After using the new version for about 3 weeks, I decided not to upgrade.
There is nothing new (for me at least) that would be a must in this new version.
I understand they are obviously in need of income, and I could easily upgrade to help, but I really think they are taking the users for granted and providing very little in return.
Introduce something tangible for most users and I would be the first one to upgrade.
I can certainly understand your point of view, but let me share my take on the situation. I believe the things that Photolab Elite does best, and are most important to me, are not matched by any other single piece of software. I personally would be very upset if DXO were to leave the business. There would be no future updates including bug fixes, new features, functional updates, new camera and lens information or support of any kind at all.
My upgrade to PL2 was a vote of support and faith for their efforts. It was a small price to pay if I’m able to help sustain them. I am not hiding my head in the sand and I’ve considered alternatives if in fact they were to fail, but in the meantime I’m not going to abandon them.
I’m hoping and expecting that the point updates throughout the year will contain some functional updates and some new features. This has been implied by Svetlana and we will have to wait to see if it materializes. The first point update is likely to be before the end of the year, not much more than a month from now. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
Mark
Supporting DXO is an understandable reason for upgrading. But I personally think a product should speak for itself and the customer’s personal cost/benefit-calculation should determine whether or not to buy a product. As long as it’s in its current state I will also not upgrade from PL1.2 Elite to PL2 as PL2 does not offer anything I would use. But I do hope for a clean integration of the Nik Collection (clean meaning no need to export and then continue working on tiffs, no overlaps with Film Pack…), RAW support for mobile phones, and a Pano stitching feature.
Those would be features I would be willing to pay for. What I absolutely do not need is DAM functionality, imho the biggest advantage of PL compared to LR6 (that I switched from) is that I don’t need to import images to edit and develop them.
I got away from Lightroom for similar reasons. I also don’t use PS and $10 USD per month just for Lightroom wasn’t cost effective compared to the previous stand alone versions. Finally I get much more satisfying results in far less time with Photolab Elite than I ever got after years of using Lightroom. My reason for support of DXO even in the face of a very disappointing 2.0 upgrade is a leap of faith for a product I would sorely miss if it were no longer published.
Consumers control the success or failure of products and companies with their hard earned cash. All current DXO users need to consider whether or not they’re aboard for the long haul and how important the continued existence of Photolab is to them. As I said, for me the decision was simple.
Mark
“Supporting DXO is an understandable reason for upgrading…”
A refrain we’ve heard from many users - and a worthy one.
But I already supported DXO by getting PhotoLab 1.xx - which had nothing I really needed (vs OpticsPro 10). The “Local Adjustment” tools offered promise - but in their v1.xx state did not offer enough function, precision, or efficiency.
I took the software’s title “PhotoLab” literally. A “photo lab” that can not mask accurately & efficiently is not particularly useful as a photo editor.
Version 2’s offering of a quasi-DAM search tool is another partial-step feature; as with the “Local adjustments”. Neither works as needed to fulfill their purpose.
Version 2 did nothing to enhance the features of its core mission - particularly the “Local Adjustments” - one of the big selling points of Version 1.
The strategy of offering partially done features, especially as a major version, is not something I will support.
Just trying to imagine if DxO would have released the new version as “v1.5” with a smaller upgrade fee. They still could have announced a new program with new features to garner press attention to increase their user base; probably increased their revenue from current users with a reasonable fee for a minor upgrade.
That fine. I certainly understand. I’m
apparently much happier with the local adjustments and other features then you are. Clearly Photolab doesn’t meet your needs. I assume there is other software you would prefer to use and would not miss Photolab if it ceased to exist. For you further support of PhotoLab without significant added benefits would not be logical or cost effective. Perhaps a program like Capture One Pro would fit your requirements better.
Mark
Hi Mark!
I will continue to use PhotoLab v1.2.2 and hope that the upgrades in the future will be more focused on their core mission. My workflow will continue to be what it has been since I bought DxO’s Optics Pro v2 (circa 2005-6). DxO to process the Raw files & Photoshop for any needed detailed editing.
I’m a new user having tried and purchased PL1 right after it’s initial release a year ago. Within a couple of months I knew I had found the replacement for Lightroom and uninstalled Lightroom 6.14 from my computer.The software has had a long history as Optics Pro. Let’s hope it will survive and continue to be available for the foreseeable future.
Maek
I would also have bought the upgrade if it had been introduced as something like 1.5 for a minor fee in order to support DxO during these troublesome times. I’ve got no problems with showing my support and handing over a few bucks. But 70 bucks for almost nothing? That’s a completely different story. For 70 bucks I can get a full version of Affinity Photo or the current version of Luminar. Like already mentioned I can understand why DxO needs revenue in it’s current situation. But guess what DxO, my money also does not grow on trees in my garden 
I have to work hard for it and if I buy something I expect a certain performance in return. Something I just cannot see here. If you want money for nothing, just be honest and place a donation link on your website. If you had done this I would actually have given something.
