DxO is shortsighted wrt phone camera support

My phone has become my walk-around camera and it takes excellent photos. I always shoot RAW and would love to use PL6 as my RAW processor. PL6 works great on my Canon R6 images and lack of phone support is an issue. I have an Adobe subscription and as their camera/lens support improves, I might just drop Photolab since at least half my shots are with my phone.

I think DxO is missing a bet here. My camera club has many members who are now phone-centric and only use “real” cameras in the few situations where camera phones are inferior (fewer and fewer of these scenarios as phones improve). DxO puleeze do not become the buggy-whip of post processing software.


Really? And are the “RAW” files truly RAW, not processed in any way by the phone? Why not use PhotoLab for the JPEG files the phone produces?

1 Like

I don’t know what is the percentage of people who want to process RAW files taken with a smartphone in software such as PhotoLab 6, but I would think its very small. Considering how many smartphones come out, trying to get all the lens corrections for all the smartphones and many with several cameras in the way DXO does it would be a lot of work for what I would imagine is a small number of users, making it a questionable business strategy. If there is data out there to counteract me, by all means post it here.

Its one thing to shoot picture with smartphone, but its quite another to shoot raw files with smarphone and process them. That is unusual practice for most people. Photographers tend to either take full advantage of pro mirror less camera system and shoot raw for post processing, or shoot smartphone picture for other reasons and not worry about any elaborate processing in software like DXO. Lightroom mobile I think exists and similar apps, for simple adjustments and I don’t know to what extent RAW files from smartphones are malleable. Also most RAW files I’ve seen from smartphones, are really pretty bad compared to even 1" Sony pocket cameras from RX line. So for few users who really want to work with smartphones raw files in DXO, I think we are talking about too small number of users for DXO developers to put that kind of effort, and you can still process files in Adobe or Capture one apps I think.

I know the DXOMark does more testing of smartphones now than actual mirrorless camera systems, but I’ve read somewhere that DXO that makes PhotoLab is not the same company as DXO Mark anymore. Could be wrong on that.


Yep…RAW dng files. I have checked and they are much better for post processing than jpegs.
Having tried both ways, I never shoot just jpegs.


Beg to differ…I belong tio a club with excellent photogs. Many have high end cameras, but there are situations where the results from a highend phonecam are indistiguishable from a “real” camera - even for pixel peepers. There are pros shooting with phones. I am guessing the RAW files you are viewing are shot by folks that don’t know how to shoot or are using a phone for shots that require a camera. I am pretty sure DxO will regret not calibrating high end phones. I am a user of PL6 and the NIK collection, so I am not anti-DxO.


p.s. Do you suppose there is a reason the Lightroom Mobile camera provides dng RAW files? Perhaps they see the handwriting on the wall…

1 Like

But Lr itself has supported dng for what seems like ever so perhaps the Adobe camera app supporting same is an obvious step taken to maintain connectivity between Adobe software.

1 Like

I sincerely doubt that claim. But if you are open for pixel peeping, we can certainly compare. Post the “indistinguishable” images and we can pixel peep together.

Perhaps. But how many are shooting RAW files with phones for post processing? I’ve worked as a retoucher for many years and I’ve never seen that. I’ve seen stills from 8K cameras send to be retouched from movie sets. I’ve seen 12MP Canon RAWs or even JPEG’s. I’ve seen 1" Sony RX sensor camera RAWs. But RAW’s shot with a smartphone for a professional post production, while having dedicated cameras available? Never.

Show me some statistics if you can, and I’ll be happy to agree with you. But I think the perception you have is more likely for people to shoot JPEGs with phones for social media and for convenience than to go on a professional shoot with a smartphone just to shoot RAW with it and leave dedicated cameras at home.

I’ve seen people process RAW files during tethered photography or on location, because high powered iPad’s had big enough screens and processing power to process raw files and see the results. Most of that was for fast delivery to clients or for initial preview or for posting on social media. High end iPads basically were replacement for Laptops and with iOS you had to use iOS app, hence Lightroom mobile was born. But raws being processed were from dedicated mirrorless cameras, not smartphones.

Lightroom Mobile and similar software can also be used to process JPEG’s from smartphones. And can have various options to use various filters, remove objects in the picture etc. Can it be used to porcess RAW from a smartphone. I think it can. How many do it? I don’t know, but I have a feeling its a very small user base. Adobe is a gigantic company, compared to DXO and they can afford a lot of things and lightroom mobile was also a way to push for cloud services etc. Although if you read reviews, its a pretty buggy mess of an app. At least on Android.

For a small company like DXO to cater to small section of users who want to process RAW made with smartphones, seems like a luxury to invest in when there are larger user based with more pressing things to do for them.

You can, however process JPEGs and TIFFs in DXO I think, but I’m not sure if its all JPEG’s or only for supported cameras. Either way I personally use other software for working with non raw files.


I agree, somewhat - not just because phone cameras are popular but because those who use ILCs often also use phone cameras. If even phone camera RAW files are more malleable than JPEGs, it’s an advantage. But while this complaint has been raised MANY times in these forums, and at one time DxO said they were working on providing broad RAW/DNG support for phone cameras, I don’t get the impression this is actually a dealmaker for most people. Personally, I’ve been happy with what my phone gives me as a result of its own processing. Would like to see how much better I can get with RAW denoising and sharpening, but I’m not going to use a phone in truly demanding situations anyway.


There will hpwever be “demanding situations” in my life where, either I don’t have my camera or it is in my bag and there are only a few seconds to catch the moment. My phone is always just a few seconds away (if it is turned on).

1 Like

Personal view here, but I’ve never had the desire to shoot with my phone when the goal is quality. Granted my phone is several years old now, but it was lauded at the time of launch. I find the (in-phone processed) images to be basically terrible in many situations where my DSLR shots are fine out of camera. Shooting RAW on the phone is something I toyed with, but the sheer problem of ergonomics gets in the way.

But yes, let’s see these amazing photos you can get with your phone. I’d love to see one of foliage on a bright sunny day. My phone slaughters the detail and dynamic range every time with its AI image processing pipeline.


Yes almost every user of DXO programs uses RAW but that for many is the only common thing. Combinations of cameras, lenses means I suspect each user makes up in there use a small number, bigger than the numbers using the main camera phones? Camera firmware updates leads to in cases to profiles changing as every RAW file is processed in its creation and each camera maker has their own idea of their look. With phones there may be more processing with lenses corrections (makes life easier to any firm having the sense to allow for their processing). I use a Ultra22 for many shots it has limitations compared to my Sony cameras BUT these limitations are lessened if I use its DNG (and one of the reasons I use Sony and no longer use Canon full frame and 7D2 they were too heavy in my late 70’s. The Canon light weight cameras/lenses were poor compared to the a6000 series ones but that migration was OK with DXO (except they dropped full support in Windows (not Mac!) for many of the Sony lenses!)).

It’s a false argument and one that will lead DXO into an ever shrinking market of just camera users as so many use both cameras AND phones and many, as I am doing use more than one program to process/use them and am thinking why make my life so complicated and expensive with more than one processer program? Look in the phone forums and they have lots of ex DXO users along with some of the other program who haven’t really supported phone processing.

Its not a luxury any more than developing a profile for a camera or lens that a few hundred (probably many fewer, in the 10.s, with some of them) to allow DNG from phones that many more use and probably need far less resources to allow to work in the program than probably any of the new camera/lens profiles but I fear it could be the difference between becoming an ever more specialist program and even surviving. Though the way DXO has evolved in the last few years makes me concerned that survival may be not easy as they have dropped any idea of being a customer supporting/friendly firm. Support was always poor but the way round that has now been removed from these forums by cutting the links between users and staff.


If I’m not mistaken, one thing that DXO prides itself is lens correction, requiring them to shoot with all kinds of lens and camera combinations to make sure they can properly correct for lens issues. Chromatic aberration, vignette, lens sharpness, barrel and pincushion distortions etc.

Source: Counterpoint Research Quarterly Smartphone Sales Tracker, March 2022.

Of all smartphone specs, camera counts have reached the most obvious plateau, with average number of cameras per smartphone hovering just below three for over a year. Nevertheless, leading vendors like HONOR are employing increasingly sophisticated computational photography techniques to keep up the rapid pace of advancement.

