Hello Mike,
- All the new bodies will be released in PL3. PL2 is still supported but only for bug fixing.
Regards,
Svetlana G.
Exactly!
Regards,
Svetlana G.
Which category does the Leica Q2 belong to?
- body or lenses
If it is considered as a body I would have to upgrade to PL3 without knowing if and when the Q2 will be added
Regards
Günther
1 Like
It’s definitely a body.
Regards,
Svetlana G.
Hello Svetlana,
thanks for the answer, after apparently no support was planned for the Leica Q2, an upgrade to PL3 is useless.
Regards
Günther
You are welcome. I see it in the list of the planned cameras but I can’t tell you the date as there is no info about it.
So yes, if the only reason for you to update is this body, you’d better to wait a bit.
Regards,
Svetlana G.
Thanks
Günther
Il y effectivement quelques oublis qui font un peu tache dans un logiciel censément français, mais enfin rien de dramatique qui gênerait le travail ; ce sont les titres de “rubriques” (ou “palettes”) du panneau de développement : « Essential tools », « Color », « Geometry », « Detail » (sans accent)… Curieusement, la petite palette « Nouveautés Photolab 3 » apparaît bien en français…
1 Like
That infuriating barrier of having to create catalogues and sessions to even see one’s photos in CaptureOne is hardly a benefit.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with highlight recovery in PhotoLab in comparison to Lightroom or CaptureOne. That’s just disinformation. If you’d like to make claims like that please put a RAW on the table, with your C1 and PhotoLab or Lightroom and PhotoLab versions.
For tethering, C1 is obviously a better choice. Or the camera manufacturer’s software in some case. This is an area where PhotoLab doesn’t compete. How are you using tethering in your workflow? Or is this just a theoretical “advantage” for you?
I need to reopen the menu several times to filter images properly (for example I need to reopen the menu to remove 0,1,2,3 star rating if I want to see only 4 and 5 stars images),
This is a genuine grievance. The price to be paid for the false-pseudo DAM. I’ve written many times that by claiming a DAM and adding half-hearted DAM features PhotoLab is opening a world of pain where they will be judged against other DAM software. Adding keyboard shortcuts or at least a single menu trip to be able to filter effectively would be a big help. The reset command is okay but then setting up filtering all over again is a nightmare. Taking a look at how Lightroom 4 manages filtering on metadata would be a good start: if DxO chooses to go further or even this far down the DAM path. I’d be fine with the DAM features just going out the window completely. If I’m in PhotoLab, my goal is to process a folder of select pictures, not browse through said pictures hopelessly slowly.
On the other hand, complaining that PhotoLab is lacking in tools to move corrections around between images in a set is disingenuous:
I cannot copy partial correction settings between image… Those are limitations that I never noticed in Lightroom (haven’t used it for some time too, since it became subscription only to be exact).
PhotoLab has far more powerful tools to store and copy settings among images, including creating duplicates of images (very fast way to manage variations of an image) and Presets. You can create a Preset from any image instantly and then modify it. Presets are far more powerful as once you have created a good one, you can apply it again and again to multiple images. If you haven’t learned to use Presets properly, that’s not PhotoLab’s fault but your own. If you are so stuck on the Lightroom way of doing things, no one has taken Lightroom off the market – actually someone has, Adobe. To get and use Lightroom you have to be willing to give up any privacy and commit to a lifetime subscription.That Adobe has chosen to withdraw their software from purchase is not a reason for PhotoLab to exchange its excellent and powerful Preset system for Lightroom’s awkward and clunky copy corrections method.
Photolab is not optimised for speed when I am not under any pressure of any kind, I imagine that very few wedding or portrait photographer would consider using it.
I’ve complained more about PhotoLab speed than anyone on earth (when my primary camera was a 5DSR). Processing large images (greater than 40 MB, 36MB D810 images don’t seem to suffer the same issues) is very painful.
