Looks like a powerful piece of software! At first I thought, I can do with CaptureOne, or DxO PhotoLabs too but the horizontal / vertical stretching and the fisheye effect are not tools available in those. Do you know if the plugins work with CaptureOne? Are there any plans to make the plugins work in Affinity Photo? I don't know if this requires work in either DxO Viewpoint, Affinity Photo, or both. It would nice to see a direct comparison of the perspective-corrections tools of the different major packages in a single video, if feasible. To compare ease of use of each, quality of output, featureset, and if applicable the level of integration.
Thanks for the suggestion. I like the idea of a comparison between the different options. I've made a not although I don't know when/if I will find the time to compile it. Life has a habit of takimg over. This review took me almost 20 hours to create. As for the plugin, no it can't be used with Capture One unless Capture One has changed to offer 100% support of the Photoshop Plugin architecture. With C1 you would need to use the standalone version of ViewPoint and then save the result as a JPEG or TIFF. You could then work on that in C1.
@@RobinWhalley Well I can invoke DxO PhotoLabs from CaptureOne to edit a raw file or a TIFF so I guess that will also work. C1 won't support the full plugin architecture of Photoshop but there are some plugins available, for instance for HeliconFocus, that do ease the integration somewhat.
@@TimvanderLeeuw Yes, I know about the HeliconFocus plugin as it was the first one. I don't know if any more were ever released. Another option is to start with C1 and export the TIFF to ViewPoint. The images I used for the video were all TIFF or JPEG files. Then when done, save the results and reimport back to C1.
@@RobinWhalley I think there might be a few more plugins but not many. Topaz Photo AI also has such a plugin. I mentioned it as reference for the kind of plugin integration I was expecting might, perhaps, exist. Anyway, the limited integration will not be much of an obstacle if I do invest in this software.
Great Video Robin, I love the Library and the mountain range image at the end really shows what is possible and with the inclusion of Sticky Borders it is a great tool for fixing perspective in images.
It seems that today the line between reality and fake has become absurd. It’s one thing to correct lens defects. Now we have to make the natural world unnatural. Was there something in the landscape that could not have been handled by the proper focal length or stitching a panorama?
If your approach to photography is to record an accurate renditioon of a scene then I agree with you. But if it's to create an artistic and creative rendering it isn't. Yes I could have used a longer telephoto had I now been snowshoeing and just come down off the mountain; carrying additional equipment wasn't an option.
@@RobinWhalley if you describe what you do as landscape photography, the line is crossed when you deceive your viewer, at least for me. If you are a digital artist, knock yourself out with distorting the real world.
@@adwuk I agree. Deceipt or the intention to deceive is an important element. But I also think the scale of the deception is important as well. I'm relatively comfortable with removing small manmade objects from a scene when they aren't permanent. But if I try to make significant changes to a scene that couldn't exist, that's crossing a line unless I say it's artistic intention. There's a rock near where I live called the Trinacle. Every year, people post photos of the sun setting behind the rock, claiming they are genuine. These are done with a sky replacement because the sun doesn't set in that position EVER. That for me is crossing a line. It's an interesting subject with a huge range of views.
@@RobinWhalley shouldn´t the core question of such a review not be how does one benefit buying the plugin instead of just using the tools already available in the host application ? I have bought the plugin for Photolab but now some years late I just see is a way how DXO tries to extored their user by not implementing it as every other software.
@@friendofarca6550 I don't think so. It's a standalone product (as I demonstrate) but can also be used as a plugin (which I also demonstrate). Not everyone is happy using Puppet Warp and other features of Photoshop and this plugin provides a solution for them. You also don't see these features in Photoshop Elements, so again, the plugin is a solution. If you don't need software then don't buy it but not everyone has the same needs.
Not sure I follow. The Beta software that I used for the review was available to selected journalists/UA-camrs worldwide. The full and trial versions are now available from the DxO website. There's no geographical restriction.
So, 15mm EFL/~106° AoV? Assuming you're familiar with VP4, would you say that 5's new features justify the upgrade price? Actually, VP4 has a Deformation tab that includes Diagonal and Horizontal/Vertical control. More to the point, I'd only "dipped my toe" in VP4 (mainly using from within DxO PhotoLab, which I still do), primarily using it simply to "de-keystone" images as if using a view camera or tilt/shift lens. Watching your video has got me to more effectively use its other capabilities (like Perspective), so thanks for that! You really can do some crazy things to completely alter the image. On the one hand, that seems like cheating, but on the other hand, photos aren't accurate representations of what we see with our eyes anyway, so why not create "impressionistic" versions of a scene. Your tweaking of the mountains really improved the impact of that image. Let the ethical debate begin...
Sorry, I can't answer your question about being worth the price of an upgrade. Different people value different features to different degrees. I always recomend downloading and testing the trial version alongside early software for 30 days. You will probably know before the end of the 30 days if it's worth you upgrading or not. As for the mountains, I was snowshoeing in the Dolomites when I shot it. If I had a longer lens with me and been able to change my position, I would have. Unfortunately, carrying more equipment wasn't an option. But with all that said, it's a holiday snap. I wouldn't apply such extreme adjustments with commercial work, but I can't explain why I seem to draw a line at that.
Just discovered DxO is charging full price for upgrade from 3 to 5. Seems to me that requiring an every version upgrade to get discounted upgrade pricing gets them precariously close to a subscription model. If they do the same thing with FilmPack or eventually PL, it’s going to make Adobe's photography subscription seem pretty attractive. I really want to stay with DxO, but the math just may become too much to swallow.
I checked the Press Release I had and it says the upgrade price for v3 or v4 is £59. If you are seeing a different price when you log in to your account I suggest raising it with their customer services. As for it becoming a subscription, I disagree. When you cancel a subscription to Adobe you can't use the software any more. With DxO it's a perpetual license and you can continue to use that version. It's only if you want the latest features that you need to pay.
@@RobinWhalleyYou are right, of course, though I did qualify my remark by saying “precariously close to a subscription model.” My point is that if DxO begins to require an every version upgrade, which verbiage on their site is at least hinting (see their Q&A on upgrade pricing), then it becomes very expensive to keep the software at the latest version, especially considering it will require multiple applications (PL, FP, and LV) to have full editing capabilities for many of us. Don't get me wrong, I really like DxO products, but I am concerned if their somewhat fractured line up and now the apparent? potential? changes in upgrade pricing are ultimately viable.
@@DudleyRose I can fully understand your concern. I spend a small fortune each year buying the different products from DxO, Adobe, Affinity etc so I can make these videos. While you single out DxO (because that's the software you use), the other companies are the same. Software is expensive to develop and support, so I understand why they do what they do. I think Adobe broke the model when they moved to the subscription model and left their competitors struggling to compete.
Is that a step too far in all circumstances? What if it's for an artistic landscape rendering? How is it different from buying a fisheye lens to produce distortion? Why is it acceptable to use on your architecture photos? By the way, I choose not to make the sorts of changes I show in the video, but that's my personal choice. I'm trying to show what's now possible.
Thank you Robin. I respect your opinion but for me there is a clear distinction. I am not a purist but t😅he difference, at least for me, is that in architecture, the lines are straight and I am just trying to bring the photo to show what exists in reality and what I have seen. Whereby taller mountains (which I accept is an extreme example) is just distorting reality and it is no longer a photograph but rather, as you said, an artistic rendering.
What's the difference? If you get perspective distortion from tilting the camera when shooting a skyscraper then you also get it when shooting a tall mountain. It's the exact same effect regardless of whether the lines are straight or not. You are simply restoring the natural perspective. Of course, the extreme cases using the warp tool etc may be pushing boundaries, but that would be true in architecture shots too.
Looks like a powerful piece of software!
At first I thought, I can do with CaptureOne, or DxO PhotoLabs too but the horizontal / vertical stretching and the fisheye effect are not tools available in those.
Do you know if the plugins work with CaptureOne? Are there any plans to make the plugins work in Affinity Photo? I don't know if this requires work in either DxO Viewpoint, Affinity Photo, or both.
It would nice to see a direct comparison of the perspective-corrections tools of the different major packages in a single video, if feasible. To compare ease of use of each, quality of output, featureset, and if applicable the level of integration.
Thanks for the suggestion. I like the idea of a comparison between the different options. I've made a not although I don't know when/if I will find the time to compile it. Life has a habit of takimg over. This review took me almost 20 hours to create. As for the plugin, no it can't be used with Capture One unless Capture One has changed to offer 100% support of the Photoshop Plugin architecture. With C1 you would need to use the standalone version of ViewPoint and then save the result as a JPEG or TIFF. You could then work on that in C1.
@@RobinWhalley Well I can invoke DxO PhotoLabs from CaptureOne to edit a raw file or a TIFF so I guess that will also work.
C1 won't support the full plugin architecture of Photoshop but there are some plugins available, for instance for HeliconFocus, that do ease the integration somewhat.
@@TimvanderLeeuw Yes, I know about the HeliconFocus plugin as it was the first one. I don't know if any more were ever released.
Another option is to start with C1 and export the TIFF to ViewPoint. The images I used for the video were all TIFF or JPEG files. Then when done, save the results and reimport back to C1.
@@RobinWhalley I think there might be a few more plugins but not many. Topaz Photo AI also has such a plugin. I mentioned it as reference for the kind of plugin integration I was expecting might, perhaps, exist.
Anyway, the limited integration will not be much of an obstacle if I do invest in this software.
Great Video Robin, I love the Library and the mountain range image at the end really shows what is possible and with the inclusion of Sticky Borders it is a great tool for fixing perspective in images.
Thanks Michael. I didn't mention the sticky borders in the video but it's another great feature.
It seems that today the line between reality and fake has become absurd. It’s one thing to correct lens defects. Now we have to make the natural world unnatural. Was there something in the landscape that could not have been handled by the proper focal length or stitching a panorama?
If your approach to photography is to record an accurate renditioon of a scene then I agree with you. But if it's to create an artistic and creative rendering it isn't. Yes I could have used a longer telephoto had I now been snowshoeing and just come down off the mountain; carrying additional equipment wasn't an option.
Thomas Heaton was recently considering his use of the clone tool - this is the other extreme!
It depends on your perspective. What makes it so wrong? What makes compositing fantisy images acceptable but generating them with AI wrong?
@@RobinWhalley if you describe what you do as landscape photography, the line is crossed when you deceive your viewer, at least for me. If you are a digital artist, knock yourself out with distorting the real world.
@@adwuk I agree. Deceipt or the intention to deceive is an important element. But I also think the scale of the deception is important as well. I'm relatively comfortable with removing small manmade objects from a scene when they aren't permanent. But if I try to make significant changes to a scene that couldn't exist, that's crossing a line unless I say it's artistic intention. There's a rock near where I live called the Trinacle. Every year, people post photos of the sun setting behind the rock, claiming they are genuine. These are done with a sky replacement because the sun doesn't set in that position EVER. That for me is crossing a line. It's an interesting subject with a huge range of views.
Why use a plugin for what can be done with more control in ps or affinity photo ?
Because I'm demonstrating the capability of the software. It's a review of new software.
@@RobinWhalley shouldn´t the core question of such a review not be how does one benefit buying the plugin instead of just using the tools already available in the host application ? I have bought the plugin for Photolab but now some years late I just see is a way how DXO tries to extored their user by not implementing it as every other software.
@@friendofarca6550 I don't think so. It's a standalone product (as I demonstrate) but can also be used as a plugin (which I also demonstrate). Not everyone is happy using Puppet Warp and other features of Photoshop and this plugin provides a solution for them. You also don't see these features in Photoshop Elements, so again, the plugin is a solution. If you don't need software then don't buy it but not everyone has the same needs.
The Beeeta Version is only available in England.
Not sure I follow. The Beta software that I used for the review was available to selected journalists/UA-camrs worldwide. The full and trial versions are now available from the DxO website. There's no geographical restriction.
@@RobinWhalley It's your pronunciation: Beeeeeta instead of bayta.
Yes, that’s because I’m English.
@@RobinWhalley No shit, Maynard!
