I don’t follow your logic. If you’ve been introduced to PL because it does RAW conversions based on DXO’s accumulated body+lens calibrations – that’s fine. And in that context, PL would be a really nice pre-editing tool that could export files to PhotoShop.
But that’s not what the difference is between DXO Optics Pro and PL4. PL4 is being marketed as an emerging comprehensive image editing solution. But the company seems wed to their Optics Pro paradigm (as are, apparently, some PL users).
The lack of Fuji body+lens calibrations hasn’t been a deal killer for me so far – I bought the software and am using it. If I’m using a non-communicating lens on one of my Fujis, I wouldn’t get that anyway. Likewise if I digiscope.
The only major features I don’t get in PL4 now are +PRIME and +DeepPRIME. But making a side-by-side comparison, using old Leica M9 and original Fuji X100 files that do fully operate in PL4, I find Topaz AI DeNoise more effective and versatile.
Again, I’m certainly not going to tell DXO how to direct their R&D and product development, though there are indicators of the difficulty:
DXO has Fujifilm X-Trans users on staff. Being the company they area, it is likely that those Fuji users are fully aware of the de-mosaicing performance of Capture One, SilkyPix, and Iridient X-Transformer. They are also likely to be very much aware of the years of criticism Adobe faced over their RAF file conversions. Beyond the development costs of X-Trans conversion, DXO may feel that they don’t have the technical capability (or ability to license outside expertise) to develop a market-credible conversion capability…So they shouldn’t do it.
All I have been asking DXO to do in the future is to unlock the software so that DNG files can act like DNG files. It’s not that difficult. And to tell you the truth, if they offered a “plug-in” that allowed open import of DNGs for – let’s just say – $49 USD, I’d be online right now ordering it, completely happy with my “degraded” user experience. (And I’d still have PhotoShop as a backup for capabilities PhotoLab hasn’t offered yet.)
John, what about those of us who shoot with multiple brands and cameras, and X-Trans sensors are part of what we use? ACR (and therefore Lightroom and Photoshop) deal with Fujifilm’s sensors, as do On1 Photo Raw, Capture One, Affinity Photo, Luminar, Pixelmator, and, and, and… In fact, I have a hard time thinking of ANY photo editing software that does not work with X-Trans sensors—other than PhotoLab. No, I think what we are dealing with here is what I call “a French disease” (I think I’m allowed to say this because I AM French): it’s the “grande école” notion that 90% is never good enough—if you cannot deliver 100%, forget it. Larry Clark’s request was perfectly reasonable and well argued. Ultimately, DxO will decide what they want to do, and I will decide whether or not to keep upgrading a piece of software that forces me to jump through hoops to process most of the photos I take. I would have thought that looking at market share figures, DxO are not in a position to be overly picky regarding what customers they want to get money from. Doing a little less for people like me but still getting 100% of the money they charge others does not seem to be such a bad deal. The alternative is that some people will jump ship, and that would be a loss for both sides. Maybe it’s time for a little pragmatism, time to stop wanting to be more royalist than the king. Just my 2¢…
Hi Daniel. I understand the “pain” that you and Larry, and others, are putting up with … while I’m in the fortunate position of using brands & cameras that DxO fully supports. Regardless, tho, I do support the position that DxO are taking … because that’s protecting their key strength. But, I don’t wish to get into a debate with you, or anyone else, about this - as I don’t think it will do much to sway any opinions … In the end, it’s down to DxO - and I’m just a customer, like you.
Here is my whishes for V5.
I’m coming from Lightroom and there is one feature I just love - The Range mask. You can make a Luminosty or color mask. Sadly I can’t find anything like it in PL.
I made 2 videos.
In this video I focus on Luminosity mask. In the beginning I focus on shadow - then highlight.
In this video I’m focus on color mask , focusing on the yellow color.
Control Points Once Again…I know to use the idiom “I’m beating a dead horse” , but if Svetlana reads this again and can use her influence to have consistent behavior with PL’s Local Adjustments, well, my life would be just about perfect. Seriously, everytime I finish watching a DXO produced NIK webinar with Dan Hughes and he goes on to describe how to create groups and then I go back to whatever I was doing in PL and I just laugh! Perhaps Dan should point out that the behavior in NIK is different than in PL.
It really makes no difference to me which method is implemented ( personally, I like the Nik behavior), just as long as both pieces of software use the same method of grouping control points.
I’ve just added to my bucket list to live long enough to see consistency with Nik and PL.
There are two very basic Batch functions that seriously limit PL4 usefulness for me. Before entering PL4, I have to go to XNview to effectively rename files, so the .dop is named the same. After using PL4, I have to go back to XNview with a .jpg to watermark the file. Why?
Batch renaming implementation is all manual entry - no possibility to adopt a folder name, apply the date taken or add a sequence #.
Watermarks in PL4 are seriously pixelated when applied making them unusable.
Both of these are basic functions in LR, etc. but in PL4 are available in name only.
I really looked forward to the inclusion of these functions and, unfortunately, still do. Here’s hoping…
I do not know Capture one but one can read quite often that “skin manipulation” is a strength. Is DPL already there yet - compared to Capture One? If not, that might me a majore improvement then for V5
Yes, thanks for pointing that out @KeithRJ. I guess I saw and dismissed that because, everything else is manual e.g renaming files to match 30 folder names means typing 30 different names. Even adding files to an existing folder means having to type the folder’s name each time - information that is already there, as with the date and time. That is what, I believe, serious renaming is about - not having to do tasks over and over when they can be automated, as with XNview. Thanks, again.
A print functionality with soft-proofing. As a RAW processing tool, I find PL great but find it a bit frustrating when I have to go back to my old LR just to soft-proof and print.
Better camera support. At the moment, I see that Leica SL2/SL2-s are not supported and I understand it can take time for the DXO team to make a profile, but the files seem quite similar to older Leica models, so having the ability to process them, even without optimal modules would make PL usable (I am considering one of these cameras and would hate to have to change my workflow even temporarily).
1- RAW Panorama (with HDR ?) plug-in (with wide-angle like FX 11mm), a lot of projection like ICE from Microsoft and Auto-completion. An Auto detection of pictures with the same focal could be very helpfull.
2- more markers : a color to mark HDR pictures and a color to mark Panorama pictures (actualy, I use one star for all my panoramas and two stars for HDR)
3- Preset Editor with unselect section button (unselect all FX, all chromatic tools, etc…) or a button to create a Preset with only ONE fonction. 2 examples : TSL for landscape in winter or summer are not the same or with meteo : the blue of a sky in cold front is darker than in a warm front.
4- Ability to program keyboard Shorcuts to create a better workflow. Some of them are missing to create a good template with a pentablet
5- Preset Preview with a cursor to choose the size of the previews and a resize fonction of this window
6- Stack JPEG and RAW to show RAW, TIFF, DNG in the same time
7- Eliptic Local Controls (not only a circular tools)
8- Remember the last crop size. I use free size : each crop I must select this !
Seriously, everytime I finish watching a DXO produced NIK webinar with Dan Hughes and he goes on to describe how to create groups and then I go back to whatever I was doing in PL and I just laugh! Perhaps Dan should point out that the behavior in NIK is different than in PL.
