Neither does Ninja offer local selections and editing. Ninja has no DAM capabilities so they won’t be compared. This review will focus on RAW processing in the following areas:īoth DXO and Ninja offer tools in these areas. Dxo photolab workflow software#Not all software supports them, but Photo Library and Photo Ninja both do, so it’ll be interesting to see how they stack up. As DXO point out, if all your software supports colour profiles then you can pass the images to different programs without corrupting the colours. Photolibrary is DXO’s first foray into Digital Asset Management (DAM), thus really encroaching into Lightroom’s territory.ĭCP color profiles are the way to ensure that the colours you capture with your camera truly reflect what you saw. It removes haze from images without making them look unnatural. Done!Ĭlearview was one of the main reasons for using DXO – it does what it says. No messing around with masks, no fiddling with selections. First seen in NIK’s Viveza tool it is the most effective way to make local selections in an image. U Point tech is DXO’s brilliant approach to making local selections. Photo Lab 2 features the following improvements: Who knows just how good it will be? DXO have just released Photo Lab V2 so now it a good chance to see how it stacks up against Photo Ninja. But, as pure RAW converters, these two are head and shoulders above the others. It may be a convenience to have the program do a bit of sharpening at import, but it makes no difference whether you do that or do the same sharpening later in the workflow.In my opinion, DXO PhotoLab and Photo Ninja are the best RAW converters. It makes no difference when or how often you add (or subtract) sharpening adjustments in Lightroom all that matters is the sum of all of them. Moreover, if DxO works like Lightroom, that conventional three-way distinction doesn't make much sense-creative and capture sharpening are part of the same process. I don't see why that would help and would be curious to hear their rationale. Perhaps it is just a bow to the convention of treating sharpening as having three stages, capture (to compensate for blurring in the camera), creative, and output-that is, let the program compensate for blurring in the camera and then do noise reduction. Perhaps it is to see whether noise will be prominent enough to worry about. I have no idea why Nik would suggest "pre-sharpening" before noise reduction. I don't use noise reduction much, but when I do, I always do it in Lightroom-which now has powerful and very controllable noise reduction-and because I am in Lightroom, I can do it at any point in editing. In Lightroom-I don't know about other parametric editors-it makes no difference, as the program doesn't pay attention to your order of edits anyway. In the former case, the reason people advice using noise reduction before sharpening is to avoid sharpening the noise. It is not true of Lightroom, which is a parametric editor that applies the edits in its own order when it renders the final image. This is true of pixel editors like Photoshop or Nik. The advice one usually sees about when to do noise reduction assumes that when you are done, the editor performs your edits in the order in which you do them.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |