From Lightroom Classic to Photolab 7 - a Switcher’s Guide
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лип 2024
- Have you been considering switching from Adobe Lightroom Classic to DxO Photolab 7. If so, I have some advice on what to expect and what adaptions you'll need to make with the software.
Photolab 7 - www.dxo.com/dxo-photolab/
PTGui - ptgui.com/
Nik HDR Efex - nikcollection.dxo.com/nik-hdr...
Peakto - cyme.io/peakto-photo-organize...
Edited with Gling AI: bit.ly/46bGeYv
00:00 Introduction to switching
01:26 Demosaicing
02:49 Basic RAW Adjustments
04:36 Detail Enhancement
05:49 Colour
07:22 Masks
10:28 Noise Removal
11:43 Other Stuff - Навчання та стиль
While the workflow is a bit different from LR, the notable thing about DXO Photolab is that it’s a full solution - cataloging and processing.
For me as a professional, having a no-gaps solution is important.
DXO also simply reads the file directory - no proprietrary library.
Having used many photocataloging apps that went sideways at some point (remember iPhoto?), I now organize all my shoots on my hard drive by date and name to be independent of the app.
So I could port my photo directories to DXO in short order.
Thanks for the great info! I have both Lightroom Classic and Photolab 7. I like both for different reasons, but end up going back to Lightroom on the regular - mostly because I do like using those masks. I will agree that DxO Raw 4 is the best noise reduction software currently out there.
Hey Andy! Thanks for the video!
A workaround I use for colour grading in PhotoLab is to use Style - Toning > Split Toning
Then add a custom colour for the highlights and another for the shadows. However, there is no option to colour the mid tones. Sometimes I can get away with adjusting the balance between highlights and shadows.
That's a great work-around - thankyou. :)
Great video another thing a lot of people don't talk about is how much RAM that Lightroom uses. I had no idea until I started building my own computers last year because after a while Lightroom would slow down any desktop that I would use it on so I decided to build a gaming computer. I put all high-end specs and pretty much went in debt building this computer but none the less it allowed me to see how much Ram when using lightroom. For those of you that don't really get into computers that much we have our cpu, or gpu, and then the ram that talks to everything. It uses up so much of the ram that it does really slow down the computer. On the other hand, dxo is not Ram intensive and you can do things like culling through your images so much faster! Even though I'm a lifelong Lightroom user I recently started using dxo about 6 months ago and absolutely love it. Thank you so much for making this video. Thumbs up all the way
Thank-you kindly. It does sound a lot like Adobe have done a poor job optimising Lightroom on Windows. It's not exactly a slimline app on Mac either, but I've never had issues with its speed. Might be interesting to do some comparisons between the most popular photo apps on Windows vs Mac - I will add that idea to my list! :)
IMO one of the other areas DxO is the absolute best at is perspective control. I shoot a lot of architecture and DxO ViewPoint has saved shots Lightroom really struggled with.
Never had much use for it, but that's interesting to know.
I’m using DX0 Pure Raw 4 (which I love); if I switch from Adobe LR to Photolab 7, what is the workflow to use Pure Raw with Photolab? Would it be Pure Raw to Photolab? Great video - thank you!
In reality much of the functionality in PureRAW is already in Photolab. But the way I'd use it in my workflow is to leverage its batch processing capabilities. By pre-processing in PureRAW you're saving yourself time in the edits because all the baseline stuff (particularly denoise) has already been done. :)
Awesome - thanks!!
Pure Raw 4 has a newer Deep Prime and can preview. You can stick with LR and just use the Pure Raw 4 plug-in directly in LR for the photos you want to denoise/sharpen. There is no need to switch to Photolab if you already have PR4 and like LR.
@@lexbraxman9270 Yea, I've reviewed PurRAW 4 on this channel and recommended it - in fact it's a part of my post-processing workflow. But it does lead to file duplication (to DNG) which you can sidestep if using Photolab.
Thanks for the great comparison! I thought that dxo had some asset DAM functionality? Really want to jump ship (away from Adobe) with my next camera body purchases.... Bought a "like new" XH2 but sent it back due to inconsistent focus issues. But it's time to do something..... Sony has m my attention or stick w Fuji if they get their act together
It has basic functionality - more or less a front-end for the OS - finder/explorer. Some folks prefer the simple approach of a file/folder system and happily live without Lightroom's database driven catalog system :)
@@Andyhutchinson I have my images saved in an organized file structure, using dates and location and simple subject. But it's indispensable to mark images for quality, printing, and keywords. I'm guessing that's not part of DXO? Really ashame, as it looks good otherwise
@Hikebike365 In Dxo you can rate via stars and colours and pick and reject and add keywords. However, it's not as easy as something like lightroom or on1. Also I've noticed that pick and reject doesn't play nicely with other apps. Some colors do but not all. I use Digikam as my Dam. If I only used Dxo it would be fine. What it doesn't have that I really miss is the ability to compare two photos reject and move to the next photo to compare. It's sort of possible with Digikam but a bit clunky.
For me Photolab is much better than Lightroom but now I've been using Lightroom with my raw files developed in DXO PureRaw. All this because my laptop is very old and Photolab works in it so slow and so jerky, beyond tolerable. PS. I'm in Russia so the only wayI can download the optic modules is through VPN, though DXO support denies any sanction policies.
Yea I often post-process a DNG generated in PureRAW simply because I want to use LRc's far superior masking tools.
While DXO's masking features have some benefits, they are so far less sophisticated than those offered in LR, that comprehensive image post-processing is much more comprehensive in LR. DXO needs to emulate Adobe and add these features into DXO.
Totally agree. Masking seems to be a core weakness in all of the Lightroom contenders - On1 for instance is arguably worse than Photolab.
@@Andyhutchinson strong agreement regarding On1.
I actually like Photolabs masking tools. They just need AI subject masking.
Maskng in PL is abymal.
It's old school, could definitely do with being updated.
I am a basic editor the only feature I want in PhotoLab is IA masking, talking of which I am sure the PhotoLab luminance mask is part of Film Pack and not a core feature.
I reckon Photolab could rival Lightroom if they'd just add stuff like AI masks and perhaps HDR/pano/focus stacking.
And to say that it has the best denoise is just wrong. Nothing compares to Topazlabs denoise.
Sorry mate - that's not true - Topaz used to be good, but not any more. They abandoned the standalone Topaz DeNoise about 18 months ago (no longer being updated or developed) and the one that's in PhotoAI is nowhere near as good as DeepPrime or DeepPrimeXD. I've got a video coming up this weekend on the new PhotoAI with full examples.
@@AndyhutchinsonTotally agree with you. Topas Photo AI is doing its best to transform all the branches into a soft looking mush meanwhile DXO denoising leaves all the branches intact. )
Comprehensive testing has been done by many. And there is no one-size-fits-all here. Each software denoising have it's strengths and weaknesses in various photos. Topaz denoise does not rule above them all. It's far more nuanced than that. But I can totally see the affection for the software. It's really enjoyable.