DxO

[davidhampshire]

i am not sure what DxO software is good for,   but i downloaded a trial version of it,  couple days ago,    then played around with a few settings with one photo,   and also  it has an hdr one-shot setting,  which i used ;    (  had an automatic correction setting for the lens, as well ) anyway,    this was the result,    but is the DxO version much better than the original jpeg ?      and is DxO something anyone here uses as a program ?       just curious.   
dave

[Markus_pl]

I do not know how to present, but earlier versions of this program were very slow in processing the raw files.

[mithrandir]

I have been using DxO for a couple of years now to do the initial processing of my RAW files.  I have created my own custom preset to process the shots taken with my Pentax K7 and K10D.  What I have done is use a Tiffen Ultra Contrast Filter (3) along with the D-range settings of the K7 for both highlights and shadow.  The effect has been to compress the DR curve.  I find DxO Optic Pro does a wonderful job of expanding the DR curve and recovering both highlights and shadows.  I did find that the HDR preset for Optic Pro was not the best tool, thus I modified the V2 preset to give me what I needed.  I then process the Optic Pro output through Dynamic Photo HDR for tonemapping and finalize the output in Corel Paintshop X4.  What I get is a realistic looking photo with great dynamic range.  I really have not had a problem with the time it takes Optic Pro to output since it can be done in batch while I do other things.  By the way, the new Optic Pro V7 has improved my processing speed by 15% on my Dell laptop.

[spyglass]

David - I would say that DXO does appear to deliver the results when judging between your two samples. I do like this particular photo. The road is very inviting to the eye.


Spyglass

[davidhampshire]

thanks for the replies,   spy and mithrandir and markus_pl;    but why oh why does it feel like i'm cheating ,  using these types of programs?   it's frustrating...      and today ,   going out with a manual focus lens,   getting maybe two good shots of  131 photos,   that is even more frustrating !     ahhhhhh  !     

[blackcloudbrew]

You are the artist, you decide if that the camera saw was what you saw. If you just want to take images that document reality, get a cheap point and shoot camera and get your images printed at the local one-hour photo place. If you don't want that and are trying to show what you see, use any tool you feel is helpful to create the image in with your vision in it.

I think it's fair to say that getting the composition right in the camera is always your goal. Creatively post processing your image to obtain the look you want for the image is just part of the craft.

I read somewhere a few years ago that the difference between an amateur and a pro photographer is that the pro takes more bad shots. Getting one or two stellar (not just good) images out of 100 or so is about the right ratio.

[Pacerr]

I think it's fair to say that getting the composition right in the camera is always your goal. Creatively post processing your image to obtain the look you want for the image is just part of the craft.

** Just don't submit those image s to Ron's editors!    **

I read somewhere a few years ago that the difference between an amateur and a pro photographer is that the pro takes more bad shots. Getting one or two stellar (not just good) images out of 100 or so is about the right ratio.

Short form: The pro has a bigger waste basket -- and is smart enough to use it.

Many years ago I had a weekend contest shoot on B&W film that produced 432 negatives. I kept 12 and printed 5. Got one contest winner out of the bunch. Not being a "pro" I failed to realize that least 10 of the 12 I considered keepers weren't.  So what's that? a  432:1 ratio. An' I don't suppose I've ever done any better since either -- at least not on purpose. 

Actually, I suspect the pro would have been experienced and skilled enough not to have taken a large portion of those 432 amateur shots. Efficiency counts toward the pro label too.

H2

[davidhampshire]

thanks bcb,  and pacerr,    i guess i can keep taking photos,    and get one of 100 to 200 that i can be happy with then...   or 1 of 432 ;      i don't want to be just a point and shoot photographer.   

dave     

[blackcloudbrew]

You go Dave!

Yep, in the photo class I took last spring, my instructor drove home the point that a lot of us just take photos to document things. You have to get to the point where you are taking pictures to show your vision and that's quite another thing. I'm not say that applies to all photography, but it has made me approach things differently since then.

[Ron Kruger]

I'm pretty picky, but it seem that the more I shoot the more I throw away. The more I envision the shot and think it through before ever pointing the camera the higher my keeper rate. When I really put thought into it, I usually save one in three. But my biggest problem has been, and continues to be, not taking enough time to think the shot through.
At the stage you are in, David, which is more advanced than you think, because of your trashing rate, every time you get an exceptional shot, study it and the EXIF file at length. Make notes, or otherwise commit it to memory. Pay particular attention to how the light danced upon the scene. Chase that kind of light and scene, and you will know how to dance with the light on purpose then next time.

[blackcloudbrew]

Now that, Ron, are some words of experience to live by. Thanks for your wisdom. Must remember that. Thanks.

[spyglass]

Good advice everyone. Dave there is no fixed rule in photography.

You can be an accurate recorder and work and strive to capture the world around you as it would be seen with the naked eye. (also know as the purist approach). Opportunity (lighting) will be your champion in a sea of "if only" photo outings.  

You can offer your representation of the world around you (a little salt and pepper..... and perhaps some ketchup). Shoot for what could be, or what you see in your minds eye.

My only advice to you is do not fall into the habit of using software and programs to correct lazy or poor capture technique. Take a page from T-man's book and always try to take the best photo you can. Get it right at the time of capture. Then later if you decide you want to apply post production efforts you are working from a better, solid, starting point. Some scenes can not be captured in a single photo. Your eye makes thousands of adjustments as you scan a scene. In these instances you really have no choice but to bracket your shots, use layers, experiment with HDR, edit curves, channels, levels, etc. (it is the universe ordering you to play)  


Spyglass

[Pacerr]

An example of Ron's point regarding planned shooting:

I've watched 'im do the initial assessment of a few dozen shots of planned scenarios. Because he knew what he was tryin' to accomplish, I've seen him trash 80% of the images on first look and more on the second pass, and I mean with just a passing glance -- shots I'd have at least wanted to study a bit and do a side-by-side comparison with similar shots.

That's the sort of brutal triage that comes from practice and purposeful shooting.  But you also have to consider that when you shoot for pleasure, you may want to linger over the discards and learn from them. You don't have to be cold-blooded about the results and to some extent that could lessen your pleasure in the pursuit of personal photography.

H2

[Ron Kruger]

Spy said: My only advice to you is do not fall into the habit of using software and programs to correct lazy or poor capture technique.
The saying: Garbage in--garbage out, is an exaggeration, but there is basic truth in it. What some who shoot in auto and process in manual don't realize is there are side effects to any adjustments one makes in PP. For example, adjusting the red channel in PP doesn't just change red, but the hue of all colors. It is still a 4-color process. Processing is an integregal and absolutely necessary part of photography. Just as I never took a b&w shot in the old days that I couldn't improve somehow in the dark room, I tweak all my digital shots slightly to improve them in PP. But these are minor tweaks, not "adjustments." If any shot needs "fixing in PhotoShop," I fix it with a quick trip to the trash bin.
I also submit images to a couple of agencies, and the quickest way to earn a rejection with them is to oversharpen an image, so I usually pixel peep at least 100 percent to be sure the focus and sharpness is there.
I never crop, except sometimes to change from the wide-screen versions of sensors to standard 8 1/2 X 11, to retain the maximum resolution.
There's no way I would trust a laptop for final edits, and they actually make me a little nervous for initial edits (trashing), though they are admitedly better than the camera's LCD. I want a wide, calibrated screen for any final decisions.
Nevertheless, as Hank says, being so cold-blooded about results could lessen your pleasure, and most of what I do is admitedly overkill for posting dummed down images on the internet. But I'm a perfectionist by nature, and doing anything less takes the pleasure out of it for me.
But, as Spy also said: There are no rules when shooting for pleasure--so do what tickles you.

[tcom]

To your initial question, I am not sure what DxO brings if working mainly on JPGs. It brings most on RAW. I used DxO upto version 5, but I spend more time with the support to get it simply running (DxO used a pretty severe copy protection which prevented my legal copy to work smoothly), once that solved, I spent my time with the support to get the DxO modules for Pentax lenses working...

The main advantage of DxO is the correction modules to correct the errors of the lenses such as distortion and CA (when working in RAW), but it needs modules for the lenses you use and for the camera as well. Their support for Pentax cameras is really weak. Being in general an early adopter of new lenses, I frequently had to wait over a year to see it supported by DxO and then I had to contact the support to get them working by providing them RAW files...

I finally gave up on DxO and do now use Lightroom.

Now to the cheating part. Even back in film days, photos were enhanced in the lab to get out most of the photos. The change today is that this can be done without smelling the chemicals.

I do process all my RAW files through Lightroom. In general, I tweak the exposure, contrast, adjust curve, light and dark levels. When needed, I do also adjust the white balance. As Ron, I refrain from sharpening as it prevents further post processing.

In post processing, while you can turn a good photo into a bad one, I never saw someone turning a bad photo into a good one. Post processing allows to enhance somewhat the photo, getting the most out of it.