Trying to get away from Lightroom...again.....DxO?

[Hanley]

I'm sure this has been talked about so many times, but I'm looking at an alternative to Lightroom again.

This time it isn't about the subscription, although cancelling that would be nice, I've just been so unhappy with how LR processes the files from my Canon R5 and R6, I bought the Color Fidelity profile which has helped but I'm still disappointed.

It started yesterday when I did a test, I had 3 RAW files from my R5, fed each one through Canon DPP4, Lightroom and DxO PureRaw, to see how each would look.

I thought the output from Canon DPP was the best, you'd expect this though right, they know better than anyone how to interpret their own RAW data. But it's a cumbersome addition to your workflow.

Process in DPP
Export to 16-bit TIFF (which generates a 200MB+ file)
Then import the TIFF into Lightroom
Process, tag etc as normal

Now the resulting image looks much better doing it this way but I can't see it as a long term workflow.

So the difference between DPP and DxO PureRaw wasn't a lot so I looked at their PhotoLab software, downloaded a 30 day free trial, and that contains PureRaw.

I like the interface, different to LR but I think I could get used to it.

I just wanted to know if anyone else has made the switch from Lightroom to DxoPhotoLab and what your thoughts were?

Couple of things I need to try and work out:

I have a LR plugin which helps generate keywords, I find this useful for stock images. I can't see any similar plugin for PL.
I can send an image direct from Lightroom, into Affinity Photo or Topaz DeNoise, work on it and then it come back into LR, can you do this in PL?

 

[Dave Canon]

In the rendering process the Raw data are translated to colours according to a profile and these profiles are going to determine how you see the image. Most people probably just accept a default profile and then make a decision on the whole package based on that. I produced a bespoke profile for my camera. In fact even cameras of the same make and model can vary. It was easy enough to produce the profile which is used by LR to render all images from that camera automatically. In fact I use four different cameras at various times from a FF DSLR, a infrared DSLR, a Bridge camera and more recent half frame ML. I have profiles for all four. LR recognises the camera from the EXIF data so applies the correct profile each time. This means the colours I see are more accurate (not relevant for the IR camera). I would rather have an accurate colour rendition before I make any changes.

I did try Dx0 once but was put off by the fact that it automatically set sliders. I want to decide for myself particularly as it made some poor decisions. This was a an earlier version to be fair.

Dave

 

[Hanley]

There's more to it than just colours, you can setup a colour profile, or you can use Color Fidelity or one of the others you can buy.
But it's about how Lightroom processes that RAW data, they do it differently, and so much worse, than DPP and DxO.

The sharpness is different, the way they handle noise is different, more than just colours.

 

[Hanley]

I did try Dx0 once but was put off by the fact that it automatically set sliders. I want to decide for myself particularly as it made some poor decisions. This was a an earlier version to be fair.

Dave

I struggled with this yesterday, ended up posting on their forum and you just need to change the template being applied, edit it or create a new one.
You can decide which sliders to use and what settings etc.

 

[Dave Canon]

Of course it is your choice. As I get exactly what I want and I am satisfied with the most comprehensive Image processing package by Adobe, I would have no reason to change and have found significant issues with alternatives I have tried. By the time many images have been further processed by say Topaz, it would be impossible to tell what Raw process was undertaken anyway. I cannot see these deficiencies in Adobe Raw processing and neither have I heard any of my 140 club members suggest this. I am interested only in the final image.

Dave

 

[Hanley]

Of course it is your choice. As I get exactly what I want and I am satisfied with the most comprehensive Image processing package by Adobe, I would have no reason to change and have found significant issues with alternatives I have tried. By the time many images have been further processed by say Topaz, it would be impossible to tell what Raw process was undertaken anyway. I cannot see these deficiencies in Adobe Raw processing and neither have I heard any of my 140 club members suggest this. I am interested only in the final image.

Dave

Of course, like anything it's subjective.

I did a test, I took 4 CR3 files from my R5, processed them in Canon DPP4, DxO PureRaw and Lightroom.

I then took the resulting TIFF file from DPP4 and imported that into Lightroom.
I then took the resulting DNG file from DxO PureRaw and imported that into Lightroom.
The RAW CR3 file was also imported directly into Lightroom.

I then looked at all 3 images and they were significantly different, in terms of colour rendition, sharpness and noise.

My view was the Lightroom image, in comparison to the other 2, was not as good, hence why I'm now looking at alternatives.

Judging by the response to this same post on several photography groups on FB today I'm not alone.

 

[ecoleman]

Of course, like anything it's subjective.

I did a test, I took 4 CR3 files from my R5, processed them in Canon DPP4, DxO PureRaw and Lightroom.

I then took the resulting TIFF file from DPP4 and imported that into Lightroom.
I then took the resulting DNG file from DxO PureRaw and imported that into Lightroom.
The RAW CR3 file was also imported directly into Lightroom.

I then looked at all 3 images and they were significantly different, in terms of colour rendition, sharpness and noise.

My view was the Lightroom image, in comparison to the other 2, was not as good, hence why I'm now looking at alternatives.

Judging by the response to this same post on several photography groups on FB today I'm not alone.

I have the R5 and also the Color Fidelity profiles but I've not really tried any other editors with this camera other than Capture One. I can't say that I can see a huge difference between the two.

I went through a stage last year trying all the other processors and even paid for Capture One. At the end of the day I went back to LR for the simplicity of back and forth to PS, cataloging, printing etc.

The thing is, I use PS so switching to any of these processors would also mean me having to pay for two lots of software as I would still keep Adobe subscription.

I have bought Pure Raw and while I don't push all image through it, anything that I deem worthy of that extra step goes through Pure Raw before starting any editing.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I use DXO photolab - never was a big LR fan and made the switch from C1pro.

It's a very simple layout and bar cataloguing does everything a lot better. It's a very straightforward program to use and in all honest couldn't recommend it enough.

 

[Dave Canon]

Of course, like anything it's subjective.

I did a test, I took 4 CR3 files from my R5, processed them in Canon DPP4, DxO PureRaw and Lightroom.

I then took the resulting TIFF file from DPP4 and imported that into Lightroom.
I then took the resulting DNG file from DxO PureRaw and imported that into Lightroom.
The RAW CR3 file was also imported directly into Lightroom.

I then looked at all 3 images and they were significantly different, in terms of colour rendition, sharpness and noise.

My view was the Lightroom image, in comparison to the other 2, was not as good, hence why I'm now looking at alternatives.

Judging by the response to this same post on several photography groups on FB today I'm not alone.

But if you had used a bespoke colour profile what would they look like then. I am not sure you can easily use a bespoke profile with all the alternative editor to LR/PS anyway. I suggest very few photographers calibrate to produce a bespoke profile as I do so all these FB opinions are probably not based on accurate colour. When I used my Canon 5D4, I almost never needed any noise reduction so irrelevant, Now I am using a Sony A6600 and I do often need noise reduction so I use Topaz for that anyway. Where I do sharpen, I now use Topaz Sharpen AI. It would be hard to do any meaningful comparison as the output will always depend on decisions take in the process. So I am not suggesting that LR is best for noise or sharpening as I think Topaz is the best. I am thus using a combination of SW available to produce the output.

Dave

 

[Hanley]

But if you had used a bespoke colour profile what would they look like then. I am not sure you can easily use a bespoke profile with all the alternative editor to LR/PS anyway. I suggest very few photographers calibrate to produce a bespoke profile as I do so all these FB opinions are probably not based on accurate colour. When I used my Canon 5D4, I almost never needed any noise reduction so irrelevant, Now I am using a Sony A6600 and I do often need noise reduction so I use Topaz for that anyway. Where I do sharpen, I now use Topaz Sharpen AI. It would be hard to do any meaningful comparison as the output will always depend on decisions take in the process. So I am not suggesting that LR is best for noise or sharpening as I think Topaz is the best. I am thus using a combination of SW available to produce the output.

Dave

I agree on Top, best software I ever bought.

 

[Hanley]

I have the R5 and also the Color Fidelity profiles but I've not really tried any other editors with this camera other than Capture One. I can't say that I can see a huge difference between the two.

I went through a stage last year trying all the other processors and even paid for Capture One. At the end of the day I went back to LR for the simplicity of back and forth to PS, cataloging, printing etc.

The thing is, I use PS so switching to any of these processors would also mean me having to pay for two lots of software as I would still keep Adobe subscription.

I have bought Pure Raw and while I don't push all image through it, anything that I deem worthy of that extra step goes through Pure Raw before starting any editing.

I use Affinity Photo rather than PS so that wouldn't be an issue for me, I checked yesterday and I'm tied in with Adobe until July so I'll stick with LR for the time being, for images that I want to properly work on I'll run the RAW file through DPP and then take the TIFF into LR

 

[Bebop]

I made the switch to Photolab from Lightroom and am very happy with it. I also use Afinity if I need it.

Regarding sliders already being set, you can change that in preferences and have it do nothing if you wish. I leave it on the default DxO with geometry and feel like I do hardly any processing these days compared to Lightroom days.

i shoot with an R5 and Olympus. I never liked the colours from my R and looking back, I think it may have been the rendering in LR ( I did try setting up custom profiles). I sold it and now have the R5.

I find it a bit slow at times compared to LR, but I think the results are much better. The noise reduction Deep Prime is stunning and I really like that the local adjustments select based on tone - check ‘see mask’ to see what’s affected.

 

[Bristolian]

My Adobe subscription runs out at the end of November and will not be renewed. For the past year I have been trying alternative editing software and finally focussed on ON1 Camera RAW and DxO PhotoLab in readiness for this event. Initially I was very taken with the final result from ON1 but was never entirely happy with the way it works or the interface. Once I started to use DxO I felt comfortable with the way it works and really liked the look of the final output.

DxO's in-built noise reduction is just as good as Denoise AI, maybe even better in the 2022 version, and not having to open a second app to get the job done speeds up the workflow significantly. Having said that DeepPrime is really my only gripe about DxO and that is because you don't get to see the results on screen before outputting the final image and I don't really understand why.

DxO doesn't have the sophisticated DAM available in LR - what does - but as I will still have access to the LR library function after my subscription ends that's a non-issue for me.

EDIT: I find the DxO default template excellent for my NEF images and find I spend a lot less time editing individual images in DxO compared to LR.

 

[ecoleman]

because you don't get to see the results on screen before outputting the final image and I don't really understand why.

because of the amount of processing required to get the end result.

Raw image processing is non destructive which means that edits are not baked into the file but processed and overlaid on top of the raw file all the time. Every time you zoom in or out, or move the image your edits are re-applied.

It can take 30-40 seconds to process the noise reduction so it's simply not possible to preview it on the raw image without grinding your system to a halt.

 

[Bristolian]

@ecoleman : I hear what you're saying but if Denoise AI can display the result then why not DxO? I know that if you change the zoom amount or the portion of the image that you are viewing in Denoise AI it has to re-render the image but it only takes about 5 seconds on my machine and I could live with that.

 

[ecoleman]

@ecoleman : I hear what you're saying but if Denoise AI can display the result then why not DxO? I know that if you change the zoom amount or the portion of the image that you are viewing in Denoise AI it has to re-render the image but it only takes about 5 seconds on my machine and I could live with that.

I've never used denoise but does Denoise work on the raw file or a pixel image ie TIF/JPG

 

[Bristolian]

It can work on raw, tiff or jpg.

 

[JohnN]

As Steve mentions above it might be worth looking at On1 RAW - its really developed over the last couple of years and the new noise filter is really quite good, also it can pass files out and work with other plugins, so at least worth giving the free trial a go.

 

[LCPete]

I use DXO photolab - never was a big LR fan and made the switch from C1pro.

It's a very simple layout and bar cataloguing does everything a lot better. It's a very straightforward program to use and in all honest couldn't recommend it enough.

Thanks for the heads up I’m trying out DXO on the months free trial

 

[droj]

It's a tough one. & it can roll & roll ...

The Adobe package is very good value, when all's said & done. My benchmark though is subjective image quality (what else matters?). And on that basis I can see LR & PL as sparring partners, but beyond that I keep tangling with C1, & it's my current favourite. But it's a bit wild & needs to be tamed ...

It's like choosing a film. Do you want engineering, or do you want heart?