Corros' Photo Blog

Birds in the garden

2018-04-08T16:45:00.004+02:00

How far do you need to go to get great bird pictures?

In my case, just 3 meters into my garden.

Enjoy these pictures:

Sparrow

Blue tit

Finch

Jackdaw

Great tit

Sparrow

Microsoft Photos Video Editor

2018-04-02T12:25:00.000+02:00

Since some time, Microsoft is doing great at free photo and video apps. Think about Windows Movie Maker, Image Composite Editor etc.

In Windows 10, there's the app of Photos. This app is a very basic photo viewer, management and editing tool for photos. But....

Video

Microsoft has added some nice video slideshow functions in this app. Since they retired Movie Maker, I missed a simple tool to create video and photo slideshows. As a user of Google Photos, I got a substitute. The drawback of that tool is the lack of control and also the low resolution these video's can be shared in (720p).

After Google retired Picasa, I looked for a good alternative for some time. I tried Zoner, Faststone, XNview and Photoscape. All these tools work good but are missing the easy of use of Picasa.

A couple of months ago, I gave 'Photos' a try. Importing images works OK and also viewing is working good. The one tool that amazed me is video.

In photos, it's so easy to create an video from some video and picture files. All you have to do is click on create:

Than select what you want:

Than you can make a video in three ways:

Automatic video with music: you select a couple of files and the video is created automically
Custom video with music: you select a couple of files and the video is created and you can edit right away
Album: you first create an album and from there, you can easily create a video.

Al of these options give the same result: a simple way to create a video. The first option is the fastest with the only option to do a remix if the result don't fit your needs. It's also possible to go to edit afterwards:

There you get the same viewing as in Cystom video with music. But first let's have a look at the options you've in the Remix window.

Choose a star: select the person you want to be the focus in
Export or share: Here you can select at which size you want to export the video.

When you hit Edit video you'll get the full editor (full as with all the options, this isn't a fully loaded video editing app, but more a very clever and smart slideshow tool)

Here you can do some nice tricks like:

trimming
changing the theme
changing the music
set the duration
3D effects

One of the options I like most is the option to sync the video to the music beat:

With that option selected, getting the video and images files change on the right time is so easy. With just one click it's done (and this option is on by default).

The video's are trimmed automatically, but you can change that afterwards. Most of the time, the software seems to recognize the best parts of the video. But if you don't like the result, you've manual control over it.

What is this tool good for?

This software is great to make a cool video of a holiday or a trip in just a couple of minutes. Because of the music sync and also the great amount of coupled music, people will love your video.

The result

The result after 2 minutes is:

(just in 720p, 1080p is also available)

Shuttershock and Olympus 75-300

2017-11-25T14:32:00.000+01:00

Since a couple of months I own the Olympus 75-300 III. And since day one, I wasn't happy with the results I got.

All the pictures shot at +/- 300 mm where soft and looked like there was motion blur. How's that possible? I tried it at a 1/1000th of a second, but still the motion blur in my pictures. I regret that I ever sold my Pentax with the 55-300 for this awfull lens!

But... Most reviews of this lens are positive. Is my copy of this lens bad?

I then figured out by reading forums that it could be a phenomena called 'shuttershock'. It that case, the shock of the shutter causes enough movement so the image is blurred.

For example:

Without Shuttershock

With Shuttershock

How to fix this?

My camera has several drive modes, including one called 'anti-shock'. And that does magic.

In that mode The pictures are sharp again. No motion blur is visible!

The downside of this mode is that the fasted drivemode can't be used.

I left Pentax for Olympus

2017-08-06T16:37:00.004+02:00

A couple of months ago I didn't feel happy with my camera gear. My DA 16-50 has never been okay and the AF of my Pentax also.

At the time I bought my first Pentax, I didn't wear glasses. Since a couple of years, I really need that kind of protheses ;). Looking through a viewfinder with glasses isn't always easy. Since I could use liveview, that seems to be much easier. Also shooting with my phone was done by "liveview".

Key decision points

I decided I wan't a new camera with the next options:

liveview AF as quick or quicker than my Pentax
small
budget friendly good lenses
better video quality and options

My wife owns an Olympus E-PL1 since 2010. That camera has an horrible screen and the autofocus isn't the quickest there is. But...

The size of the camera and also the ease of use is great. Also the 4:3 image ratio is great.

I decided to look for an M43 camera and looked for the Panasonic G80 (G85). I really liked the options and quality, but I didn't like the form factor. It's still to big.

