Downloaded the latest Adobe Classic to compare w PL - I am conflicted!

DxO PhotoLab
21

This is what I do and how I can open old works done 20 years or more ago.
I agree this needs to get systems backup.

But without going this far, I like to buy a software only if it evolves the way I need !
I bought all photolab version from 3 to 6, all adons (only once since I don’t use them except 2 or 3 embeded FP functions).
7 disappointed me for policy reasons and I didn’t buy it.
BUT I STILL CAN USE 6.
Not possible with a rented software. You have no choice but pay even if you don’t like what happens, because if you don’t, you can’t use your already done job and can’t work at all.

For me ransom ware finally does not describe this situation all that badly.

1 Like
22

As I said code is not mine (I can’t do anything with the code, not even trying to read it). But if I can use the software as long as I want with no restriction, saying it is not mine is playing with words.
I’ve got it, I can use it forever, no one can restrict this usage from me and I have not to pay for this; this is what I call beeing mine.

23

I use both Lightroom Classic and PhotoLab and if I had to do with one app only, it would be LrC because of its more elaborate asset management and robust catalog maintenance.

All who don’t care about managing their assets can do with PhotoLab. Nevertheless, DPL’s database health can suffer quite easily. All who don’t care about “advanced history” and “projects” can delete DPL’s database occasionally or regularly and be happy with it…and maybe DPL will improve in these areas over time.

As for cost: I get a yearly photo subscription for 90.- during Black Friday. Updating PhotoLab (and FilmPack and maybe ViewPoint) on a yearly basis is more expensive.
Stop paying Adobe’s subscription and you’ll be left with the asset management part of Lightroom while PhotoLab will go on until you a) used up your licenses or b) updated to an incompatible version of your computer’s OS. The b) part is mostly uncritical, but reaching the license limit gets you bigger problems with DxO than with Adobe that allows a user to disconnect licenses from unused gear in its user account portal.

24

I am not playing with words. If you can’t sell, share it, give it as a gift, or modify it, it is not yours. At most, it is on loan to you as long as you follow the usage rules stipulated in the EULA. You don’t even “own” the perpetual license because, as with the software, you can’t sell it or share it with others. Words matter.

Mark

25

I might be mistaken but I think that Adobe invented the whole (voluntary) ransomware scheme when they stopped offering perpetual licenses in 2016? and made the subscription model mandatory. Just thinking about it makes me PO…

I think is disingenuous to say that it isnt ransomware when they did in fact invent the whole category and forced - or tried to force this down every one’s throat. The fact that they have no obligation to make the software better (none whatsoever) nor do the modifications need to be of use or wanted by any of their subscribers. There is no or should be no OBLIGATION to fund something that you dont need or want. That people allowed this to happen by not leaving en mass is their fault as well . Hence we have the Adobe CEO raking in 900,000 dollars per WEEK and billions in shareholder wealth created on the backs of actual developers who make this stuff, and users that are forced to pay and pay and pay for things they may, or may not want -

As an aside, a DAM that is unable to display images from a new added camera is not a functional DAM. Its a legacy DAM but one that is now wholly unable to function except to work on old data - thus REQUIRING a new product that needs to properly digest old images from the discarded DAM, or a continuance of monthly payments - ie ransom

I am facing this now and its yet another reason to get the F away from ADOBE. I for one am glad to see some people feeling the same way

26

Ok. You don’t understand what I mean. I won’t repeat all I wrote above.
Maybe your intelligence is faulty.

I can’t sell the air I breathe. But it is mine. It feeds my body for free. Is this metaphor telling enough ?
You’re probably an us guy which sees property only as something that can be sold.

27

And please, don’t respond me with legal definitions, I would really think your intelligence is really down.

Renting a licence is not owning. Buying a licence is owning.
If you don’t see what differences this implies, I don’t know what to think.

28

An other example : topaz products.

They sold licences. Their products evolved and sometime not for the best.
What if they had rented their products ?
I would have been stucked with some versions that wouldn’t have suited me when versions I kept suited me.

Why ? BECAUSE I OWN THEM ! they are mine.
@mwsilvers
Don’t play with owning definition : this is not the subject.
Call “buying a licence instead of renting” what you want.

29

Perhaps my intelligence is faulty???" Very nice. Maybe we’ll communicate again, once you apologize for that remark. This dialog is going nowhere. You seem to be redefining the meaning of licensing and ownership to suit your own preferences. Continue to use any definition you prefer.

Mark

30

@mwsilvers

Call buying a licence what you want, owning or not, but don’t try to drown out the meaning of the subject by playing with the words used !!!

31

funny but true

33

As a dam ?
What about all already done job ? All invested time ? Did you use it only as a dam ?
Subscription is a trap. You can’t stop it when you have invested too much (I’m talking about work, not money).

