Check out vuescan https://www.hamrick.com/. Works with ~6,000 scanners on multiple OSs.
2 Likes
I’ve owned that for years, thanks. That’s the direction I went with that old scanner. I use it for some tasks on my more modern Epson scanner, but the latest Epson software is actually quite decent now.
2 Likes
I don´t think that is a needed feature in DxO because DxO is not a maanaging software. I cannot imagine that someone opens DxO to have a look on his pictures ot try to manage them.
If DxO add a map everybody want more DAM features. I believe most people use another software to manage their pictures and DxO should concentrate on core their functions.
2 Likes
I’m not saying you are wrong, your point of view is perfectly valid, but who are the competitors? The ones I have detailed knowledge of are Lightroom and Capture One and Luminar. I’ve never used Affinity. All have DAM features as indeed does DxO. In my mind, DxO is certainly better at RAW processing than Luminar and Lightroom. It has better integration with Photoshop than Capture One. But it’s a competitive market. DxO has very strong differentiation with the U-Point integration, and comes out well in a feature by feature comparison.
From a workflow perspective, DAM is surely intrinsic to RAW processing? The first step in my workflow is to decide which images to discard. Another case is where a client asks after the job if I have any other shots of a certain arrangement. Seek - Process - Deliver. It works better for me if I can do it in one software. Time is money.
Perhaps you cannot imagine anyone using PhotoLab like this because it’s not very good at it. Yet. But that is DxO’s intended use of the PhotoLibrary module. If not, it should be called “PhotoBrowser” and not store anything other than thumbnails.
Lightroom = DAM + processing
Capture One = DAM + processing
Luminar = DAM + processing
ON1 = DAM + processing
Darktable = DAM + processing
PhotoLab = DAM + processing
Affinity Photo = processing + graphics
Photoshop = processing + graphics
Photoshop doesn’t need a DAM because Adobe built Lightroom (as a standalone product I might add, not an adjunct to Photoshop). Affinity Photo does not have a DAM but, like Adobe, Affinity have mentioned they have a DAM in their pipeline. Will it be standalone DAM for use with Photo? We don’t know, but as Photo is gunning for Photoshop, I’d expect their DAM to gun for Lightroom.
Is there such a thing as a (mainstream) product that focuses only on RAW processing without any DAM or graphics features? I’ve not come across one.
My definition of “graphics” is a selection of tools to colour arbitrary pixels in arbitrary colours. I believe such tools mark the product as a graphics product with RAW processing features rather than “a RAW processor”.
2 Likes
I use Photo Mechanic Plus for managing my photos, including reverse coding. This software is brilliant for just managing photos and works perfectly alongside PhotoLab for developing. I also use Affinity Photo occasionally for things I can’t do in PhotoLab like warping panoramas.
These three pieces of software have completely replaced Lightroom (and Photoshop which I actually never used) and I have not looked back. Can’t be happier.
1 Like
I have almost the same setup - instead of Photo Mechanic I use Photo Supreme - very happy camper.
1 Like
That’s where many of us are on the other side of the equation. I’d far rather have one piece of software where I can do my entire workflow.
I left Lightroom for cost reasons and I’m disappointed that nothing else has been able to offer the full package for my workflow when Lightroom is the product that most competitors are trying to compete with. Luminar was my first stop and I’d still be using that if they had delivered on the promised DAM functionality. PhotoLab came next and if it wasn’t for the lens modules, I would now be using ON1 which offers a much more feature complete DAM. But I’ve been spoiled by PhotoLab’s RAW conversion.
I reckon if PhotoLab is rounded out with a decent DAM then it would only take word of mouth to make it incredibly successful. Without it, I truly believe the market is limited.
2 Likes
Building a DAM is a huge undertaking and I would prefer to see DxO concentrate on what they do best which is RAW conversion. PL reads XMP files so it works perfectly with other software that produce XMP files, like Photo Mechanic. I cull and rate photos in Photo Mechanic and then use PL to filter my rated photos which I then develop - works really well.
Affinity Photo is the equivalent of Photoshop so can be taken out of this trio of programs that replace Lightroom. You now have two programs which focus on the tasks they do best and they work very nicely together.
Photo Mechanic Plus has the ability to work with multiple catalogs which gives you huge flexibility and allows you to have separated catalogs for different tasks/photo sets.
1 Like
I didn’t lump Affinity Photo in the same group as Lightroom. Affinity have stated they intend on producing a DAM product.
As for the huge undertaking, well it’s already past half way in my estimation. If we really want PhotoLab not to be encumbered by DAM features, then we should be asking for features to be removed.
I’m no PC/Mac developer, but I am a developer and I would rate building a database-driven set of features as substantially easier than anything to do with graphics.
But let’s stop arguing about whether it should or shouldn’t have a DAM because DxO have already given it one. All I and others are asking for is that it be expanded over time or, in your case, for it to be removed or left to wither.
I thought I’d go check out Photo Mechanic. Wow! Very close to the cost of PL4 Elite! For that price it should be very good and I have to say from looking at the keyword documentation it’s not a patch on Lightroom in that department.
2 Likes
While you’re looking at DAM alternatives, check out IMatch https://www.photools.com/. Not free, and for Windows, but very powerful.
Back to the original question adding GPS and googleMaps as feature.
Would it not be better to first set up a good framework before expanding feature’s?
We have read in.
We have internal library editing with as little problem you can’t export this change to a moveable sidecar.
We have propertie writing of tiff and jpeg internal when export but not, again, in a xmp.
As far as i understand correct no independed IPTC support.
So personally i think first set up this interface portals correct so the PL DAM can communicate correct and sufficient with other applications in order to digest, transport, update, and support a central xmp kind of additional data system to have a flexible interface and have a central HUB/DAM inside PL.
Only then you can place every application around dxopl as expanded as you like and stil be central in development.
After a good framework you can start hanging all the bells and whistles on that frame.
I use at this moment, until i don’t need anymore, Adobe Bridge as xmp manager.
I almost never rename rawfiles but if i would i need a userinterface which in i can check which files are also need to be rename’d with that file. Like oocjpeg, xmp file, dopfile, tifff-files, DNG files. And the posibility to change this chainlenght when i need.
I don’t know how much of v4 is able to support now all this things as i said i allmost never change names of sourcefiles.
Priority is xmp updating feature. So we have the DataBase as a extra for say faster lookuptable kind of way.
While I can use Lightroom for free, it’s unlikely I will switch to anything else unless it is free or at least cheap. And it is guaranteed I won’t switch to a Windows-only product, as I have a Mac.
Yes!
I think that’s the important part. Nothing should be only in the database on a permanent basis. Unless, perhaps, it is something that does not transfer to other applications, though even then by including in the .dop file it becomes portable between PL instances.