<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: DXO Optics Pro and Lightroom Comparison</title> <atom:link href="http://photographyminute.com/dxo-optics-pro-and-lightroom-comparison.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://photographyminute.com/dxo-optics-pro-and-lightroom-comparison.htm</link> <description>Sharing photos, reviews and tips for photographers</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:28:12 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Eric D. Brown</title><link>http://photographyminute.com/dxo-optics-pro-and-lightroom-comparison.htm/comment-page-1#comment-5337</link> <dc:creator>Eric D. Brown</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:17:24 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photographyminute.com/?p=2349#comment-5337</guid> <description>Hi Henrik -
The comparison was with Lighrtoom 3.
Thanks for stopping by.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Henrik &#8211;</p><p>The comparison was with Lighrtoom 3.</p><p>Thanks for stopping by.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Henrik</title><link>http://photographyminute.com/dxo-optics-pro-and-lightroom-comparison.htm/comment-page-1#comment-5336</link> <dc:creator>Henrik</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:38:56 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photographyminute.com/?p=2349#comment-5336</guid> <description>I&#039;ve been using DxO for about a year, and I&#039;m quite happy with the results. But I do agree: It takes time!
In your comparison you MUST add, which Lightroom version, you refer to? I believe from the dates, that it must be LR2. Right? In that case, it would be absolutely lovely if you did your comparison again based on LR3, because of the major changes in the program!
DxO DNG output files are extremely large. A DxO supporter explains:
&quot;They are much bigger even LZW compressed.  When I make them the 8-bit TIFFs are 2-3 time the size of the NEFs and 16-bit TIFFs at least 4-5 times bigger. But the are as they should be. The DNGs are big because you can&#039;t put the lens correction data in the format Adobe uses (which they keep changing for their own business purposes and so are in no way a &quot;standard&quot; IMHO. Linear RAW is a well established &quot;standard&quot; and that&#039;s what DxO makes -- but they are demosiced RGBG data just like 16-bit TIFFs with only the Lens corrections made to them. No other way to do this and keep to &quot;Standard&quot; being followed.&quot;</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been using DxO for about a year, and I&#8217;m quite happy with the results. But I do agree: It takes time!</p><p>In your comparison you MUST add, which Lightroom version, you refer to? I believe from the dates, that it must be LR2. Right? In that case, it would be absolutely lovely if you did your comparison again based on LR3, because of the major changes in the program!</p><p>DxO DNG output files are extremely large. A DxO supporter explains:<br
/> &#8220;They are much bigger even LZW compressed.  When I make them the 8-bit TIFFs are 2-3 time the size of the NEFs and 16-bit TIFFs at least 4-5 times bigger. But the are as they should be. The DNGs are big because you can&#8217;t put the lens correction data in the format Adobe uses (which they keep changing for their own business purposes and so are in no way a &#8220;standard&#8221; IMHO. Linear RAW is a well established &#8220;standard&#8221; and that&#8217;s what DxO makes &#8212; but they are demosiced RGBG data just like 16-bit TIFFs with only the Lens corrections made to them. No other way to do this and keep to &#8220;Standard&#8221; being followed.&#8221;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Cor</title><link>http://photographyminute.com/dxo-optics-pro-and-lightroom-comparison.htm/comment-page-1#comment-5327</link> <dc:creator>Cor</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:21:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photographyminute.com/?p=2349#comment-5327</guid> <description>Great comparisson! I&#039;m using DXO now for a while after using an illegal version of Photoshop. Because of I don&#039;t want to use illegal software, I was looking for an cheaper alternative, but better than Ufraw etc.
I also made my own test of this software: http://cor-oskam.blogspot.com/2011/01/test-van-dxo-optics-pro-65.html</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great comparisson! I&#8217;m using DXO now for a while after using an illegal version of Photoshop. Because of I don&#8217;t want to use illegal software, I was looking for an cheaper alternative, but better than Ufraw etc.</p><p>I also made my own test of this software: <a
href="http://cor-oskam.blogspot.com/2011/01/test-van-dxo-optics-pro-65.html" rel="nofollow">http://cor-oskam.blogspot.com/2011/01/test-van-dxo-optics-pro-65.html</a></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: ericbrown</title><link>http://photographyminute.com/dxo-optics-pro-and-lightroom-comparison.htm/comment-page-1#comment-3377</link> <dc:creator>ericbrown</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:15:41 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photographyminute.com/?p=2349#comment-3377</guid> <description>Welcome Will.
I think DxO&#039;s real power comes from the camera / lens module combination.   I&#039;ve been having trouble really incorporating DxO into my workflow as well. I use Lightroom as my main catalog and adding DxO into the front of my workflow (convert using DxO and then pull into Lightroom) works OK but definitely adds a lot of additional up-front time to my processing.
I&#039;m still loving the outputs of DxO though. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome Will.</p><p>I think DxO&#039;s real power comes from the camera / lens module combination.   I&#039;ve been having trouble really incorporating DxO into my workflow as well. I use Lightroom as my main catalog and adding DxO into the front of my workflow (convert using DxO and then pull into Lightroom) works OK but definitely adds a lot of additional up-front time to my processing.</p><p>I&#039;m still loving the outputs of DxO though.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Wil Bloodworth</title><link>http://photographyminute.com/dxo-optics-pro-and-lightroom-comparison.htm/comment-page-1#comment-3376</link> <dc:creator>Wil Bloodworth</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:04:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photographyminute.com/?p=2349#comment-3376</guid> <description>Eric,
Thanks for writing this up.  It&#039;s been a few years since I&#039;ve looked at DxO.  Last night, based on your blog, I gave DxO another shot.  It did do a lot better than I had hoped.  However, it only seems to do better when it has a lens and body module installed.
It may still do a decent job with unknown (Zeiss, Leica, Hartblei) lenses but I still haven&#039;t found a decent way to incorporate DxO into my workflow.  It has an export to Lightroom button that will export a DNG which may be an option.  However, since I&#039;m now using custom color profiles generated using the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport, I do not want to miss that step and it only creates DNG color profiles, not ICC ones which is what DxO uses.  If I can find a way to get that incorporated, it may be an excellent option for improving image quality from the RAW NEF files.
- Wil
My recent post &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_bloodworth/4731187099/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sunrise in Grand Teton National Park&lt;/a&gt; </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric,</p><p>Thanks for writing this up.  It&#39;s been a few years since I&#39;ve looked at DxO.  Last night, based on your blog, I gave DxO another shot.  It did do a lot better than I had hoped.  However, it only seems to do better when it has a lens and body module installed.</p><p>It may still do a decent job with unknown (Zeiss, Leica, Hartblei) lenses but I still haven&#39;t found a decent way to incorporate DxO into my workflow.  It has an export to Lightroom button that will export a DNG which may be an option.  However, since I&#39;m now using custom color profiles generated using the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport, I do not want to miss that step and it only creates DNG color profiles, not ICC ones which is what DxO uses.  If I can find a way to get that incorporated, it may be an excellent option for improving image quality from the RAW NEF files.</p><p>- Wil<br
/> My recent post <a
href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_bloodworth/4731187099/" rel="nofollow">Sunrise in Grand Teton National Park</a></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Juan Garcia</title><link>http://photographyminute.com/dxo-optics-pro-and-lightroom-comparison.htm/comment-page-1#comment-3753</link> <dc:creator>Juan Garcia</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 11 Apr 2010 05:32:29 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photographyminute.com/?p=2349#comment-3753</guid> <description>&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_comment&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_twitter_username&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_content&quot;&gt;RT @photo_minute: Published: DXO Optics Pro and Lightroom Comparison http://bit.ly/9l1Y5J #photography #review&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span
class="topsy_trackback_comment"><span
class="topsy_twitter_username"><span
class="topsy_trackback_content">RT @photo_minute: Published: DXO Optics Pro and Lightroom Comparison <a
href="http://bit.ly/9l1Y5J" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/9l1Y5J</a> #photography #review</span></span></span></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: EricDBrown-Photos</title><link>http://photographyminute.com/dxo-optics-pro-and-lightroom-comparison.htm/comment-page-1#comment-3754</link> <dc:creator>EricDBrown-Photos</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 11 Apr 2010 05:27:49 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photographyminute.com/?p=2349#comment-3754</guid> <description>&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_comment&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_twitter_username&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_content&quot;&gt;Published: DXO Optics Pro and Lightroom Comparison http://bit.ly/9l1Y5J #photography #review&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span
class="topsy_trackback_comment"><span
class="topsy_twitter_username"><span
class="topsy_trackback_content">Published: DXO Optics Pro and Lightroom Comparison <a
href="http://bit.ly/9l1Y5J" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/9l1Y5J</a> #photography #review</span></span></span></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Tweets that mention DXO Optics Pro and Lightroom Comparison &#124; Photography Minute -- Topsy.com</title><link>http://photographyminute.com/dxo-optics-pro-and-lightroom-comparison.htm/comment-page-1#comment-2946</link> <dc:creator>Tweets that mention DXO Optics Pro and Lightroom Comparison &#124; Photography Minute -- Topsy.com</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:35:25 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photographyminute.com/?p=2349#comment-2946</guid> <description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Juan Garcia, EricDBrown-Photos. EricDBrown-Photos said: Published: DXO Optics Pro and Lightroom Comparison http://bit.ly/9l1Y5J #photography #review [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Juan Garcia, EricDBrown-Photos. EricDBrown-Photos said: Published: DXO Optics Pro and Lightroom Comparison <a
href="http://bit.ly/9l1Y5J" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/9l1Y5J</a> #photography #review [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
