Photolab for iPad (pro)

Upvote- ipad version would be very popular I’m sure. Based on what they’ve achieved on desktop, I’ve no doubt it would be well made and used (and the competition has, some for years now). Should they? Of course- the competition has/is, hardware is already there, and no number of forum dissuasion changes that objective, external reality (and why try? confusing.)…or the trend toward flexibility, mobility, convenience. Mine is not at all a unique, or unpopular, perspective, neither is my use-case or workflow, the trend toward work-from-anywhere etc.etc.

Finally you are right. The very fast 12.9 inch iPads introduced in the last few years and improvements to iPadOS make iPads a suitable home for Photolab. File management remains a nightmare, requiring separate copies of a document or media item to be maintained for every application (applications if they are not from Apple are not allowed to work together and access the same files: there’s a partial exception for items inside Apple’s media library).

Presumably that only applies if you use the Apple infrastructure - iCloud? Adobe syncs across devices just fine but does of course use its own storage space as, I believe, does ON1. There may also be mileage in working via one of the other proprietary storage/sharing services.

But first make PL a native M1 app for using without Rosetta :heart_eyes:

Has anyone wanting PL to run on an iPad ever thought of what happens when you run a CPU intensive app on a desktop?

The CPU gets hot and the fans start running to try and keep it cool enough not to fry itself.

Even a laptop can get too hot to put on your lap without a support.

If the CPU in a desktop gets that hot, what makes you think an iPad will be comfortable to hold in your hands?

And, as for processing DeepPRIME images…

Joanna, you are underestimating the power of the latest Apple ARM processors and how well they dissipate heat. I have an iPad 2018 12.9" (similar to the current one, this was the generation with the huge jump in CPU power with the A12X and then A12Z chip). Geekbench 5 CPU scores are =~ 4700 with a Metal (graphics) score of =~ 11800. My Mac Pro 5,1 12 core with a Radeon VII (accelerated via OpenCore) scores =~ 5500 with Metal (graphics) score =~ 68000. Yes, the iPad is way behind on the Metal score but does keep up on CPU, which is mainly what Photolab uses. But let’s add some perspective here - Nvidia’s GTX 680 scores 8012, while the GTX 980 scores 15011.

Anything from the iPad Pro 3d generation and up or with an A12 chip or higher is an enormously powerful computing platform. DxO is stuck reoptimising Photolab for ARM processors in any case, as Apple is moving laptops over to ARM as well (MacBook M1, Mac Mini M1).

Heat: the only time my iPad Pro gets warm is when charging.

My concern with the iPad version is that the first few iterations can only disappoint. Photolab is a massive and powerful program and not easily replicated on iPad. If DxO were a larger company, they should probably make the first two or three versions of Photolab iPad OS free to bring new punters into the fold (some would buy the desktop version after trying the iPad version) and only start charging when the iPad version is close to desktop equivalent.

What DxO should not do:

  1. take programming resources away from Photolab to create an iPad OS Photolab
  2. bring a mediocre iPad OS Photolab to a quick launch
  3. charge a high price for the iPad OS Photolab to the faithful (us)
  4. post-launch let the iPad OS Photolab languish in mediocrity for a few years while the team rushes back to shore up Photolab 7 after under featured and buggy Photolab 5 and 6 releases
  5. discontinue the iPad OS version as the negative publicity and bad reviews have basically sunk the brand on iOS

Such a sequence of events would sabotage Photolab on both iPad and deskop. I’m very concerned that the above nightmare scenario is what is being contemplated. If so, I would implore DxO to not even touch iOS/iPad OS for now and focus on Photolab on desktop.

DxO has not deigned to even add a simple deselect toggle for the image browser (we must wait for the messianic DAM built into Photolab 5 for any usability improvements to the image browser). So my faith in DxO doing the right thing by loyal Photolab users (there’s not many software companies in whose products I’ve invested north of €500) has been tested lately.

PS. Until DxO adds a Deselect All toggle to the image browser in Photolab 4, I’m on a temporary no further upgrades/no further investment in DxO products strike. Certes, a good iPad OS version of Photolab would test my resolve.

Agreed to virtually all of that.

