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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

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]