Than I looked at the OM-D E-M5 MK II. That camera was a little bit older, but got great reviews. The image quality is great and all the options make it fun using it. Okay, the menu's are complicated, but that's not stopping me. I hate it when there are to few options instead of to many.

My new kit

I bought the camera with a couple of lenses:

12-50
17 f/1.8
45 f/1.8
75-300
60 2.8 macro.

First impressions

Al these lenses are great substitutes for my old lenses, except the 75-300. The range is great, but the image quality is not as good als my 55-300 on my Pentax.

The 12-50 is a mediocre kitlens, but is a great substitute for my 16-50. Even with the smaller aperture (f 3.5-6.3 instead of F2.8) I love using the lens. Also the closeup (macro) function is great for snapshots of insects etc. The extra range (25mm extra FF eq.) is great for a walkabout lens.

close-up sample

The camera is great to use. First I had to get used to the complicated menu system (as expected). There are a few thinks I noticed:

The image quality is a little bit les than my Pentax K-3 II.
The autofocus on the lenses <100mm is spot-on and very fast.
Continues autofocus is not great but the AF-S is that fast I can cope with that.

The use of the screen instead of a viewfinder is great for landscaping, candid shots of the kids, etc. I use the viewfinder only with the 75-300 for extra stability.

Animals

2017-03-30T20:55:00.001+02:00

This afternoon, I toke a hike of 13k to enjoy the great weather (the first +20 degrees Celsius day of 2017). Because it's spring all animals where active. The birds were singing, the frogs where bussy with the spawn etc etc.

Enjoy the result:

Pentax pixel shift resolution

2016-11-05T13:28:00.002+01:00

Since the Pentax K-3 II, Pentax is using a Pixel shift resolution function. This function uses more info from the sensor by shifting it slightly and taking 4 pictures. How this exactly works can you see in the next video:

But what are the results of using the function?

I shot a picture of some velcro (click for 1:1 resolution):

left pixel shift on, right pixel shift off

There are two main differences:

1. no moire

2. much more detail.

But looking at the full scale there's another difference:

The colors on the pixel shift picture are a little bit more saturated (watch the wooden box in the background)

The next image shows another difference:

There's less noise in the image and the gradiant is smooter (look at the gradiant from white to blue)

This function only applies to static objects and can only be used from a tripod. I tried it handheld, but the result is awfull:

As you can see, the alignment of the pixels is off and I lost resolution in stead of gaining it.

Walk through Meijendel

2016-10-29T15:15:00.000+02:00

On oktober 19, I walked around 10 km in Meijendel, a area of dunes around Wassenaar, The Netherlands. Here some photos to give an impression of this wonderful landscape and nature

Great Tit

The ground was quite wet after some rainfall

Jay

Cormorant

A family of Cormorants flew over. They got surprised with heavy wind. This results in this quity funny pictue

Seagull

View to Scheveningen

View to Katwijk aan Zee

oyster catcher takeoff

Pretty colors

Who nows what kind of toad this is?

Scheveningen panorama

Comparison between the old and the new 55-300 from Pentax

2016-10-23T17:21:00.001+02:00

Last june, Ricoh released a new affordable telezoomlens, The Pentax-DA 1:4.5-6.3 55-300 ED PLM WR RE

This lens is an upgrade from the older 55-300 lens with the screwdrive motor. This is the first lens with a nearly silent motor. This lens is also smaller than it's older brother (in this case, the oldest, non WR version):

look at the size of the hood!

extended, the new version is longer

The advantage for me is that this lens fits inside my camerabag when attached to my camera and with the hood extended.

The other big advantage is the autofocus. Using the phase detection on my K-3 II the speed is much, much better, but also the hunting is a lot lesser. The difference is like having a picture or not having a picture. I first tested the lens on the beach with some Seagulls:

With the old lens, I wasn't able to get a picture of an flying bird. With this lens, I got around 80% of the pictures in focus. Above pictures where shot with the 9 AF points in the middle.

Also the noise is a bit different:

Are there some disadvantages to the new lens? Yes, there are.

1. The already small aperture is even smaller 1/3 stop smaller. No big deal but it is an disadvantage

2. When zooming back from 300 to 55 mm, it's to easy to zoom to far back. (you should also use the button for folding the lens, not only by extending)

Sumary

This lens is an big leap forward to the older 55-300. The AF is much faster and more reliable. Shooting birds and other moving subjects are now possible!

The image quality looks a bit better than the older lens, but I didn't pixelpeep that.

DXO 10, highlight correction even better

2014-11-09T14:43:00.000+01:00

A couple of weeks ago, DXO Labs released version 10 of its image processing software. In earlier post, I complained about the highlight recovery in DXO. Lightroom did a better job and the results where much prettier.

In DXO 10, DXO promises a even better recovery of highlights. So I'd to test that. The results where great! I tested and tested again, and DXO managed to reveal details from my images, I didn't know they where there. See the results by yourselves:

DXO 10

DXO 9

DXO 7.5

As you can see, DXO is improving each version. Now it beats Lightroom. I easily managed to get all the details from the clouds, without the low contrast of the earlier versions.

Lightroom 5.6

I also tested how much detail I could get from the clouds. The image is looking overdone, but show how much detail can be recovered:

DXO 10 (extreme)

Even in the blown out area in the midle of the image (look through the building) has some detail left.

DXO 9, is the highlight recovery improved over earlier versions?

2013-11-26T21:13:00.000+01:00

On May 30, I wrote a short review about highlight recovery with DXO 7.5 vs Lightroom 4.

A couple months ago I mailed DXO about this to show the difference. In the changelog of version 9 of DXO Optics Pro, DXO states that the highlight recovery has been improved. I've no illusions DXO did this only because of my complaint. But it's great to see my "complain" has been heared and something is done about it.

Below you see the pictures I used before in the other review. I added the picture from version 9.

In Lightroom I didn't use the local adjustment brushes, only the sliders for exposure etc.

Lightroom 4.1

DXO Optics Pro 7.5

DXO 9.0

As you can see, DXO 9 is a great improvement over DXO 7.5, when talking about highlight recovery. The clouds have much more detail and contrast in it. Lightroom is still able to get some more detail from the highlights, but the difference is minimal.

The original files are a 14 bit .DNG file from my Pentax K-5.

Free copy of DXO Filmpack 3

2013-09-21T12:26:00.001+02:00

One of the great products from DXO Labs is their Filmpack software. With this software you can emulate many types of film looks to your digital photos, including grain.

Now you can get a free copy of Filmpack 3 Essential edition.

Go to this site and register before October 31th 2013

DXO labs Tutorials

2013-04-07T14:59:00.000+02:00

Since some time, DXO Labs is giving webbinars and tutorials about their software. The last months, DXO placed a couple of tutorials on their website: DXO Academy.

These tutorials are very handy when starting to use DXO's software. You can find tutorials about HDR photo's, printing, color management etc.

Short review of DXO Optics Pro 8

2012-10-30T20:28:00.003+01:00

This week, DXO released DXO Optics Pro 8. Is this version better than the last version? Does is change anything about the drawbacks it has opposed to Lightroom? In this review I will focus on the things which are new.

Speed

DXO has never been the fasted program. But in this version. Processing 9 images took only 40 seconds on my system. As seen here (scroll down), this was for 8 images more than 60 seconds. Another big pro is the possibility to show noise reduction at zoom levels less than 75% makes it possible to do fast adjustments.

Adjusting settings is nearly instant at my system, but may vary per computer. But after all, it's much faster than version 7.5.

Image quality

Can I get more out of my RAW file? After some testing and tweaking, I can't find any differences. The recovery of Highlights has become much easier with the new controls:

The problem is that I can't recover more details from highlights. With Lightroom I still can get more dynamic range out of my RAW files.

The too heavy noise reduction is still there.

The new Smart Lightning functions are easy to use and much like Lightroom and other RAW processors. Combined with the smart autoexposure makes it easy to get all the details and quality out of you RAW files. Now DXO is nog working that awkward anymore.

Functions

DXO Optics Pro 8 does have few new functions. One is the printing function. It's handy to use, but because DXO is not very good as an image organiser, most people won't use it.

Beside that there are a couple of new functions which finetune the things you can do with DXO:

Beside this. The interface has been updated. The new icons are a little bit modernised and more space is between them.

All these changes makes it even easier to use DXO and makes it still my first choice for converting my RAW files. I hope DXO will now work on better image quality (recovering dynamic range) and a more subtle auto noise reduction.

Lightroom 4.1 released

2012-05-30T19:04:00.004+02:00

Today, Adobe released Adobe Lightroom 4.1 after two release candidates.

