It's not exactly a lot, is it? If you are going to be a photographer for at least the next 10 years, then the total cost of the initial product and the upgrades works out at £1,730 or 47 pence a day. That works out at £10 a month for the upgrades. You might be happy to pay £600 for a new lens, so why pull back at spending the same on a processing system that will do everything? The upgrades come out approximately every 18 months and cost about £180 - CS4 to CS5 cost that. I’m only interested in Lightroom Classic as a DAM.I know CS5 is a big outlay, but consider it an investment. That’s why you won’t find anything in that regards.Īll explanations are provided in the readme 1st.txt file.
Dxo viewpoint vs optics pro pro#
Images 2 & 5: how much "added" detail can you get by enabling optics modules corrections? No optics modules enabled for both C1 and DxO PLĬ1's default unsharp mask reset to "No sharpening" Images 1 & 4: how much detail can you extract from plain raw files? Images 11 and 12: Canon 5D Mark III + Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM f/5.6 Images 1 to 10: Canon 5D Mark III + Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM f/11 I copy-paste the content of this file below for those of you who want to read it first (pun intended) before downloading the screenshots: RAW PROCESSING / DEMOSAICING COMPARISONĬapture 1 21 Pro build 14.1.0.220 is on the left / DxO PhotoLab v4.2.0 build 51 on the right on each picture. C1 optics module correction *disabled* and default unsharp mask reset to "No sharpening" Optics modules enabled for DxO PL only (all corrections enabled, including "Lens sharpness"), then from that result a linear DNG is exported to C1 Images 13: how dark areas are handled by default from a DxO export to C1 in linear DNG? Shadow is the *only* cursor/slider moved for this test (apart from optical corrections) Images 9 & 11: how dark areas are handled by default & how much detail can you extract from these areas without moving the shadow recovery cursor/slider? Highlight is the *only* cursor/slider moved for this test (apart from optical corrections) Optics modules enabled for both C1 and DxO PL (all corrections enabled, including "Lens sharpness") Images 7 & 8: highlight recuperation tests C1's default unsharp mask is now enabled C1's default unsharp mask is STILL reset to "No sharpening" Optics modules enabled for both C1 and DxO PL (all corrections enabled, incl. Images 14: shadow recovery tests from a Dx0 export to C1 in linear DNGĭON'T READ THE FOLLOWING BEFORE MAKING YOUR OWN MIND.ġ) By default, i.e without one single correction enabled, DxO PL renders more contrasty and darker images than C1, but not sharper images,Ģ) When enabled, DxO PL's optics processing - especially "Lens sharpness" correction - is pretty effective C1 has to enable both the same correction *and* default unsharp mask to match DxO PL "Lens sharpness" correction only (and unsharp mask is not even enabled on DxO PL at this stage),ģ) DxO PL has more highlights recuperation range when C1 is at -100, DxO provides the same result at -65 or even -35 on these examples,Ĥ) But, pushing HL recuperation closer to -100 on DxO (not shown here) results in ugly colour shift, unlike C1 who handles this aspect perfectly, albeit reaching the -100 limit earlier so despite the greater range, DxO HL recuperation is not better, it's a draw between both apps,ĥ) C1 really puts DxO PL to dust in terms of both default shadow rendering (w/o adjustments) and shadow recovery this is coherent with first bullet that stated that "DxO PL renders more contrasty and darker images than C1",Ħ) When using the shadow recovery cursor, DxO generates noisier results shadow recovery might be considered as a draw between both apps by some if you add DxO PL's superior noise reduction in the equation),ħ) Linear DNG test files tell us that, despite being first demosaiced by DxO, C1's raw engine still performs the same way as regards shadow recovery. In other words, it's not a prerequisite to demosaic the file internally to get excellent shadow recovery C1's shadow recovery works just as well with a linear DNG file.Yes, I respectfully voice the opinion that you have it "wrong" (even though there's really no "right" or "wrong," just more- or less-appropriate apps for certain types of work/application requirements).
Dxo viewpoint vs optics pro software#
I'm still deciding on my software suite as well, and DxO Optics Pro remains high on the list, mainly for its powerful, and easy-to-use perspective control features. I also like the fact that my body, and my most-often used Nikkors are in their optical corrections database.
0 kommentar(er)
