Well, the macOS version is built on Apple’s Apple kit for its UI. I don’t have access to a Windows version but my experience tells me it will be based on the .NET frameworks. It is more difficult to tell whether the core functionality is written in a common language or platform specific, although one would hope it is common.
Thanks for the attempt in the right direction, Joanna. In this case, you could have written more simply: “I don’t know.”
Does anybody know what is the core development framework on which PhotoLab is built?
Did you consicer to ask DxO?
There’s lots of threads about how responsive DxO is to user questions. Here’s a recent one.
Is there really no one among our user experts who knows the answer to what is the core development framework on which PhotoLab is built?
I’ll partly answer my own question. Some of FilmPack 6 is coded in Lua.
Lua is used in VLC, DaVinci Resolve, FCPX and GarageBand among other applications.
That’s not the core of PhotoLab though. I’m convinced that the core of PhotoLab shares a single development language between macOS and Windows. There are some native UI libraries used as Joanna pointed out, as well the macOS version is using some Apple specific code for DeepPrime and DeepPrimeXD processing (not on CPU, not on GPU but on Apple Neural Core).
Surely one of us is at least superficially acquainted with the code structure of PhotoLab though?
Wouldn’t that make development easier ?
I mean, only one development team for every platform instead of several development team ?
A single analysis process ?
And doesn’t a well-choosen multiplatform development environment allow more flexible interface and easier and more scalable development ?
Every “big” sotware I use (I’m not talking about photographic field, but digital image field) has a really more flexible, customizable and fluid interface than photolab. And offers the same interface and functionnality on every platform (wich generally are windows, mac OS and linux). And seems to be easier to upgrade.
Maybe I’m wrong on those points, but I’d like to know.
PS : I suppose that certain specificities between hardware cannot be avoided (particularly with regard to graphic cards/circuits and so the use of AI).
Actually those files are nothing to do with programming, they look to me like renamed JSON data files…
Looking into the main executable, it would seem that the primary actors are C++, Objective-C and some of the QT frameworks.
PhotoLab 6 also uses Swift as a language but indications are that most of the base code is C++, which can be compiled to multiple platforms.
You might think so but visual differences by not using true native UI controls give a horrendous sense of “uncanny valley”, where things seem “sort of” but not quite. Then there’s things like the default dialog buttons are arranged in a different order on Mac and Windows.
1 Like
Probably.
But you will never get the best for one platform if you do not use it’s native tools.
Especially today, with Apple Silicon chips, I do not want a sort of Windows half baked for my Mac but a true MacOS application. With look and feel better nd performance.
This should be true for everyone on every platform.
1 Like
I can assure you other applications I use are not half baked for any Mac. They are top level on any platform.
But maybe photolab would be 
And you can work on different platforms with the same “project” without any glitch.
Several people can have different platforms and work on the same (unique) “project” too (by network for example).
To be honest, cross-platform compatibility with native look and feel is what DxO is getting right. Even though there is a common core, I don’t feel like PhotoLab is anything except Mac native. The Nik plugins fall into the trap of being almost native.
Since there is a common core and those frameworks (C++, Objective-C and some of the QT frameworks) are all supported on major Linux distributions, it would seem that a Linux version of PhotoLab is within reach. At least a single distribution which would run on Ubuntu.
Whether it’s worth the investment is another question. I think it would be in terms of becoming a market leader and raising PhotoLab’s profile as Blackmagic has raised Davinci Resolve’s profile as not just a colorist’s tool but an entire cross-platform edit and finishing tool.
For me, DxO is the best framework to work on RAW images. However, I’m not willing to continue with MS because of the new license models they announced. If DxO is not willing to provide a DxO version for Linux, unfortunately I’ll move to somenthing else.
This MS stuff is making me crazy. 
1 Like
Which is why I moved to Mac several years ago.
What new MS license model you talk about
That is your choice, of course. But it’s not likely to happen… ever!
Mark
1 Like
move to OSX - you are not paying for it, just for the hardware for OSX to run on it which seems to be more or less reasonable arrangement
I’m guessing that you won’t be able to use it without an online MS account - as opposed to Windows 10. So it’s a matter of which one you can talk yourself into trusting: Microsoft or Apple. I haven’t decided yet. As a user coming from MS DOS (and others before that), didn’t think it would come but Windows 10 is my last Windows (unless they change that MS account thing beforehand).
And if I find myself forced to turn to Linux and there’s no PL available for any distro at that point, then I’ll just have to avoid high ISO and make sure my photos require less post processing. As I’m not at risk of becoming a professional photographer, I do have that luxury.
Sure pros won’t have much choice, however seems often forgotten that enthusiasts with time (and money) contribute towards the development of pro tools.
Hello,
I can understand your fears, but I can also dispel them. I have set up a 2 Lenovo Legion with W11 for my wife and myself, but without a Microsoft account. If you google “W11 installation without Microsoft account” you will find various ways to do this. Both laptops run without problems, get their security updates and run smoothly.
Because of many programmes that are not available for Mac, I still stick with MS.
And I don’t need the High ISO options either, which is why I wouldn’t have a problem doing without DXO at some point or continuing to use my old versions.
In the end, everyone has to know for themselves what they want to use, what comfort features they expect, or whether they are prepared to live with the error patterns and shortcomings of a particular software.
Have fun and a nice weekend
Guenter
Yes. I’m aware there are several options, however as pointed out by for example heise.de, no one can say which of the next Windows 11 updates will change that. At some point they’ll require a verified account login for OS updates.
By that time I’d like to be able to choose. Had already spent years freeing myself of Windows only solutions (with the last one I was at a stage of integrating into Linux) and then I got a new camera… and again chose software that is Windows/MAC only. The only thing I would honestly miss on a MAC
(and do when I have to use them at work) is Notepad++. (and there’s all the other off topic stuff like VMs, KVM with Linux).
tbh, I’m at a stage in life where I’d rather get a system that doesn’t require much tweaking than spend time getting things running only to find that they have become out of date in the meantime 
Leaves more time for taking photos and processing them.
Well, Windows users tend to search for “their” software at the exactly same name and from the same company, just for Mac.
That’s a curse. For Mac users, because that very software brings the same limitations it has to have for Windows compatibility into the Mac. Take DxO PL or C1: on a Mac both could do much more using the search engine of the Mac. Hence, since its makers want to make more money they need to implement a search engine working for both OS, = dedicated app search engine. You simply never experienced the flawless smoothness of apps running on Mac only. I’m not very deep into NotePad ++ and I admit I like the app so far when I have to use a good editor - but BBEdit has also some neat tricks in it’s sleeve 
It seems likely that moving to a third platform could be complicated for the DxO team, given the diificulties encountered with 2 and their choice (strange for a modern software) to develop differently on each platform, but your “ever” seems extremely categorical.
You seem very well informed; are you an unmasked member of DxO team ?
In wich case @HGF won’t be the only one to quit photolab windows.
Mac started way before window to collect private datas of their users.
And more than fear, this is a fundamental choice.
But windows now (with or without account) collects lot of their user private datas (windows 10 too).
I don’t know what software you use, but every (professional) software I use exist on linux but not photolab (which I would call semi-professional for several reasons).
1 Like