Best RAW Developer -DxO vs LR vs Luminar

[@mattisulanto]

DxO Photolab6 (affiliate linki): tidd.ly/3R6etJX Luminar Neo (affiliate link): skylum.evyy.net/91r7W

[@entrigueall2661]

“ The buildings still look like bananas”, 😅. I have all three also. DXO was recommended by several M43 users. I find it gives me the best results most times. It does have slight learning curve at first. Thanks for the video.

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you!😀

[@yotuberudy85]

Absolutely thanks for the timing descriptions, it is a respectful and professional approach.

[@Sam-wk3yy]

These kinds of videos are gold nuggets. Thanks!

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks!

[@amermeleitor]

Great comparison! Thanks! A thing I noted it's that Lightroom works better than others for JPG files. It extract more dynamic range and better non blotchy colors when pushed, unlike others I hope you make another video with other raw development apps, like ON1, Affinity, Capture One, etc Even would be interesting to compare free alternatives like Darktable, Photoscape, Gimp, etc

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you. I'm considering other apps, but it takes a while to learn even the basics of each app.

[@40mmSummarit]

Excellent review. Very logically structured and easy to follow.

[@mattisulanto]

Glad you liked it!

[@devroombagchus7460]

Thanks Matti. Very clear and thorough. My problem is that I work mainly with scans of negatives. No film or lens profiles anywhere. I especially liked the ending of your video. There is no such thing as an all-purpose perfect camera/lens.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks. I'm not sure lens profiles are necessary for film photos.

[@JimiCanRead]

Dxo looks really good. I would probably use it over Lightroom but I pay for the Adobe suite anyway for access to some of the other software like photoshop and InDesign so it’s not worth paying again. The noise features from dxo are so impressive though, I hope Adobe catches up to them

[@aviatorman8]

Interesting comparison. Lr is my main. Occasionally I use DXO for DeePrime and optical corrections. Other times I use Luminar for a quick workflow using the HDR conversion and a couple of effects.

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you.

[@geogu3images]

Well done Matti, very informative. I have both DxO and LR to decide where to start my workflow. If you can, get your hands on the Nik Collection as either standalone or plug in to either or both LR and DxO, then review them. Both combos are quite powerful and the Nik options for film emulations are extensive. All of my black and white images get processed through Silver Efex. If you then add the Topaz package, many of those greatly composed but throwaway images will take on a whole new life.

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you. Great tips and I'll take a look at Nik Collection.

[@mattiafalappi5516]

@@mattisulantoSilkypix might be a good alternative for raw editing,especially for lumix and pentax users,it packs all the principal features common to all raw developers and add some nice styles,a simple to use ui and interesting raw demosaicinig modes,it even has some special blending options and super resolution,support for pixelshift raw files from lumix and Pentax cameras. I find embedded the color profiles for my sony camera really great,it's an accurate sooc,i really recommend it.

[@kemerthomson]

Excellent summary and conclusions. I think Luminar Neo is great for photographers who aren’t too choosy and want the software to a lot for them automagically, but it fails as soon as you start “pixel peeping.” Don’t take that as a criticism: there are plenty of people who are enthusiastic photographers, but don’t want to commit a lot of time and effort into learning software. I agree that DxO PhotoLab is daunting at first, and requires a commitment to learn well, but generally produces more accurate images, in terms of color, distortion, and sharpness. I often find that Lightroom will generate the most pleasing colors, which is not to say most accurate. I generally use Lightroom for everything, then re-edit with DxO for my “best” pictures.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing. I agree that each of these apps have a place and what you prefer is a personal choice.

[@yotuberudy85]

Yes it is, since I have no time and memory to use Photoshop workflows so luminar is my choice. For noise reduction I use topaz.

[@adriancozma6102]

Very useful comparison. Thank you!

[@mattisulanto]

Glad it was helpful!

[@walterzannoni]

Hi Matti, thanks for sharing. You have generally confirmed what is also my thought and experience. Working with M43 and sometimes1" I absolutely prefer DXO. It is true that the controls are a bit too spread out, but if you create presets everything flows quite well. Unfortunately for noise reduction Lr is not up to the mark. The thing I find great is the possibility to export from DXO to DNG for those who prefer to do color corrections in Lr, with a noise-free file and very good optical correction. I just photographed a concert with the little Lumix TZ100 in very poor lighting conditions. I worked at 6400 iso with a 1" sensor and got a surprisingly good result with DXO.

[@aviatorman8]

Agreed

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for your insights and tips.

[@Chris-Brown-]

I use affinity for full manual processing. Luminar is lacking in quality, especially the AI stuff, but it is so easy to use. 1. Pick function 2. Adjust Sliders 3. Apply Mask 4. Repeat

[@peggy_web]

Thanks so much for your video. Really helpful and interesting

[@mattisulanto]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@daysofgrace2934]

I always use the Oly raw processor to process the raw into a tiff, then use Luminar and then Topaz Denoise AI for NR. Luminar is more a creativity tool than PS (I only had CS2)...

