DxO Optics Pro is another raw converter from dxo.com, which only has the function of a raw converter and doesn’t offer any management tools.
DxO did offer its raw converter version 8 for a limited time free of charge (even thogh the version on the start screen is 8.5), but at this time version 9.5 was up to date and by writing this article version 10 was published.
If you want to test the software thoroughly there is trial version availble for download, valif for 30 days. This shoul gibe you the possibility to test the software and the workflow , particular in the winter time.
Version 10 is sold for 129,– € and this makes DxO more expensive than Lightroom, which offers managing tools and much more.
The installation is without any problems and there is documentation available at the DxO site. Starting the application for the first time you may recognize, that DxO starts very slow and even in the free version you have to enter the serial nummber before DxO starts.
But take a look at the video:
As i said, the program starts very slow, but i’ll judge this aspect not high. But what’s kind of a hazzle is the time DxO needs to display a capture with the changes made with the raw converter, beacuase the application needs to read every sidecar dop files in the directory first.
The advantage saving the side car files in the original folder of the picture is just like in [post id=372]RAWTherapee[/post], that you don’t need to modify your backup workflow and don’t have to add additional folders like in Lightroom. Backing up the image folders is enough to make a complete backup.
DxO as a raw converter only is relativly expensive and i miss the function to export my photos with a little help of plugins. There is a export function to flickr and to Lightroom, but obvisously no other options. I also didn’t find a function to add a watermark to the exported fotos like in Lightroom.
The ost important cons too me is the speed, Lightroom for example is round about 3 x as fast as DxO converting RAW files to JPEG or TIFF files. I updated the [post id=114]article[/post], which compared the speed of the different raw converters.
I candecide if the integration of the DxO filmpacks would be a compensation for the lack of speed, this is an issue you’ll have to decide depending on your workflow..
What do you think about the DxO converter? Just drop me a comment and questions are welcome to