Wow- Have i missed something?

At least on MacOS the last five searches appear as folder icons over the directory tree (Favorites).

Hi Everyone

@mikerofoto => This page hasn’t been updated and it’s a bug on our side indeed. We apologyze for that. It’ll be fixed soon.

@mwsilvers => We understand that you can be disapointed and that new features, among which the PhotoLibrary (which once again is a first step towards a full DAM solution) don’t fit your needs.
You should contact our support to see what they can do regarding refunding.

Best regards,
Fabrizio

Its clear the comments made on what users would like has been basically ignored, most felt dram was a nice idea but core program was more needed. What do we get dram started and a miner tinkering with a bug in Clearview that caused problems for some images. This adds up to a miner bug fix not new version and what we get is a promise to develop dram, which mainly wasn’t wanted and nothing else. I had hoped DxO had learnt form the ONE mess and refusal to listen to customers, I fear I was wrong.

2 Likes

Your only response is to suggest a refund? I don’t want a refund but you’re been asking for feedback on what to put in version two and we spent a lot of time with suggestions for not only possible new functionality but much needed updates to existing functions and the reasons for them. Was 4K monitors addressed? Was viewing sharpness at less than 75%, like every one of your competitors, addressed? Was speeding up PRIME or giving us the ability to view its effects in other than a tiny box while processing in raw addressed? Was anything with the core functionality of PhotoLab addressed other than an update to Clearview? And what does the Plus even mean? Is the use of that tool expanded? In what world are these few changes worthy of a major uograde? In what world are they worth $70 USD?

I’m guessing that something has happened and you guys realized that you could not deliver the things that you planned to and somehow had to rush the update the market as is. I’m hoping that’s the case. I’m hoping that what we got isn’t wasn’t what your team planned for all along.

Please understand my frustration. I love using Photolab Elite. I use it almost every day. I think it is superior to your competition in a number of significant ways. However, your overall tool set is also significantly lacking in core functionality, unrelated to Asset Management, compared to your competition. I had hoped with this version you would have taken a step towards filling that gap.

4 Likes

WOW, that was one Weak response from DXO ??
Nothing in this update fits my Needs… With the lack of a Dam tool in the past with PL, I signed up with IMatch . Which as a side note PL will never equal. And they shouldn’t because they were a development program, not a All in One solution. So, I wonder if development steps in regards to DAM development, will be the main feature of PL future updates.
With all the news around DXO PL this past year, I would have thought that the first Major update to Pl would be Eye Opening… Boy was I surprised!!! Maybe spending to much time on the Nik collection, no signs of that either.
If I had presented one of my projects to management after a year of development time with the same degree of advancement as PL2, I would be sweeping the streets that afternoon.
DXO has missed a opportunity to shine,
Mike

3 Likes

Have a look at the Votes list: https://feedback.dxo.com/c/dxo-photolab/feature-requests/l/votes
#1 is " Digital Asset Management in PhotoLab" with 21 votes

Two topics from the initial post are delivered:

  • Fast searching by core metadata attributes
  • Maybe a grid and compare view for photos

Also I asked for being able to filter e. g. by ISO or lens. While this is not fully working (see New search feature in PhotoLab 2) it is a step in the right direction.

So I am disappointed with the content of the major release, too, and I am free to decide not to buy and keep my existing version which fits my needs.

But I think it is unfair to say that DxO doesn’t listen. Also the DCP profile feature was requested, I found a couple of forum entries from 2017 complaining about missing support for color targets.

3 Likes

Fine, but except for Clearview Plus there in not even one other update to any of the core functionality and absolutely no new features in this version except for the search functionality. How does that qualify as a major upgrade?

Thank you, Christian,

Yep, that was the previous year voting and we introduced the DAM feature because it was the most requested feature among all.
Guys, I can understand your disappointment but this time we were limited in time (by the reasons everybody know) and we did our best to provide you with the basic feature. But this time unlike the previous years when intermediate releases mostly contained bug fixes and new bodies support we are going to provide features as well.

  • The DAM feature will be improved with the new criterias search.
    Please, do not think that we completely forget about the image development features, they are in progress, backlog and plans .

And yes, we carefully read your suggestions, see which ones can be easy implemented and which will take a serious development and we take into account the votes you put on them. Step by step we will implement them.

Thank you
Regards,
Svetlana G.

1 Like

I’m currently evaluation the new version (30 days trial) but I must admit that I will probably not buy because the changes are virtually non existent. Something “DAMish” was added which I don’t need, they claim to have improved the ClearView feature (no noticeable difference there) and then there is the DCP profile feature which I also don’t need. Is this worth a paid upgrade? Definitely not in my opinion, that’s simply the kind of update that you provide with intermediate versions between two major (paid) releases. At first I thought they forgot to publish the change log. But then I realized that there is no change log because there are simply not enough changes to justify such a document.

@DxO: I love your software and I’d love to support you, especially given the fact that your company has been in financial troubles lately. That’s why I happily spent money on the new version of the Nik Collection, even though there were hardly any improvements over the free version. But with this paid upgrade to PhotoLab it’s different. I won’t spend such an amount of money for what I’d call a non-upgrade. Very disappointed :frowning:

2 Likes

Have you been doing severe tests?
The improvement is real on images that request it.

I certainly hope that updates to existing functionality and some new features will be added during interim releases. Since I’ve been on board I have a been a big supporter and defender of PhotoLab which I think is still a superior tool in a number of ways.