This version offers some new features and fixes some of the quirks from version 4.0

Bugs Corrected in Lightroom 4.1

The following bugs that were part the Lightroom 4 releases have been corrected. The team appreciates the very detailed feedback the community has provided on Lightroom 4 and we’re excited to correct a number of issues experienced by our customers. These issues have been FIXED:
Point Curve adjustments made in Lightroom 3 have been restored.
Edit-in functionality has been restored to external applications including Adobe Photoshop and Nik plugins
Addressed performance issues in Lightroom 4, particularly when loading GPS track logs, using a secondary monitor, and the controls within the Develop module.
Ability to update DNG previews and metadata for more than 100 photos has been restored.
This update allows for improved viewing of subfolders and stacks in folders with a large number of photos.
It was possible that a layout of a saved book could be lost after quitting Lightroom 4.
Adjustments made in the Develop module were not properly being reflected to photos that have been laid out in the Book Module
Postscript Type 1 Fonts do not appear in the Font menu within the Book module.
Clarity adds grey tinting to 100% white tones.
Known Issues in Lightroom 4.1:

Double byte fonts such as those found in Chinese and Japanese characters are not being exported to PDF or when published to Blurb.
The Revel Publish Service will delete photos from a carousel. This occurs when the customer asks Lightroom to delete the carousel and then cancels out of the confirmation dialogue box.

source: Adobe Blog

Highlight recovery, Lightroom vs. DXO

2012-05-30T18:49:00.001+02:00

Hightlight and shadow detail recovery is one of the things DXO Optics Pro is famous for. But with Lightroom 4, Adobe pushed it further.

In the sky, Lightroom rendered the clouds while DXO leaves some blown out parts from which I wasn't able to recover the details. In Lightroom I didn't use the local adjustment brushes, only the sliders for exposure etc.

Lightroom 4.1

DXO Optics Pro 7.5

The original files are a 14 bit .DNG file from my Pentax K-5.

And just another try. Left is DXO, right is Lightroom

original

As you can see, Lightroom can get more detail from the clouds and recovers more detail from the shadows!

This shot was with my Pentax K-7 in .DNG (12bits).

read more about Lightroom vs. DXO

DXO Optics Pro 7.5 released

2012-05-23T20:01:00.002+02:00

Today, DXO labs released version 7.5 of it's great Image Processing Software. This version is the first version supporting 64bits to handle the files of camera's like the Nikon D800. DXO promises another speed improvement.

I tested it on my computer. I started first version 7.2.3 and closed it after it started. Than I tested a new start of 7.2.3 and tested the exporting speed:

DXO 7.2.3
startup: 38.8 seconds
exporting 9 files: 1:27

Than I installed 7.5.0 and started it the first time (and did the new registration). I closed it after it and restarted 7.5.0:

DXO 7.5.0
startup: 19 seconds
exporting 9 files: 1:05

That's another big leap in speed!

Other changes can be found at: www.dxo.com

Review Kata Bumblebee Ul-222

2012-05-03T18:28:00.000+02:00

Introduction

For a year now, I'm using the Kata Bumblebee as backpack when hiking and taking pictures. This bag is quit special and I've not seen a better bag for my type of use.

The special thing about it, is when carrying it around, Is sometimes forget I'm carrying 10 kilos of stuff. The harness system and the Aeriform straps fit to my body like a custom-made suite.

To show the possibilities of this bag, I made some pictures of it.

Photos

The bag is light grey to protect it from heating of the sun. This layout also got reddot award. I really would have this bag in a darker color, when shooting wildlife. On the bottom of this picture you can see the parachute zippers. They are easy to use when you put your finger in the 'parachute'.

Here you can see the harness. it's a little bit bent so the pressure will be on your shoulders and hips. No pressure on your back.

The backside of the bag is like all other backpackers bags. A frame with netting in it combined with the foam shoulder straps makes this bag the best to carry.

On the top you can see the notebook compartment, the head compartment and the little pocket on the front.

A tripod holder is included and can be fitted in two places: on the right side and on the front of the bag.

This little organiser makes it possible to carry around your small stuff like phone, memory cards, etc.

on the top left corner of the bag are two more pockets to fit some stuff.

The top compartment to put you additional stuff in. Food, a (rain) jacket, etc. a lot off stuff can be put in.

The camera compartment is closed with a additional net. This for extra safety.

The main drawback is you can't leave it open because when letting it go, the bag closes itself.

On the front of the camera is another pocket which can also be used as tripod holder.

The camera compartment is large enough to fit a lot of stuff. Because the dividers are not rigid, it's easy to put your stuff in and adjust it.

also the compartment for your lenses has it's own net.

close-up of the materials. The materials don't look very solid, but they are! After a year of use, I can hardly see any scratches or tears in the material.

close-up of the harness.

After all this bag is great to use. The difference of Kata to other camera-bag manufacturers is they design the bag around a carrying system. Others seems to desing a box for you stuff and than think about carrying.

There are some drawbacks:

because of the rounded form of the harness, the bag is big for what fits in
there are hardly any pockets for fitting the really small stuff like sd-cards, remote, etc.
the bag can't stay open by itselves

But there also some big pro's

lightweight!
easy to carry without pain on your back or shoulders
good ventilation (a big problem with other camera bags)
easy to fit your stuff in because of the soft dividers
big notebook compartment
very good protection for your gear because of the harness and spine system

Verdict

I really like this bag. it has a lot of space for my stuff and is still easy to carry when packet with a load of camera stuff. The bag is big enough to carry enough stuff for a oneday hike.

DxO Optics Pro v7.2.3 released

2012-05-02T16:01:00.000+02:00

Today, DxO Labs released a new version of its great image processing software. It ads support for the Canon EOS 5D MK III and the Pentax K-01. Also a bunch of lenses are supported for this lenses.

source: DXO

Fighting Swans

2012-05-01T20:20:00.003+02:00

Yesterday evening, I saw this nature phenomena. A adult Swan who drove away it's siblings from last year.

The pictures are a bit dark because it was 30 minutes after sunset

Blue Hour shots

2012-05-01T20:19:00.000+02:00

SNS-HDR Lightroom Plugin

2012-04-15T13:43:00.000+02:00

I'm using SNS-HDR for my HDR photography since august 2011. I really like it, but one thing I missed was a Lightroom Plugin. But since this week, that has been fixed. MIchael Koetter wrote a plugin for Lightroom.

The plugin is very easy to use. All you have to do is installing the plugin and setting it. After opening SNS-HDR you can do the editing you're used to and save the image by clicking the button and the image will be imported to Lightroom (if you selected that option).

One thing is missing. The SNS-HDR application isn't closed automatically. But that's no big deal and will speed up the process if you want to do a couple of images after each other.

New Pentax Prices in the USA

2012-04-03T22:14:00.003+02:00

Today, Pentax USA shocked all Pentax users with the new prices. Some prices increased 90%. Reaction from European Pentaxian are like: "Now the prices are like in Europe."

I checked it with the prices given from B&H and the cheapest prices of the shops in The Netherlands:

I really think this is remarkable. The prices in the USA are still cheaper! Some are more expensive, some are cheaper, but after all, When you want to buy all this lenses with Euros, buying in the USA is cheaper!

Maybe somebody knows if this big difference is also existing for the other brands like Canon, Nikon, Sony.

Source: http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/pentax-lens-price-increase-2012.html#ixzz1r0YFlEcM

Lightroom 4 edit in error fix

2012-03-26T22:15:00.001+02:00

Many people who upgraded their copy of Lightroom to version 4 or installed a fresh copy of version 4 suffer a strange problem: An error when exporting to a external editor like DXO Optics Pro, or NIK filters, etc.

When you want to edit you picture in any other program you wil get the next error:

Unexpected error performing command: bad argument #1 to 'lower'(string expected, got nil)

A very strange error, and after setting the stuff again, the error was still there. After some searching on the internet I found a lot of people with this problem. But it was hard to find a solution.

One solution which seems ridiculous is installing Adobe Photoshop (Elements). I don't exactly why this works, but it does!

All you need to do is installing a trail version of Adobe Photoshop (Elements) and everything is fine.

I really hope Adobe will fix this problem, because installing a 1,5GB package (PSE) is a little bit awkward for this problem.

If you're a little bit more confident in editing some settings on your computer try the next (it worked for me):

First backup you registry in case something goes wrong

Windows:

1) Open Notepad

2) Copy and paste everything in bold below into Notepad

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\Photoshop.exe]

"Path"="C:\\Program Files\\Adobe\\Adobe Photoshop CS5\\"

@="C:\\Program Files\\Adobe\\Adobe Photoshop CS5\\Photoshop.exe"

3) Go File > Save As

4) In "File Type" Select "All files"

5) Name it "LightroomPatch.reg" and save to your Desktop

6) Close notepad and double-click "LightroomPatch.reg".

7) When it asks if you trust the source, click "yes"

(source: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4264823#4264823)

This fix tells where Photoshop is installed to Lightroom, even when Photoshop is not installed. Normally Lightroom checkes if and where Photoshop is installed, if it's not found, in checkes if and where Photoshop elements is installed. When nothing is found, that option won't be available in Lightroom and you can use other programs to edit in. The problem is that when Lightroom don't find Photoshop (Elements), the options to edit in other programs are somehow broken. Now you will see the option to edit your picture in: C:\\Program Files\*** etc. No big deal. But I still hope Adobe will fix this problem soon.

Edit

In Lightroom 4.1, this error has been fixed.

DSLR Guru Lightroom Presets

2012-03-19T22:45:00.000+01:00

This week, DSLR GURU released PROFX Pack for Lightroom (3 and 4). This pack contains a lot of presets for global and local adjustments.

The presets contain 125 presets for adjusting the picture like contrast, vignette etc. Also a bunch of cross process presets are available. Last 12 presets for film Emulation.

You can find them on: www.dslr-guru.com (with a very low introductory offer til 31-3-2012).

But even for a very low price. Is it worth the money?

First off all. This is not a software package, but a package of 'setting files' for Lightroom. Most presets do the same as adjusting one slider (like contrast + or vignette +). I think these presets are nearly useless. But they have one advantage. When hovering these presets with your mouse, you can see the results in the Navigator. That's much more easy than adjusting a slider, and see the changes.

But there are some nice presets also. The film presets give a great look and do a great job. Also presets for sepia, B+W and cross processing can be very handy. I think these presets are great to play with, and could you give results which need a lot of effort to achieve, when setting everything manually. The ...Autotone preset does a great job.

Especially the introduction price is very low, and worth the money.

Image processing software comparison

2012-03-15T22:44:00.002+01:00

Introduction

Last months, many RAW converters has get updated. I reviewed a couple of them, but how do they compare?

In this comparison I will compare four RAW converters. Corel Aftershot Pro 1, DXO Optics Pro 7, Adobe Lightroom 4 and Cyberlink Photodirector 3. Aftershot Pro has version 1, but is the new version of Bibble which has ben acquired by Corel. The youngest piece of software is Photodirector 3. Version 1 was released half 2011.

Features

I made a ranking of the most used features.

Lightroom is the winner. The others are close, but there are some big differences when looking at the categories. DXO does a great job for the editing, but loses for exporting and other functions like importing, photo book, etc.

Image Quality

To compare the image quality, I used the next 8 images:

Original pictures (RAW- jpeg without adjustments in Lightroom)

As you can see some images are to dark, to much dynamic range and as last a high iso noise image with a very difficult white balance.

To compare the images fairly, click on them to open them in higher resolution. When reducing the image size, sometimes strange things happen to details and colors.

Image quality: exposure and color

Round 1: automation

In this first round, I set all software in auto, as much as possible. Aftershot Pro has no auto white balance, so I selected the white balance with the droplet.

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector

As you can see, all programs do a good job, except DXO. The image is way to dark. Lightroom and Aftershot Pro have the best colors, Photodirector makes the image to red. Lightroom has the best skin tones.

winner: Lightroom

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

The difficult job. DXO has the colors as best, but is to dark. Photodirector has no auto noise removal, so all noise is still there. Aftershot Pro has very nice colors, but is a little redish. After all, DXO has got the colors most natural.

winner: DXO

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector

This picture has a difficulty with the contrast. The black eyes and mouth vs. the hair. In this one, DXO and Aftershot Pro are to dark. Photodirector is lacking contrast in the final result. Lightroom got it all right in the auto mode.

winner: Lightroom

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

Again a picture with some bad shadows. Only Lightroom got the exposure and contrast right, but the auto White balance is a little bit to warm. I really like the colors in the DXO version, but the shadows are to dark. The same story for Aftershot Pro. In Photodirector, the white balance was a little bit to cool.

winner: Draw

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

This cute little lamb is walking in a green landscape. Aftershot Pro and Lightroom did a great job and Aftershot gives the colors a little bit more saturation. DXO has the right white balance, but the contrast and saturation are a little bit to low. Photodirector fails with the wrong colors.

winner: Aftershot Pro

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

This picture is a little bit to light. How well do the programs fix that in auto mode? Aftershot Pro renders a colorful and sharp picture. The contrast is also good, but same of the details in the highlights are lost. Only Lightroom has recovered all the details in the highlights, but the overall image is to dark. DXO is very good, but the colors are a little bit to much. Photodirector has to cool colors and is lacking black tones.

winner: Aftershot Pro

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

A very difficult picture. A under exposed animal, with details in the highlights. Photodirector got the exposure right, but the white balance is to cool. Lightroom is to warm and DXO and Aftershot to dark. After all, this one don't deserve a winner. Aftershot Pro is the loser, because of the exposure is way to dark.

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

In This picture, there are some difficult contrast and colors. But all software did a good job. Lightroom and DXO gives the most natural colors, while Aftershot Pro is a little bit to warm and Photodirector a little bit to cool. Lightroom got the exposure best, but with a very small difference.

winner: Lightroom

Overal winner for automation is Lightroom. DXO and Aftershot Pro did also a very good job, but DXO sometimes do strange thinks to the exposure and Aftershot Pro is lacking the auto white balance.. Photodirector is falling behind.

Round 2: full control

In this round I will compare the quality of the images after manual settings. For each picture I would take more than 1 minute to do the tweaking. I used all software for several hours before doing this test. DXO was in lead, because I used it before for 1 year. (but is still strange to use)

The draws like the autoexposure in DXO or the wrong whitebalance in Photodirector can be fixed now, so it's all about the quality the software can get out of the image. I didn't tweak the color settings, other than white balance.

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector

When setting up manually, the differences are not that big. Lightroom still has the best result. The skin tones are very real, as is the color of the hair. In DXO, it's very hard to get the right tones and contrast.

winner: Lightroom

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

In this picture with yellow light from the left, and some blue light from my computer screen from the right, it was very hard to get the colors right. The manual white balance picker was doing a very good job in Lightroom and DXO. Strange enough didn't the colors be the same when selecting the same area (right, on the paper with the C1000 logo) with Aftershot Pro and Photodirector. I didn't get the colors right after all. DXO was best in removing the noise.

winner: DXO

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector

This picture wasn't a big deal for all of the software. DXO is a little bit grey and Aftershot Pro a little bit yellow (the picker was used on the same spot in the images). Lightroom has the most natural colors after all.

winner: Lightroom

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

In this picture, the contrast was a bit difficult. But after manual settings, the contrast can be adjusted very well. Lightroom renders the grass a little bit yellow, but gives a nice picture. DXO has the most natural colors. Photodirector renders some blue in the sky after adjusting the contrast and exposure (which was a very difficult job with Photodirector.

winner: DXO

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

This picture is no problem for all of the programs. The colors are right (even with Photodirector). The differences are because of different settings.

winner: draw

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

The exposure in this picture was very hard to correct. Except Lightroom, it seems impossible to adjust the highlights, without changing the blacks. But after all, Lightroom and Aftershot Pro (with a lot more effort) got nearly the same result. With the strange HDR module of DXO it was hard to get the contrast right, so the bird is a little bit to black for my taste. Photodirector couldn't correct right, and in the highlights, some strange yellow colors appears.

winner: Aftershot Pro and Lightroom

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

In this picture, you can see how much you can gain with a RAW file. Only Lightroom got it all right. The branches are all there, and the bear is not to dark.

winner Lightroom

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

In this picture, it was very hard to get the shadow in the eyes removed. Lightroom and Aftershot Pro got the exposure right. DXO is to dark, while Photodirector is to light after all.

winner: Aftershot Pro and Lightroom

Winner after all is Lightroom. Some pictures were ready after 20 seconds! It's so easy to set everything. Natural colors are easy to achieve. And the control of the contrast is stunning. Aftershot Pro is second. It was difficult to set the right white balance, but after some experimenting, I could get it right and the image quality is very high. DXO is third. Colors are good, but contrast and exposure are hard to get right. Photodirector is last. Exposure is good, but white balance is still hard to get right, and the picker is sometimes not working at all.

Image quality: details

The image quality is not only exposure and color. Also the details are important. Comparing the auto settings is not fair because that don't show the capabilities of the software. Only DXO and Lightroom do auto noise reduction and DXO automatically changes the details of the picture when the lens profile is available.

Round 1: highlights and shadows

To compare the programs I used the next image:

Origineel (RAW - jpeg without changing settings.

The exposure is way to dark, but there are still some highlights. In this test I will test the quality of noise reduction, the recovery of details from the shadows and highlights and the reduction of the chromatic aberrations.

Aftershot Pro

In Aftershot Pro, I couldn't lighten the shadow very much without blowing the highlights. The shadows stay to dark.

DXO Optics Pro

DXO does a great job in recovering the details from the shadows and highlights. But the tree in the background has some strange black leaves.

Lightroom

Lightroom does a great job. The shadow and highlight details are all recovered, while the colors are realistic.

Photodirector

Photodirector got the details from the shadows and highlights, but the picture looks strange. Much noise is still left. The colors are muted.

winner: Lightroom.

Lightroom is the only software which can get all information from the RAW file. The colors are very natural, the contrast is great.

Round 2: Chromatic aberrations

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

In this case, Photodirector can be used as the reference, because it has no possibility to reduce chromatic aberrations and purple fringing other than manually changing the saturation of the red/purple/green/etc. color. Aftershot Pro has a manual tool to remove it, which works good, but isn't simple to use. Lightroom has the option to remove CA automatically, and that job is done very well. DXO left a little bit of the red color, but most of it has been removed.

winner: Lightroom

Lightroom removed all the chromatic aberrations, all automatically.

Round 3: Noise reduction

Noise reduction is very important because it makes it possible to shoot with very high iso, or save underexposed images (like the image I'm testing here).

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

For this test, I used the same image. In this picture, you can see that Lightroom removes almost all noise and has the most details.

The next picture has no corrections, except noise reduction.

Aftershot - DXO - Lightroom - Photodirector (UL - UR - LL - LR)

First, Lightroom renders the picture brighter than the other software. But does a great job in reducing noise. DXO removes most noise, but also some color (the saturation drops a little bit).

Aftershot Pro's build in noise reduction is very weak. I used a plugin called Wavelet Denoise. It does a decent job, but leaves some noise and a quite messy picture. Aftershot Pro has the possibility to use Noise Ninja, but than you need to pay extra.

Photodirector does quite a good job, but don't match DXO and Lightroom.

winner: DXO and Lightroom

Speed

Speed is important when using this software for professional photography. Every minute you spend behind your computer is expensive.

These tests are done on a computer with an Intel i7 processor and mid-level graphics.

Speed of use

All four programs works very fast. Aftershot Pro and DXO have some lag when changing the settings. Lightroom and Photodirector works almost without delay.

Zooming is fasted in DXO. When zooming, the pictures are almost instant rendered. Second fastest is Photodirector with a short delay. In Lightroom and Aftershot Pro, zooming takes around half a second. Lightroom zooms in and renders the image afterwards, Aftershot Pro, first renders the image (not visible) and zooms in afterwards.

After all, Aftershot Pro is the slowest, while the other programs are equal in speed when changing the settings and do the adjustments.

Speed of exporting

For this test, I exported the 8 pictures, used for the image quality test. The resolution was not changed and the files where saved as 93% jpeg.

Time in minutes needed for exporting 8 images to jpeg:

Aftershot Pro: 0:15
DXO: 1:02
Lightroom: 1:01
Photodirector: 1:05

Aftershot Pro is by far the fastest when exporting. I think that has the same reason why the speed of use is the slowest. All the images are real-time rendered, and exporting isn't much more than saving the file.

Photodirector is the slowest when exporting.

Time in minutes needed for exporting 1 image to jpeg.

Aftershot Pro: 0:04
DXO: 0:17
Lightroom: 0:06
Photodirector:0:09

In this case the same standing, with DXO being much slower than the others.

Winner: Lightroom

When using the program, Lightroom is running very fast. Because of the 64bits support, it runs without any glitch.

Conclusion

After all, it seems like Lightroom has the most complete package. DXO and Aftershot Pro follow fast and Photodirector is not yet ready to really compete the other programs.

Prices

Lightroom: €129,71

DXO Optics Pro: €149,- / €299,-

Aftershot Pro: €89,-

Photodirector: €139,99

Value

Lightroom is not cheapest but gives best value for you money. DXO and Photodirector are quite expensive considering the lack of functionality to the other two programs. Aftershot Pro is the cheapest, but when you really want to use all features, you need to buy Noise Ninja (another €34).

Does this mean, Lightroom is always the best choise? No, when you don't need al the stuff in Lightroom, but want the RAW converter with the most options to correct your images, DXO may be your choice. If you like the free plugins for Aftershot Pro, it may be your choice, and Photodirector is easy to use and may became a real competitor in the next years.

I hope you liked this review and it helped you to make a good decision which software you will use.