DxO Optics Pro 6?

[Ron Kruger]

I think there is merit in good, conservative HDR, but I'm a real rube with it. My efforts with it so far look like most of the crap one sees everywhere. I also don't like the idea of having to shoot multiple images specifically for it, and I've been waiting for the rapidly advancing technology catch up with a good in-camera or one-shot HDR. I'm still waiting to see what the K5's in camera HDR can do. In the meantime, I've downloaded (last night) a trial version of the newest offering from DxO. I played with it a ltitle last night, and although I'm not satisfied with my results, it looks promising. Does anyone else have experience with DxO Optics Pro 6, and if so, what do you think?

[spyglass]

Ron you brought up a good point that I hope others may consider and openly discuss. It was in regards to taking multiple photos for use in creating an HDR. I think that the industry will continue to work and improve on a single shot HDR capture (and like the Jpeg conversion features we presently enjoy, users will be able to tune the feature to suit they tastes and style). In the mean time, I believe that HDR is a 3 part process.

1) evaluate a shot to determine the range that is really needed (keeping reality in check)
- there is a limit to the range that can be achieved and still appear believable, what needs to be represented in terms of exposure, what will it add to the shot, how does it affect presentation and key elements, etc.

2) take multiple shots to record the information that supports the range you desire (not just a common bracket )
- take a few test shots, and see what exposure settings work best, rather than going with an average exposure value and bracketing above and below it in set increments

3) convert images to HDR (subtle is always best.... if it looks like an HDR image you probably failed)
-viewers will only follow you down the path so far, there is a very fine line between "ooh" and "hmm"

It would be nice to hear other people's thoughts on HDR, after the fact software, in camera options - both from a single and multiple shots and responses to T-man's question DxO Optics Pro 6 (I see we also have another thread exploring HDR software - check it out as well).


Spyglass

[blackcloudbrew]

I really don't even know what DxO is. I've seen the name and gone there to look at their ratings but beyond that I've never looked at it. I wonder too if the purpose of this tread about DxO or HDR? Until I have some understanding of DxO, I'm going to be watching this more than responding.

[Ron Kruger]

Here's the first shot I converted to HDR (medium) with Dx0 from a single RAW file, along with a normally processed JPEG of the same shot. You have to consider this is my first attempt. The program offers many options and further processing option. I like what it does, but think the HDR shot looks a little flat. Really does a good job of bringing out shadow details, however.
Even though this first attempt is unsatisfactory, I suspect the program can be used to expand DR nicely. I have another 30 days to so to play with it, but I was hoping someone with some experience could give me some pointers and cut down on trial and error.

[digitalfinch]

I'm not familiar with this specific matter in DxO(6), but a while ago I also downloaded the testversion. In the meantime I went over reviews on the internet and comparisons with LR(3). I came to the conclusion that LR(3) came out better. But that was overall. What I'm suggesting here is that you too might check out the internet.
What I didn't like about DxO was it's processing speed.

[Ron Kruger]

Thanks Finch. I tested LR a couple of years ago and decided at the time to stick with PS. Every so often, I'll download the trial version of something and test the results against PS. Kept going back until I tested ACDSee. I liked it so well (fast too) that I now go back and reprocess PSed images with it before sending them out.
Anyway, the primary reason I downloaded DxO 6 was for it's one-shot HDR. It's a huge program and a little slow, but if I can get an acceptable one-shot HDR from it, with one click on any image in my files, I'll probably buy it. I think this is the future of HDR, but I doubt DxO is there yet. What I'm waiting for is a smaller program dedicated solely to one-shot HDR.
Anyone know of such a beast?

[blackcloudbrew]

When I started with HDR I began with ArtizenHDR. It's PC based (no Mac version AFAIK). It's a little clunky but they keep improving on it. I'd still be using it if Photomatix wasn't so darn nicely integrated into LR. Without extolling its virtues, and there are a few, it can handle single or multiple images files to produce tone mapped (HDR) images.

http://www.supportingcomp...ducts/artizen/artizen.asp

[tcom]

I am not familiar with HDR. I do not like the effect, at least not when the HDR effect is recognizable on the very first sight.