Well, regardless what we write here, it’s probably not going to change anything. But the sad thing is that this bold move by DxO has most likely upset a lot of loyal DxO customers (me included) which I doubt is going to help the company from a long term perspective.
My hope, perhaps unfounded, is that DXO pushed PL 2.0 out earlier then it otherwise might have specifically so it would be available to encourage sales to new users during the holiday season.
The fact that Svetlana has indicated that PL 2.1 will likely be available before the end of the year with updates and perhaps new functionality is encouraging and further confirms for me that this version was pushed out early with a specific goal in mind. If that is the case it would be nice if we could get feedback to confirm that there are features they are working on that were not quite ready to roll out in the time frame they needed to release the new version to take advantage of holiday sales.
If Photolab 2.1 actually contains a significant number of updates similar to what we would have expected in a 2.0 version, perhaps the anger and frustration being posted here in the last few weeks will subside.
As an old user of Lightroom I recall a similar frustration when Lightroom 5.7 was upgraded to the last standalone version, Lightroom 6. There were very few enhancements in Lightroom 6 and for many the only reason to upgrade was for support of newer cameras.
Agree. That $70 US translates to near $100 Can and that’s excessive for an upgrade that is primarily concerned with DAM…which I don’t need. I’ll save that money for the future upgrade that actually has something worthwhile for me in it; (and I never used Adobe DAM neither). I really like PL as a replacement to that Adobe “let us stick our hands in your pockets every month” subscription service (which is why I tried and bought PL1 Elite in the first place). In the meantime, PL1 is more than adequate for my uses. I get the whole “help support DXO” thing but that’s a bit of an excessive “donation”. If it had been, say $29 US then I’d have considered it but not $69. Maybe if the upgrade had included panorama stitching, focus and exposure stacking…in the meantime I’ll continue to use LR6 for those functions.
In another thread, Fabrice from DxO confirmed a general list of new features being worked on for updates to PhotoLab 2. It looks promising. But that’s the problem: we’re being enticed to pay now for a product that is mostly not yet developed and might not be fully updated as planned before it’s time to pay again. I’ve been a loyal customer since OpticsPro 9 and am mostly happy, but since OP11 have personally experienced broken promises and having questions about them rudely ignored. (Two support tickets closed without explanation and one left open and abandoned.) As a repeat customer who has put a lot of time and work into helping DxO improve its products, I find this extremely disrespectful and troubling. I’m very happy with PhotoLab 1.2 - so am hopeful for good updates to PL2. However, I need more than hope right now. PL2 even took a small step backward, IMO, with Clearview Plus being so aggressive with microcontrast.
Support has always been poor. As you say questions they can’t or don’t what to provide replies to just get ignored or closed. Or worse they have given me completely the wrong advice (on adding the A ratio to cropping) Indeed I have had that on the forums as well from DxO staff.
Well, I wanted more than hope and DxO seems to be delivering at last. I finally received an apology from DxO for my bad support experiences. (That took way too long.) Also some clear answers to my questions. I wasn’t being listened to in my support interactions; now, I have reason to believe that is starting to change. Furthermore, I like what DxO staff have been sharing - both in this forum and in my own support requests - about developments that are underway. I want to continue to help improve the products and benefit from new features and fixes - and frankly, that great sale going on right now was irresistible. So I’m all in.
I hope you get some satisfaction, too, John.
I am very enthusiastic about the software DxO PhotoLab 1 Elite and recommend it to others: Easy to use, the U-Point technology is great (I already knew it from Nikon’s Capture NX 2), the image results are convincing and the optical corrections speak for themselves.
In spring 2018 I bought DxO PhotoLab 1 Elite for € 149.99. In autumn 2018 the DxO PhotoLab 2 software was released. If I wanted to upgrade, I would have to pay € 69.99 (only 50% discount). I don’t think this is a fair price. I think it’s very good that you don’t sell a software subscription like Adobe Lightroom. After all, I have the choice whether I need an upgrade or not. But if I want to stay up to date with the latest software, DxO PhotoLab will cost me a lot more than Lightroom (at least until now with this release cycle).
I am very aware that software development is an expensive business. Nevertheless, the price question arises in comparison, especially for me as a hobby photographer. Because the innovations in version 2 are not earth-shattering.
I agree only in “What I absolutely do not need is DAM functionality, imho the biggest advantage of PL compared to LR6 (that I switched from) is that I don’t need to import images to edit and develop them.”
Egregius mentioned this forum as a plus:
I agree. In case DxO are internally wondering about the value of this open (yet always civil and mostly courteous) forum - the forum interaction and Svetlana in particular are what persuaded me to commit to and purchase the full DxO suite.
So far there doesn’t seem to be, but it’s not clear what if any controls, other than Clearview, have been improved. tellthebell
More on the new features here
https://www.dxo.com/dxo-photolab/features/
But PL2 is too slow on Mac compared to PL1, maybe its going to be fixed with PL3