I also fund Adobe software and they don’t care a bit about my opinion. If you think that you have major influence when you buy software think again. If DxO would care about us, all of this would be PL 2.5 and not PL3 since it delivers everything they promised us long before.
And if you read my post again you see that I am not defending them, I don’t like that button myself and would turn it off if I could, I am just stating the obvious that it is their software and they can do what they want. And from what I see, both you and Friedhelm are still here raging about that button… must be Stockholm syndrome then.
The thing that DxO has going for them is Prime and the RAW processing and demosaicing. They do that so well that it is hard to accept anything else in its place. They know that, hence the mediocre updates and extremely slow development speed.
And that’s exactly why I don’t fund Adobe software. Subscription only and they are too big to care. Is it necessary to constantly provoke and irritate other DxO users? Do you behave like this in all walks of your life or just in photo forums? Friedhelm and I posted for DxO and not for you.
Perhaps you’ve given up on hoping for more from DxO. I can’t speak for Friedhelm on this one, but I certainly have not. DxO are pioneers in capabilities, user interface and workflow in the RAW development domain. I’m sure that as they get over the difficult period brought on by the hardware project, they will catch up in performance and add lots of new features. The recent colour picker is a big step forward.
Then write them an email. Forums are for disccussion. In a two weeks time I read 20 posts by Friedhelm about a button that annoys him.
So don’t answer him. His post is totally in line in a thread about upgrade decisions.
you have a master that does not look like you want.
Therefore, if you copy the settings from your VC to the master, the master will look like your VC which looks like you want it. This also means that you can delete the VC and keep the master, which is the very raw file you started from and that has now the recipe to make it look like you want.
If you have several copies that you want to keep, create copies of the raw file and apply the presets to the respective raw file.
If you mean something else, please elaborate. Maybe in a separate thread?
I understand all that. In PL2 you could just delete the original and the virtual copies remained. In PL3 if you delete the original (the Master) all the virtual copies are deleted. Sure I could copy the edits from a virtual copy to the master and then delete the virtual copy, but those are extra steps I didn’t have to do n PL2. The question I have is why did they make this change if it provides no useful new functionality?
I hope so. But I am afraid I am more sceptical. Why? First of all the slow creep of camera/lens updates which is alienating my long-term users and also makes the tool less valuable in general since the software shouldn’t dictate which camera you buy. Second, the next frontier of imaging/RAW is largely AI driven and in/through the cloud (Apple is doing it local on device), and that requires large investments. Not sure if DxO will pull that off given the precarious financial state they were/are in. And from what I read about first reception of PL3 on forums and news sites, not many feel this upgrade is worth it for them after they were already dissatisfied with what they got with PL2.
But as said before, I am happy with what is… I even shouldn’t have upgraded from PL1 to PL2 in retrospect.
Ach es ist doch noch viel mehr was nicht verbessert wurde, für 69.99 € DxO PhotoLab hätte ich einige Verbesserungen erwartet die nicht nur eine geringe Geschwindigkeits Verbesserung, sondern auch einiges was es einfacher macht. Zum Beispiel ein Protokoll um nachzusehen was man gemacht hat.
Automatiken machen nur Durchschittswerte, ein Bild soll dem entsprechen was ich gesehen habe, und nicht dem was Irgend eine Automatik vermutet dass ich das so sehen will!
Warum soll ich bei der U-Point Technologie auf dem Bild die Einstellungen machen?
Das gehört außerhalb des Bildes!
Jubel über eine neue Version kann jeder! Aber nur wenige setzen sich für echte Verbesserungen ein
Google Translator:
Oh, there is a lot more that was not improved, for 69.99 € DxO PhotoLab I would have expected some improvements that not only a slight speed improvement, but also a lot of what makes it easier. For example, a log to see what you have done.
Automatics make only average values, a picture should correspond to what I have seen, and not what any automatic assumes that I want to see it that way!
Why should I make the settings for the U-Point technology in the picture?
That belongs outside the picture!
Everyone can cheer for a new version! But only a few are committed to real improvements
Current owner of PL2 Elite here (which I just bought earlier this year), and while I’m really excited about the new HSL color wheel in PL3, I’m having a really hard time justifying paying for a full-version upgrade for it ($70 USD). I think this is reinforced by the already-bad taste left in my mouth by the Nik Collection v1 --> v2 “upgrade” (aka Nik v1 --> Nik v1 with some presets and with a “v2” label) . . . But ok, I’m not going to beat this dead horse any further. DXO has a great product with PhotoLab, but given DXO’s development cycle history, I think I’m just going to wait 13 months for Black Friday 2020 and get a deal on PhotoLab 5.
I don’t regret any of my updates and am happy to fund DxO for the joy they bring me in my photography and the great results I’m able to achieve with PhotoLab.