I was looking forward to a first step towards a wider range of features that already exist in your competitions offerings, as well as enhancements to existing tools. I appreciate that recent circumstances took its toll on your development team, but what we got was still very disappointing. I’m not giving up on Photolab but your team needs to step up the pace of development to be competitive with the growing number of alternatives to Photolab now available.

Mark

2 Likes

I’ve developed a few photos so far and I cannot see a real difference. But that may be because I tend to only apply tools like ClearView in small doses, I don’t like overprocessing my photos. Still, if one tool is the only development related feature that is updated and you charge a whopping 70 $ for it I expect at least a fundamental change of this particular feature. But I definitely cannot see that in my photos. In my opinion there is absolutely nothing in this Upgrade that justifies a 70 $ price tag for existing customers who have already spent hundreds of $ on your software.

Sadly, I have to agree. I had hoped for something more than what we got.

Mark

1 Like

I just watched the promo video on youtube and i don’t want to be negative but just understand correctly:
Clearview plus: it doesn’t show a second controlslider.(i read somewhere in this forum there was a extra control other then microcontrast.) So plus?
DCP: ok i think i am not the target for that feature so no comment.
The new librarytab: it is may be just me but i am seldom searching for certain iso or shuttertime or aperture in my libary, i search for places or people or pets or Stars maybe if i think of to rate the good one’s.
Date? my raw archive-folderstructure is build on year-3months- month- date and place so just go to folder structure for that.
Tagging (people)names would be interesting. (now i use the DAM of my developed jpeg archive to search a person or something, check file name and date and look for this in raw archive and start making a better one. Which is much more work.) On the other hand if the tagging isn’t picked up by my other dam i have to do this twice.
things i miss in v1.2 (or didn’t find/know about) ánd in v2.0 are:

  • compare of a change per tool by toggle. (for checking if a correction is going the right way, in local correction very valuable), by other toolset i can use the on-off switch but a general key would be nice.
  • key combi to preview full image prime nr or if thats to difficult a possible choise of sizes of preview box in floating mode. (open preview gives a box on image which you can resize to a quarter of the image and drag that around and in this box will be prime applied.)
  • Edit history list can be use full as compare tool. click back on the list reveals the steps you did.
  • change preset preview by hoovering over the filters and presets. (now i have select to see if it would be better and select my first one again or do “undo”)
  • improvements of existing tools in behaviour,controlfunctions and visualisation. (can’t remember all feature requests in this matter but there where a lot.)

somehow i don’t feel its a upgrade more like a update to v1.3. I understand what Svetlana is writing. They did had some stormy weather at sea and the kitchen was on just could food duty. But i hope that this doesn’t mean that PLv2.0 has to be v2.1 til v2.9 before they catch up on backlog.
I have DxO PLv1.x for few months and i really like its produced image’s and possibilities as a hole group, nik vp fp and PL,(i stil think FP and NIK have to be rearranged or merge together) I would support there efforts to survive if the “Upgrade” would be 29Euro’s to get an other year updates and implements, but 69 euro’s for renewing my 4 months old “contract” for “just” this cake? geesh hmmm, feel sad and confused.

Peter,
I share your sentiment. I was expecting to see significant improvements in Photo Lab 2 and I almost upgraded as soon as I received the email notification about the new version. At this point, I might still upgrade anticipating that new features will be added with interim releases.Of course, if I wait too long, the cost of the upgrade increases: :astonished:

Joseph

what you left out is that there were also many well-founded votes against introducing a DAM, but the forum software doesn’t support “negative votes”.

The opponents in the mentioned thread seem to be confirmed.

2 Likes

I agree totally, few users ever found this forum, see the number using
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1006
for that. Even fewer found the relevant section on ideas and voting. Again even fewer bothered voting and I was one as I didn’t think the things being asked for would actually be implemented based on the way things had gone in the past.
Indeed only DAM has emerged, other much more usfull things have not which is very much what happen in the past with the OP forums.
But I and others did say DAM wasn’t something of high priority, that now the useless voting concept of only counting agree but not having a vote to disagree shows its was indeed a rather pointless exercise, that lead to a new addition to PL that few wanted and has diverted resources away from core improvements.

2 Likes

It seems the focus has been to woo users from Adobe who have been disaffected by their subscription policy rather than to provide improvements for us loyal users who have been with DxO for years.

I was reluctant to pay for upgrade from DxO 11 to PL, but thought it worth doing in the hope that PL would in time concentrate on proper integration of local enhancements, ie by having proper management of masking and potential to use all DxO tools. It looks as if that is going to cost over £200 by the time we are at PL4. It looks as if the time has come to dig in at PL 1.2 which is ‘good enough’ for 95% of processing.

I might change my mind if upgrade price was halved (and refund made to those already having (over)paid already)

1 Like

If you look on the site it is allready 89,- for 69,- Or is for those whom not be upgraded from DXO11 to pl the cost now 89,-?

I used to use Lightroom and before that PSE never used there DAM’s. But I would say if the idea is to get former Lightroom users the DAM is so useless its not going to work as it is. I say that as a user of Photo Supreme which does everything and more for what I need and is not tied to any other program.
A quick look at the PL2 version didd’t look to be able to support networked and plug in storage something I suspect most photographers use now for backups if not actual current working storage.

1 Like