add luminosity masking to dxo photolab. I have no reason to buy dxo filmpack ($139) other than to get luminosity masking, which should instead be a feature of dxo’s main image processing software
FilmPack also enables the fine contrast sliders in PhotoLab. Fine contrast should not depend on FP though.
5 Likes
@platypus Agreed.
If DxO want to leverage some more income from Fine Contrast originally and now the luminosity mask then, given that the code is embedded in PhotoLab, allow users who only want those features to pay a small premium for a limited activation key for the FilmPack features embedded in PhotoLab.
The standalone full FilmPack product is then available to those that want it and has the added bonus of activating those embedded features bundled within PhotoLab as well.
For me ‘Fine Contrast’ was the feature I wanted but came at a high price until I took that as my “reward” for Beta Testing, because I had already bought PhotoLab before the rewards were announced.
2 Likes
Hi,
Let’s sum up :
- FP license mandatory if you want luminosity masking and fine contrast
- ViewPoint license mandatory if you want all the perspective related features or if you merely want to flip an image (joke).
- DPR 4 license mandatory if you want a fixed DeepPrime XD (XD2 being IMHO a bug fix and not a new feature).
For a newcomer to the DxO world the whole pack would cost a whopping 586 €. I kindly exclude the Nik Collection although it also has some specific tools that could be integrated into DPL.
I can’t believe that this strategy is only due to a shabby marketing calculation. There must be another reason. This approach is inviting new and loyal customers to make another choice : using another main platform like Lightroom or Capture One and calling DPR or another specialized third-party plugin when needed. This is exactly what is currently happening in my environment of non professionals. And very frankly, I’m not sure that I will pay for the next major release of DPL.
My guess is that DPL no longer has the ability to embed new features smoothly. It is becoming more inconsistent with each release and each new feature. I already discussed this many times but I’m stubborn : the DPL platform must be redesigned. I hope that this work is currently underway… I’m going to hear again about DxO’s lack of development resources but they now have to make a choice. If they believe in their product, they have to invest. Otherwise they should drop DPL, focus on the plugin market and sell their specific know-how.
I don’t care paying a little more for an integrated and consistent DPL offering the whole set of advanced features that DxO are able to provide. But I’m really tired of this inconsistent strategy. They are shooting themselves (and me, by the way) in the foot.
3 Likes
small premium? that would be PL Elite right? fine contrast and luminosity mask should be part of PL Elite, those Film Pack “presets” can be sold separately if you’re into presets because that’s what its all about… film emulation.
lets recap, PL Essential + premium Elite + VP + FP? quit a list there to get a complete software.
You dont need to buy PhotoLab in both editions…and you can get a discount of about 20% for the full Elite bundle.
i know that, but not new users!
get Essential then you’ll realized you don’t have dxo denoise technology so you have to upgrade to Elite, then if you do architectural or street then you’ll need View point, then if you want advance contrast, channel mixer and luminosity mask (to name those), you’ll need to buy film Pack, which is a pack of presets (film emulation) but bring features that should be part of PL Elite?
one other thing that never got mention but only when Nik 7 came out, Nik 6 have VP (also FP and camera/lens correction), but VP got removed in Nik 7.
The only DxO tools I have ever needed, I bought in the Elite bundle of PhotoLab Elite, FilmPack and ViewPoint, which I keep up to date regularly. I have never needed anything else
1 Like
@Pat91 As I stated in my post, the stand-alone packages should be for those DxPL users that want the extra features and/or those that want to use the feature set with other editing packages.
The embedded features should be available to DxPL users for an additional premium, i.e. £10 (12€) for embedded FilmPack and £10 (12€) for embedded ViewPoint features, with an appropriate reduction for Black Friday/other discounts.
As for DxO redesigning the structure of DxPL do you think that is even possible!?
It might be desirable, it might even be necessary but …
@mikerofoto Essential should have been dumped years ago. The free versions I originally worked with, OpticsPro 8 and 9, were Essential versions and given away free by a couple of magazines. It worked for/on me because I bought OpticsPro 11 Elite and essentially every release since except when Beta test/Forum efforts earned a prize!
@Joanna The current upgrade price is £89 + £55 + £69 and a new purchase would be £209 + £89 + £129 for Elite, Viewpoint and FilmPack respectively.
There are bundle deals around and the “Black” whatever day offers help.
But
-
That is a lot of money for a new user and you know how essential Fine Contrast is!? How many have been caught out by buying close to the next version date?
-
The yearly upgrade price is a bit less but still £213 for all three, i.e when DxO added luminosity masking it meant buying FilmPack again to obtain that one new feature, personally I can’t say I am that impressed with DxPL masking, although that might be my ineptitude or false hopes as a result of playing with other packages!
I think it’s necessary (this is my humble opinion as a former software engineer). There are too much design flaws accumulating since years. At one moment, the decision to stop going the wrong route has to be made.
If they do understand this and invest in the supplementary resources that are needed, I think that the product might have a bright future. If they don’t, I don’t see much reasons for me to continue investing in a product for which no clear development plan seems to exist. PureRaw will be enough.
