OM-D files in DXO

srtiwari

srtiwari

Daktari
Local time
6:58 PM
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
1,032
Have just be trying out the 30 day Trial of DXO Pro Optics 7.5 witgh my OM-D RAW file (.ORF). Compared to using Lightroom 4.1, the files seem much cleaner- with less noise and better sharpness at 100%. At first I thought this was just a better image file, but now I believe the DXO converted files are better in general.
I plan to put up some images later to try and show this.

Has anyone else, using the OM-D, found this to be the case ?
 
I think it's common knowledge that there are better converters than LR. I've noticed the same thing with LR vs capture NX2 regarding NEF files. Doesn't stop me from using LR though since it's much more convenient. I guess the question is how does LR compare with oly's own raw converter?
 
Also, I think DxO is more aggressive (if that's the right word) with the starting settings it applies to photos, typically based on information it has built in for the camera and lens. Just throwing this out there in case it's more a matter of difference in processing settings than necessarily what one software can do better than the other.

srtiwari said:
Have just be trying out the 30 day Trial of DXO Pro Optics 7.5 witgh my OM-D RAW file (.ORF). Compared to using Lightroom 4.1, the files seem much cleaner- with less noise and better sharpness at 100%. At first I thought this was just a better image file, but now I believe the DXO converted files are better in general.
I plan to put up some images later to try and show this.

Has anyone else, using the OM-D, found this to be the case ?
Click to expand...
 
v_roma said:
Also, I think DxO is more aggressive (if that's the right word) with the starting settings it applies to photos, typically based on information it has built in for the camera and lens. Just throwing this out there in case it's more a matter of difference in processing settings than necessarily what one software can do better than the other.
Click to expand...

Not sure that I agree. I am reasonably adept at using the software to get the kind of look I like. I was surprised at how sharp, and noise free the images were in DXO, compared to the same RAW files in DXO. Even resetting the DXO settings to "None" and then working on the image, and then working it in LR4, I get nicer images.
 
I wasn't questioning your skills. I just wasn't sure if you were comparing defaults or if you had processed the files to your liking using both programs and like DxO's results better. Sounds like the latter.

srtiwari said:
Not sure that I agree. I am reasonably adept at using the software to get the kind of look I like. I was surprised at how sharp, and noise free the images were in DXO, compared to the same RAW files in DXO. Even resetting the DXO settings to "None" and then working on the image, and then working it in LR4, I get nicer images.
Click to expand...
 
v_roma said:
I wasn't questioning your skills. I just wasn't sure if you were comparing defaults or if you had processed the files to your liking using both programs and like DxO's results better. Sounds like the latter.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't think you were questioning my skills. And I was just clarifying my method. With conversion without any editing they look equally bad. Once you apply the the tools, though, the DXO once are spectacular !
(I think much has to do with the "Lens softness" control of DXO)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom