- #Lightroom vs dxo optics pro full#
- #Lightroom vs dxo optics pro software#
- #Lightroom vs dxo optics pro Pc#
New in version 3 is the export system – you can publish from it directly to a service like Flikr. It can also handle variations, has an unlimited history, snapshots and more.
In two years, it still hasn’t convinced me to use it exclusively, but it’s simple enough to import photos in its database and process them.
#Lightroom vs dxo optics pro full#
Lightroom also goes beyond the typical RAW processor, as it aims to be a full DAM (Digital Asset Manager). Lightroom has probably the widest camera support – it can read all camera formats under then sun and it also supports DNG (obviously, they invented it). They changed the UI completely from version 4 and copied many concepts from their competitors, but it’s still a bit confusing as buttons are all over the place.ĭXO suffers from the same problems as Bibble – a rather confusing interface, with options arranged not very intuitively for example, why is White Balance (a basic setting) placed after DXO Lighting (an advanced feature)? Still, in terms of speed and stability, it’s a huge improvement over DXO5. You can easily customize the interface to fit your own workflow, turn panels off, even customize the “nameplate” to your company name – a nice touch for when you’re working with a client.īibble is more of a mixed bag. Lightroom comes very close, but for it the keyword would be ‘customization’. It’s very easy to find the tools and the tabs are arranged in the proper order – from capture to details. I absolutely love Capture One‘s interface. InterfaceĪll four programs have remarkably similar interfaces: dark/gray color schemes, tabs and sliders.Īll interfaces look similar, but there are differences in organization and workflow So if you look at the images in the test and wonder why they’re not so good – it’s because I selected them to be like that. I believe that test images should not be perfect – how would I be able to check chromatic aberrations if the image was taken with a razor-sharp, $2000 lens? Or how could I evaluate highlight recovery for a perfectly-exposed scene? Or noise at low ISO? or… you get the picture. Again, some programs (DXO and Capture One) did not support it. Second of all, I initially had some nice architectural pictures from Milan and Paris that were taken with a compact camera (a perfect test for noise reduction, chromatic aberrations and so on). If you think that would be easy, well, I actually had to run a program to recover some pics from my cards. Unfortunately, DXO and Bibble don’t support DNG, so for this test I had to find some RAWs. I made a habit years ago to convert all my pics to DNG.
Test imagesįor this test I found myself in the difficult position of not having enough test images. Originally, this article presented the beta version of Bibble 5, once it was released I retested and included new results from it. It’s good to keep in mind however that it may add features and/or improve image quality before it is released.
#Lightroom vs dxo optics pro software#
In the case of Silky Pix, I started testing it, but I felt it’s not in the same league as the others, so a direct comparison would not be fair.Īlso, in the case of Lightroom 3, it is still beta software I decided that it’s stable enough to be used in production, so it wouldn’t be unfair to it.
#Lightroom vs dxo optics pro Pc#
I did not select Aperture for this review because it’s older (apart from updates and patches it’s still a 2008 product) and it’s also the only Mac-only product (all the programs in this test are available for both PC and Mac Bibble is also available for Linux). Notable absents would be Apple Aperture and Silky Pix.
0 kommentar(er)
