DxO v Camera JPG Sample

NightBird

Regular
Location
Sydney, Australia
Real Name
Darren
I have recently been using DxO on some of my processing of shots from my E-P5. Just as a comparison for those interested, I thought I'd share this shot taken at ISO800 in very late afternoon sunlight today with the Oly 40-150.

The Camera JPG is taken using the Natural setting, everything else normal.

The DxO JPG was taken from RAW of the same shot, then exported back into Lightroom for final crop. All default settings in DxO except I changed Smart Lighting from Slight to Medium. I also used Prime noise reduction, which does seem to soften fine details a bit using default settings. Also added a DxO High NR sample of the crop for comparison.

You can click image to see full size in Flickr.

Full JPG from Camera

14516583254_174d8cb97b_b.jpg

Park_JPG
by NightingBird, on Flickr

Full JPG from DxO

14516588964_999fcf3ce1_b.jpg

Park_DxO
by NightingBird, on Flickr

Crop from Camera JPG

14494886086_db50630213_b.jpg

Park_Crop_JPG
by NightingBird, on Flickr

Crop from DxO JPG (Prime NR)

14538098513_22cec30e12_b.jpg

Park_Crop_DxO
by NightingBird, on Flickr

Crop from DxO JPG (High NR)

14516647924_c44a425d1a_b.jpg

Park_Crop_DxO_High
by NightingBird, on Flickr
 

yakky

Regular
IMO the skin tones are off in the DxO sample, might need to adjust WB a bit, its just too warm. And while the DXO image is cleaner, the detail is mushed, her eyebrows look painted on while the camera JPEG still have some detail. Hair is mushy on the DXO samples too. I do agree the DXO images have less noise. Oly's have fantastic JPEG output, unless you blow exposure or WB, you'll have to work quite hard to beat them in DXO. It all comes down to taste though, but personally I'd back down temperature a few notches and turn noise reduction way down, the defaults in DXO are _WAY_ too agressive.
 

NightBird

Regular
Location
Sydney, Australia
Real Name
Darren
My first impression was also the tones were too warm as well. I think in reality the actual warmth of the light was somewhere in between. It was the last few minutes of daylight, and sunsets have been quite orange lately. If it were an image I was going to spend any time on I may opt for using DxO High NR with adjusted white balance as you suggested. Given the heavy crop of the sample, none of the noise in the full image would prove an issue for me in any case.
 

yakky

Regular
For sure, WB is all in the eye of the beholder. Have you played around with the camera body and film simulation modes? I really like the Astia, makes my Oly and Nikons have almost Fuji like colors. And BTW, forgot to mention, great picture, I love the lighting.
 

NightBird

Regular
Location
Sydney, Australia
Real Name
Darren
For sure, WB is all in the eye of the beholder. Have you played around with the camera body and film simulation modes? I really like the Astia, makes my Oly and Nikons have almost Fuji like colors. And BTW, forgot to mention, great picture, I love the lighting.

Thanks! I have tried some of the simulations. I actually have a X-Pro1 and X100s. The DxO simulations, while not exactly the same really do capture the essence pretty well. I think Astia in particular may be a little nicer than on my X-Pro. I'm sure I'll use them at times.
 

mattia

Regular
Much as I love DxO (it's my primary RAW converter and has been for years for a reason) leaving everything on default is not the way to go. I recommend watching a few of the tutorials to understand how some of the less obvious sliders work (ie don't use unsharp mask if you have a lens profile, use the lens sharpness tab). I also find the default noise reduction to be a little too aggressive, but it works very well indeed for really high ISO shots (3200 and above; below that, certainly for people shots, I'll always choose grain over painty smooth).

I quite like the warmth - the OOC jpg is a touch yellow for me. However, you were there, so you're the only one who can comment on which one looks more accurate ;)
 

yakky

Regular
Much as I love DxO (it's my primary RAW converter and has been for years for a reason) leaving everything on default is not the way to go. I recommend watching a few of the tutorials to understand how some of the less obvious sliders work (ie don't use unsharp mask if you have a lens profile, use the lens sharpness tab). I also find the default noise reduction to be a little too aggressive, but it works very well indeed for really high ISO shots (3200 and above; below that, certainly for people shots, I'll always choose grain over painty smooth).

I quite like the warmth - the OOC jpg is a touch yellow for me. However, you were there, so you're the only one who can comment on which one looks more accurate ;)

Do you have any links to material on using lens sharpness vs unsharp mask? That's one area I certainly could improve in DXO.
 

mattia

Regular
Do you have any links to material on using lens sharpness vs unsharp mask? That's one area I certainly could improve in DXO.

From the source, explains it pretty well with pictures and examples:

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/tutorials/enhance-sharpness-your-camera-dxo-optics-pro

This only works for supported lens combo's. For things like landscapes I often start with this, conservatively, and then use Nik ProSharpener to very selectively increase sharpness where I find it appropriate (i.e. masking without having to mask anything..)
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom