Any assumption or opinion about a product must come from a comparison. Otherwise, it’s just parroting someone else. (not a reproach more a conclusion)
Hence my question: in comparison to what? A database in itself is not bad or good, stability, possible import export functions, searchability with hierarchical structure. etc.
That determines the value of a database.
And DxO’s database is in v4 except for exporting data towards rawfiles (exporting keywords created in the database to xmp which is inconvenient) reasonable working . It is reasonable new developed and they are still working on improving it.
If you need a “photomechanic” like DAM then yes, it is not good.
Compared to my old PSE13 library function it’s coming near equal.
The search functions and selecting function are good enough wile the entry functions (specially the User Interface) are still in development i think.
So if you edit outside DxOPL in XMP’s the functionality is developing well. (i need to remark that the DAM/Database function is young compared to Adobes.
Before the “DAM” was implemented the DataBase was only a duplicate from the Dopfiles.
So you could export a dopfile when missing. @John-M is deleting the DataBase (almost) every start up because he leans on dopfiles completely.
when you use xmp’s and Dopfiles and don’t edit iptc/exif inside DxOPL then the Database is just a “backup”
For me the existing “Advanced History” is ok, but it should also be available for older images. So I could have a look “How did I do this photo two years ago?” If I open the *.dop files with an editor, I don’t receive the same information.
J’ai fait la maj PL5 par automatisme, et je trouve TRES dommage que l’historique ne soit pas sauvegardé sous Windows, depuis la V4, c’est quelque chose qui devrait être fait.
Les raisons exposées ci-dessus de l’utilité de la chose sont suffisantes sans en rajouter.