[@danncorbit3623]

Very interesting. I am a little intrigued by dxo (Ken Rockwell raves about it too). I have been using Affinity and Topaz. Topaz has the best noise reduction, but I don't like how it sharpens. Affinity is very capable, but after recent upgrades, I can only load four 50MP images at a time. I have 128GB of RAM and 64 threads of execution so I feel like that limit should be higher. Maybe dxo is worth a shot.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks. Give it a try and find out. I have no idea about the RAM or other requirements, because I use Mac M1 and all these apps work great on that.

[@paulthomas8986]

Thanks for the great comparison. Im a longtime Lightroom user and really hope they upgrade their noise reduction algorithm. Reducing the noise on high iso images destroys to much detail compared to topaz and dxo.

[@mattisulanto]

Glad it was helpful!

[@marcomarcon5802]

Thanks for this. I have the same apps, but I keep using Lightroom, and occasionally Photoshop for the more advanced stuff. As for lens correction, I first let LR do it, then often tweak it manually, I am an art curator, and I am quite obsessive about straight lines being just so, and even the best lens has an amount of distortion. Obviously if you photograph people or landscape, a bit of distortion is fine, but for buildings, rooms, or objects (as I do) distortion must be under control, otherwise you look like an amateur

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for your insights.

[@Ed-lz4jv]

Luminar is good for people who are not serious about photography , it is still a Lut based toy

[@westegg]

Very interesting content! Thank you~

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you too!

[@johns7988]

Thanks for this excellent video. I think it would be helpful to add On1 Photo Raw2023 into the comparison. I'd love to hear how you think it fits in with these 3

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks. That is one idea for the future.

[@guyjordan8201]

Hi and thank you for a good review. My one criticism though was it at the very end I felt let down. You left out cost under the heading of it being private… I don’t consider pricing facts any more personal than whether a workflow is easy or complicated. Pricing did not have to be editorialized, but stating it simply would’ve been welcome.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks. There are several options in the pricing and listing all those felt unnecessary, because everyone can find them easily. The video is already quite long. I said in the video, that if you find an app that works for you, it's worth the price.

[@Sam-wk3yy]

12:16 Hmm, maybe the lens correction data of a picture file can be removed, before importing to raw converter. But well, it's gone forever then, unless it's put back and imported again.

[@malcolmwright6948]

Hi Matti Really good video. One question have you ever heard of Affinity Photo? A lot of the members in my camera club use it here in the UK, just wondering if it only has a UK following ?

[@mattisulanto]

Thank you. I have heard of Affinity Photo, but I have never used it. There are so many RAW tools, too many😀

[@ruuddirks5565]

@@mattisulanto Affinity is a good editing tool with layers and a lot of tricks. The RAW processor part works fine, but it is probably not as good as DxO.

[@veikop]

Nice. Have you ever used Lightroom with your smartphone or do you perfer to have laptop? As a daily worker it is much flexibel combo than any software i have found. Just super fast and easy anywhere and anytime.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks. I have LR mobile on my phone and use it occasionally. Also like it a lot.

[@entrigueall2661]

Thanks!

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for your support.

[@naidadad9311]

Thanks a lot

[@mattisulanto]

Most welcome.

[@jonastruemper637]

Hey Matti, in terms of backwards compatibility, have you tried loading the Nikon D1x file into PL6 after converting it to DNG rather than the original NEF? It might work as well.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks. Did not try that and it might work indeed.

[@Isa-rh1pl]

Danke!

[@mattisulanto]

Thank You! Vielen Dank!

[@lgnyqvist]

Yes.... Bought Luminar because Photolab don't yet work with raw files from Fujifilm X100VI. Also compared with raw filer from GFX100S. This two programs dont play in the same league

[@trlerv]

Takk!

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for your support😀

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

I've basically stuck with the same backend workflow for a couple of decades now. It's whatever manufacturer provided RAW to 16 bit TIFF conversion first, then a bunch of strung together point tools. It works well but is cumbersome. The DxO product looks quite good. I'll check it out. For what it's worth, I've been a long time user of Neat Image for noise reduction. The most compelling aspect is the possibility of calibration per camera or film emulsion. You shoot their noise calibration test chart for the specific camera/film/sensor/iso setting/film development regime. The program generates a custom profile to that specific configuration. The resulting image output quality is very, very high.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks. Never heard of Neat Image, but I'll check is out.

[@larrysmith6797]

I'm a long time Neat Image user. PhotoLab Deep PrimeXD noise reduction is calibrated to specific cameras and camera bodies. I guess you missed that part.

[@jordanking7711]

One MAJOR downside of DxO Photolab, is that it is NOT compatible with every single smartphone for those of us that don't shoot with cameras and instead with smartphones that shoot in DNG or RAW. Samsung especially.

[@josh6499]

Capture One is the best by far, but LR is close. The other 2 are fun and DXO has great noise reduction features.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[@Ed-lz4jv]

C! wants your money , with no updates...customers are leaving like me

[@STACYBURK]

Just curious why you didn't include ON1 Raw?

[@mattisulanto]

I included the apps that I happen to have. There are also other apps that I did not include like Capture One, Darktable, RawTherapee and Affinity Photo. It would also make the video too long if I had many more apps included.