That’s a Nikon D4 file at 16126 ISO and a Canon 5DSR files (resized for upload limits) at 12800 ISO looking more detailed and colourful than any other software I’ve ever touched (not CaptureOne, not Lightroom; maybe RAWTherapee could come close). With PhotoLab it’s almost a pleasure to achieve these results, thanks to the good workflow.
Neither do I want nor need the cloud. AI is overblown. Most of AI is just enhanced automation and DxO can certainly keep up with that, even if they won’t be doing groundbreaking original research themselves (watch the pioneers make the big investments and do the hard work, arrive in time to reap the benefits; Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both did).
Valid point! The good thing about automatics that you can turn them all off and easily enable them when you need them. Some automatics are also flaws inherent in lenses/camera sensors so I have no problem with a default correction on those based on science e.g. lab measurements).
Regarding U-Point… I kinda agree with not always liking it over my pictures, but sometimes it can be quite handy as well so I am divided… would be great to have a choice (like having Local Adjustments as a panel finally in PL3).
Friedhelm, you are being too strict here (echt Streng). The colour wheel improvement is a big one. CaptureOne was well ahead of PhotoLab in colour specific adjustments (we had to really struggle with Hue/Saturation/Lightness palette before) and this should catch us up. Sadly I haven’t been able to test the Colour Wheel palette first hand yet though.
As PhotoLab 3 (for which I paid, sight unseen) won’t run on my computers (Mac OS X 10.11 El Capitan), perhaps I never will. Knowing the kind of software curmudgeons who pay for PhotoLab (the kind who don’t like Adobe, software by subscription and unnecessary OS upgrades), I’m don’t understand why DxO would cut off Windows 7 (last Windows version where it’s possible to cut the telemetry out) and El Capitan users off.
In Windows 7 it is obvious: Microsoft’s official support is ending on January 2020 after which Windows 7 is EOL. If I would make software and have limited resources, I would probably do the same… there are just too many risks and when you run into support problems there is no OS supplier to fall back on either. With Apple El Capitan, not sure.
Fantastic pictures. Exactly the reason why I care about this software. Especially in low light and in difficult weather conditions (e.g. haze) DxO is ahead of anyone else. If I take a pure close-up portrait with my Nikon D500 and 85mm/1.8… not so much if at all. Capture One often generates a more pleasing result out of the box due to better highlight recovery and reconstruction.
AI isn’t overblown (the term itself is defintely hyped and abused). It is computational imaging which DxO excels in combined with deep learning. If you see what Apple and Google do on the tiniest sensors you can tell it is not joke. Thinks like automatic white balance, noise reduction, auto removal of unwanted objects in photos and adjusting for color shifts will all be greatly improved by it once vast database of reference images go online to be learned from. Also, manual tagging photos is among the stupidest tasks in my workflow and AI will solve that down the line. Microsoft Azure is already really good at doing descriptions (see this test by IMatch DAM for example https://www.photools.com/5742/computer-vision-imatch-initial-results/).
The cloud I agree is not something you should want or need as part of your workflow, I meant it more as a chain in the process of the deep learning algorithms not as something you would work in/from or necessarily upload every single picture. And you are right that DxO could easily implement these APIs in their software but that wouldn’t give them an advantage over other software that does the same.
Wer nichts sagt, also Streng ist, wird selten etwas erreichen!
Ich habe in der letzen Zeit auch in der letzen Stunde mich mal in CaptureOne eingelesen.
Habe es auch bei einem Fotofreund gesehen, nur erschreckt mich der Preis doch etwas, dafür muss ich sehr lange Sparen! Bei dem Geld was mir jetzt im Monat zur Verfügung steht, ist so eine Entscheidung nicht leicht!
Die PhotoLab3 wir auf jeden Fall noch nicht als Upgrade gekauft!
Rechne ich 349 Euro, 70 € nicht für PL3 sondern Spare für CapureOne bleiben noch 280 €
Who says nothing, that is strict, will rarely achieve anything!
I have recently read in the last hour in CaptureOne.
Have seen it also with a photo friend, only the price scares me something, but I have, to save a very long time! With the money that is available to me now in the month, such a decision is not easy!
The PhotoLab3 we definitely have not bought as an upgrade!
I pay 349 €, 70 € not for PL3 but spare for CapureOne remain 280 ¬
m-photo
( Marc (macOS Sonoma on MBP16" Intel))
56
Sie können Ihre Meinung haben, aber seien Sie vorsichtig, wie Sie sich ausdrücken und andere behandeln.
Was Sie seit Monaten tun, sieht auch nach einem Rückschritt aus.
You can have your opinion but be careful how you express yourself and treat others.
What you have been doing for months also looks like a step back.
I agree with you about most of the automatic controls. While they are useful to beginners or new users of PhotoLab to become acquainted with the potential of the software, left on default the adjustments are not subtle or artistic as one might want. Fortunately, it’s not difficult to turn the auto-adjustments off in your default preset which means you only need to see auto-adjustments when you want them.
In my default preset, here are the only settings which I have enabled by default:
White Balance: As Shot
Color Rendering: Leica M-E, M9, M9-P, M10. This preset offers a slightly a higher contrast and more saturated look to start. Unfortunately it’s not a perfect match for all my bodies (was ideal with Sony A6300, A7 III, Canon 5DIII, 5DSR, not ideal for Nikon)
Lens Sharpness: on at 0 with 50/50 details and bokeh.
Noise Reduction: turned off but set to Fast 12. The default 40 is ridiculous overkill. I’ll switch to Prime if necessary but when working prefer to either have noise reduction off completely or on Fast.
Horizon: Auto
Crop: Auto Unconstrained. These two together (Horizon and Crop) mean I start with a good guess on on levelling a photo. For more artistic photos at funny angles, I then just disable the palettes to see the photo au naturel.
Most of the other palettes are visible but are not active on a freshly opened up image.
I use handset Lens Sharpness and Fine Contrast as the alternative for ClearView. I prefer the Selective Tone handset as the alternative for Smart Lighting. There are a few cases though where Smart Lighting gets done in thirty seconds what would take ten minutes of masks and local adjustments.
CaptureOne: Friedhelm, I’ve tried CaptureOne head to head against PhotoLab and was unable to come even close to the same results on high ISO images. For low ISO images, the new colour wheel is a really big deal in terms of making PhotoLab equally capable to C1 in advanced colour manipulation. Spending €280 on CaptureOne would be a huge waste of your money, as you are almost certain to find you preferred the workflow and results from PhotoLab in the first place. If you don’t like PhotoLab upgrades and upgrade pricing, with C1 the weather gets a lot worse. An update at half of full price almost every year.
With DxO we only pay for a PhotoLab upgrade every year while ViewPoint and FilmPack come every three or four years. DxO are not perfect, but they are the best we have.
Like you it frustrates me to see DxO alienate loyal customers by not putting in a simple preference to disable the Nik button. C’est une cochonnerie indigne de DxO.
Out of curiosity, which one do you use for Nikon (I shoot only with Nikon). I prefer the Z6/Z7 one over the Nikon D500 for example. I also imported the Adobe Nikon D500 DCP profiles which match the in-camera profiles. e.g. Neutral, standard, landscape, vivid.
For now I export with neutral,neutral and apply a classic film emulation LUT in Affinity Photo which I save as layers so I can have multiple in one TIFF.
Let’s hope so. I own C1 12 and agree that mid to high ISO is its achilles heel. So I use DXO for processing all my photos and then do finishing in either C1 or Affinity Photo (using a C1 session as the base folder for all my files so I can easily navigate, export and tag them… color management and process recipes are two of its greatest assets).
Not completely fair to state it like this. While it is more expensive e.g. 329 euro, 180 euro for an upgrade, it also offers way more features and capabilities and thus suiting way more workflows. Also, DxO is for very few people a single stop shop necessting purchasing a seperate DAM, Fast Raw Viewer/Photo Mechanic and also Photoshop/Affinity Photo for a further post-processing pipeline.
“An update at half of full price almost every year.”.
DxO PL3 Elite (the only right version to buy) costs 199 euro with also just like C1 a yearly upgrade for 99 EURO (half price). Their business model is exactly the same with C1 probably offering more value overall for most people (definitely for people with Fuji X-Trans workflows) e.g. proper keywording, batch renaming, process recipes, proofing, focus masks or something as simple as having multiple images on screen to compare them in detail in loupe mode.
If I could use only one application, I would definitely pick C1 over PL but luckily I am not super budget restrained. My current workflow is:
ingest and cull in C1 sessions (very quick, no catalog needed, great compare/survey views and focus mask as well as base adjust to see if photo has potential). All culled images go from Capture to Selects folder, or alternatively have 2 star rating
process Selects folder/2 star rated images in DXO and export to Master folder within Session folder
retouch Master folder in C1/AP (still figuring out which is more practical vs quality)
manage in C1 again (sessions auto update folders without import or copying/moving so this is mostly automatic, I just do some keywording on only my best images and process recipes there)
V2 vs V3 does a bigger step then V1.2 vs V2 in improvement of the application.
Ive bin in your place when i bought v1.2, view months later v2 arrived and i decided not to jump to V2.
So i am still at V1.2 and the improvement to V3 is much more appealing after a full year of use.
I get your point.
You can install v3 next to v2 as a trail and see if it’s pleases you.
And upgrade when ever you like. Or not.
