Software Recommendations

[neuroanatomist]

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).

[Kayaker72]

CLS...this was my first cut at comparing the three. When evaluating how to test the software I considered how I currently use DPP and thought of three common scenarios: 1. Simply converting from RAW to JPEG; 2. Minor edits to several photos at a time; and, 3. Several adjustments to a single photo at a time trying to make it the best it can be. I choose to test scenario 1 first because I keep hearing that one of the primary differentiators in the software is their RAW conversion engine. I am not sure what I did was the perfect test, as I am still learning about each program, but I am surprised that for scenario 1 of how I have been using DPP, each software performed very differently. I am hoping to play with my other two scenarios later this week, but they are more about the functionality and features of each software.

BTW, another observation. Conversion time from RAW to jpeg on my machine (Win 7 64 bit; AMD Athlon II; 4 core; 3.0 Ghz saving to a Agility 3 SSD) was 6-7 seconds for LR3, 9-10 seconds for DPP and 25-32 seconds for DXO per picture. I am using trial versions of DXO and LR3, if that affects anything.

[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]

Hi Everyone....thanks for the tips. I have been pretty busy lately and am only now really getting around to testing the different software. I am comparing DPP, DXO 7 and LR3. Often all of you see things that I miss in photos, so I am interested to know what you see in the following pictures. I took three different shots all within the last week and I have processed them in each software with no modification, simply going to the RAW to jpg converter.

We rescued Stella recently. My wife has bought her several toys, but she loves this box:
Canon 7D, EFS 15-85 @ 70 mm, 1/60 sec, f/6.3, ISO 100, 580 II bounced off ceiling

DPP


LR3


And DXO


Frankly, I am surprised by how different the result is from each software.

DxO seems to have saturated the picture and has more of a red tint to it. It also added light. Living in Oklahoma and having to contend with the red dirt tint you have in landscapes here, adding more red tint is a big negative.

When I tried DxO two years ago, one of the things I did not like about it is that it seemed to change the colors. Another thing I remember is that once processed the JPEG did not look like what was represented on DxO's preview screen. Maybe DxO has made some improvements, I just haven't seen a comparison yet that made me want to switch from DPP.

[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)

[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? ).

[andnowimbroke]

@HD
Not really. I'm just used to working in LR more so than ACR. That and if I were to only take one shot of something, I prolly wouldn't have thought it to be worth working over.

[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.)

[cls]

CLS...this was my first cut at comparing the three. When evaluating how to test the software I considered how I currently use DPP and thought of three common scenarios: 1. Simply converting from RAW to JPEG; 2. Minor edits to several photos at a time; and, 3. Several adjustments to a single photo at a time trying to make it the best it can be. I choose to test scenario 1 first because I keep hearing that one of the primary differentiators in the software is their RAW conversion engine. I am not sure what I did was the perfect test, as I am still learning about each program, but I am surprised that for scenario 1 of how I have been using DPP, each software performed very differently.

I understand, what I tried to say is that only DPP can read your "JPEG generating" camera settings from the RAW file (desired sharpness, contrast, ALO, lens correction etc). This means that if you open the RAW-file in DPP and generate JPEG without any changes, it will give the same result as generating JPEG in camera (shooting JPEG). Third party software don't read those settings. I don't know DxO, but if you use the default RAW conversion settings (from the original software setup) in Lightroom, the resulting image may often look rather dull. As I remember the LR default it only applies some sharpening by default. (No contrast, no vignetting correction, no...)

To make the comparison between those more fair, you could disable ALO and lens correction and set the picture style to 'faithful'. Then the result from DPP will look more like the LR result. (That is for test purposes. In real life of course, you simply change the LR deafult to something you like for most of your pictures.)

When it comes to DxO there may be an option "don't do any adjustments to my image" for raw conversion that could be better to use for your test purposes.

[Sheiky]

When it comes to DxO there may be an option "don't do any adjustments to my image" for raw conversion that could be better to use for your test purposes.

Yes there is. I just found it in the options menu. There are quite a few actions that you can choose from to be the standard action. I don't know if you can make your own standard though. That would be the best, since I also use that in LR3.

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? ).

I must say that I also like to use the before/after, but definitely not that often. Therefor the way it is possible in LR3 makes more sense to me.

As for your fancy trackpad...well in all fairness, my homebuild pc didn't even include a mouse I had to buy that separate. I did manage to also buy a brand new 29-er mountainbike and all that for less than your Mac so I'm serving in both my favorite hobbies. That beats the trackpad for me You do make me feel like I need a fancy trackpad though. I never missed it in LR3 so I will count that as another +1 for LR3