Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DxO Optics Pro -- but what to use for selective adjustments?  (Read 27348 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882


« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2013, 02:01:45 PM »
ReplyReply

but then nobody claimed that

I'm not trying to advocate for or against photoFXlab or LR or DxO Optics Pro or ...

I'm just trying to get the best out of some photos, and using that as an opportunity to evaluate software. In doing so, I've stumbled on this example where the combination of DxO Optics Pro and photoFXlab doesn't seem to provide an effective way to obliterate the wine bottle top that's protruding into a photo, or other background distractions.
Logged
dennbel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2013, 04:10:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Saglelight Image Editor. You can manipulate till you go blind Cool http://sagelighteditor.wordpress.com/
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882


« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2013, 06:00:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I seem to recall trying sagelight a year or two ago, and uninstalling it within a couple of days. Maybe it's improved a lot since then.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882


« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2013, 06:11:36 PM »
ReplyReply

That's correct, but then nobody claimed that these plugins would, because they are more geared at total image enhancement, not specifically for detailed Retouch like an image pixel oriented editor. For that there are plenty of alternatives. Fortunately, most Raw converters do offer spot removal.

So can we say that DxO Pro 8 and photoFXlab isn't enough as a replacement for LR -- I need some other software to get something like the functionality of the LR Spot Removal Brush?

Is the only viable option with DxO Pro 8 and photoFXlab extract the main subject with ReMask and find an entirely different background? (That might actually work with the current image but won't in other cases.)
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2785


« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2013, 03:05:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Isaac if you post the image of what you are trying the selections on then the members can see how complex the task is and suggest the "best" solution for you.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882


« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2013, 11:33:58 AM »
ReplyReply

what you are trying the selections on

an effective way to obliterate the wine bottle top that's protruding into a photo, or other background distractions.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882


« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2014, 10:20:55 AM »
ReplyReply

but then nobody claimed that these plugins would, because they are more geared at total image enhancement, not specifically for detailed Retouch like an image pixel oriented editor.

A year later and part of the answer for me seems to be use RawTherapee to do both overall and selective image adjustments.

But use ReMask and photoFXlab to select what part of the image the "selective image adjustments" will apply-to after they have been made (as "overall" adjustments) and saved as separate tiff.

As I already make multi image pictures, blending separate adjustment files just doesn't seem difficult.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 10:49:10 AM by Isaac » Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 344


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2014, 01:04:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally, I think that local adjustments are best done at the pixel level on a converted file.  I know that this goes against the grain of all those who are doing them in the raw stage, but in my experience, the results are not as good.  I have been using OnOne's Perfect Photo Suite 8.5 as a standalone image editor, and I find its local adjustment tools to cover a wide range of tasks and to be very powerful.

Rob
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 03:10:32 PM by robgo2 » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882


« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2014, 01:27:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I know that this goes against the grain of all those who are doing them in the raw stage…

By using the same exposure and contrast and sharpness and … adjustment tools, I get better at using those tools and avoid the need to learn a duplicate set of tools.

If I'm going to dive-in and pull-at-the-curve to up-the-contrast for that part of the image; it's nice to do that with a familiar tool and it's nice not to care what that does to the other parts of the image (because when I get around to selecting what parts will contribute to the final image, they won't be selected).

It's just what I've ended-up doing, I'm not selling anything :-)
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1094


« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2014, 12:12:06 AM »
ReplyReply

You are aware that Adobe made PS CS2 available as a free license? I bought CS3 years back, tried many advanced functions like photomerge, with limited quality. I have not had it installed in years. I did download the CS2 (with nag screen) for spot removal. I also use it to convert tifs to a format Images plus can open. That is really all I ever use it for. I'm not knocking the product, people do amazing things with it. If all you need is spot healing use the free CS2.
Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 344


WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2014, 12:19:13 PM »
ReplyReply

By using the same exposure and contrast and sharpness and … adjustment tools, I get better at using those tools and avoid the need to learn a duplicate set of tools.

If I'm going to dive-in and pull-at-the-curve to up-the-contrast for that part of the image; it's nice to do that with a familiar tool and it's nice not to care what that does to the other parts of the image (because when I get around to selecting what parts will contribute to the final image, they won't be selected).

It's just what I've ended-up doing, I'm not selling anything :-)

I realize that what you describe is SOP for many photographers, but I am convinced that fine tuning and local adjustments are better done on a converted image than a raw file, if IQ is your highest priority.  As a test, download a free trial version of Perfect Photo Suite 8.5 and familiarize yourself with some of its modules and tools, which may take some time and effort.  You can work with it either as a standalone or a plugin program.  Then use it to edit a converted image that has had basic adjustments only applied in Lightroom or whatever integrated raw image editor you normally use.  Finally, edit the same raw file exclusively in Lightroom and output the file to TIFF.  Now compare the two.  I think you will see the difference.  Also, for those who use Lightroom plugins such as Nik and OnOne, those edits are being done on converted, not raw, files, which only serves to make my point.  I have no problem with the plugin concept, but people should understand what they are doing.  The same can be said of working in Photoshop, but to do it right requires more skill and effort.  (PS purists, I salute you.)

Rob 
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882


« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2014, 12:46:23 PM »
ReplyReply

…fine tuning and local adjustments are better done on a converted image than a raw file, if IQ is your highest priority.

Why would that be better?
Logged
tuthill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


« Reply #32 on: August 14, 2014, 12:50:08 PM »
ReplyReply

You are aware that Adobe made PS CS2 available as a free license? I bought CS3 years back, tried many advanced functions like photomerge, with limited quality. I have not had it installed in years. I did download the CS2 (with nag screen) for spot removal. I also use it to convert tifs to a format Images plus can open. That is really all I ever use it for. I'm not knocking the product, people do amazing things with it. If all you need is spot healing use the free CS2.

Actually, Adobe did not make CS2 available as a free license.  What they did was shut down the activation server for CS2 but provided an activation code for legitimate license holders should they need to reinstall in the future.
Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 344


WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2014, 01:14:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Why would that be better?

Greater latitude and range of adjustments, not to mention a huge number of presets (which some people find useful).  I think that you have to try this approach in order to judge for yourself.

Rob
« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 01:16:38 PM by robgo2 » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882


« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2014, 02:50:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Greater latitude and range of adjustments…

How can working on a converted image provide "greater latitude" when the converted image doesn't have the data that was available in the raw image?

Please give some examples of the greater range of adjustments that Perfect Photo Suite provides, that a raw converter doesn't provide, to help me understand what you're talking about. We're probably thinking about different things.


…a huge number of presets…

Something like DxO Optics Pro also provides presets (and sometimes I'd look through them).
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1094


« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2014, 03:30:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually, Adobe did not make CS2 available as a free license.  What they did was shut down the activation server for CS2 but provided an activation code for legitimate license holders should they need to reinstall in the future.

That is good to know, I thought it was a marketing plan to get more people using it, who would then upgrade. It seemed widely discussed when it happened. I guess I can dig my old disk out of boxes.
Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 344


WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 14, 2014, 08:36:56 PM »
ReplyReply

How can working on a converted image provide "greater latitude" when the converted image doesn't have the data that was available in the raw image?

Please give some examples of the greater range of adjustments that Perfect Photo Suite provides, that a raw converter doesn't provide, to help me understand what you're talking about. We're probably thinking about different things.


Sorry, but I do not want to go through the exercise of posting examples.  Just take my statement for what it is--the well considered opinion of someone who has put a great deal of effort into (and who actually enjoys) testing and learning editing software.  That is why I urge others to do their own testing in order to form their own opinions.  Have fun, and be open-minded.  But ponder this:  Why are the Nik and OnOne plugins for Lightroom and Aperture so popular, if the same results could be obtained in the host programs working entirely in raw format?  The obvious answer is that the results are not the same, and IMO, they are better with the plugins working on converted files.  The same is true of post-conversion editing in Photoshop. (This assumes that one has first performed the basic adjustments necessary for a proper raw conversion.)

Rob
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882


« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2014, 02:08:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, but I do not want to go through the exercise of posting examples.

I just wanted you to say whether by greater range of adjustments you mean, for example, "Quickly smooth skin and make eyes and teeth sparkle" and "Fix color, contrast, vibrance, and white balance automatically."

If that's what you mean then, at least, I understand what you're talking about.


But ponder this:  Why are the Nik and OnOne plugins for Lightroom and Aperture so popular, if the same results could be obtained in the host programs working entirely in raw format?  The obvious answer is that the results are not the same…

Another obvious answer is that they allow us to achieve a quick effect without understanding - "Hundreds of one-click presets and filters to stylize your images."
« Last Edit: August 15, 2014, 10:24:38 AM by Isaac » Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 344


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2014, 03:25:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I just wanted you to say whether by greater range of adjustments you mean, for example, "Quickly smooth skin and make eyes and teeth sparkle" and "Fix color, contrast, vibrance, and white balance automatically."

If that's what you mean then, at least, I understand what you're talking about.


Another obvious answer is that they allow us to achieve a quick effect without understanding - "Hundreds of one-click presets and filters to stylize your images."


The adjustments in Perfect Photo Suite can be either automatic or wholly manual.  The choice is up to the user.  And they are fast and can be applied in layers.

The presets and filters are simple and intuitive tools for performing what might be very complex processes in a program such as Photoshop.  But again, the user decides whether to use presets, and he/she has tremendous control over how the effects are applied. OnOne's Perfect Effects is essentially a very clever and straightforward way of using sophisticated layer masks, and it allows you to do some amazing things with relative ease.  Naturally, you have to learn the tools in order to achieve your artistic vision.

Again, I suggest using a free trial version fairly intensively for 2 to 3 weeks, and draw your own conclusions.  If you like it, fine.  If you don't, fine also, and it has cost you nothing.

Rob   
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1094


« Reply #39 on: August 16, 2014, 09:47:25 PM »
ReplyReply

That is good to know, I thought it was a marketing plan to get more people using it, who would then upgrade. It seemed widely discussed when it happened. I guess I can dig my old disk out of boxes.

I uninstalled. Decided to try Gimp and Cinepaint.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad