Thanks for the comments, I was waiting/hoping for them.
The mastro writes:
I still don't understand the attraction of DXO. I just couldn't find
anything
it did or did better than what I use now,
PS, NeatImage and FocusMagic.
Well, I was initially quite enamored by the concept. As I said I
usually have
to export a Tiff. I can often beat the modestly fussed with DXO
rendition in
PS, which is largely this list's fault , especially the Moose .;-)
The geometric distortion is corrected in part by subject distance which
should make it better--in actuality appears
to matter very little in practice compared to CS5 profiles. The
deconvolution is applied to the softer areas of the lens
and can help a tad at F4 at longer FL's with the 24-105, but for web
presentation , doubt it is worth the trouble.
For some reason the RAW level NR is very very good for the G9 and with
flash at ISO 400, it excels and is especially good with skin tones.
Fairly small role.
It just took me 200 images to find out. Oh, the volume anamorphosis
correction can be very nice to use, however.
http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/optics_geometry_corrections/anamorphosis
Perhaps there is a PS plug in for that.
I had no clue you used NI at lower ISO's. Seems I should just pony up
for the new version unless imagenomic utility is better.
Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|