If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DxO now to DxO 10
http://tinyurl.com/k3ujj4r
They claim to have even better noise handling. Much as I like Light Room, there are still ways in which I prefer DxO9. I will be interested tosee how DxO10 compares. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
DxO now to DxO 10
On 1/13/2015 6:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/k3ujj4r They claim to have even better noise handling. Much as I like Light Room, there are still ways in which I prefer DxO9. I will be interested tosee how DxO10 compares. It works well, and integrates with LR. -- PeterN |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DxO now to DxO 10
On 2015-01-13 23:28:44 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
http://tinyurl.com/k3ujj4r They claim to have even better noise handling. Much as I like Light Room, there are still ways in which I prefer DxO9. I will be interested tosee how DxO10 compares. Now to DxO 10? That was an October 2014 press release. It is now at DxO 10.1 I have run DxO trial versions and I am quite comfortable with my LR5 + PS CC workflow along with my compatible plug-ins. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DxO now to DxO 10
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:56:13 -0800, Savageduck
wrote: On 2015-01-13 23:28:44 +0000, Eric Stevens said: http://tinyurl.com/k3ujj4r They claim to have even better noise handling. Much as I like Light Room, there are still ways in which I prefer DxO9. I will be interested tosee how DxO10 compares. Now to DxO 10? That was an October 2014 press release. It is now at DxO 10.1 I have run DxO trial versions and I am quite comfortable with my LR5 + PS CC workflow along with my compatible plug-ins. I use DXO for the lens correction. I have LR4, but they don't appear to update the lens database. Am I missing something? DXO is always updating, and Viewpoint is pretty quick for geometric corrections. And for whatever reason, I've never been all that fond of LR. Or Adobe in general. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DxO now to DxO 10
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:40:12 -0800, Bill W
wrote: On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:56:13 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2015-01-13 23:28:44 +0000, Eric Stevens said: http://tinyurl.com/k3ujj4r They claim to have even better noise handling. Much as I like Light Room, there are still ways in which I prefer DxO9. I will be interested tosee how DxO10 compares. Now to DxO 10? That was an October 2014 press release. It is now at DxO 10.1 I have run DxO trial versions and I am quite comfortable with my LR5 + PS CC workflow along with my compatible plug-ins. I use DXO for the lens correction. I have LR4, but they don't appear to update the lens database. Am I missing something? DXO is always updating, and Viewpoint is pretty quick for geometric corrections. And for whatever reason, I've never been all that fond of LR. Or Adobe in general. I forgot to mention the most relevant thing, LR's noise reduction worked much better than DXO's on the ones I worked on. I did read that DXO works better on some stuff, and LR works better on other stuff. No one had any specifics, though. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DxO now to DxO 10
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:40:27 -0500, PeterN wrote:
On 1/13/2015 6:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: http://tinyurl.com/k3ujj4r They claim to have even better noise handling. Much as I like Light Room, there are still ways in which I prefer DxO9. I will be interested tosee how DxO10 compares. It works well, and integrates with LR. Aah! -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DxO now to DxO 10
In article , Bill W wrote:
Savageduck: On 2015-01-13 23:28:44 +0000, Eric Stevens said: Eric Stevens: http://tinyurl.com/k3ujj4r They claim to have even better noise handling. Much as I like Light Room, there are still ways in which I prefer DxO9. I will be interested tosee how DxO10 compares. Savageduck: Now to DxO 10? That was an October 2014 press release. It is now at DxO 10.1 I have run DxO trial versions and I am quite comfortable with my LR5 + PS CC workflow along with my compatible plug-ins. Bill W: I use DXO for the lens correction. I have LR4, but they don't appear to update the lens database. Am I missing something? DXO is always updating, and Viewpoint is pretty quick for geometric corrections. And for whatever reason, I've never been all that fond of LR. Or Adobe in general. I forgot to mention the most relevant thing, LR's noise reduction worked much better than DXO's on the ones I worked on. I did read that DXO works better on some stuff, and LR works better on other stuff. No one had any specifics, though. Overall, DxO's noise reduction is second to none. You have different noise reduction functions in DxO, and when you compare the normal de-noise function to Lightroom, they may be shoulder-to-shoulder. But the "PRIME" noise reduction in DxO is very advanced. For every single picture in the photo, it analyzes hundreds of other nearby pixels. It can take a long time to run this function on your photos, but the end result is just world's apart. -- Sandman[.net] |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DxO now to DxO 10
On 14 Jan 2015 10:52:05 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Bill W wrote: Savageduck: On 2015-01-13 23:28:44 +0000, Eric Stevens said: Eric Stevens: http://tinyurl.com/k3ujj4r They claim to have even better noise handling. Much as I like Light Room, there are still ways in which I prefer DxO9. I will be interested tosee how DxO10 compares. Savageduck: Now to DxO 10? That was an October 2014 press release. It is now at DxO 10.1 I have run DxO trial versions and I am quite comfortable with my LR5 + PS CC workflow along with my compatible plug-ins. Bill W: I use DXO for the lens correction. I have LR4, but they don't appear to update the lens database. Am I missing something? DXO is always updating, and Viewpoint is pretty quick for geometric corrections. And for whatever reason, I've never been all that fond of LR. Or Adobe in general. I forgot to mention the most relevant thing, LR's noise reduction worked much better than DXO's on the ones I worked on. I did read that DXO works better on some stuff, and LR works better on other stuff. No one had any specifics, though. Overall, DxO's noise reduction is second to none. You have different noise reduction functions in DxO, and when you compare the normal de-noise function to Lightroom, they may be shoulder-to-shoulder. But the "PRIME" noise reduction in DxO is very advanced. For every single picture in the photo, it analyzes hundreds of other nearby pixels. It can take a long time to run this function on your photos, but the end result is just world's apart. I was talking about PRIME. Like I said, it's okay for some photos, and not others. LR was much better on the ones I worked on. The ones that come to mind were high ISO nighttime photos at a car show. LR did an amazing job, DXO made a mess of them. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DxO now to DxO 10
In article , Bill W wrote:
Sandman: Overall, DxO's noise reduction is second to none. You have different noise reduction functions in DxO, and when you compare the normal de-noise function to Lightroom, they may be shoulder-to-shoulder. But the "PRIME" noise reduction in DxO is very advanced. For every single picture in the photo, it analyzes hundreds of other nearby pixels. It can take a long time to run this function on your photos, but the end result is just world's apart. I was talking about PRIME. Like I said, it's okay for some photos, and not others. LR was much better on the ones I worked on. The ones that come to mind were high ISO nighttime photos at a car show. LR did an amazing job, DXO made a mess of them. I just find that hard to believe. Examples? -- Sandman[.net] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|