Any opinions on DXO or other image process software

tman

Right now using just Aperture, but some of the claims on DXO site for their suite look pretty interesting: Noise reduction, replication of old film stock .
Anyone know how DXO stacks up against other plug ins or standalones in similar price range (<$200 for the suite).

haroldp

I use DXO prime only for select images needing noise reduction, for that purpose it is the best I have used.

paulr

As you are a Mac guy look at Macphun Software Intesify Pro and Tonality Pro are great softwares and are not expensive. They also do an excellent Noise reduction software.

sevencrossing

You can try Lightroom CC free 30 days

niemeyjt

There seems to be quite a debate on the Adobe Forum about Lightroom - and its move from a one-off purchase locally installed application to a Cloud based application with a monthly subscription.

Certainly this has put me off and I am now looking at DxO - so will watch this thread with interest.

sevencrossing

to a Cloud based application with a monthly subscription.

Certainly this has put me off

Why ?

The old system did not include photoshop and was allaway in need of updating to the latest version

One big advantage of LR, is lots of tutorials

retread

I recently purchased DXO software and am pleased with it. I like the noise reduction and haze clearing features. I use it with PSE 13.

I too am put off by CC. In a year or two it cost enough to have just bought it and own it. I have not seen a need to update any software every time a new version comes out. I wait until they do something worth wile.

niemeyjt

to a Cloud based application with a monthly subscription.

Certainly this has put me off

Why ?

The old system did not include photoshop and was allaway in need of updating to the latest version

One big advantage of LR, is lots of tutorials

I agree LR has lots of plugins and tutorials - which is why it was top of my list. I don't want PS.

I prefer to pay once and upgrade when I choose - I am still using Windows 7 and Office 2010 despite the fact I am sure Microsoft would have loved me to shell out for Windows 8 and Office 2013 and they would love me to pay them monthly to use the software. However, after nearly five years I have "saved" $500 - and as I expect to stick with it for another two or three the "savings" are even greater.

Also, whilst not an issue for Adobe and LR, it is for Microsoft and O365 - currently there is a case going through US courts regarding US jurisdiction over cloud servers situated in Europe serving Europeans operated by a US Company - it is currently with the Second US Circuit Court of Appeal after Microsoft lost the first two rounds. On principal, I will not use a US operated cloud as I see no reason why I should have to fall under US jurisdiction for doing something in Europe that is totally legal in Europe. But that is for discussion on a political forum - not a photo forum.

WestEndFoto

to a Cloud based application with a monthly subscription.

Certainly this has put me off

Why ?

The old system did not include photoshop and was allaway in need of updating to the latest version

One big advantage of LR, is lots of tutorials

I agree LR has lots of plugins and tutorials - which is why it was top of my list. I don't want PS.

I prefer to pay once and upgrade when I choose - I am still using Windows 7 and Office 2010 despite the fact I am sure Microsoft would have loved me to shell out for Windows 8 and Office 2013 and they would love me to pay them monthly to use the software. However, after nearly five years I have "saved" $500 - and as I expect to stick with it for another two or three the "savings" are even greater.

Also, whilst not an issue for Adobe and LR, it is for Microsoft and O365 - currently there is a case going through US courts regarding US jurisdiction over cloud servers situated in Europe serving Europeans operated by a US Company - it is currently with the Second US Circuit Court of Appeal after Microsoft lost the first two rounds. On principal, I will not use a US operated cloud as I see no reason why I should have to fall under US jurisdiction for doing something in Europe that is totally legal in Europe. But that is for discussion on a political forum - not a photo forum.

Politics aside, it is a very practical risk and deserves attention here in my view.

tganiats

As a very long time Aperture user who never liked the Lightroom interface, I stuck by Aperture along with the plugins. I have tried DxO. I am now hooked on Lightroom. I first purchased it...and then switched (with upgrade to LR 6) to the CC version. I am very happy.

In a way I see it like Nikon/Canon vs. all the other cameras. Other cameras are good...very good at times...but the Nikon/Canon families allow me to explore and grow in less limited ways. Same with Lightroom. Its power blows the socks off DxO (and even Aperture)...I just can't believe it. Tons of online tutorials helps. Lots of plugins. I am hooked.

Ironheart

You can still buy LR 6 standalone for $149.
The state sponsored hackers in at least three countries have all of your data anyway, even your local drives, so there is no reason to fear the cloud. (@Ironheart adjusts his tinfoil hat)

manhattanboy

The state sponsored hackers in at least three countries have all of your data anyway, even your local drives, so there is no reason to fear the cloud. (@Ironheart adjusts his tinfoil hat)

That seems like all the more reason to fear the cloud IMHO.

I have used LR and DXO. I like DXO better. To me its easier and the NR is faster at getting good results. Both are similar and really what matters the most is the amount of time you spend learning how to properly use one than the actual program itself. If we are talking about a per program basis, Photoshop with plugins is the best, but most people don't have the time and energy to do that for a bunch of photos, and this is where I really find value in DXO.

sevencrossing

Dxo seems to lack

Graduated Filter ( often add 3 or more separate Graduated Filters to a landscape)

Local Adjustment Brush ( how do you lighten a face that is in shadow in DXO)

Healing and Cloning Tool ( how DOX users remove litter and phone wires)

Keywords and Color Tagging (how do DXO users organizing their files)

haroldp

I do not prefer DXO as a general purpose editor for reasons quoted above, buts its noise reduction (prime in 10.0) is by a wide margin the best I have seen. I use it on about 5% of my images, but like having that arrow in my quiver.

... H

manhattanboy

Dxo seems to lack

Graduated Filter ( often add 3 or more separate Graduated Filters to a landscape)

Local Adjustment Brush ( how do you lighten a face that is in shadow in DXO)

Healing and Cloning Tool ( how DOX users remove litter and phone wires)

Keywords and Color Tagging (how do DXO users organizing their files)

I would use Photoshop for most of this as these are pic specific adjustments. Most of the time I use DXO for batch RAW processing, for which it is very good.

sevencrossing

I would use Photoshop for most of this as these are pic specific adjustments.

I have never managed to master photoshop
I like LR as it never changes the original RAW file
and everything can be easily undone
a lot of DXO advantage seem to be diminished if you have to use PS as well

re noise. As someone who, these days, shoots at ISO 100, this not a big selling point for me

Spy_Black

I use DxO primarily for it PRIME noise reduction engine. I don't really like all the automated stuff it does to my images, I prefer to process them manually. I know this isn't everyone's preference, so if you like the automated output of DxO than it's a hit. I also don't like the lack of local adjustment tools and masking.

Ultimately I use a combination of DxO, Lightroom, and Capture One Pro, which no one here has mentioned yet. Now, why do I do this? Because depending on the nature of the image, CO or LR will be better.

For example, I shot a live concert performance with saturated spotlights, and the images were completely flat in LR, no detail in skin and faces. Nothing I did could recover detail. I brought the images into CO and was able to work with, and modify, information that was completely missing in LR.

On the flip side, I shot some natural environments that came out completely dead in CO. I could not adjust them to get pleasing results. I brought the images into LR and they were literally output ready, needing only density adjustments for some underexposed frames. I also like sharpening better in LR than CO or DxO.

Fortunately for you all these apps have 30-day trails that you can use to evaluate them for your needs. I suggest simply downloading them all and putting them through their paces to see what feels right with your workflow.

MaxBerlin

Capture 1. Sometimes post out as TIFF to do some other work in LR. But 99% of the time I stay in C1.

haroldp

I also use DxO primarily for it PRIME noise reduction engine. When I do, I will then output a DNG and finish in ACR / CS6.

.... H