On the other hand, outside of very large RAW files PhotoLab workflow is not slow. It’s faster, thanks to the powerful presets and partially automated tools. Your default preset can be set to auto-level and auto-crop and have the colour profile which suits you applied straight out of the gate, you can add or not add some of the smart lighting, clearview type features as you so choose. I’ve chosen not to use those smart filters by default as I prefer Lens Sharpness, Fine Contrast and manual adjustment most of the time than algorithmic adjustment. I get better and more unique results that way.
Your post would be better suited to its own “I don’t like PhotoLab” thread than to anything unique about PhotoLab 3 upgrades.
Your point is well taken about the clone/repair tool:
Lightroom was usually making excellent guesses at where the best source for clone/repair was in the image. With Photolab I need to do it manually extremely often (same goes for Capture one).
PhotoLab 2’s repair/clone tool is pretty awful. It’s enough to avoid a trip to Affinity Photo most of the time. However if an image needs serious clone/repair, one is so much better off in Affinity Photo or another pixel editor (GIMP, Pixelmator even Acorn or Photoshop, preferably in a CS6 version without a subscription) for speed. Lightroom’s own speed with heavy cloning/repair is not very good either.
If DxO is offering a tool, it should be a very good one. Hence I’m happy to see an upgrade of clone/repair and hope DxO will continue to improve on it.
On the other hand, Man and Xeltros are making totally unreasonable demands of DxO:
focus stacking, panorama stacking, in built HDR, HSL local tool, circle gradient for local tool, in built Upoint, pictures compare function, solve performance issues, over sized generated jpg, and then i’ll buy the new version.
It would be impossible for DxO to add that much new functionality at a high quality.
- Panorama creation really belong to its own plugin or as an addition to ViewPoint, not to PhotoLab’s feature set (RAW processing). As a ViewPoint upgrade or its own module, panorama tools would generate its own revenue stream.
-
Not sure how much use HDR is but yes, DxO should keep up with cameras and RAW development best practices for HDR.Just figured out that the HDR you are talking about is not real HDR but probably the pseudo-HDR crap which is in Aurora: PhotoLab can create more astonishing, naturalistic HDR images with the existing toolset than a dedicated HDR tool like Aurora when dealing with single wide-gamut RAW images. I tested the two of them side by side. With multiple images, it would make more sense to develop a couple of images separately and then merge them in Affinity Photo or Photoshop. The HDR tools are pretty good in Affinity Photo btw, even if the RAW development module is lousy (sounds like a marriage made in heaven and it is). - Local adjustments and u-point are already very powerful.
- Export without Prime is very fast on even reasonably powerful computers (my laptops are eight year old 2.3 GHz MBP, albeit quad core).
- Image comparison: this is DAM functionality and will create all kinds of trouble. On the other hand, being able to do a split screen between two images just as one can do a split screen between before and after on a single image would be very useful. The problem is those asking for this won’t be happy with two images. As soon as you have two images, you’ll want three and then five and then six and then complain about the performance while you are at it.
- Performance issues: yes, yes and yes. Performance affects the experience of everyone who touches PhotoLab, whether professional or casual photographer. While when I compare the quality of images between by 26 MP Nikon Z6 and my 50 MP Canon 5DSR, I don’t see the utility of high resolution images the reality of the market is that many professional bodies are at that size or up to 60 MP now, not to mention the 100 MP Fuji GFX line. PhotoLab has to keep up with the reality of what’s in the field.
- 3D correction. That’s looking for another tool though.
PhotoLab cannot be all things to all people. DxO has to focus on what PhotoLab does well and make sure it’s the very best at that. In my opinion that’s a RAW developer. This means prompt support for new bodies, new lenses. The Leica Q2 fiasco is unbelievable: people bought PL2 to get support for the Q2, that promised support never arrived and now they are asked to upgrade to PL3 for the hope of support for the Q2 - this kind of nonsense just shouldn’t happen, it erodes trust.
On the other hand, those who won’t consider or approve or like or use or upgrade PhotoLab until it has all the features of Photoshop, Lightroom, CaptureOne, On1, Luminar, Aurora all wrapped up into one impossible to use bundle. Bad software is created by just adding more features, without a clear vision. Knowing the boundaries of an application is the key to creating great software.
