DXO2 vs Luminar '18 (Latest Update)

[Minuteman3]

Here are three images ... a jpeg exported from LR directly from the NEF with nothing done, one processed in Luminar '18 using the AI sliders and a few other tweaks, and one from DXO2 using ClearVue and some other tweaks. I tried to adjust to what was most pleasing to my eye rather than looking for an exact match.

"Original"

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Luminar '18

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Dxo Pro 2

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Of the two that are processed, I think I somewhat prefer the DXO version as the sky looks more natural to me. The sky seems a little to blue-ish in the Luminar version to my eye. Although I do believe both are pleasing to the eye and would probably look good printed.

Which do you prefer?

Ken

 

[Pa]

I agree about the sky, but I also think that I can see more detail in the more distant cliffs and buttes in the DxO version. Also, in DxO the colors in the stone are slightly more vibrant but still look natural.

I definitely prefer the DxO version.

That said, it might be possible to get nearly the same result with Luminar, but I have no (or very little?) experience with it.

 

[Palouse]

I'm with you two, too. #3 looks most pleasing--natural and detailed. The sky in #2 looks out of character with the land. That said, use what feels best to you

 

[Minuteman3]

I agree about the sky, but I also think that I can see more detail in the more distant cliffs and buttes in the DxO version. Also, in DxO the colors in the stone are slightly more vibrant but still look natural.

I definitely prefer the DxO version.

That said, it might be possible to get nearly the same result with Luminar, but I have no (or very little?) experience with it.

I'm with you two, too. #3 looks most pleasing--natural and detailed. The sky in #2 looks out of character with the land. That said, use what feels best to you

Thanks ... and I hope I get some more suggestions as well. I'm trying to settle on which of these is my "favorite" processing plugin as I really like them both!! I will say this ... the LR plug in for Luminar is a LOT quicker than the one for DxO in both directions!!

Ken

 

[Palouse]

You've had some great shots using Luminar---color, B&W conversions and tinted.

 

[Butlerkid]

I agree that the sky, sharpness and details are definitely better in the DxO version. However, I feel the overall image has a bit less contrast in the DxO version. The lighter areas in the Luminar version are darker in the DxO version. In the Luminar version, I get the sense of faint light from the left hitting the central formations. Not so in the DxO image. Easily fixed in DxO however.

It appears that both programs can give you the results you want.

 

[Mike Buckley]

I hope I get some more suggestions as well. I'm trying to settle on which of these is my "favorite" processing plugin

Though comparing these versions of the image can be fun, I doubt that doing so will help you arrive at your plugin of choice. I would always recommend going with the plugin that is most enjoyable to use throughout the entire editing process and is also the best in producing the final results you prefer. You might have other criteria. Regardless, the decision shouldn't be based largely on just one photo.

 

[Minuteman3]

Though comparing these versions of the image can be fun, I doubt that doing so will help you arrive at your plugin of choice. I would always recommend going with the plugin that is most enjoyable to use throughout the entire editing process and is also the best in producing the final results you prefer. You might have other criteria. Regardless, the decision shouldn't be based largely on just one photo.

True. But I have noticed on several different shots that the sky consistently looks bluer in Luminar and more muted in DxO. Nothing wrong with that and I’ve used Luminar quite a bit. But the DxO ClearVue (in particular) seems to have a wonderful effect on a lot of images. I’m hoping to streamline a bit, especially if Luminar charges for future updates! (The latest was at no cost and they promise a new version by the end of the year that will include DAM to be more of a LR competitor.)

However, now that I am stuck with LR, I prefer these plug-ins for serious processing. (Aperture doesn’t support the 6D’s RAW files so I had to make the move. )

Thanks for you help and comments!!!

Ken

 

[Mike Buckley]

But I have noticed on several different shots that the sky consistently looks bluer in Luminar and more muted in DxO.

That should be about a 15-second fix in any software program worth its salt. Some programs will allow you to construct a preset that would fix it. If one of the programs makes it particularly easy to fix other issues that are typically more difficult to fix, consider going with that program and using your own tweak if still needed to fix the sky in your photos.

 

[Minuteman3]

Well, I spent a few hours this afternoon working with some of my more challenging files from a couple of years ago, and I think this new DxO 2 has moved into first place!!

These were all taken during fire season along the Columbia River and the sky was really smoky and hazy.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The top two, Mt St Helens and the Columbia River, are very hazy in the originals. The mountain has a strong blueish cast throughout the image. The horizon on the river image is barely visible. The little creek is also much clearer in the processed image.

I think these are more than usable!! Impressed, I am ....

Ken

 

[Butlerkid]

These look really, really nice! Especially that first one!

You are piqueing my interest in DxO full process. To date, I have used it only for NR on high ISO images. But with the ability NOW to use custom Camera color profiles, it is much more capable for me for raw processing.

 

[Butlerkid]

I am quite impressed, especially with the first one!

To date, I have only used DxO for NR on high ISO images. Your processing and the ability to use custom color camera profiles has piqued my interest in using DxO as a raw processor.

What are the benefits of Clear view, in your opinion?

 

[Walter Rowe]

I agree about the sky in the Luminar version, but I find the contrast (less of it) more pleasing in the Luminar version. Maybe the ClearVue control in DxO is a little too strong? I’m not a DxO user so I don’t know if I’m referring to the right control that would adjust contrast or clarity (mid-tone contrast)?

 

[Minuteman3]

I am quite impressed, especially with the first one!

To date, I have only used DxO for NR on high ISO images. Your processing and the ability to use custom color camera profiles has piqued my interest in using DxO as a raw processor.

What are the benefits of Clear view, in your opinion?

Karen

The tool does a wonderful job adjusting details, contrast, color, etc. all in one slider. Sort of like the haze filters, but it seems to affect more parameters. The default is 50 (0-100 scale) and I have never gone above 50. I have got down a few times to 25 or so. I must admit, when I clicked on ClearVue with this image and it popped out I almost gasped! I had no idea there was enough information in the file to make it look this good.

Perhaps this may help show what it did ... here's a screenshot from my Mac. The original NEF is on the left, and the processed DxO version is on the right. Aside from using ClearVue at about 50%, the only other adjustments were little to the white balance and I added a touch of saturation. But the end result is pretty impressive, I think ...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

By the way, I am not using any custom profiles, yet. Need to figure out how to do that ...

Hope this helps ...

Ken

 

[Butlerkid]

Karen

The tool does a wonderful job adjusting details, contrast, color, etc. all in one slider. Sort of like the haze filters, but it seems to affect more parameters. The default is 50 (0-100 scale) and I have never gone above 50. I have got down a few times to 25 or so. I must admit, when I clicked on ClearVue with this image and it popped out I almost gasped! I had no idea there was enough information in the file to make it look this good.

Perhaps this may be a good example ... here's a screenshot from my Mac. The original NEF is on the left, and the processed DxO version is on the right. Aside from using ClearVue at about 50%, I did play a little with the white balance and added a touch of saturation. But the end result is pretty impressive, I think ...

View attachment 1626563

By the way, I am not using any custom profiles, yet. Need to figure out how to do that ...

Hope this helps ...

Ken

Thank you so much for this comparison. IMPRESSIVE!

It seems to me that Clear View is similar to the way I am currently using clarity and the CEP with the Tonal Contrast adjustment.

 

[Minuteman3]

I agree about the sky in the Luminar version, but I find the contrast (less of it) more pleasing in the Luminar version. Maybe the ClearVue control in DxO is a little too strong? I’m not a DxO user so I don’t know if I’m referring to the right control that would adjust contrast or clarity (mid-tone contrast)?

You may be right, although I tend to like a little more contrast than some folks might. The slider is scaled from 0-100 and it defaults to 50. That's where this one was, so there are other options.

Ken

 

[Pa]

Clear View is the control I use the most for landscape photos. I've been impressed with what it can do for over a year. You can control the effect quite easily with the slider, and as Ken has said, often even 50% is too much. But it is most useful for landscapes .

The graduated filter is another tool I use a lot. You can now adjust almost anything within the area affected by the filter. It really helps in adjusting the brightness level or color intensity on one part of an image.

I also like the lens sharpness tool which is calibrated for each individual camera and lens combination.

The one tool I'm most disappointed in is the LCH editor in the color palette. When you darken one color, like blue to affect a blue sky, it changes the tint unrealistically.