I think it all boils down to competition.
DxOPL elite suite (include VP and FP) first buy and then upgrade every second year vs others.
Adobe’s monthly pay of how much now?
Capture one
And all others.
Then the quality of export and the usabillity. The learning path, steep or easy?
Me personally was drawn in to dxopl v1.2 due the optical module and prime denoise. For a m43 sensor that was a hole stop extra quality.
And the then resonable easy learning path. (until you hit some quirks about highlights and 75% viewing thingy and some other things as rediness in low exposed area’s.
Would i pay nearly 600 euro’s to start editing?
i am afraid not.
i like the module system as in you can buy what you need but the special egg’s placed in external baskets so you have to buy them all make’s that idea less actractive.
Difficcult thing to decide if denoising is key feature in your system of choice.
A FF has less need for deepprime under normal circumstances.
M43 is a great travel system but it hit’s easy 3200iso and that’s also it’s quality limit.
Deepprime xd can go 1 stop further. 6400iso if needed.
Let’s say i don’t want more tools anymore i want very good working tools.
Same in my garage tool kit.
I buy good tools which do the job easy for me and put a smile on my face using them. Not a buckload of general"it does the job but hardly well so i need other tools to complete the task"
The only problem in this comparison is i don’t need to upgrade a good piece of hardware for … Ever until it’s worn out.
And that’s a bit of the pain in the dxo’s pricing system. The maintaining of the toolset isn’t cheap either. If you break it down to 12 months ok, i suppose cheaper then adobe precribtion?
.
Luminosity masking and fine contrast, please. I just caved in and bought FP solely to have fine contrast in PhotoLab. Whatever DXO’s reasons for this lamentable strategy, as a loyal customer who routinely pays for updates it doesn’t feel nice to be milked like this.
2 Likes
Now that you own Filmpack perhaps you will find value in its other features as well. I have owned the entire PhotoLab suite of programs since PhotoLab 1 and have always found FilmPack to be immensely useful.
Besides the Fine contrast sliders and the Luminosity masks, the Time Machine can be very useful for black & white and color shooters who want to emulate a particular historic look to their images. I often use the FP Filtering, Creative Vignetting and Blur tools. I also occasionally use the Frame and Texture tools. Then, of course, there are the over 100 film emulations. You should check them out. You may find you like using some of them. About the only thing I have no use for in FilmPack is the Light Leaks.
Mark
1 Like
Got it and still only need fine contrast and luma mask.
Not a bunch of presets for mimic film illustrated with a small book.
Seriously, if I want to add scratches on my images or mimic more or less film style, I don’t need it in my raw processor. Whatever the method used to mimic it.
If I want a book I don’t need it in my raw processor.
What I need in my raw processor is a complete set of finished tools to process my raws.
Would prefer to be able to choose frame dimension and color rather than have a bunch of old useless frames for example ! If I need one, I can create my style in a pixel processor and not a preset one.
Sad that only real layers exists in photolab to add those frames and surimpose paper images …
2 Likes
Clearly you have no interest in the other tools available in Filmpack and that’s fine. Some of us see great value in the additional creativity FilmPack affords us Perhaps you use other software which allows you to go beyond just basic raw processing. I do almost 100% of my processing within the three programs of the PhotoLab suite. Occasionally I may even send a processed tiff file from PhotoLab to a Nik Collection module like Silver Efex.
I understand your frustration having to buy something for just a couple of tools. I have been stressing for years that there should be only a single version of PhotoLab with everything included in it without the need for additional licenses and without the standalone versions of Viewpoint and FilmPack which could be marketed separately. Perhaps that will eventually happen.
Mark
This is why tools needed for a raw processor should be included in photolab and tools for those who like filmpack style should remain in filmpack.
But, it seems there are not enough people who like/need filmpack and so this pernicious way to force its sale.
3 Likes
Thanks Mark. I did run the trial version for a month before purchasing. I wanted to find value in the film simulations and time machine, but they didn’t grow on me. I have used the vignetting tool, so it’s good to have that. I will make some time to evaluate how much more of FP’s functionality I can exploit. I’m also a NIK user and big fan of Silver Efex, but feel I’ve only scratched the surface of Color Efex. Lots to play with over the Winter!
1 Like
Check Darken/Lighten Centre for “invisible” vignetting
and play with these flexible settings
if you don’t mind to work with TIFFs.
Since Nik 7 it has been practical, e.g. from SEP to CEP.
Thanks Wolfgang. That’s a much more fully featured, if oddly named vignetting tool! TIFFs are a bit of a pain, but for those images that deserve a good polish there are some powerful tools in Color Efex.
1 Like
I don’t think we should suggest that DxO start pricing things “per slider”.
There are already two tiers of Photolab - Essential and Elite. Put the full list of Raw processing features in Elite, and charge the price that you need to charge for it. At least this way it’s an honest approach to pricing, and people who don’t want to pay have the option of an “Essential” version.
1 Like