120€ !
Almost as much as PL Elite (150€).
Pascal
My way for DAM was:
Lightroom 6 -> IMatch 2018 -> AcdSee Pro 2019 -> Lightroom Classic CC Free
IMatch had awfull write back times for metadata and many application freezes, caused by the usage of ExifTool in the background. I did not like the way how metadata was synchronized.
Acdsee writes its hierarchical keywords in a way, which can be only understood by Acdsee, so you are closed in.
Using Lightroom with XMPs it is sure, that every other software can understand your keywords afterwards. In addition you can be sure, that the camera support for previews is up to date, so you do not depend on update cycles of open source software to display raws.
1 Like
Thank you for these insights, and confirms my choice of staying with LR. But one thing I am curious about is what is “Light Classic CC Free”? Is that the limited version of the trial once it expires?
Yes, using it right now. Running this plugin http://www.johnrellis.com/lightroom/anyvision.htm to auto tag all my images using Google Vision. They dont’ write to the keywords, but to a specific plugin section of keywords so you can use them in search but they don’t export. With 1-year trial you can scan like 50,000 images for free.
I also tried a lot of tools and Lightroom is probably the most convenient with DxO. I also tried IMatch and just earlier today Photo Supreme. All nice tools but their UX is a mess, they look even more outdated than Lightroom, but more importantly, they crash all the time when doing batch operations.
The best thing these two DAM tools have is stacks AND versions. Stacks being multiple version in a batch of images that was taken in quick succession (Lightroom has this), and Versions are multiple versions of the same imageas as in the RAW, TIFF, JPEG which you can then designate for different purposes e.g. printing, web sharing (Lightroom doesn’t have this feature).
I guess they are not bad tools but you have to be extremely patient (and I am on a top of line Win 10 system).
Yes, exactly, the expired version.
I have written a script for a tool called AutoHotkey that allows me to call PhotoLab from Lightroom by pressing F2 on the selection of raws I select in Lightroom. So the integration is perfect. PhotoLab replaces Lightroom’s Develop Module, while Lightroom’s Library Module is free to use.
Do you export back to Lightroom via plugin or using regular “export to disk” feature in PhotoLab?
Export to disk, because export to Lightroom causes raws and exported jpegs to stack, which I do not like. I could remove the auto stacking from DxO’s Lightroom Plugin, but using export to disc is easier. I just let Lightoom rescan the export folder for changes and the PhotoLab jpegs appear in Lightroom.
I have a filter for raws only and non raws only. After I am done with the roundtrip, I hide the raws in Lightroom, so that I do not see the images twice, but only the PhotoLab exports.
3 Likes
Interesting…I thought based on the way ACDsee talk about importing the LR database here:-
ACDSee can import a Lightroom™ Database.
To import a database, navigate to Manage mode, and then to Tools | Database | Import | Database from the top menu bar.
ACDSee supports Collections, Keywords, Ratings*, and Color Labels.
- Star-based ratings will be converted to a 1-5 rating system. 1 star = 1, 2 stars equals 2 etc.
That it might be structurally similar/same?
That is exactly the problem. Everyone understands the Lightroom language, everyone offers an import from a Lightroom catalog or Lightroom produced XMPs, but you will search very long for a tool, that wants to import from AcdSee. This is dangerous, if you want to move away from AcdSee some day.
The problem is mainly with categories and hierarchical keywords. Categories are read directly from the LR catalog/database and are converted into Acdsee categories, which is tool specific. For hierarchical keywords in XMPs different tools use different XML tag names and hierarchy level delimiters like < or |. The most common tag name is lr:hierarchicalSubject, lr like Lightroom. This can be understood by every serious DAM software and even PhotoLab imports from there. Acdsee places its hierarchical keywords in XMP in a private tag like acdsee:subject (or similar, can’t remember exactly). Most tools will not search there for keyword information, because AcdSee does not have Lightroom’s market share.
Thanks for the insight and information…seems that I would have been premature to decide that ACDsee (seemed to?) fit the bill as LR for its DAM replacement.
So, if DxO can develop their DAM based on, as you say a non proprietory structure that logically can only be a good thing 
I will just have to be patient in that regard
I do not think, that there will be much DAM activity, because most users do not seem to value this effort. If you release a PhotoLab with improved DAM only, for the most people it is a worthless release. So if DxO wants to improve there over time, DAM can only cover 10-20% of all features, so that most people can be happy with the other improvements.
Frankly, I agree with you when I first noted that the DAM function was apparently being developed at the expense of the other core functionality my initial thought was “please no!..it more refined processing power & function is what you seem to do best…stick with that…”
IMO the strength of DxO PL is in the post processing not the DAM…they do not need to follow the herd in that regard. However, there does seem to be a trend that software developers have in that they want to expand their products’ functionality and arguably in part that can become a race that no one can win because it dilutes the effort and means that all you get are a widening range of the PP equivalent of ‘a Swiss Army Knife’. NB my workflow has always been KISS, even before I bought into the DxO PL world, of LR for DAM and precursor PP and then into PS as needed and back to PS as appropriate and then as I needed to print more using commercial printers, I found the now old but still fully usable PhotoKit Sharpener toolset.
When it comes to Post Processing of images I have learned that “one size does not always fit all” when it comes to getting what I need even if I never (initially) use all of a particular softwares functions FWIW I came to PL as a result of a recommendation for the PRIME noise reduction and found it was stellar compared to the likes of LR in that respect. On that one function I paid for it with the intention of learning how to use it more fully…that path is still being walked 
I would rather they kept developing PL’s capabilities for developing Raw and forget about a DAM.
Plenty on things in the voted wish list to be cracking on with that will make a great Raw developer even better without getting distracted and tying up resources.
4 Likes
Agreed. A lot of room for improvement still to speed up RAW workflow, further automation options (optional fo course).
I wouldn’t mind be able to compare two photos side by side.
4 Likes
This works for before/after and on versions of the same image. Showing 2 different images shouldn’t be that much of an extra penalty performance wise.
Ok, that may be a bit off topic:
I am still and a long long user of IDimager, the predecessor of PhotoSupreme and I did not jump on to PhotoSupreme because of the initial lack of DxO support. But this is long time ago.
So, can you please explain what is now the situation with PS and DxO?
Thank you, horst
I only know PSU and not the predecessors. What I mean with works well is:
- I can link DPL with PSU and with a click of a button in PSU I can open DPL
- full roundtrip of keywords, geo-tags, nothing gets lost
- I am a PSU user know for 6 months - before I had Media Pro - and have not had any issues
- very responsive and helpful support
Sigi
Exactly: There are so many “small but very relevant” details that more urgently should be corrected, improved, or implemented - and these can not be added externally like a DAM could…
3 Likes
Yes but PL3 has not DAM function.