Thanks for this clarification, Greg …
I don’t understand this one, tho ;
Could you elaborate a little, please.
John
@platypus
I meant that the second image was a draw. The XD-variant of Image 1 is smeared more I think and in that case I think i prefer the DP-variant but I think you are right. We have to test and see what comes out best - in our own eyes.
@John-M , If your histogram lingers in the noisy left corner and you raise exposure, both the image AND the noise will be “amplified”.
From a mathematical point of view…
noise can only be left as is (no raising the exposure) or amplified together with the signal (the dark image parts). Noise filters always affect the signal too. The affected signal (image detail loss) might be less perceptible, obvious or annoying than the noise though.
From a practical point of view…
noise can only be reduced by exploiting it’s randomness: Average a bunch of shots and noise levels will decrease. Astro photographers do that all the time.
The upgrade extortion is now more expensive than the annual cost of Adobe’s photography plan - which includes Photoshop and Lightroom.
That’s a truly remarkable position for DxO to take. Perhaps they think Photolab alone is better than the combination of Photoshop and Lightroom and, therefore, worth the price hike.
I could hardly disagree more.
Andrew.
Yes, almost as if they’re a commercial company! Oh wait…
In my opinion you can’t expect a software company to give a big discount on very old version. PL3, where @colin_g is referring to, was released in October 2019. That’s three years ago! Three years of Adobe Photographer subscription would cost me (12 x €12,09) * 3 = €435,24. That’s almost twice the cost for a PL6 license, retail price.
4 Likes
Whilst you may have a point, PL and the Adobe plan are not really comparable. The Adobe package consists of much more than just Lr and of course is constantly being updated. There is no upfront cost to bring into the equation either and no add ons like Viewpoint.
For sure, PL6 has some nice additions over the previous version. Some improvements with NR here, some colour labes there, but nothing revolutionary (to me!). Unfortunately I’m excluded from an update: AMD’s Radeon 5xxx cards are no longer supported. Minimum requirement is now Radeon 6600… Too bad!
1 Like
I installed 6 while still having my 5 installed and everything even default profile for imported RAW files got transferred correctly (not to mention Workspace layout, tags etc. working flawlessly as well)
1 Like
In my region the cheapest Lightroom plan is 12€/month, or 144€/year.
PhotoLab is 220€ for the initial license, and 100€ for yearly upgrades, with the possibility to upgrade every 2 years and still get the upgrade price.
Let’s plot the prices over time. Lines are not exact because we’d have to make them step functions, but it’s accurate if we look at the prices on the year lines.
- Red: Lightroom subscription.
- Blue: PhotoLab with an initial purchase then an upgrade every year. It matches the price of Lighroom on the 5th year, and is cheaper after that. (Plus you get to keep it if you don’t upgrade, of course.)
- Green: PhotoLab with an initial purchase, then an upgrade every other year. It’s cheaper than Lightroom starting on the third year. (It would be even clearer with a step function, but my graphing acumen is not great.)
In my book PhotoLab is competitive because the pricing is similar to Lightroom if you upgrade every year, and more advantageous if you skip every other year. And if you’re on a budget you can also try to wait for a promotion, I think there are a few every year.
To get pricier than Lightroom you have to get PhotoLab + ViewPoint and/or FilmPack and update VP/FP on every release too, but most PhotoLab users seem to either not use VP/FP or to be happy with having slightly older versions of VP/FP. And with PhotoLab 6 now having the basic perspective tool built-in (rather than as part of VP), I’d say ViewPoint is now fully optional (whereas with PhotoLab 5 and older, you were kinda forced to get VP to do basic perspective correction).
2 Likes
True. One reason I was looking for Lightroom alternatives is that Adobe doesn’t sell just Lighroom anymore. You have a choice between a Lightroom Classic + Photoshop package (great, but I don’t use Photoshop), or a Lightroom cloud + iPad app + 1 Terabyte package (great, but I don’t want the cloud hosting and don’t need the iPad app). So I’m paying an inflated price to get tools I don’t need (a common issue with Adobe subscriptions).
If you do need most of the tools in those packages, then Adobe’s subscriptions are indeed more competitive and a better fit.
1 Like
Well @fvsch, price comparison is one thing, magic glassballs another. Who tells you one party won’t become cheaper (if Adobe suddenly gets less greedy, i.e.) or the other party more expensive (if DxO hires enough devs to get around with loads of open and long existing requests, not to mention a better way to deal with the increasing number of needed lens-profiles)?
I think it’s rather pointless (not especially referring to your comparsion) to compare Pl and LR and other RAW converters by simply “forgetting” functions which are not existing or implemented worse. Now, take DxO PL Elite + VP/FP + a decent asset management and it will quickly become a decade.
And who really cares? I rather pay double the price for a decent completeness, speed, result and usability than saving some coins and being annoyed on a daily basis by various shortcomings. Which all apps have, so I’m looking for the better package, not for the lower price. Besides, I also don’t work professionally just for a “thank you, nicely done”.
1 Like
I was just commenting on the “it’s pricier” part in “it’s pricier for fewer features”. (Not telling anyone what software is better in the absolute, better value for their money or a better fit for their needs.)
Depending on the perspective and the need for several added tools which also costs money and nerves PL can be pricier. So what? If the advantages are needed and can be found, who cares? A Leica also costs more than a Lomo. Comparing software prices gets interesting if all softwares deliver the same handlingd and results. Before it’s in my eyes just a nice exercise in spreadsheeting,
1 Like
My problem wasn’t that much about the price but about people always expecting a discount just because they have a (very) old version.
I won’t get my bread for free or at discount at the bakery just because I have a moldy old bread at home
3 Likes
Thus far I like what I see of the DeepPRIME XD. But utterly idiotic of DxO to not make available a full size real-time preview for assessment and quick comparison with DeepPRIME and other algorithms. How do you take a world-class technology and then pair it with this harebrained UI?
i have a question regarding hw req for photolab 5 and 6 …
is there any benefit of 6+ core processor for these versions of the photolab?
i am running pl 6 on i3 10105f + rx6600 (8 gb vram) and i do not feel any discomfort (when editing a raw2 file 16 mpx and zooming in, it takes up to let’s say 2-3 seconds to preview the selected part of image, no issue at all).
i do not open more than 3 raw files for preview in parallel.
should i be worried during some operations for longer lags etc.?
I don’t think PL6 will be any slower in processing compared to PL5.
At least, I haven’t witnessed things being slower.
DeepPrime XD takes more time than DeepPrime as it’s quite a bit heavier.
No. Get the 30 day free trial and test it.
Stop paying your subscription to Adobe and you end up with a severely hobbled version of LR. Stop upgrading PhotoLab and you can still use the full capability of your latest paid version of PL.
That is the biggest difference. If you don’t want to pay for your Adobe subscription then you have next to nothing to show for all the money you spent.
7 Likes
Startup time on my iMac. PL6, 10 sec, PL5, 15 sec.
P.S.
Export also faster. Heavy crop, that’s why so fast.
PL6 with DX: 19s, Deep Prime: 5s
PL5 with Deep Prime: 8s
2 Likes