I have photolab 8 elite. Nearly all viewpoint functionality is included. So not much incentive to purchase viewpoint
So, 15mm EFL/~106° AoV? Assuming you're familiar with VP4, would you say that 5's new features justify the upgrade price? Actually, VP4 has a Deformation tab that includes Diagonal and Horizontal/Vertical control. More to the point, I'd only "dipped my toe" in VP4 (mainly using from within DxO PhotoLab, which I still do), primarily using it simply to "de-keystone" images as if using a view camera or tilt/shift lens. Watching your video has got me to more effectively use its other capabilities (like Perspective), so thanks for that! You really can do some crazy things to completely alter the image. On the one hand, that seems like cheating, but on the other hand, photos aren't accurate representations of what we see with our eyes anyway, so why not create "impressionistic" versions of a scene. Your tweaking of the mountains really improved the impact of that image. Let the ethical debate begin...
Sorry, I can't answer your question about being worth the price of an upgrade. Different people value different features to different degrees. I always recomend downloading and testing the trial version alongside early software for 30 days. You will probably know before the end of the 30 days if it's worth you upgrading or not. As for the mountains, I was snowshoeing in the Dolomites when I shot it. If I had a longer lens with me and been able to change my position, I would have. Unfortunately, carrying more equipment wasn't an option. But with all that said, it's a holiday snap. I wouldn't apply such extreme adjustments with commercial work, but I can't explain why I seem to draw a line at that.
Just discovered DxO is charging full price for upgrade from 3 to 5. Seems to me that requiring an every version upgrade to get discounted upgrade pricing gets them precariously close to a subscription model. If they do the same thing with FilmPack or eventually PL, it’s going to make Adobe's photography subscription seem pretty attractive. I really want to stay with DxO, but the math just may become too much to swallow.
I checked the Press Release I had and it says the upgrade price for v3 or v4 is £59. If you are seeing a different price when you log in to your account I suggest raising it with their customer services. As for it becoming a subscription, I disagree. When you cancel a subscription to Adobe you can't use the software any more. With DxO it's a perpetual license and you can continue to use that version. It's only if you want the latest features that you need to pay.
@@RobinWhalleyYou are right, of course, though I did qualify my remark by saying “precariously close to a subscription model.” My point is that if DxO begins to require an every version upgrade, which verbiage on their site is at least hinting (see their Q&A on upgrade pricing), then it becomes very expensive to keep the software at the latest version, especially considering it will require multiple applications (PL, FP, and LV) to have full editing capabilities for many of us. Don't get me wrong, I really like DxO products, but I am concerned if their somewhat fractured line up and now the apparent? potential? changes in upgrade pricing are ultimately viable.
@@DudleyRose I can fully understand your concern. I spend a small fortune each year buying the different products from DxO, Adobe, Affinity etc so I can make these videos. While you single out DxO (because that's the software you use), the other companies are the same. Software is expensive to develop and support, so I understand why they do what they do. I think Adobe broke the model when they moved to the subscription model and left their competitors struggling to compete.
I use DVP4 on architecture and cityscapes but landscapes… Definitely a step too far.
Is that a step too far in all circumstances? What if it's for an artistic landscape rendering? How is it different from buying a fisheye lens to produce distortion? Why is it acceptable to use on your architecture photos? By the way, I choose not to make the sorts of changes I show in the video, but that's my personal choice. I'm trying to show what's now possible.
Thank you Robin. I respect your opinion but for me there is a clear distinction. I am not a purist but t😅he difference, at least for me, is that in architecture, the lines are straight and I am just trying to bring the photo to show what exists in reality and what I have seen. Whereby taller mountains (which I accept is an extreme example) is just distorting reality and it is no longer a photograph but rather, as you said, an artistic rendering.
What's the difference? If you get perspective distortion from tilting the camera when shooting a skyscraper then you also get it when shooting a tall mountain. It's the exact same effect regardless of whether the lines are straight or not. You are simply restoring the natural perspective. Of course, the extreme cases using the warp tool etc may be pushing boundaries, but that would be true in architecture shots too.
Nope