Stephen Anstey reviews the DxO Optics Pro 5

[DPNow]

Here is a summary or excerpt from an article that has just been published on DPNow:

DxO Optics Pro is clever software that already knows the image quality problems that your camera body and lens exhibits, so it can automatically correct these distortions and to a high degree of quality. Well, that's the claim. Stephen Anstey finds out just how well Optics Pro 5.3 performs and you can be part of the review team by nominating some of your images to be test corrected.

More...

[Stephen]

Now there is an offer not to be missed. I would say however to make sure you let us know which lens was used, as we will need to install the relevant module to work with your camera and lens combination.

As a further postscript to the review, I spent this morning processing 123 photos from a job done the previous day. Most of the shots needed correcting for verticals as they were taken with a 17-40 lens both inside and outside a building. I was really pleased with how easy it was to make the corrections to each of the raw files, and I now have a set of architecturally correct shots. The only downside was that the 123 files took 58mins to batch process, though as I mentioned in the review, were you to do the corrections in Photoshop, it could take much longer to complete the job

Here is an example showing the before and after shot. The correction is done with one control slider only, then auto cropped to the best fit

[Pops]

Your example is an excellent illustration of the programmes capability. I suspect however that the layout cost of the programme could only be justified by the professional photographer who is in a position to make a gradual recoup through fee's.

You also commented in the review that after using Lightroom since its introduction a new programme would need to be really special to justify spending your hard earned cash. Your review indicates that time saving is a prime consideration and here again I would suggest that only the professional would justify this has being the persuading factor.

I somehow can't see the average amateur going for this prog which I guess runs into a 3 figure cost.

Must compliment you Stephen on a very well written and easy to follow review.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Pops

Your example is an excellent illustration of the programmes capability. I suspect however that the layout cost of the programme could only be justified by the professional photographer who is in a position to make a gradual recoup through fee's.

You also commented in the review that after using Lightroom since its introduction a new programme would need to be really special to justify spending your hard earned cash. Your review indicates that time saving is a prime consideration and here again I would suggest that only the professional would justify this has being the persuading factor.

I somehow can't see the average amateur going for this prog which I guess runs into a 3 figure cost.

Must compliment you Stephen on a very well written and easy to follow review.

StuartR (corse fisherman supreme) uses Optics Pro - will we EVER seen him again? (I've got a POTD of his lined up too...)

If you have spent several hundred pounds on lenses and want to extract the best out of them and also fix noise and tone issues, OP seems like good value to me, but we all have different views on value and affordability of course.

Ian

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Now there is an offer not to be missed. I would say however to make sure you let us know which lens was used, as we will need to install the relevant module to work with your camera and lens combination.

As a further postscript to the review, I spent this morning processing 123 photos from a job done the previous day. Most of the shots needed correcting for verticals as they were taken with a 17-40 lens both inside and outside a building. I was really pleased with how easy it was to make the corrections to each of the raw files, and I now have a set of architecturally correct shots. The only downside was that the 123 files took 58mins to batch process, though as I mentioned in the review, were you to do the corrections in Photoshop, it could take much longer to complete the job

Here is an example showing the before and after shot. The correction is done with one control slider only, then auto cropped to the best fit

Basically you don't need a tilt/shift lens any more?

The two shots are very interesting - what I thought was a true vertical is actually leaning out!

Ian

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Pops

Your example is an excellent illustration of the programmes capability. I suspect however that the layout cost of the programme could only be justified by the professional photographer who is in a position to make a gradual recoup through fee's.

You also commented in the review that after using Lightroom since its introduction a new programme would need to be really special to justify spending your hard earned cash. Your review indicates that time saving is a prime consideration and here again I would suggest that only the professional would justify this has being the persuading factor.

I somehow can't see the average amateur going for this prog which I guess runs into a 3 figure cost.

Must compliment you Stephen on a very well written and easy to follow review.

Thanks for taking the time to comment Pops. The standard version is £99 which is cheaper than Lightroom, esp if you don't use half the stuff in it like I hear some people say. I'm not sure how it compares with other Raw converters like Capture One, Silkypix etc. As Ian says though if you spend a load of money on lenses and want to get the best from them, it puts a different perspective on it, DxO has its USP which some others don't.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Ian

Basically you don't need a tilt/shift lens any more?

The two shots are very interesting - what I thought was a true vertical is actually leaning out!

Ian

When taking such photos though, you need to allow space for the correction. Altering the geometry of a picture such as this creates a lot of dead space which has to be cropped out, as it would in Photoshop of course. If you frame the image too tightly in the viewfinder you will find the crop encroaching too much into the important part of the shot.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Stephen

When taking such photos though, you need to allow space for the correction. Altering the geometry of a picture such as this creates a lot of dead space which has to be cropped out, as it would in Photoshop of course. If you frame the image too tightly in the viewfinder you will find the crop encroaching too much into the important part of the shot.

Yes that's a very good point.

Ian

[Autumn]

I had a look at your comparisons Stephen and they look good. I don't think I really want to go to any more expense or have anything else to learn!

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I had a look at your comparisons Stephen and they look good. I don't think I really want to go to any more expense or have anything else to learn!

In truth this is not the package for you Audrey and would not be cost effective even if you wanted such a thing. Although it supports your Fuji S9500, it does not support its Raw files. I fully appreciate your point of view however.

[veggiesosage]

An alternative worth thinking about is PTLens. It doesn't have the RAW conversion function or noise reduction but does have camera/lens profiling for removal of barrel/pincushion distortion, along with manual adjustments for vignetting and perspective. When I bought it earlier this year the Great British £ was still actually worth something so the $15 cost worked out at about thruppence ha'penny.

I don't imagine for a minute that its as clever and powerful as DxO but for those of us on a budget its a usefl little toy.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by veggiesosage

An alternative worth thinking about is PTLens. It doesn't have the RAW conversion function or noise reduction but does have camera/lens profiling for removal of barrel/pincushion distortion, along with manual adjustments for vignetting and perspective. When I bought it earlier this year the Great British £ was still actually worth something so the $15 cost worked out at about thruppence ha'penny.

I don't imagine for a minute that its as clever and powerful as DxO but for those of us on a budget its a usefl little toy.

Bibble from Bibble Labs is another alternative, though it's not nearly as sophisticated.

Ian