crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Does anyone have experience with DxO Pro and Lightroom and can comment on the pros and cons? I have heard that the noise reduction capabilities of DxO Pro alone are worth makinr the investment.

G_Manos Loc: Bala Cynwyd, PA

I've used 'em both and prefer DxO. DxO does not try to manage your photos for you, which I prefer. Also, yes, its noise reduction capability is impresive. Not perect, but pretty good.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I use both. Lightroom for it's image management, and DXO for it's Prime noise reduction, Viewpoint distortion correction, it's lens profiles which are the best in the business, and the fact that you can add a raw file to the LR catalog, send it out to DXO to do the things that DXO does best, then have DXO export a raw - dng- actually, file back to LR to do the rest of the work required for raw conversion. Finally, for image finishing, I use Photoshop and On1 to do the things that no parametric raw converter is capable of. I have yet to find a raw converter that has enough "juice" to do the pixel level precision editing that even a modest pixel editor can do.

That being said, On1 Raw is looking very promising - it's raw conversion allows for "layering" of adjustments, similar to Capture One, and it has one of the best "effects" suite, and a great resizing program. I use all of these - so for me it's not an either/or situation - they all hold benefit for me. Not having a catalog would quickly put me out of business, I rely so heavily on it.

For the record, LR does not "manage photos" on it's own - you set all the rules and it just helps you - by doing exactly what you tell it to do - nothing more, nothing less.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I use LR and in PS Neat Image for Noise reduction works for me

Butch5

I use both and agree with Gene. I like what Dxo can do with a raw file. I find its sharpening to be really nice and it's noise reduction also. I typically load images into LR and then export to Dxo and then back to LR.

baygolf Loc: DMV

I use both DxO does not have a healing/spot removal brush and I have noticed that it sometimes does not play well with skin tones. With that being said it is an excellent software for landscapes photo and a good software for portraits.

JohnKlingel

I use Lightroom as I want the library feature. I use DxO when I have a problem photo or ISO over 6400. I would use DxO a lot more if it wasn't so slow and time consuming when transferring RAW photos back and forth between it and LR as it's extremely powerful.

HOT Texas Loc: From the Heart of Texas

I have used them and like On1 Raw much better.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

DxO, by itself, is not a complete solution. Using it with LR is the way to go.

Now here is an example:

Image one is a bridge on the inlet to Lake Anderson in Santa Clara County, which is in the Bay Area. We have had a LOT of rain lately and I was checking out how much the water had risen.

Image #1 is using LR only to get the best result I can get.

Image #2 is starting with DxO, adding some Prime Noise removal, then some microcontrast adjust, some ClearView adjust, some Smart Lighting, and then under Lens Softness, an increase in Details. Then back to LR for the final touches.

In my option, the DxO route definitely improved the image, especially the fine detail.

LR Only

(Download)

DxO then LR

(Download)

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Well that pretty much closes the deal for me. Great post and thanks for taking the time! Sounds like a lot of work but if you have a photo thats really special....taking the time delivers noticeably worthwhile result.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Its not that using DxO means a lot of extra work. The slider adjustmests are fast and easy to do. The bottleneck is the time to export an image back to Lightroom.

It is possible to make all the same adjustments on many images at the same time, and then to export them all back to LR. And it does take time to export them all.

I can get lazy, and only use LR. But then I do one in DxO. And it turns out so much better, that I go back and do the others that way too.