![]() And it does not help the overall clarity. At least on my high-res 28 inch display, set to 150 % scaling on MacOS and perfectly fine for all other applications, some controls tend to be almost hard to use. The Raw development palettes on the right appear a bit too tiny in part. I fully understand the separate purchase of a specialized application like Nik Silver Efex Pro, but I’m having trouble to understand why PhotoLab doesn’t even offer the most essential b&w tools like a channel mixer to simulate red or blue color filters. Anyway, in total I am not quite convinced.ĭo I really need to purchase an extra piece of software just to make horizontal and vertical perspective corrections which are needed an almost every photo? You must be kidding, sorry.īlack and white conversion: PhotoLab does not seem to offer anything here, which is quite a bummer when seeing things from the Lightroom point of view. Very close crop - almost to pixel resolution:Ĭanon M6ii, EF-M 22mm f2 lens at f2, 1/160s, exposed at ISO 6400, pushed to ISO 10,000 in post, little cropping, only cropped to 16:9:Ĭanon M50ii, EF-M 22mm f2, 1/125s, exposed at ISO 6400, pushed to ISO 20,000:Ĭanon M6ii, Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM, 127mm, f7.1, 1/100s, exposed at ISO 6400, pushed to ISO 40,000.I’ve been trying PhotoLab 5 during the last couple of days in order to finally find an alternative for Lightroom, and I would like to share my opinion in short.įirst of all, I do appreciate many, many things in DxO, and I really enjoyed the workflow when developing Raw files. All downsampled to 2160 pixels high, all shot RAW (not CRAW, which introduces additional lossy shadow noise artifacts that PL can't always correct well).Ĭanon M50ii, EF-M 22mm f2 at f2, 1/125s, exposed at ISO 500, pushed to ISO 2500 in post. ![]() Here are some of my recent images, processed in DxO PL and Canon DPP 4. DPP doesn't have the powerful masking tools DxO has, so the DPP images weren't masked.įor the DPP images, I found that Noise Reduction 'Luminance' between 14-16, and Chrominance set between 7-8, yielded the best compromise between noise and detail, and the most pleasing results (not that the DPP results are particularly pleasing!) DPP's unsharp mask was set to soften the images slightly, and contrast was not pushed very high. all the images below are pushed beyond that, so the main challenge with DPP was to control excessive noise and grain - to reach a compromise that showed some detail without massive amounts of grain, and avoiding the 'watercolor effect' that washes out detail with overly aggressive DPP noise reduction. ![]() Deep Prime easily handles the 'extra' graininess introduced by the aggressive processing.Īlthough Canon DPP 4's noise reduction is fairly effective up to images of about ISO 1600. Most of the DxO-processed shots below are masked, and particular areas brought down or up in exposure - also generally they have more aggressive contrast & micro-contrast applied, and very aggressive sharpening applied. ![]() After using DxO PhotoLab for 3 months, I thought it'd be interesting to dust off Canon DPP 4 and see how it compares processing high ISO images vs DxO PhotoLab. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |