In fairness to DxO, there have been new cameras added (more work for DxO than other manufacturers as they do more with the profiles), bug fixes, some small enhancements to local adjustments, huge performance improvements to Windows version (missing in action on the Mac which is where I’d see them, I haven’t seen them).
As a software architect myself, the explanation that almost the whole development team is locked down on one internal yet unreleased project would do much to explain the slow progress elsewhere. The problem we’re facing is that if it’s the DAM, the DAM will probably break existing workflow (PhotoLab will be eager to manage our images henceforth) and will require another six months of non-stop work to work the worst of the bugs out.
So those of us using PhotoLab as it was conceived - as a RAW development tool - will spend more than two years without significant updates (to be fair, I did outline the minor ones performed) and possibly even much worse off (if the DAM is obstructive to existing workflows). I’m not sure how much more of the poor performance with a 4K monitor and/or high resolution (in my case 5DS R) files. I don’t mind if there are no existing tools added for a year, but PhotoLab desperately needs proper hardware acceleration and a proxy mode. It would also enrage me as an existing PhotoLab user if I’d bought one of the new cameras only to see PhotoLab support for my new camera lag by nine months or over a year.
There’s zero benefit for PhotoLab in delaying releasing camera or lens support. It’s the same work to do it on time or a year later. The only difference is that when the module support comes late owners are already really angry and some may have moved on to more responsive developers.
Yes, there’s something wrong here with DxO priorities, Mark, you’re right. We’ve both made our best estimates. After its recent brush with extinction, DxO should worry about its existing users first and not chase unicorns or grails (One hardware module was one such, DAM has been an historic holy grail - many RAW developers have sought the DAM holy grail, none have returned alive).
Unfortunately, regardless of how you and I might feel about a DXO DAM, the market appears to see things differently. As I’ve mentioned before, many, if not most, of the serious reviews of PhotoLab I’ve read are critical about the lack of those features. The following excerpt is from PCMag.com
Mark
"Organizing with PhotoLibrary
With the new version 2, PhotoLab gets a bit more capable in the organization department. The former Organize mode is now called PhotoLibrary. The program indexes folders containing photos to let you search by shot settings. That means you can enter a date, focal length, f-stop, and even ISO setting. It’s even possible to combine any of these in a search. Unfortunately, there’s no searching by camera or lens, though a DxO rep told me that the company was working on this capability for an upcoming update. Lightroom CC lets you search by camera but not settings, while Lightroom Classic offers all the above, and adds the very useful ability to search based on the lens used.
PhotoLab still doesn’t have a full workflow function—as mentioned, there’s no importing from media. This obviously means you can’t view all photos from a specific import session, a feature I find quite useful, a nd one that is offered by Apple Photos, both Lightroom products, and Cyberlink PhotoDirector.
You simply open images from a card shown in PhotoLibrary’s folder tree. You do get star ratings, and even pick and reject designations for organizing your photos. But forget about using keyword tagging, geotag maps, and face recognition—DxO doesn’t offer them. If those things are important to you, you’re better off using DxO PhotoLab as a plug-in for Lightroom Classic, a perfectly viable setup. The program does let you organize photos into Projects, in which you bring together pictures you want to work with as a group from various sources."
Mark, this is a reasonable position. As I mentioned it would be trivial for DxO to set up partnerships with the major DAM solutions (FastRawViewer, PhotoMechanic and iMatch) as long as they are not a competing solution. Building a DAM just makes PhotoLab more enemies, slows the software (unless very carefully added) and provides a broader target to competitors and critics: “inferior DAM capabilities married to what used to be one of the most powerful RAW conversion tools on the market”.
Again, unless DxO is in a position to hire a new team for two years to build a modular DAM solution (5 first rate developers at €90K per year x 2 for social taxes, 1 x top manager @ €150K x 2 for social taxes x 2 years = €2.4 million not counting office space and admin support, which I’ll include as part of existing structure), building a DAM means what you’ve noted - a near standstill on other objectives such as improving local adjustments and adding hardware acceleration.
In marketing terms, being the best of breed in one sector is much better than another also-ran in a broader sector. By trying to compete directly with Lightroom on DAM, DxO weakens the whole marketing position rather than strengthening. Unless you think the DxO DAM will be substantially better than or at least equal to Lightroom.
I’m not a developer but can see the work that is involved with all the details you’re adding.
The thing I hated about Lr catalog is that only within Lr you can see and manage your images, that’s why I use PhotoMechanic and do my own cataloging. I don’t really need DxO DAM so the upgrade from PL1 to PL2 with minimum improvement kind of hold me back, plus Mac user complaining PL2 is slower doesn’t help neither.
I agree with uncoy, I highly doubt that DxO has the financial resources nor the internal knowledge to develop a DAM solution. And let’s face it, what’s currently implemented is not even a start for a real DAM. It’s a very dumb search functionality that can only search for metadata like aperture or exposure time. Even the search functionality of Windows Explorer is far more useful than that. And the best, for this very limited functionality you need to index the folders with your photos. Sorry but why should I use something like that if I can have a fully featured DAM like IMatch?
A DAM solution means rating, tagging, categorizing, converting, sorting, filtering, renaming, moving… files, not just searching for them. A DAM software that does not offer all of these features is not worth it and cannot compete with established players like Lightroom, IMatch etc. Maybe I’m wrong but I simply don’t see how a company like DxO that has just evaded bankruptcy can stem such a project. If you ask me they are in way over their heads and are risking to sacrifice their well working RAW converter for some dream they will probably never achieve.
Won’t argue with that. But it is now outside my area of interest as I need software that can handle Fuji as well as Nikon, without having to convert first. That said I do have Nik and wonder what is happening there - not a lot it appears.
Besites the fact that most of this is in backlog or under the list for meatings and i am not a prograamer i think most of them shouldend be mindblowing difficult to implement.
present healingtool is using a region around the “dot” to determan the copied new pixels to place.
Make this area visible with a extra circle and give the posibility to move this around.
invertion always a difficult grey area in masking, and controlpoints are a piece of it’s own, it works with pixels cluster , inner circle and the second circle is the feathering area,. all pixels (edit: exact same color) inside this eye are used to effect the ones which are the same when you select a area with the size circle. i don’t think this is easy to flip over. Masking as in the other functions are much more straight forward. and much mkre to fine tune. like automasking, a clean up commando to show effected area instead of painted area would be making the tool far more useable.
And a invert command after that is then also a quick solution.
elliptical marking area, outer circle, its not bound to the circle as in a border, The circle is only opening the influence area more , bigger, or less smaller, only issue by small circles are the hars influence border , you get spotbeam changes. . i would have liked the posibillity to influence the feathering of that…
last two yes that would be nice.
But first i want more and easier control of WB for colorcasting and wrong choises of camera’s AWB and highlight ETTR and blacklevel ETTL eyedroppers to set exposure.
Those are raw developers tools and not pixels editors.
But then again every one has its own priority’s so