At first, I thought, but surely you can deselect all images in the browser, but then I realised, by looking at your link, that you meant the filter drop-down.

Nonetheless, there is also no deselect all for the images. This is a fundamental macOS feature, which I implemented in my app with a couple of lines of code. The standard shortcut for select all is Cmd-A, the standard shortcut for deselect all is Cmd-Option-A.

It would be really nice if DxO would spend a bit more time on fixing tiny (and I do mean tiny) little details like this.

I vote for a Fix It All release next year :nerd_face:

1 Like

I agree Joanna, There are several annoying little things that have a negative impact on the user experience and probably would take minimal effort to fix. There are probably more of them in the Windows version than in the Mac version.

Mark

What I’m after is the deselect all for the images. That way one can make available just five star images or just green selects or just RAW or just whatever. Instead one must toggle at least seven or eight different checkmarks to bring the filters to zero. Makes the image browser close to useless and still DxO prattle on about the mystical, magical DAM they will bring to market.

There should be more respect for the comfort of existing customers and less hunting the holy grail.

Your point about deselect all keyboard shortcut is a good one. The way I work around it is, just to click on a single image or to click away from any image. Support for the Mac OS standard keyboard shortcut would be certainly be welcome.

I think some contributors are likely not familiar with the processing capability of an ipad (and so, current smart phones, etc.), SoC tech, discrete compute-specific chips, and other advances/efficiencies. The design paradigm for desktops/laptops/mobile differ widely in impactful ways, as do how they’re developed (both HW and SW). Stuff gets ‘hot’ for different reasons, and in my experience, usually has not a lot to do with a specific app/program (and sometimes, it does). But the evidence is that competitors make very robust apps for ipad that continue to be funded/used/appreciated, and if were causing ipads to be too hot to handle, no one would buy/sub/use them. So again, technical/HW is not an impediment to achieving a well-used/received image editing app. As for what constitutes a ‘half-baked’ vs a well rounded/liked app, that’s somewhat subjective, but based on what DxO have done thus far, I don’t see any reason for what seems like a ‘fear’ that taking that on would collapse the castle. That those folks are actively contributing suggests they are invested in DxO products - you must like a lot of what you see so far to be spending resources on/with them, I’m not sure where the fear comes from. I think one can advocate for changes in what you have while also supporting new products that you might use. But I do get wanting some missing functionality that is broadly enjoyed/implemented in competitor’s products. File management/search/share etc. is what keeps my LR sub going, for instance.

1 Like

Ah the famous DAM argument – “be like Lightroom”. Most of us are here for the incredible RAW negative processing of Photolab. Lightroom is the worst of all worlds: mediocre image management, slow, bloated with okay image processing.

DxO would do well to focus on partnering with all the companies providing serious DAM and triage tools instead of competing with them.

Those of us worried about DxO spreading their resources too thin have watched Photolab and Nik occasionally get very weak paid updates over the last few years (some of the updates have been fantastic like Photolab 4 which is much faster and allow more touchups before slowing down, I personally like Nik v3 which is just more reliable and better integrated). We keep paying as we’d like to see a healthy DxO keep improving the tools. We worry about bloatware (the DAM could sink Photolab performance) and a “new shiny thing” mentality.

Focusing on core business (image processing) and partnering (image management) would open more markets. Adobe subscribers are not quite as bad as the Apple faithful but there is some kind of weird worship of their commercial champion going on. Converting enthusiastic Adobe users is not a realistic business strategy.

A narrow focused tool playing on strengths like DxO PureRAW is a good step to open up new markets. I’m not sure about the pricing or the lack of options to tune the pre-processing but PureRAW is a first edition. There’s lots of opportunity to fine tune both positioning and features.

2 Likes

It would be hilarious if DxO released an iPad version of DOP that didn’t support HEIF or ProRAW.

Not what I said, and not what I’m arguing- it’s what (a great many) of your co-contributors have/are, though, and I understand that (uncontroversial) perspective. I’ll have to disagree with you on your characterization of LR, and i’m not sure how you went from my use of LR for file management to clumping me in with some notion of fanboyism with a straight face, while transparently bashing all things Adobe- I’d probably be a little more subtle, but that’s just me. I don’t see a difference between unabashed fanboyism and unabashed fanboy bashing, and it all seems just very silly, and in my experience, doesn’t help to make a point or move positive discussion along, again maybe that’s just me. I don’t think DxO would necessarily be targeting Adobe users as much as they would be targeting ‘users’ in general- and of course naturally would be looking at Adobe and other co’s products to formulate their own- nothing strange or bad about that (why would it?). I’ll go further and say - quite literally - DxO HAS attracted ‘specifically’ Adobe users (I’m one, I see multiple other just from this thread) - I think we’re kind of already far beyond that. I don’t think anyone here is suggesting DxO only should/is target specifically Adobe/xxx.co audience (why would that make sense?). A desire to add file management features doesn’t suggest a flippant ‘shiny new’ approach - DAM is a very standard, obvious function to include- those who miss/want it aren’t some flippant trendy cohort- I certainly don’t see that in these discussions. It also doesn’t at all have to be bloaty or hit performance. I just don’t get the generalize fear of the idea of wanting to add some pretty standard functions- none of these HAS to hinder any other development- adding a DAM IS development. I don’t disagree on the idea of them working with co’s who make DAM-specific products- could be a great outcome, I’m all for it. It SEEMS DxO, generally, has been improving and innovating. I guess that just doesn’t scare me as much as other? IDK.

1 Like

I don’t believe companies have to pay for the HEIF license on iPad (it’s included with the platform. The HEIF license penalises small companies - very high per unit cost, flat rate capped at a level which is insignificant to Apple or Samsung or Microsoft but which would eat 1/4, 1/2 or even all of a small company’s profits.

1 Like

Hey, maybe you’re thinking of older iPads. I have the new iPad and it can run crazy 3D benchmarks and stays very cool. And it stays above 60 frames per second on the new 3D mark. Most of the time hits 120 frames per second. And still. After running for a long time, still is only barely warm, I don’t think they need to thermally throttle this chip. The new m1 chip is pretty amazing. The iPad is my computer.

3 Likes

Affinity Photo seems to work without breaking a sweat on my 2020 Ipad Pro.

The 2021 iPads are incredibly powerful, and iPadOS has now lifted its 5GB of RAM per app allocation restriction, which should allow for more professional apps. Consequently, Capture One announced they’re developing a version for iPad which is due for release early next year (2022).

DXO don’t have to release a full version of the app, but this is an opportunity to port the basic structure and clean up the interface and take advantage of the magic pencil to screen interface, and build out the software from there. I’d like a Photolab for iPad development announcement early next year at least. I’ve purchaised Photolab 4, Nik collection, Viewpoint, Film pack, and do want to remain in the ecosystem.

3 Likes

The problem with the iPad remains the file system (I say that as a frustrated iPad Pro 12.9 third generation owner). An iPad is great for content consumption or for applications which work with limited data of their own. Getting photos on and off an iPad is such a pain in the neck (I do not want my photos in Apple’s Photo app ever) that I’ve basically given up, even already owning great programs like Darkroom which I do use on my iPhone.

If DxO does go the iPad version route, I’d like a clear path for making photos available to Photolab-iPadOS which doesn’t involve copying massive quantities of data on and off the iPad. Even with 256GB, there’s not a lot of space for data storage. Ideally Photolab-iPadOS could work directly with image on external USB storage like iXpand. Or at least a seamless import and export into Photolab-iPadOS without transitioning via Apple’s (horrid) Photos app.

2 Likes

Apple’s lack of file system development is perplexing, particularly since traditionally they are notorious for not protecting product lines, summed up for me by Ken Watanabe’s “Let them fight”. So I appreciate your POV.

I will be sticking around Macbooks as my main portable computing device for at least another few years thanks to the new Macbook Pros. I know Photolab is now optimized for M1, but if it doesn’t run natively I can see that as being a greater priority. Photography software is increasingly niche and resources limited, so I probably have to remember to taylor my development expectations accordingly.

1 Like

I’d like to see an ipad tool that focuses on picking, metadata and presets. I have times in the field where I’m not going to be home for a while and it would be great to do some culling.

1 Like