Freebie
 

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:40:39 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:


You will have to believe it. I have had V11 for about six months and
the day before yesterday was the first time I have used it. I used V10
only two or three times. The last version I used at all seriously was
V9 and that stopped when I signed up for Adobe Creative Cloud. If I
believe Wikipedia that was late in 2011 (gawd!).

Quite apart from all that, as I have written just above, I am still
coming to grips with the current interface.

The primary reason I have continued with DxO is that its geometrical
corrections are superior to Adobe's. I have had no use for Viewpoint 2
until a few days ago. As a learning exercise I loaded DxO11 to see
what Viewpoint could do for me. Not having had any use for it
previously I had not loaded the camera or lens modules but they were
not necessary for my exploration of ViewPoint. When I loaded the image
of the cathedral it was so superior to what I had been able to achieve
with LR that I posted it as it was. I did make clear that it was a
quick and dirty image but in some aspects it did display an inherently
superior ability to LR and that is what I wanted to show.

You are welcome to have a go at the NEF for yourself with DxO and show
us what you can extract from it. I will be interested to see what a
person more familiar with DxO than I, can achieve with it.

I don't have VP2 only VP1 which was grandfathered from previous
versions. I guess your definition of quick and dirty is far from mine.
It's trivial to setup DxO to automatically load modules and I'd never
think of working on any image without doing so.

That said, I do have to question you apparent use of AF-C for this
stationary subject given my experience.

Freebie
 

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:40:18 -0500, me wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:40:39 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:


You will have to believe it. I have had V11 for about six months and
the day before yesterday was the first time I have used it. I used V10
only two or three times. The last version I used at all seriously was
V9 and that stopped when I signed up for Adobe Creative Cloud. If I
believe Wikipedia that was late in 2011 (gawd!).

Quite apart from all that, as I have written just above, I am still
coming to grips with the current interface.

The primary reason I have continued with DxO is that its geometrical
corrections are superior to Adobe's. I have had no use for Viewpoint 2
until a few days ago. As a learning exercise I loaded DxO11 to see
what Viewpoint could do for me. Not having had any use for it
previously I had not loaded the camera or lens modules but they were
not necessary for my exploration of ViewPoint. When I loaded the image
of the cathedral it was so superior to what I had been able to achieve
with LR that I posted it as it was. I did make clear that it was a
quick and dirty image but in some aspects it did display an inherently
superior ability to LR and that is what I wanted to show.

You are welcome to have a go at the NEF for yourself with DxO and show
us what you can extract from it. I will be interested to see what a
person more familiar with DxO than I, can achieve with it.

I don't have VP2 only VP1 which was grandfathered from previous
versions. I guess your definition of quick and dirty is far from mine.
It's trivial to setup DxO to automatically load modules and I'd never
think of working on any image without doing so.

That said, I do have to question you apparent use of AF-C for this
stationary subject given my experience.

I was using back-button focussing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Freebie
 

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:36:04 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:40:18 -0500, me wrote:

That said, I do have to question you apparent use of AF-C for this
stationary subject given my experience.

I was using back-button focussing.

Most of my experience with AF-C is with a big heavy setup (200-400mm
f/4 + TC-14) which is tough to hold steady for extended periods. Maybe
this has jaded me, but I always "try" to switch back to AF-s for fixed
subjects. I just seem to get better results that way. YMMV.

Freebie
 

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:36:14 -0500, me wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:36:04 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:40:18 -0500, me wrote:

That said, I do have to question you apparent use of AF-C for this
stationary subject given my experience.

I was using back-button focussing.

Most of my experience with AF-C is with a big heavy setup (200-400mm
f/4 + TC-14) which is tough to hold steady for extended periods. Maybe
this has jaded me, but I always "try" to switch back to AF-s for fixed
subjects. I just seem to get better results that way. YMMV.

What camera?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Freebie
 

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:22:50 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:36:14 -0500, me wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:36:04 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:40:18 -0500, me wrote:

That said, I do have to question you apparent use of AF-C for this
stationary subject given my experience.

I was using back-button focussing.

Most of my experience with AF-C is with a big heavy setup (200-400mm
f/4 + TC-14) which is tough to hold steady for extended periods. Maybe
this has jaded me, but I always "try" to switch back to AF-s for fixed
subjects. I just seem to get better results that way. YMMV.

What camera?

D200/D300/D71000 and now 6k shots into D500.
AF-C priority set to focus, not release.