and the site receives a small commission
DxO Optics or Lightroom?
- Thread starter digital
- Start date
swanseamale47
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,876
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I haven't used DXO for a good while, but IMHO Lightroom 4 is probably better, I was never that impressed with DXO although it's lens correction was a big feature, now of course both LR and photoshop has it.
JonathanRyan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,765
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Depends what you're doing.
DxO IMO extracts higher quality images from raws with less fuss than any other app I've ever used.
I used the trial of a recent version on some architectural shots I did for an engineering company. They looked very pretty indeed and undistorted everything with very little input from me.
However, I find it slow for every day use. I'm a hardcore LR user and was very tempted by DxO but didn't buy it in the end. Extreme quality with little user input but on my machine batch processing is a leisurely affair.
DxO IMO extracts higher quality images from raws with less fuss than any other app I've ever used.
I used the trial of a recent version on some architectural shots I did for an engineering company. They looked very pretty indeed and undistorted everything with very little input from me.
However, I find it slow for every day use. I'm a hardcore LR user and was very tempted by DxO but didn't buy it in the end. Extreme quality with little user input but on my machine batch processing is a leisurely affair.
Irritable_Rabbit
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 450
- Edit My Images
- No
I've used DXO extensively over the last 5 years as my main RAW processing software, over and above Camera Raw and DPP (which doesn't get a look in any more 
).
You have plenty of control and it does produce some really great output. Performance has always been good for me. The updates to newer versions are reasonably priced IMHO. Incremental updates are free of course.
One caveat though. To get the best out of it you do need the lens and body combinations it supports. If DXO doesn't support your gear to a good extent I'd stick with Lightroom as you lose some of the advantages of DXO.
I am using Lightroom more nowadays as it has matured very nicely, but it depends on the images I've shot.
The more critical work where I'll spend extra time on the images almost always still goes through DXO, then Lightroom/Photoshop. More personal work, or images that I spend less time on, get the Lightroom treatment from the start.
).You have plenty of control and it does produce some really great output. Performance has always been good for me. The updates to newer versions are reasonably priced IMHO. Incremental updates are free of course.
One caveat though. To get the best out of it you do need the lens and body combinations it supports. If DXO doesn't support your gear to a good extent I'd stick with Lightroom as you lose some of the advantages of DXO.
I am using Lightroom more nowadays as it has matured very nicely, but it depends on the images I've shot.
The more critical work where I'll spend extra time on the images almost always still goes through DXO, then Lightroom/Photoshop. More personal work, or images that I spend less time on, get the Lightroom treatment from the start.
Johnd2000
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,215
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
As a DxO user for 3 years (ish) I'd agree with the above. If your specific body/lens combinations are supported then DxO is very hard to beat. I particularly like its integration with DxO film pack.
I've tried several times to switch to LR but I find it slower and no better in terms of final image quality.
I've tried several times to switch to LR but I find it slower and no better in terms of final image quality.