34

I was answering a post that used the word “forced” but deleted my response because of the rubbish being spoken in this thread. That said I understand that when leaving the Adobe subscription all your edits remain in tact, you just cannot edit them further in Lr. You can export them though.

35

I think anyway my comment above is relevant.

36

…and those who disagree suffer from faulty intelligence. Very classy.

37

Don’t understand references in this thread to not being able to display pictures in subfolders using PL. I do it all the time, without difficulty (PL6 and 7). What am I missing?

38

For years, I stuck with PhotoLab and Lightroom 6 because I, too (pretty common refrain around here) HATED the Adobe subscription model. I thought Adobe was going to hook people in, raise monthly rates through the roof, offer less for more in features, and stop innovating for their captive audience.

NONE of that bad stuff I was sure Adobe would do has happened. Which isn’t to say it couldn’t start happening a month from now. Crystal ball predictions in tech are notoriously DOA.

But four or five years after Adobe went subscription-only, I caved, and subscribed to the $10 a month Adobe Photography Plan, because the feature set was good enough that I could see the value of subscribing. And it’s only gotten much, OMG MUCH more powerful since then, at least for features important to me and my images. The $10 a month Adobe Photography Plan is a slam dunk value for me.

Meanwhile, what I never would have expected: DxO has withered on the vine for me with their buy-it-and-own-it model. They have raised prices, eroded discounts and upgrade policy, and (other than noise reduction) slowed innovation in features I care about to a near-standstill. I’m licensed in Photolab 6. I still use it. I’m probably done upgrading it. I import images to LrC…

I know, that won’t work for your Fuji X-S20 Raw images for now in Adobe, Soup. Adobe marks Raw image compatibility for this camera in their software as “planned”, so any month now, I bet they will add it, because when they say they’re planning it, they generally do follow through. I’m sure you understand, as a Fuji camera owner, you have extremely high quality Raw images that require a total code rewrite for a very small market share, so it takes longer to get Raw file compatibility with some photo apps. Right now, DxO can, Adobe can’t, but I’m all but certain that Adobe will offer it for your camera soon.

…oh, after importing to LrC, I send it to DxO PL for optical corrections and noise reduction. Lightroom can do those things better than they could a while back, but PL is still marginally better at them if I pixel peep. But then I do my tone, color, and local adjustments in Lightroom and Photoshop. For me they are intuitive there. Personally I’ve never gotten DxO’s approach to local adjustments. The mileage of others varies…

If I were you, given what you’ve said here, I would seriously consider waiting this summer for the Black Friday (late November) one week sale that DxO has offered in the past, but note, these sale prices are weakening. In mid-November. Do a free trial, not of PhotoLab, which I would not be a new buyer of today, but DxO PureRaw that does what you need in converting Fuji Raw to DNG with optical corrections, noise reduction, and other basic tweaking, And combine that with an Adobe Photography Plan subscription. Watch a bunch of YouTube videos, concentrating on what masking and AI can do in Lightroom and Photoshop. A few years ago, I was allergic to Photoshop. There are many things users can do in PS that don’t require 20 steps that PS can do better than LrC.

3 Likes
39

[quote=“JanesJr1, post:37, topic:38539, full:true”]
Don’t understand references in this thread to not being able to display pictures in subfolders using PL. I do it all the time, without difficulty (PL6 and 7). What am I missing?
[/quote

I am on Mac. If I go to a top level folder I cannot see the images in the child folders. I have to access each child folder individually.

1 Like
40

Funny - I am coming to the EXACT same conclusion as you after spending a week with PL and a few days with LrC. The XS-20 is supported by both programs.

I think my plan is (as suggested) is to wait to see what happens with PL 8 before making a final decision on what to do. Not really a fan of going from RAW to DNG as the files are big already using compressed RAW and I dont want to duplicate every image that I like with a DNG file. I am impressed with some of the PL capabilities and its layout. But- it needs to have a reliable, functional DAM. Without being able to open a master folder and its subfolders its totally hamstrung as is.

With some digging I realized that the color profile or render (not sure whats the right term) being applied to the fuji RAWs initially in PL are a generic one that has a similar counterpart in LrC . Once I set it to match, the RAW processing was nearly identical. I cant discern any meaningful difference between the 2 now. LrC gives you a large number of color rendering options that I guess are what DXO sells as the Film Pack. Its almost too many options but they get applied with just a hover, so its a nice feature.

Thanks for the solid and lengthy reply!

1 Like
41

Colin,

Not sure what I (and others) are doing wrong but if I click on a folder in PL that has subfolders, nothing shows up except the top most folder that was selected. Nothing else opens and the files to not show up in the library (or whatever its called)

Would love to know if there is some switch or something that gets the subfolders to open