But, I used DxO as RAW converter. The big advantage of DxO over LR3 or Silkypix are the lens/camera modules with automatic corrections. The problem is that when there is no module for a given lens/camera combo, DxO just is a normal RAW converter. When I startet with DxO, only very few Pentax lenses where supported, and mostly those who did not need any correction. Also, DxO is really slow when it comes to support new Pentax cameras. DxO added the support of the K10D 6 months after the camera was released, and it was even not working at all. I contacted the support and was asked to reinstall DxO over and over again, at the end, I provided them a RAW file of the K10D and they confirmed that it was not working, I should wait the next update, which took 4 months, so 10 months since the release of the camera.

[Ron Kruger]

What I've downloaded, Dominique, is their latest version, which handles PEF files from my K20D, but I have encountered some compatability problems with their modules. I really don't know much about the program yet, but each time I start it up, there is an option to "download modules." Maybe that offers more Pentax support. I'll get around to it.
Overall, it is a user-friendly program, but it does some things I haven't encountered before, so I'm on a learning curve.
I feel about the same about HDR as you, but every once in a while I run across an HDR image that is stunning in a 3-D, not overcooked way. That's what I'm after. At first, I dismissed HDR as a gaudy fad, but I'm starting to think the good ones are the cutting edge of digital technology.

[blackcloudbrew]

I personally love HDR and these days tend use it when I think it will give me something extra. Although sometimes I'll just have fun with it and go totally grungy with it. To me it's just another tool to be used when appropriate and it's not always appropriate nor useful. The hardest thing about it is to use it such that it doesn't look like it's been used. This perspective took me several years of on and off work with HDR to get to and early on I did some weird stuff with it to images. Ron, in your type of work were there is apt to be motion involved, I'd suspect that it would be less useful. Single image HDR is sort of ok but it might be better just to use fill lighting.

[Ron Kruger]

You're right, Tim. As far as action is concerned, so far I find fill-flash gives me better results. And where sceinc shots are concerned, I get better results by blending a couple of different exposures in PS. But I suspect all this is because I really don't know how to use HDR, and I was hoping to find a software program that does it for me on any single image with one lazy, uninformed, unskilled click. Oh God--I'm becoming a modern digital photographer.

[blackcloudbrew]

Ron, you know yourself that it's all about the results you want. If you can get that, who cares how you get it. I'm fortunate that there is a guy in San Francisco who does really good HDR workshops. I'd used it for a year before I did one with him. Got me mostly straightened out (and that isn't easy) for a time and I'm feeling the need for another fix. Honestly, I think you are too good of a pro to really need HDR. I'm still too much of the amateur to still think that some kind of tool like HDR will instantly make me a better photographer. Last time I checked, experience costs.

[Ron Kruger]

What I don't like about this one shot HDR treatment is the flat, lack of any shadows or contrast look, so I went back with the same RAW file and reprocessed it in "slight" HDR. It still looked a bit flat, so I processed it further in ACDSee, bumping contrast, reducing gama, dropping exposure and bumping hue. All this did, however, seem to cut down on the sharpness, so I sharpened it as well.
I chose this shot because it had unacceptable shadows, as you can see in the normally processed pic. Comparing this HDR to the original, what do you all think?

[Ron Kruger]

Ron, you know yourself that it's all about the results you want. If you can get that, who cares how you get it. I'm fortunate that there is a guy in San Francisco who does really good HDR workshops. I'd used it for a year before I did one with him. Got me mostly straightened out (and that isn't easy) for a time and I'm feeling the need for another fix. Honestly, I think you are too good of a pro to really need HDR. I'm still too much of the amateur to still think that some kind of tool like HDR will instantly make me a better photographer. Last time I checked, experience costs.

Well, I appreciate the compliment, but what has changed my mind about HDR is what I've seem some of the leading commercial photographers doing with it. Processing is a big part of digital photography, and as far as HDR goes, I'm a rube with no experience beyond bad.
Anyway, I can see the DxO program saving bad shots with deep shadows, such as I posted here. But, on the other hand, if I can ever collect enough cans along the highway to afford a K5, I'll have enough DR built in to save a shot like this without any extra PP help.

[blackcloudbrew]

A useful comment on an HDR image I did late spring I received was that HDR reduces color saturation and contrast. I took the suggestion and bumped those up a bit and got a winning image. You might try that. OTOH, I'd go with multiple image HDR to see into the shadows not single image HDR.