[@turdboman]

how did you get the same exact picture from 3 different cameras ?

[@mattisulanto]

I’m not sure what you mean.

[@pafa7179]

Do you you know Silkypix 11 which i use ?

[@mattisulanto]

I know of it, but I don't use it. Happy to hear it works for you.

[@k_i_m_m_o]

I shoot with Nikon D90 and I have noticed that DXO Photolab destroys the beautiful colors of Nikon RAW files. Especially shades of red. Nikon NX Studio preserves the colors the best, even though it's quite a clunky software.

[@mattisulanto]

Have you tried changing the working color space? There are two options, classic and DxO wide gamut.There are also several color rendering options which all produce very different result. There is even a D90 color available.

[@Bussmicke2305]

Testa DxO PureRAW 2. Den gör underverk och den borde du göra en video om hälsar Micke i Västerås, Sverige

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks or tackar😀 I understand Photolab 6 uses the same technology for noise and sharpening as PureRAW2.

[@BuildingByFaith]

Great video. Thank you for sharing. I use DxO PureRaw for lens corrections and noise reduction, then finish processing in Luminar Neo. I started on LuminarAI, which was good for me as I am an amateur, and I could apply a template in LuminarAI and see what adjustments were made. LuminarNeo no longer shows you the adjustments for presents, but I no longer use them anyway. Based on your review, I'm glad I started with Liminar but think that I would like to try PhotoLab6. BTW, Anthony Turnham has a video on importing camera profiles into LuminarNeo: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXupm3mvpNl7pqc

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing.

[@raylander6329]

No comments on price, but this IS IMPORTANT; For the price you pay for DXO or Luminar, Lightroom charges you that price EVERY YEAR!!! Hm...

[@Ed-lz4jv]

LR is better

[@erichearduga]

The more I try to use Neo... the less I really use it.

[@schotterfreund]

What about darktable? Open-Source, automatable throught scripting...

[@mattisulanto]

One more option.

[@exitar1]

Capture one…

[@Ed-lz4jv]

I use it 3yrs now....They are not adding any real features recent and now screwing customers with PRICE plan policy....going BACK to LR

[@chacmool2581]

None of the above. For Canon it's Canon's own DPP which contains Canon's proprietary secret sauce.

[@patmat.]

Adobe LR and luminar are subscription based = no-go, I pay I own, I don't get milked for the rest of my by some marketing dude.

[@williamshevr]

Luminar is also perpetual license based, checked your facts, it's litterally on the pricing page, it's either subscription or 199$ for the perpetual license...

[@Ed-lz4jv]

@@williamshevr Luminor is a cheap Toy not worth that money

[@kym-bid-bidstrup3623]

Given that the title of this video is the "best RAW developer", surely that is DXO PL6. It's vastly superior to Luminar Neo and noticeably better than LR.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[@markrigg6623]

Raw therapee.

[@ddsdss256]

Thanks, but let's just get this out of the way--replacing the sky with somebody else's is CHEATING, so shame on Luminar for even offering this. The only place for AI in the art world is to help optimize your vision (e.g., "cleanup" functions such as NR, which would be impossible to do "manually"), not substitute someone else's (or worse, a machine's)! One minor note--you didn't use DeepPRIME XD. which is even better than DeepPRIME, plus you can of course control how it's used. That said, as you point out, it's not the "technical perfection" of an image that counts, it's the content, composition, and "feel"--many of the best, most compelling images have what many would consider to be very low "IQ"... Re my take on these programs, my Lumix cameras included free SilkyPix, so I started with that years ago, but as LR is the most popular RAW processor (which of course doesn't mean it's the best), I demoed it (for 90 days, as I recall) and processed several hundred images. It was OK (and a bit more powerful than the free SilkyPix) but I don't like to "rent" software, so I did some research and explored other options. I considered Capture One, but settled on PhotoLab (4) and got the Elite version, plus FilmPack, and Nik. I currently have the latest versions of all of those plus ViewPoint4. I also have (but rarely use) PaintShop Pro UItimate 2022 plus the Topaz "IQ bundle"/Photo AI for older files, including non-RAWs. All of these programs are amazing but my DxO-based workflow enables me to quickly get the results I want (and a lot easier than with film). PL is incredibly versatile and IMO far superior to LR, and the more you use it, the more you understand how to quickly, easily get the results you want (sometimes fine-tuning with Nik, the elements of which work standalone or as plug-ins for other programs). Of course there's a learning curve, but that's the thing--the more capable the tool, the more operational nuances there are to using it to best effect (and there are many tutorials).

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for your insights. I did not use DeePRIME XD, because in that photo there was not much difference compared to DeePRIME, which already did an excellent job.

[@larrysmith6797]

Bad news: PhotoLab 6 could not tell a Tamron 17-50mm from a Sigma 17-50mm. Good news: DXO Customer Service got the programmers to fix it.

[@larrysmith6797]

Screw Adobe and all "rented" subscription software. PhotoLab 6!

[@gogoman1974]

Danke!

[@mattisulanto]

Danke Schön!

[@jacquesgiard6943]

Thanks!

[@mattisulanto]

Thank You.