sergiohm

Although I'm a LR guy, why not try DXO PL for 30 days?
The new DXO PL has a processing called "DXO PL Elite" which is like the Auto processing in LR on steroids!
So I processed 4 images so you can compare. The pictures taken using either a Fuji XT-3 fitted with a manual Artisan 12 mm F 2.8 Mark II or a Canon R-10 fitted with a Canon EF-S 10-22 mm F 3.5-4.5.
The RAW images were imported by LR and then processed in LR and DXO PL.
I did not do much processing, most of the times using the Auto processing in LR and the equivalent processing in DXO PL (or the aforementioned Elite processing).
Disclaimer, you can images make look the same on both looks but my objective was relying on light processing which one looks better. Images were exported to JPEG using an 80% Quality.
To me both do the job, you have to decide which one fits better on your workflow.
Enough talk on to the pictures!

[DXO]Fuji XT-3 fitted with a manual Artisan 12 mm F 2.8 Mark II

(Download)

[LR]Fuji XT-3 fitted with a manual Artisan 12 mm F 2.8 Mark II

(Download)

[DXO]Fuji XT-3 fitted with a manual Artisan 12 mm F 2.8 Mark II

(Download)

[LR]Fuji XT-3 fitted with a manual Artisan 12 mm F 2.8 Mark II

(Download)

[DXO]Canon R-10 fitted with a Canon EF-S 10-22 mm F 3.5-4.5

(Download)

[LR]Canon R-10 fitted with a Canon EF-S 10-22 mm F 3.5-4.5

(Download)

[DXO]Canon R-10 fitted with a Canon EF-S 10-22 mm F 3.5-4.5

(Download)

[LR]Canon R-10 fitted with a Canon EF-S 10-22 mm F 3.5-4.5

(Download)

dustywing Loc: North East WI

LR seem to brighten one and three more DXO, two brightness seem the same.
DXO not cheap but I hate PS subscription crap.

AFPhoto Loc: Jamestown, RI, USA

None of us likes subscriptions. But with AI today processing capability is changing rapidly. At least, with a subscription based editor, your capability will be kept up-to-date as opposed to your one time purchase, which will be obsoleted fairly soon.

ejrmaine Loc: South Carolina

Looks like Lightroom Classic improved the shadows areas better than DXO.

I'm a long time Lightroom Classic/Photoshop user, so I'd vote for the Adobe products. The$10/month is a downside to some, but to me it's well worth the investment.

mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

It appears to me that LR does a better job in lightening the shadow areas, but both processors do a nice job.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

To me, LR did a better job (not because I'm a LR guy). DXO is too dark for me.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Any thoughts on leveling your horizons when using either of these digital editors?

sergiohm

I did when it looked ok, LR tends to not be leveled sometimes.
I think all DXO is corrected horizontally And vertically, I don’t have my computer with me but I’ll update later.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

LR will only level the horizon if your tell it to. I'm sure DXO is the same.

photon-collector Loc: Tampa Bay Area, Florida

Before we sell DXO short.... I use several processing editors: Lightroom, Photoshop, Luminar, Elements, and DXO PhotoLab 2. I believe the differences in the images in this post, are simply a difference in where the sliders were set.

DXO contains a host of interesting pre-sets and NIK collection. It offers an easy-to-use, user-selectable "Local Adjustments" suite, which includes exposure, contrast, micro-contrast, Clearview plus, highlights, mid-tones, shadows, and blacks. DXO also imports lab-bench data relative to the specific camera and lens used and then makes optical corrections based on those data. Of course, it also includes the standard selections for color, light, geometry, and detail. Unlike the monthly rental applications, DXO is a single purchase item.

It may not be an end-all, or may not be for everyone....but it is definitely worth the free 30-day trial.

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

Comparing the first two, the DxO looks brighter than the LR. The exif for the DxO image says that the aperture was 0 while that of the LR image was 1.0. If the aperture numbers are to be believed, I have never seen nor heard of an aperture of 0, then that might explain the difference in brightness.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I believe the answer can be found in the original captions to the images, using manual focus (non electronic) lenses onto a digital camera. The camera and lens do not communicate, with the aperture being set manually on the lens, and the mirrorless sensor simply metering the light reaching the sensor. No relevant data is saved into the aperture field in the EXIF.

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

Appears to me that LR did a better job. IMHO

Don