisons. It would be nice to see a variety of software programs like this done up - TOP 5.


I will have to give this software package a try now.

[neuroanatomist]

For anyone interested, DxO Optics Pro is currently on sale (through June 14th) for 33-40% off - $99 for the Standard version and $199 for the Elite version (same features, but the Elite license is required for use with 1-series and 5D/5DII bodies).
<div></div>