Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Introduction and Tutorial to DXO Optics Pro V5  (Read 18369 times)
sacchini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« on: March 29, 2008, 04:29:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm a regular reader of articles (reviews, tutorials, essays and so on) published on "Luminous Landscape" website.
I really appreciate what I find on the website and my appreciation extend to authors and contributors, Alain Briot included.
But I can't read latest tutorial to DxO Optics Pro v5 without surprise; and it's a negative one.
The tutorial describe missing functionalities as they were working.
As an example: "Clipping indicator buttons for highlight and shadows are available under the palette (not visible in this screen shot)."
They are not visible simply because DxO has not develop that functionality yet, even if it was there in previous version 4.51 and it's described in the user guide.
So, my question is; Alain Briot has ever used DxO Optics Pro v5 or has written the tutorial just reading the user guide?
Reading DxO forums would be enough to know how many missing features have been discovered in DxO Optics Pro v5; Undo, clipping indicators and many others.
Is it correct to publish a tutorial that describe what is not there?
I decided to post this critic just because I really appreciate your job and I would like to know that every article published is top quality, as I was used reading the precious resources on your website.
(Sorry for my poor english)
Logged
soslund
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2008, 01:49:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I would like to know if Alain has received or will receive any compensation from DXO in regards to reviewing and recommending this product?  Certainly, such things should be revealed upfront ("Yes, I do receive" or "No, I don't") so that a truly informed decision can be made.
Logged
sacchini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2008, 03:33:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would like to know if Alain has received or will receive any compensation from DXO in regards to reviewing and recommending this product?  Certainly, such things should be revealed upfront ("Yes, I do receive" or "No, I don't") so that a truly informed decision can be made.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As a matter of fact, I don't want to be (or to appear) suspicious about that.
Simply, I would like to know if it was a "hands-on" tutorial (but I wonder on which version, sure not a public one) or based on news published by DxO.
For more transparencies: I'm a long time user of DxO Optics Pro and I bought it some years ago and always upgraded when new versions came out.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2008, 04:27:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Since I am not familiar with the product myself I have assumed that Alain's write up was accurate.

I will be touch with him on this, and if there are errors or omissions they will be corrected once Alain has had an opportunity to respond.

Michael
Logged
snickgrr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2008, 05:47:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Before my present career in photography, I designed and built custom furniture and as such read the very fine publication "Fine Woodworking" put out by Taunton Press.  I had always read the reviews of equipment with a pretty keen eye, basing purchases on them sometimes.  An issue came that included a very intensive review of a tool I had had for quite some time and the article was so filled with misinformation and glaring omissions that I came to the conclusion the author spent about a hour with the tool and put pen to paper.
I never trusted the author after that.

Not in any way implying this is the case, just a reminder how important it is to get it right the first time.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2008, 05:47:56 PM by snickgrr » Logged
sacchini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2008, 02:00:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since I am not familiar with the product myself I have assumed that Alain's write up was accurate.

I will be touch with him on this, and if there are errors or omissions they will be corrected once Alain has had an opportunity to respond.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2008, 04:18:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I believe Alain's article appearing in this site is the same one appearing on his site and linked to from DXO.com home page. I'm not implying anything with this, just thought I should let you know.

My personal recommendation to anyone contemplating buying DxO V5 is first to scan carefully through their user forums. Funilly DxO have recently decided to make these forums unreadable unless one registers first.

I have been a DxO user for long and I have purchased DxO V5. I am not using it though since I find it a. too buggy  b. not properly documented c. not being able to support what I think should be a proper Pro workflow (e.g. no way to import, export or merge project databases) and d. its project database implementation leaves much to be desired in terms of protection from data (work done) loss (too many instances of project database corruption).

Additionally I have decided I hate and can't tolerate their protection and activation scheme (which has been in place long before V5).

I would have expected any objective review (unless Alain's piece is not meant as a review but only as a usage tutorial) to at least touch on some of the above issues.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 07:42:48 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2008, 08:54:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I believe Alain's article appearing in this site is the same one appearing on his site and linked to from DXO.com home page. I'm not implying anything with this, just thought I should let you know.

My personal recommendation to anyone contemplating buying DxO V5 is first to scan carefully through their user forums. Funilly DxO have recently decided to make these forums unreadable unless one registers first.

I have been a DxO user for long and I have purchased DxO V5. I am not using it though since I find it a. too buggy  b. not properly documented c. not being able to support what I think should be a proper Pro workflow (e.g. no way to import, export or merge project databases) and d. its project database implementation leaves much to be desired in terms of protection from data (work done) loss (too many instances of project database corruption).

Additionally I have decided I hate and can't tolerate their protection and activation scheme (which has been in place long before V5).

I would have expected any objective review (unless Alain's piece is not meant as a review but only as a usage tutorial) to at least touch on some of the above issues.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm also a long term user of DXo and at present v5 is, in my experience, not ready for release. It is clunky an dbuggy at present on my dual core 3.4GHz PC with 4Gb ram. I'm currently using LR for almost everything and hope that DXo get their act together and sort out the software so it's worth the upgrade fee I paid.

I now start it up periodically in the hope that it will let me know there is a new build available (and that it will work) and that it supports the 1Ds3. It would be nice if it worked with DNGs as well, but I can live without that. Also, the LR integration is a bit of a joke - although in fairness I think that the sort of modular raw conversion we'd like is maybe a step too far at present.

Mike

Mike

Mike
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2223



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2008, 10:32:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I have tried that software everytime it comes out with a new release.  It has got to be the biggest pile of crap I have ever sludged through to attept to use.  I think 20 different people, none of which ever actually worked on a photograph, all got to gether and designed it seprately, without ever talking to one another.

Lightroom and Aperture put it to SHAME for those parts that overlap.  The other parts - not important whatsoever to me.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2008, 10:38:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would have expected any objective review (unless Alain's piece is not meant as a review but only as a usage tutorial) to at least touch on some of the above issues.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I assumed from its tone that Alain's piece was meant as a usage tutorial and not as a review. As such it goes a long way toward filling the gap left by DxO's woeful documentation.

I haven't had time to explore V5 further to see if I can find any of the missing or broken features. I hope to spend some time with it in May, after I get back from a New Mexico trip.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2008, 11:45:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I assumed from its tone that Alain's piece was meant as a usage tutorial and not as a review. As such it goes a long way toward filling the gap left by DxO's woeful documentation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That was my impression as well. It's not as if he compared it to Lightroom or Aperture. It was useful to me to read a logical overview of how the thing is supposed to work, and I learned some helpful tidbits from the piece.

I have been disspointed by some of the missing features, but I still find DXO can produce really excellent output in spite of them. It still needs a lof of bug fixes, and can be ferociously slow (perhaps due to the new noise reduction architecture?), but when it stabilizes, I plan to use it quite a bit.
Logged
Stuarte
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2008, 12:47:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I downloaded the trial 4.5 after reading Alain's piece.  On the 50 or so photos I processed, it made a noticeable difference.

I would be willing to buy the product for my MacBook Pro to prep files for LR/PS, but the standard version doesn't support the EOS 5D and as a non-professional I see no reason to pay twice the price for the Elite version that does support the 5D.

Regarding Alain's review, I assumed it's no coincidence that he's French and DO is based in Paris.  Fine by me.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2008, 01:33:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would be willing to buy the product for my MacBook Pro to prep files for LR/PS, but the standard version doesn't support the EOS 5D and as a non-professional I see no reason to pay twice the price for the Elite version that does support the 5D.
I faced the same issue with a D2x, to me this pricing model is pathetic and I would never consider supporting them as long as they keep it.
Logged

httivals
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2008, 04:21:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I use DXO version 4.5 on my Mac for my Canon 5Ds.  It does make a noticeable difference that I do not think can be duplicated in any other software I've used -- and I've used Photoshop extensively for over 10 years.  Whether or not it's worth the price is up to each individual.  For me, it's easily worth it, though I am not a professional.  I don't evaluate the price as, is it worth more than twice the elite version, but rather is it worth it for me to get better prints at this price?  My answer to that is a resounding "yes."  And it saves me tons of time.  It's a great product, notwithstanding the apparent birthing problems for version 5 (which isn't out on a Mac yet).

Quote
I downloaded the trial 4.5 after reading Alain's piece.  On the 50 or so photos I processed, it made a noticeable difference.

I would be willing to buy the product for my MacBook Pro to prep files for LR/PS, but the standard version doesn't support the EOS 5D and as a non-professional I see no reason to pay twice the price for the Elite version that does support the 5D.

Regarding Alain's review, I assumed it's no coincidence that he's French and DO is based in Paris.  Fine by me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2008, 02:08:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Curiously - when I was using the 20D + 17-85 and photoshop I found DXO indispensable, but with the 5D + 24-104L and Lightroom I find it often does more harm than good and has fallen into disuse.

I guess the superior images produced by the 5D + 24-105 mean that the stuff that DXO is good at becomes much less important.

Also somehow the lighting corrections which worked very nicely with my previous setup seem to destroy all the subtle tonality of the 5D images.

And of course we're still waiting for a Mac v5.
Logged

sacchini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2008, 03:57:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I've just read the update that Alain Briot has written to his "Introduction and Tutorial to DxO Optics Pro V5".
Every question has found its answer and I really appreciate the way this topic has been managed.
What happened has made me even more satisfied about reading articles on this website that I rate as accurate and reliable.
Many thanks to everyone for the commitment in their job (or hobbies...).
Logged
Stuarte
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128



WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2008, 08:29:40 AM »
ReplyReply

My only gripe with Alain at this point is that I had never really considered such a product before.  Now I have tried it, found that it makes a significant difference and have to decide what to do about this additional element of complexity and expense.
Logged

NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2008, 09:07:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My only gripe with Alain at this point is that I had never really considered such a product before. Now I have tried it, found that it makes a significant difference and have to decide what to do about this additional element of complexity and expense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wait until the program at least stabilizes and most of the bugs are ironed out and then reconsider seriously?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 03:06:26 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
httivals
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2008, 09:19:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I use DXO and the 5D and 24-105mm and 17-40mm, and find it indispensable for enhancing local contrast with DXO lighting.  I also use Lightroom.  For landscape images, DXO lighting (a module within DXO) is fantastic.  For portraits, I often prefer not using DXO lighting and relying more on Lightroom.  But even where I use Lightroom as my main raw conversion program, I always use DXO for chromatic aberration, lens softness (evening out lens defects so that the image is uniformly sharp across the frame), and vignetting before correcting white balance, highlight recovery, etc. in Lightroom.  And where geometry is important for perspective correction DXO also is fantastic.


Quote
Curiously - when I was using the 20D + 17-85 and photoshop I found DXO indispensable, but with the 5D + 24-104L and Lightroom I find it often does more harm than good and has fallen into disuse.

I guess the superior images produced by the 5D + 24-105 mean that the stuff that DXO is good at becomes much less important.

Also somehow the lighting corrections which worked very nicely with my previous setup seem to destroy all the subtle tonality of the 5D images.

And of course we're still waiting for a Mac v5.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Stuarte
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2008, 09:20:41 AM »
ReplyReply

ευχαριστώ Niko.  Good advice, although the version I'm trialing is the older 4.5 on the Mac.  Version 5.0 hasn't been released for Mac yet.  And from what I'm reading, it seems the developers are exactly speedy in ironing out bugs or enhancing usability.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad