Dxo filmpack 5 lightroom
But that's when judging at 100% magnification. From the sharpening POV I'd pick the LR conversion here (though it's a bit noisy). The DxO conversion leaves salt n' pepper sharpening artefacts (they are there even if you switch off the Lens Softness altogether), whereas PN introduces some painterly effect (too much NR?) and some mazing artefacts in the shrubbery (look at the yellow and brown parts behind the bike). Look at the grass around the man's feet and the gravel path. The only bit that's slightly worrying about your conversion comes from the deconvolution sharpening and NR, I think. Highlight recovery and reconstruction in PN works really well (LR is good here, too, mainly because of its clever gamma mapping and local contrast enhancement, but it doesn't do the reconstruction bit for the blown highlights - see the man's face). Yes, your conversion looks the most natural - very good white balance and colour rendition. My conversion objective below was a natural, realistic rendering of the real scene which I think was achieved better than either the LR or DxO conversions.
Dxo filmpack 5 lightroom pro#
I think you could achieve this if you used local corrections in LR (this is something that DxO Pro cannot do so you're basically at the mercy of their Smart Lighting automatic control of tones, which is good for some photos, but there are situations where it simply doesn't work as well as a correction which is applied locally). The second conversion contains more detail in the highlights this time. I'd take magenta down a bit in the first conversion.
The last pair (mountainscape): the WB is once again quite different.
I'd back off the magenta tint just a notch in the first conversion. The second conversion transitions into the brightest highlights very abruptly, whereas the first one is much smoother and I prefer that approach. The biggest difference is with the rendition of the highlights. The second one again averages the tones and gives them that faux-hdr look that I find unattractive and unrealistic. The 3rd pair (autumn colours): the WB is slightly different for the two conversions (the second being more yellow and containing more green than magenta). Admittedly the greens look more natural here. The highlights in the yellows and greens look like they were blown. The second one is "muddy", midtone-averaged.
The second pair (bike): the greens and yellows are a bit oversaturated in the first conversion but the photo is more "attractive" as a result. it is not afraid of denser darks and it intelligently compresses tones in the highlights). DOP neutralizes everything towards the midtones, whereas LR's tone curve takes into account the non-linear character of human tonal perception (i.e. The first pair (BnW): I prefer the greater tonal separation between the white points and the black points in the first conversion. It's got a great lens distortion correction mechanism and the potentially great PRIME NR but in LR I'm able to achieve good tonality within a couple of clicks, whereas for DOP it's an endless struggle to try and match LR in this respect, and after doing that and exporting my preference invariably goes to LR. My preference is the first conversion from each pair and this is the kind of test I've been doing for a while now and no matter how I try I can't get the tonal controls in DxO9 work for me.