Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: I'm finding DxO better than Lightroom (dives for cover...)  (Read 27221 times)
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2012, 07:27:33 AM »
ReplyReply

This is not why I come here, and not why I posted, so I really have no more to add to this thread.
Logged
MikeB55
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #41 on: October 06, 2012, 03:09:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with you Stewart. I rarely post in these forums because of the attitude of the 'veteran' posters who in this case wanted definitive proof of your opinion despite often opining themselves without such niceties. Your initial post prompted me to re-examine DxO and for that I thank you.

Mike
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2012, 05:45:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Mike, that is very much appreciated. Thank you for taking the trouble.

In fact, I have asked to have my account on this forum deleted. This sort of thing happens too often these days. I had to ask to delay the deletion because I wanted to thank you, but I will now complete the process.

It's a shame that a few people feel the need to be offensive, despite being given perfectly good and acceptable reasons for the actions they disagree with.

I expect there will be responses to this by one or maybe two "contributors" (very loose description) but I will have left LL by then so won't even read it.

Thanks again, Mike.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 07, 2012, 04:54:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I have asked to have my account on this forum deleted.

Excellent flounce off.
You knew this might be a contentious topic when you started it, why else would it be appended with "(Dives for cover...)" ?

One of the great qualities of this forum is that it generally expects a high level of discourse, not just a simple A's better than B without any practical example or detailed explanation.
When such examples are given they're usually fairly scrutinised and some interesting and instructional discussion results in that scrutiny. A fine example is the expansion of how deconvolution techniques can be used in this thread.
You might even find that such discussions increase your understanding of the product you're using which may either reinforce your existing opinion, or maybe give you a new insight as to how to get the best out of other products and change your initial views.

But never think this is just a platform for 'if you've nothing nice to say, don't say it' school of "discussion".
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 06:02:41 AM by Rhossydd » Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2519


« Reply #44 on: October 07, 2012, 05:18:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote Stewarthemley

Risking it here but I have to post this, if only for someone to prove me wrong.

Unquote

That was the poster's first words in the thread. If someone is thin skinned then it doesn't help to start out with a mildly provocative statement. I doubt if he will find an easier going forum? If someone is into Nikon gear then the Nikonians is moderated to the point of boredom. Wink

Logged

Keith Reeder
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 07, 2012, 07:31:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Dunno - it seemed obvious to me that the OP's intention was simply to suggest that those of us who have not tried DxO before or recently might wish to give it a(nother) look in case we might find it as useful for our needs as he'd found it for his.

See Mike's post above for an example of what I imagine was the intention of the OP...

I also get his reluctance not to post examples - his standards, requirements and expectations might be very different to yours or mine, and I know I've seen umpteen threads on various fora degenerate into insulting each other for their "low standards, if that's an example of a 'great' conversion..." and I can understand the reluctance to tempt that: it's easy enough to post an example of something objectively bad, but when presenting images as examples of good, it's almost certain that some "experts" would take great delight in tearing them down.

Given some of the uncalled-for crap that came his way anyway, I'd say the OP might well've got that right.
Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
MikeB55
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #46 on: October 07, 2012, 08:06:20 AM »
ReplyReply

My feelings exactly Keith - well put. If a photographer cannot post his experience without coming under attack then what's the point?  It seems that many veteran posters just 'fire for effect' - often it appears just to raise their post count. The sadness is that this often sidelines the valuable contributions and other people's related opinions.

Quote from Rhossydd
Quote
Excellent flounce off.

'Flounce off' - was that really necessary? All it did was detract from the rest of your post.

Mike
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 08:08:22 AM by MikeB55 » Logged
Keith Reeder
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


WWW
« Reply #47 on: October 07, 2012, 08:20:23 AM »
ReplyReply

A high post count does seem to give some people a sense of entitlement to be a tool in a way which would earn them a richly-deserved knuckle sandwich if they acted the same way in the Real World...
Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7241


WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 07, 2012, 09:16:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Just a few comments...

Regarding Lightroom vs DxO I would say that they are different products. Lightroom is a photographers workflow tool. I may be wrong, but I see DxO as a raw converter. If you shoot low volume, it would be OK but if you shoot high volume you need some kind of DAM (Digital Asset Management) tool. Lightroom is a workflow solution and is based on parametric workflow. "Read my lips: NO MORE TIFFS!"

Now, I would suggest that LuLa forums are quite civilized, even if we now and than have some adolescent attitudes. Most posters are civilized and willing to listen.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5506



WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2012, 02:39:11 PM »
ReplyReply

... It seems that many veteran posters just 'fire for effect' - often it appears just to raise their post count...

You bet!

And why wouldn't I?

After first 1,000 posts, I get a 10% discount at the LuLa store. After 2,000 posts I enjoy, you guessed, a 20% discount. I am currently working toward my 3,000th post, for which I'll get a private dinner with Michael Reichmann. However, what I am really looking forward to is 4,000 posts, for which I am going to get to ride Jeff Schewe's bike around the block!

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5506



WWW
« Reply #50 on: October 07, 2012, 02:50:50 PM »
ReplyReply

A high post count does seem to give some people a sense of entitlement to be a tool in a way which would earn them a richly-deserved knuckle sandwich if they acted the same way in the Real World...

So, Keith, let me get this straight: you are basically advocating physical violence to settle a (relatively polite) difference in opinion? Nice!

You see, I post under my full name; quick googling would get you my full profile, my address, phone number, etc. Hence, whatever I post I do in the same manner as I would say it in your face in "the Real World." Feel free to find me and dish out your form of "justice."
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 720


WWW
« Reply #51 on: October 07, 2012, 03:04:56 PM »
ReplyReply

no more Westerns... is the title of an art festival that i have to picture soon...
'the end'

Pieter Kers


Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5506



WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 07, 2012, 03:22:33 PM »
ReplyReply

... the attitude of the 'veteran' posters who in this case wanted definitive proof of your opinion despite often opining themselves without such niceties...

I guess you had me in mind?

For the record, this is an example of my contribution to this forum on a very similar subject (i.e., comparison between two raw converters):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=29894.0

That was a while ago. For a more recent illustration on how I support my opinion, see this (my reply is #6):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70974.0



Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5506



WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 07, 2012, 04:32:35 PM »
ReplyReply

... If a photographer cannot post his experience without coming under attack then what's the point?...

Mike,

Let me first state that I appreciate that you found the OP helpful. I respect and strongly support your right to have such an opinion and to express it publicly.

By the same token, I hope you respect my right to have a different opinion (i.e., that the OP was not helpful) and to express it publicly.

What you call "attack," others, myself included, consider a discussion. After all, this is a Discussion Forum, no? A discussion involves opposing, sometimes fiercely so, views. Or you think only acclamation is appropriate?

The OP started the thread fully aware of how contentious it might be. He even put it in the title ("dives for cover"). He then started it with "Risking it here but I have to post this, if only for someone to prove me wrong." And yet when the OP got what he expected, he immediately cried foul!?

And how exactly did the OP expect "someone to prove [him] wrong"? A claim without proof is easily refuted without proof. All one has to say is "No, actually Lightroom is superior to DXO 'by a surprising margin'." Is that the discussion you would approve of?

We were definitely not against "a photographer posting his experience." We, however, wanted to see that experience, not just read about it. After all, this is a photography forum, with a picture being worth a thousand words, no?

Had the OP said: "You know guys, I can't prove it..." or "I do not have the time to show it to you, but I feel DXO is superior," I would have shrugged it off as another opinion of another guy I do not know an moved on. However, the OP actually said:

"... in side-by-side comparisons of my best efforts with LR (after using it regularly, professionally, on thousands of images from its initial release) and DxO (after about two weeks of playing), DxO is better by a surprising margin."

Well, with that he piqued my curiosity. Pardon me then for actually wanting to see it.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
MikeB55
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #54 on: October 07, 2012, 04:53:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Sarcasm is not a debate nor is saying that anyone with less status than Jeff Schewe has to prove his findings or is not entitled to share their findings. Much as I respect Jeff he would hardly be promoting anything as superior to LR or PS!

Quote
I think you might have a problem with your spell-checker, i.e., its Auto-Correct part. I think you meant to write:

"Why do I have to be a pain trying to "help" people?

Damn you Auto-Correct!

I rest my case. Your other points were eloquently covered by Keith.

Mike
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #55 on: October 07, 2012, 04:59:56 PM »
ReplyReply

In fact, I have asked to have my account on this forum deleted. This sort of thing happens too often these days. I had to ask to delay the deletion because I wanted to thank you, but I will now complete the process.

It's a shame that a few people feel the need to be offensive, despite being given perfectly good and acceptable reasons for the actions they disagree with.

I expect there will be responses to this by one or maybe two "contributors" (very loose description) but I will have left LL by then so won't even read it.

Please get real.

Nobody did anything to you except ask you to show us what you were gushing on about ... Get over it.
Logged
MikeB55
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #56 on: October 07, 2012, 05:12:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please get real.

Nobody did anything to you except ask you to show us what you were gushing on about ... Get over it.

Well that completely novel remark directed at someone who felt compelled to leave LuLa raised your post count to 1332.  Congratulations!

Mike
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5506



WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 07, 2012, 05:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Sarcasm is not a debate nor is saying that anyone with less status than Jeff Schewe has to prove his findings or is not entitled to share their findings...

Humor, including sarcasm, is very much so a rhetorical tool with a long tradition, used in debates since the ancient times.

Oh, trust me, even Jeff Schewe is ultimately expected to prove his case. The difference is that he would be given the benefit of the doubt much easier initially. Authority has its strong impact on influencing others, for better or worse.



Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #58 on: October 07, 2012, 06:08:11 PM »
ReplyReply

who felt compelled to leave LuLa

Mike, calm down and go take a walk or something.  You are starting to sound like Stewie and pretty soon you are gonna "feel compelled to leave LuLa" ...

And then where woud we be?Huh
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5506



WWW
« Reply #59 on: October 07, 2012, 06:35:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Well that completely novel remark directed at someone who felt compelled to leave LuLa raised your post count to 1332.  Congratulations!

What was it again that you said about sarcasm? Wink
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad