Hey guys! My workflow invoves running the images thru DXO first then into Lightroom.

I'm beginning to wonder if I need DXO. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Clare

Personally, I think DxO does a much better job with noisy images (high ISO), lens aberration corrections, and color accuracy (compared to "out of the box" profiles). But I find Lightroom so much faster, easier, and featureful that I use it for the convenience.

Depends. I usually run anything I plan on printing through DxO, esp. if I'm going to try to sell it. There's no other workflow that I've found that corrects as well for noise, capture sharpening, distortions, etc.

But, DxO has primitive organization and management abilities, so I still use Lightroom for those sorts of tasks. Lightroom also makes perfectly acceptable raw conversions for web and e-mail use.

Typically, I import my pics from cards using Lightroom. After I cull the obvious losers, if I find some shots worth printing, I'll open DxO and point it to the Lightroom catalog and process them into DNGs. Then I'll go back to Lightroom for printing, resizing, etc.

My strategy (also having both) is that I only take the extra step through DxO for some ISO shots above 1000 and most above 1600.

I love DXO for the noise reduction as well as the camera/lens specific corrections that require no effort on my part. I also use LR as well as CS4 and the Bridge dependingon a number of factors, and I don't have time to use DXO as my standard converter.

However, when I use lenses that have easily visible distortions, or I shoot in high ISO, I do use DXO first, converting to DNG's that I bring into LR or CS4, depending on my needs at the time.

Same here. I do feel that LR is increasingly competitive in the IQ area particularly with color checker profiling. NR treatment though I still outsource from LR.