“Megapixels and camera counts are important to a degree, but it’s not just about hardware specs when we talk about and compare camera systems. What happens behind the scenes is just as, if not more, important than what is listed on a smartphone’s spec sheet,” states Jan Stryak, Associate Director at Counterpoint Research.

This is due to the increasing importance of software, which brings to the fore advanced technologies like multi-frame and multi-camera fusion techniques. Dr. Hou Weilong, Technical Expert for HONOR Imaging, muses, “there is a lot of science behind our cameras, but our objective is to remove as much complexity as possible so that our users can simply take great pictures.”

The pivot to software and algorithmic photography means processing power is paramount for smartphone camera performance to deliver “extreme image signal and neural processing, creating challenges on the chipset side,” says Judd Heape, Vice President for Product Management at Qualcomm. “We see it as a tremendous opportunity to work with our OEM partners to help deliver amazing imaging experiences.”

And this is more than just enabling the perfect shot. “A good smartphone camera makes taking great pictures easy by understanding intention and providing ‘all-in-one’ in the default mode,” observes Herve Macudzinski, Director for Image Science at DXOMARK. ”Multi-camera fusion computational photography is the bleeding edge technology helping to make that happen, and HONOR does it most elegantly with the Magic4 Ultimate.”

Now, I’m not a software engineer and I don’t work for DXO, but if I’m not mistaken Bayer pattern of CMOS sensors and X-Trans pattern of the Fuji sensors were just two different approaches that requires lot of work to get it properly supported.

What about smartphones. Along with many models who use CMOS there are some who use Quad Bayer sensors, requiring I imagine training of new models for noise reduction and demoseicing. Also each smartphone would have to be taken into DXO lab, every camera used, everything measured and new software correction profiles provided to support RAW corrections at the level we are used to from DXO.

My understanding is that DXO is a small company. And that would a lot more man power, man hours or reduction in quality. DXO Mark website has found a better business model in testing smartphones and very few new cameras and lenses. Because it help people buy smartphones. that is still a large market. But people who buy smartphones to actually shoot RAW on a mobile device, and process raw on desktop in a program such as DXO? I don’t know what number of people do that, but until someone shows me some convincing data, I’m thinking its very small, and very demanding. Hence not sure if its a good business model. Like I said. If DXO business people want to jump in and correct me, I’ll be happy to change my stance. But for now. I’ll stick to my initial comment.

I’ve played around with some smartphone RAW from the days when DXO PhotoLab was still supporting the smartphone RAWs. Here are some samples. Its good for social media, but when you zoom in, problems with details are not even close to dedicated camera. Also dynamic range was limited and so was color and tone response on higher ISO Values. This has improved since than with new smartphones, but many are compensating with no so much better camera and lenses, but lot of post processing in the phone itself. So there is that.

These were shot by a friend of mine with iPhone7 and some are additionally processed as JPEG’s in Photoshop. Year. 2019 I think.

Apple iPhone 7 Camera test: better than ever
September 27, 2016

In the article it also says: Apple iPhone 7: Support for capturing RAW images

For the first time, with the introduction of the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus, Apple has made its RAW captured images available to developers of third-party photo applications. This is very exciting news to serious photographers hoping to coax the ultimate image quality out of their iPhones.

I forgot about that. That those that make camera like Sony, Samsung, Apple etc. Have to also give code and permission to third party RAW developers and you know how Apple etc are about someone fiddling with their carefully crafted marketing photos. This could be another reason why DXO is not working with all the smartphone brands and models. Also read more about how phones process raws in the camera, its in the article.


What most are asking for is to be able to use DNG not for lense corrections those are built into the DNS’s. The stupidity of DXO in not ontroducing full DNG support is the problem not creating pofiles that are not needed


Calm down and try to rewrite that you said, there are some weird acronyms you used. I assume its a typo, because what is DNS? or DXzO?

Sorry I am badly dyslexic so erres always creep in.

No problem. I think I know what you meant, but I could be wrong. If you can. Maybe it would be best to write it with no errors.

I fear being dislexic leads to such errors and as for spelling that gets even better when a spell checkers come up with somthing I have little idea if its the right word

Hey DxO !! At least give me the ability to load and use other PL6 features even if you don’t correct the optics of my specific camera.