DxO Optics Pro Elite 4.2

DxO claim that DxO Optics Pro is “Designed for advanced amateur and professional photographers, DxO Optics Pro is a “must have” accessory for supported DSLRs and high-end digicams.” Is this true? Is this software a necessary part of the digital RAW conversion workflow? Well, for me, and your mileage may vary, it is a love/hate relationship! I love the image quality produced and there are good commercial reasons to use the software, but I hate the software’s workflow.

(Photograph 1)
Spring bluebells, St Bees Head, Cumbria

There is a lot more functionality in DxO Optics Pro than I will discuss below. These are my conclusions based on using the functions that are relevant to me, but I hope you will find them useful before you decide to buy or trial the software.

So what does DxO Optics Pro do?

According to the blurb DxO Optics Pro will:

Eliminate distortion, vignetting, & lens softness through specifically developed camera/lens modules.
Remove camera noise & purple fringing.
Optimise exposure & dynamic range.
Optimise colour.
Correct for perspective.
Convert RAW files and recover highlights in the RAW files.

I can do a lot of that in Photoshop, but where DxO scores is that it will do the corrections quickly and automatically saving me time.

Weaknesses

If you want to use DxO as your complete workflow, then you will probably get on better with the software and use all of the above features, but I don’t use all the features as I like to use Adobe Bridge for my initial edit and keywording, Photoshop for my exposure blending and other manipulations and then iView Media Pro for cataloguing.

DxO just can’t compete in these areas and this is where the program starts to fall down. Many people like to edit and keyword in Bridge (or Lightroom), partly because it is part of Adobe Creative Suite and partly because it is quick and effective. But, DxO doesn’t recognise the .xmp files created by Bridge so image edits, keywords and copyright information are lost. DxO doesn’t work on .dng files either, although it will output them. So, once you have processed the files in DxO, you have to reapply the xmp data. There is a way round this using Exiftool but you need to be fairly computer literate to make this work. The other method to transfer the xmp data is to Save Metadata Templates in each files File Info box and then apply the template to each processed file, but this is slow and not much fun when you have hundred of files to process for stock or a client.

If you need to blend exposures or use HDR, then the workflow can also be a problem. There is a function called DxO Lighting that can increase the effective dynamic range of an image, but to my eye the results are not as good. It is certainly not as large a dynamic range as HDR. It is a case of suck it and see.

Lastly, the DNG RAW file produced by DxO is a linearised file so you can still open the corrected RAW file in your RAW converter of choice, but a lot of the RAW conversion choices have already been made by DxO. I don’t mind that because the RAW file is now great quality, but the DNG files swell from approximately 10MB to approximately 40MB which is not so good from an archive point of view. I archive the original RAW file and a DNG created with Adobe DNG converter. This is smaller than the DxO DNG file and provides a degree of future proofing in case either DNG or NEF files are not supported in the future. (Note. DxO will only process original camera RAW files such as NEF or CRW. It will not process a DNG file produced by Adobe Camera RAW, so don’t trash can your original RAW files.)

Strengths

(Photograph 2)
comparison before and after of lens distortion reduction function.

Having got the bad points out the way, it’s time for the good stuff, the stuff that despite the program being a pain to use makes it a keeper.

The automatic corrections of chromatic aberration, noise and lens specific distortion is the first strength. Even with professional lenses and bodies, the micro-lenses on a digital sensor can cause chromatic aberrations (or purple fringing) throughout the frame, lens distortion will occur and in high ISO shots noise can be objectionable. Generally I tend to shoot ISO 100 on a tripod so noise is never a problem and I don’t find the other problems to bother me too much. However I do like to know that I am producing the highest quality print/file, so some correction is performed. There are a wide variety of tools and techniques for removing these problems, but I am going to use DxO for the Lens Softness function discussed later, so I may as well automatically remove these problem in one easy step. And it does a great job, see Photograph 2, especially on my favoured ultra-wide angle lens.

The killer function for me is the Lens Softness correction. I think the comparison in Photograph 3 tells the whole story.

(Photograph 3)
comparison before and after of Lens Softness function (100% crop).

To my eye this is how a digital image should look, unfortunately most cameras use a Bayer filter which reduces detail captured. I want to produce the highest quality file that I can and DxO Optics Pro allows me to reveal all the detail that I saw.

Stock photography

DxO can be a major help with files to be submitted to image libraries. Most libraries do not want any sharpening applied to digital files, partly because some people have poor sharpening skills and partly because sharpening is output specific. The sharpening required for a fine art print on matte paper using an inkjet printer is very different from the sharpening required for a photograph in a glossy book printed using an offset litho press is very different to a giant billboard poster. But an unsharpened RAW file is often really soft and the un-sharpened image does not give a fair representation of how the final image will look. What to do?

DxO Lens Softness function saves the day. Set a value of 1 and see the detail emerge in an unsharpened file. Micro-contrast is improved, detail is improved, but no nasty sharpening halos. I’m a lot happier to submit this higher quality file to a library as the client will receive a better looking image.

Conclusion

From a workflow point of view, integrating DxO Optics Pro into an existing workflow using a number of software tools is problematic and time consuming. If you want to use DxO as a complete solution from conversion to a print ready file you may get on better. However, the quality of the processed files is incredible and worth the time for my hero shots to ensure the very highest quality print or digital file is given to a client.

5^th July 2007. I’ve moved to Adobe Lightroom for a variety of reasons, mainly that it simplifies my workflow dramatically. Files are imported from the camera and backed up automatically, keywording and rating can be done easily, off line drives can be cataloged and searched, and basic photograph adjustments can be made, all in one application. I finish the photographs off in PS, especially sharpening which I do with the fantastic Photokit Sharpener Photokit Sharpener. Bye bye DxO.

See another review here and here. These are for slightly older versions, but the fundamentals are the same, although arguably the interface has got worse! Version 4 added some more distortion correction functions e.g. perspective correction.

Comments (6)

David Chadwick on 06/11 at 09:42 AM

I agree with just about all the comments above. The interface has almost certainly got worse and the process now seems a lot more drawn out as you are “led” through the workflow. I particularly lament the lack of drag and drop from other applications (in my case, Extensis Portfolio). In conclusion, v4.2 has some excellent new features but with an awful lot of relearning to do.

on 06/25 at 03:33 PM

DxO does indeed have some valuable features, namely the application of lens and perspectival distortion corrections during raw processing. I find these indispensable for architectural photography. This makes it particularly frustrating that other aspects of the program are poorly conceived or executed. For example:
1. The interface is very inconvenient, as mentioned above. The lack of drag and drop from other programs and the requirement to save any image to be processed as part of a “project” is very annoying and tedious. The conversion settings for each image are saved in the project and do not accompany the image if it is added to a different project. Furthermore, if you should ever change the location of an image (i.e. the file path) you will effectively lose the conversion settings because the “project” will no longer knows where the image is and it cannot be relocated. This is incredibly shortsighted in my opinion. The interface also annoyingly lacks keyboard shortcuts for many basic commands.
2. The raw conversion quality is average at best. DxO conversions have noticeably less detail and more frequent color artifacts than other converters, such as Adobe Camera Raw. Color artifacts and jagged edges are common in areas of very fine lines such as hair, feathers, woven fabrics, etc. DxO really needs to fine tune their demosaicing algorithms because their conversions cannot compare with those of their competitors in this respect. I have complained about this and sent sample images to them several times, but no improvements have been made. They seem more interested in adding new features than improving the essential ones.
3. I disagree with the praise paid to DxO’s “deblurring” above. While DxO claims to be doing something unique with their “deblurring,” I do not find the results as good as what I can achieve with the sharpening tools in the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw. DxO “deblurring” is fully automatic, with just one slider for the amount, plus a separate unsharp mask with the standard controls. “Deblurring” may treat parts of the image differently based on the qualities of the lens, but in practice I haven’t found this particularly useful. ACR offers much greater control and therefore superior results. The same can be said about DxO’s “lighting” controls. I find those of other raw converters more intuitive and easier to use.
In general, DxO seems to be developed more by engineers than working photographers. The fact that they have no user forums on their website tells you something about their attitude toward their public. The program is cumbersome to use, but if you’re looking for a single, simple, fully automated solution and don’t mind the average image quality, it is probably a good option. The automated lens distortion correction is by far it’s most valuable feature and has the advantage of correcting for variations in distortion based on the distance of the subject, which the otherwise excellent PTLens doesn’t do. This is only really an issue with distances under ten feet or so, but when you need it, you need it. Unfortunately, you cannot use another raw converter and then process the converted image in DxO; it insists on a file straight from the camera, which means one is stuck with their inferior raw converter (this applies even if saving files in DNG format in DxO because the basic demosaicing has to be done in order to apply the distortion corrections). The ideal DxO product, in my opinion, would be a simple plug-in for Photoshop that worked just like PTLens (DxO’s existing Photoshop plugin is something entirely different). That way we could take advantage of their impressive database of lens distortions without having to put up with the many quirks and inadequacies of the rest of the program.

on 06/26 at 02:51 PM

Mike,

The comments I made about sharpening in ACR refer to version 4.1 and later, which require CS3. If you haven’t seen the new sharpening tools there yet you should have a look. I also like the new “clarity” slider in the basic panel. Discussion of these new features can be found here:
http://www.photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/05/better_sharpeni.html

But if you’re really serious about sharpening, a necessity if you are making fine art prints, you should try something like PhotoKit Sharpener:
http://www.pixelgenius.com/sharpener/

As far as my workflow, I have to admit I have long been trying to find one that I really like. I had been putting up with DxO despite it’s flaws because I shoot a lot of art and architecture and really benefited from the lens distortion corrections. But now, with the new controls in ACR, I’m finding that the better resolution and detail achieved make it worth the trouble of doing such corrections in Photoshop after conversion. When lens distortion and CA need to be corrected, the PTLens plugin can be used (unless the focusing distance is less than c. 10 ft); with excessive noise, the Noise Ninja plugin; etc.

The advantage of DxO is that is that it tries to do all these things for you automatically, which would be convenient if the results were top notch and the controls for fine tuning easy to use. Unfortunately, this is not the case, so it’s a question of trade-offs. I might also note that PTLens has the advantage of being able to correct the distortion encountered with shift lenses, such as the Canon TS-E 24mm, which DxO cannot do.

Since I see from your photos that you are a Nikon user, I believe that you at least have the option of doing your raw conversion with Nikon software, saving as TIFF and then using DxO for optical corrections. At least I remember reading something about that once. I’d check the DxO website. If this is the case, what I said about DxO requiring a file straight from the camera is not true for you. I’m Canon user, so I don’t have this option. This way you could at least avoid DxO’s raw conversion, if you want, assuming of course that Nikon’s conversions are better.

on 06/28 at 10:06 PM

Enjoyed you site.

on 08/20 at 02:33 AM

Very much enjoyed your site. Love the photograph ‘Birth Of Venus’. Love the combination of shells, weed and rocks.

on 12/22 at 09:16 PM

I have upgraded to v5 (prefer v4) and finish with capture NX. have you any views on this combination?

Comment Guidelines

Basic XHTML is allowed (a href, strong, em, code). Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Email addresses will never be published.