DxO Optics Pro is a RAW converter that I used to use a lot because it was the first image editing program that could do lens corrections and show off its strengths in developing large amounts of images. Then Lightroom came along and I opened DxO less and less.
Now there is version 9 of DxO Optics Pro and I thought to myself: “Come on, give the program another chance.” So I spent several hours testing the program and compared my results with Lightroom 5. So this article is a kind of supplement to my Comparison of different RAW converters.
To save you from waiting too long: DxO Optics Pro 9 is a converter that achieves pretty good results thanks to its many automatic functions. However, in order for the automatic functions to work optimally, you must have already done a good job with the exposure of the shot. If you make a mistake when taking the picture, you will get better results more quickly with Lightroom. Although DxO9 does not require the lengthy rendering of previews like in Lightroom, it does take quite a long time for changes to the controls or settings to become visible in the DxO preview. So: if a simple optimization of your images is sufficient, DxO Optics Pro will help you - especially with large quantities of images. Basically, all you have to do is open the folder and then click "Export to hard drive".
What's new in DxO is a supposedly improved noise reduction. Because it's very computer-intensive, it's not activated by default. It's called "Prime" and significantly increases the time it takes to export, which isn't particularly fast anyway. The result is OK for surfaces, but fine structures are naturally ironed out slightly. Lightroom isn't quite as effective, but the settings are more individual and fine structures are therefore better preserved. To achieve this, you have to experiment in Lightroom or know which effect you can achieve with which control. DxO Optics Pro does this work for you.
In this example at ISO4000 you can also see a really good feature in wide-angle shots: the "volume deformation". In my opinion, the faces in the DxO conversion look better than in Lightroom.
In my opinion, DxO DxO Optics Pro 9 is aimed more at beginners in RAW conversion. The many controls in Lightroom can be confusing and you have to know what you're doing. DxO does a lot for you. There are also presets in the 9 version that, in addition to the automatisms, help you achieve good image results more quickly.
DxO also offers a new FilmPack, which is very pleasantly embedded in the converter and impressed me with its results. For this image I didn't need to push a controller, DxO Optics Pro analyzed the image for me and developed it properly. I just chose the film feeling I wanted.
By the way, exporting the images takes significantly longer than with Lightroom, usually by a factor of three. However, the export runs very pleasantly in the background and allows you to edit additional images. Lightroom likes to reduce the speed of preview changes when changing a slider.
So my conclusion is mixed: on the one hand, DxO Optics Pro 9 is absolutely justified, on the other hand, Lightroom is faster and, above all, cheaper. If you don't have any experience with RAW converters, DxO might be a good way to slowly get used to the setting variables. There is on the DxO website has a test version. You can activate the film pack within Optics Pro 9 - even in the test version.
Have you ever run an X-E1 RAW through DXO?
Yes, but it doesn't work. DxO Optics Pro cannot edit RAFs.
very interesting, I'm currently in the process of testing different raw converters.
capture one and optics pro were also there – LR is my “reference” because I have been using it for a relatively long time.
I found the operation of LR to be the best by far from all the others, but the first test photo after development in Optics Pro blew me away.
I probably overdid it a bit, but I think the look is sensational and I didn't even shoot in a similar direction with Lightroom (obviously I had NO concrete idea of what the finished image should look like!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilandigital/10708116214/
There are certainly also motifs that can be developed better or not so well in one or another converter. As much as I like LR, Capture One is my first choice for portraits.
I'll probably try that again with a portrait. Thanks.
A completely different question, where did this website get my photo from!?!?
You mean your avatar?
jep
Probably because you are registered with Gravatar.
I am!? 😀
…no seriously, am I?
Thank you very much for this site (which I am just discovering), very interesting/insightful.
In any case, this is a feature of the theme and I hope you like it 😉
oh now it occurs to me, shooting games and avatars, of course. Nothing on the Internet remains secret.
Even at the risk of littering this thread: yes, I think it's good.