7 Likes
So any new Lens modules for old DPL2-supported bodies won’t work with DPL2?
So, if I don’t buy any new bodies, I can use/download new lens modules for my old bodies.?
Mike
I think the ‘comparitor’ should work well for just 2. It could be made to function thus, which is best between these 2, OK, dump the worst, add the next, OK still the best, add another, Oh, this one’s better, dump the first, add the next etc etc.
Whilst such things are indeed in the realms of DAM, when choosing which RAW to convert with DxO from , say, 6 ‘identical’ shots it would help to get a visual clue easily/quickly… and side by side would be the best.
1 Like
Hello,
On the contrary. I said about new bodies which support will be provided for PL3, while new lenses for the supported in PL2 bodies will be available.
Regards,
Svetlana G.
- Wenn du sparen willst dann könntest du ja auch einfach bei Photolab2 bleiben
- Es gibt jede Menge kostenlose Software, bestimmt sogar von deinem Kamerahersteller.
CaptureOne habe ich mir mal angesehen für mich ist das eher nichts. Zu dem hohen Anschaffungspreis kommt hier noch der jährliche Updatepreis, welcher um einiges höher liegt wie bei DXO.
Des Weiteren gibt es für CaptureOne auch ein Abo-Modell, also die Möglichkeit monatlich zu bezahlen.
Das kostet dann mal “lockere” 24 € im Monat was wiederum bedeutet, das du spätestens nach 3 Monaten schon mehr bezahlt hast, wie für das Update zu photolab 3.
Automatiken in Photolab lassen sich übrigens umgehen oder eben auch anpassen.
Ah, OK. Great!
So if I don’t upgrade to DPL3, when Nikon bring out the 120-300mm/f2.8 E FL AF-S VR, and you make a D850 module for it, it will work with DPL2?
1 Like
Yep, exactly.
Regards,
Svetlana G.
3 Likes
Splendid!
I’m not sure most Windows 7 users who don’t want to ‘upgrade’ to 10 are aware of this?
Thank You for the good news.
Mike
1 Like
Hello, Alec,
I agree with you on all points, DxO PL 2 is an excellent program, unfortunately no longer for the Q2!
1 Like
Ce n’est pas le cas chez moi.
Crée un ticket et ils comprendront pourquoi ta configuration déconne.
Pascal
I beg to differ. Open Capture One. Create a new session (Default for everything). Collapse all tabs in the Library panel except “Folders”. Navigate your PC folders. Et voila: C1 works exactly the same as PhotoLab with the added advantage that you don’t have to abritarily switch between PhotoLibrary and Customize tabs.
Everytime you open C1 this default sessions launches and youc an browse around and start edits. Where DxO saves edits in DOP files, Capture One uses a “SettingsVersionNumber” folder to store edits, while writing metadata to XMP files.
C1 and Lightroom have more advaned reconstruction. Not that PL’s is worse, the C1 demosaiing in particular is just better with blown out highlights.
Wholeheartedly agree. I think DxO should just offer search options (like they do and I think they offer enough) + and basic reading and writing of existing metadata e.g. labels, ratings, title, description and copyright. Comparing two different images is also helpful addition, as well as more advanced export options (e.g. sizing algoritms, file formats, watermarks).
Focus on the RAW processing and improve workflow:
- Improve keyboard shortcuts
- Improve performance
- Improve preset management
- Maybe add rules and routing for further automation to get the best default (e.g. Camera X, ISO Y = apply preset Z).
- Add a few more useful auto features e.g. auto (neutral) white balance, auto intelligent masking (mask whole face with 1 button press)
- Make all adjustments global and local
1 Like
Étonnant, merci pour l’info illustrée.
Mais j’ai vu qu’il y avait une option de menu pour renommer chaque palette à sa guise ; donc quelle que soit sa source, le problème est maintenant contourné 
Pardonne la naïveté de ma question, mais que veut dire “créer un ticket” ? (Je connais “avoir un ticket”, mais c’est tout à fait autre chose 
)