I think it's good if you feel comfortable here :)
Hi
thanks for the comparison. I think I could manage with a light room, but I'm too lazy :-=)
I really like DXO, just open it, export it and you're done. Definitely much better quality than the jpgs ooc from my D3200.
Greeting,
Oliver
Hi Stefan,
Thank you, your test was very informative. Interesting that you capture one for skin
also find it so good. I really need to try it out now. Thought LR5 is already equal. What can capture one do so much better? I would be very grateful for a comment.
Regards
Michael
C1 is more accurate and friendly with skin tones. Also better than LR in terms of microcontrast. Give it a try – even if LR is easier to use.
Wow, thanks again for the quick response. I will do.
At the moment, however, I'm busy with furniture and am comparing things
dxo viewpoint with LR…
Happy New Year
M
Thank you for your contribution. For about 4 years I have been ignoring DXO and using LR + CS 5 + Nik and will download a new test version to give DXo a chance again. I just suspect that the multitude of programs doesn't exactly focus me on straight-line work...
Better try Capture One. For me it's still the best RAW converter on the market.
Thank you for your hint. If the winter is going to be a long one, I'll also take a look at Capture One.
Hi,
Thanks for your comparison. Is C1 Express enough or does it have to be C1 Pro?
Greetings Simon
Hi,
You can find the differences listed at the following address: http://www.phaseone.com/de-de/Imaging-Software/Capture-One-Pro-7/Pricing.aspx
You then have to decide for yourself whether the additional features are worth the extra cost.
Is there no one other than me who uses Photoshop's RAW converter?
In the past I have always used Aperture. That's so-so, but it's simply the standard on the Mac (it's really very inexpensive at around €60). Unfortunately it doesn't work now because I switched to the Samsung NX30 and the Mac doesn't support Samsung's RAWs...
As a dentist, I take a lot of pictures of teeth (yes, really ;-)). Many people use Photostation for this. The program was never shortlisted for me.
My NX30 also came with a license for the new Lightroom. But it's still not my favorite. The GUI is good for Windows users, but a significant change for Mac users.
Well, for my few teeth when I post-process the RAWs, I just love importing them into Photoshop.
I can only agree. I've been using DXO since version 7 and I'm thrilled. I have now installed Lightroom. But it's spontaneously too much for me. I have to import the images into a catalog before I can edit them. Instead of selecting a folder right after starting. That's a little stupid.
I can only agree with that. I've had Lightroom since I was little. But I still can't handle it. I've never understood how to open an image. You have to import it into a catalog first. That's incredibly slow on a NAS. I don't need all the catalog functions anyway. If you don't work with Lightroom every day, it's a pain.
When I treated myself to Photoshop, all was right with the world again. I was able to work with the program straight away. Thank God!
Since then, LR has been in the corner. I do the cataloging with Photomechanic and Imabas anyway.
I'm now looking for an easy-to-use RAW developer. I tried this DxO. It's easy to use. But I was blown away by its noise reduction (PRIME). It beats everything I've used so far. While Dfine, PS, LR and of course the camera JPG developers "smear" everything, DxO actually preserves critical things much better (hair, for example). Before I treat myself to DxO, I'm going to test the denoiser a little more. Capture One seems very overpriced to me.
Thank you for the interesting article.
I'll stick with Lightroom :)
LG Markus
Your right
Hello 🙂
In the past few years I have tried all the raw developers I know and, especially in the early days, worked almost exclusively with Lightroom and Photoshop.
After many comparisons, I noticed that I could achieve the desired results much more quickly with Capture one.
In addition, the results with LR and DXO always appear slightly dull in comparison, while the image from Capture One appears crisper, clearer with better fine detail.
However, DXO's prime noise removal is really great.
End of song...
I have taken out a Capture one subscription.
Congratulations! In my opinion, a wise decision 🙂
I also switched from Lightroom to Capture One 8Pro and am thrilled with results. I still have one question for you: Is C1 better for equalization or DxO Viewpoint 2?
The equalization procedure is very similar for both. I didn't compare results.