Of course the other problem with 3rd party software is once you pay for it the total cost is pretty much that of Capture One, so why bother with Photolab?
1 Like
That suggests that Capture One is a better product to use than PhotoLab, with “better” being a relative term. A number of us, myself included, much prefer PhotoLab to Capture One. I have always used the entire PhotoLab suite, including PhotoLab Elite, Viewpoint, and FilmPack, and consider it a good value for my purposes. There is very little I want to accomplish which I cannot do from within PhotoLab.
Others may disagree, but this is expected. If one product fit everyone there would be no need for any of the competition to even exist. I certainly acknowledge that PhotoLab is far from perfect. But in my opinion none of its direct competition is any more perfect, just different.
Mark
2 Likes
On the positive side, I now only use PhotoLab. I still have all the other editors on my computer, but they are gathering digital dust.
Two negative thoughts - I believe just about any of my other editors can edit files from almost any camera or source. But with PhotoLab, even though I can “tweak” the Exif data so I can edit my images from cameras DxO doesn’t support, without this “tweaking” PhotoLab refuses to open them. I’m stubborn enough that I found a work-around, but how many other people will do that?
Also, for as long as I can remember, PhotoLab was introducing some fantastic add-on every year, that people were talking about, and I decided I just HAD to get the new version. But with PL7 - I’m not yet aware of anything it will do for me, to justify the extra cost.
I also wonder how long DxO will be around.
Back in the day, new cars were wider, lower, faster, fancier, with oodles of reasons to dump the old car and get something new and exciting. Same with cameras, although I secretly feel that the old cameras will do just fine - why spend all that $$$.
I’m not sure (yet) what the newest release of PL7 will do, that I can’t already do in my current PL6.
I’ve bought all the add-ons for PhotoLab, but haven’t found that I need all of them. I also have no need/use for Nik.
What could DxO do, to greatly improve PhotoLab? Maybe they can find ways to optimize PhotoLab, so it will run faster on our computers.
I ain’t no expert, quite the opposite, but while I feel PhotoShop is essential for doing other things, I see no reason to use any editor other than PhotoLab (although I hope the open source program, Dark Table, continues to grow and improve).
The reason others might allow editing of newer bodies and not DxO is in relation to that DxO tests lenses together with the bodies. This because sensors and sensor technologies differentiate and their unique caracteristics in combination with the optics will produce different correction profiles.
When others might only profile optics and the raw data output from the body - DXO profiles the combination of body and optics.
This is why many other applications allow them to read raw files for every body, even the newly released ones.
Good enough vs Waste of time
Speed vs Quality
Market demands vs Performance
SO if DxO would change their procedure and skip the complex precision profiling - Yes they would for sure be able to deliver to market in a short time period.
But how much would it cost in performance drop?
In loosing their core brand position of an application or system that aim for excellence before everything else?
Or perhaps the market dont even bother - they only want a fake shallow DoF, an AI-created sky and a smeared noise reduction anyway?
Do one take that chance?
Or continue with their own way of doing things which have brought them to this point so far?
they use one copy of the lens - so do not account for sample variations… so there is already “performance drop”
it is not EITHER-OR proposition - it is to give BOTH OPTIONS… till you deliver whatever you do manually just let your users to use what is already available … 
1 Like
That is an option but it also risk moving away from the superb quality PL is know for.
When allowing something below par or “sub standard” when you expose your product to get degraded into a lower realm of quality.
Options are one thing - but the cost in the long run is something else and need to be taken into consideration. 
On the other hand, marketing an insufficient toolbox for a long time is a bad idea too. Those who waited hopefully for missing features became frustrated.
Why not having a new pallet called “Beta Features” in which all the “Good enough but not Excellent” features will be placed. For each feature in this pallet there will be a feedback key with hyperlink to the forum , in which the users could send feedback about this feature. That way we would be happy and DXO will have many beta testers.
It shouldn’t be a new pallet, it could be a beta section in the bottom of each pallet
1 Like
Well, my very frustrating example is my Leica M8.2 camera. DxO has never offered any way to edit those images in PhotoLab. This means PhotoLab is useless for people shooting an un-supported camera.
I cheated, and edited the EXIF file so DxO PhotoLab thought it was editing a newer version of my Leica.
My suggestion - when possible, for un-edited cameras, come up with an “error message” saying DxO PhotoLab does not have the camera information to edit perfectly, AND a button that tells DxO to try to open the image anyway, as best it can. So simple, and I won’t have to mess up the EXIF data.
Or, worded differently, if you’re really thirsty, a partial glass of water is better than no water.
1 Like
known to whom ? not to me anyways … it is as full of bugs as the rest of the pack , there are things that PL does better and then there are things that it does worse - again as noted using one copy of a lens is not a “superb” quality and between absence of any quality whatsoever ( no optics module ) and using what manufacturer readily supplies the choice is obvious …
4 Likes
Image quality, I think.
But you are certainly right that an option to open a RAW file with no available module should be provided. It is really not so different to opening a TIFF or JPEG from a random source. It does require knowledge of the RAW format, but that is a much easier task than obtaining a body and performing the profiling.
1 Like
Perhaps DxO could offer us a simple way to profile our own camera and lens combinations ?
simple = GIGO … just head over to lensrentals blog and read how it is done + equipment cost ( not to mention that you really need to test many lenses of the same model, ideally from different batches )
so the right way as noted many times is - GIVE USERS AN OPTION TO USE ( IF THEY SO DECIDE ) OPTICS CORRECTION DATA PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURERS IN RAW FILES ( REGARDLESS WHETHER DxO’s OWN MODULE IS AVAILABLE ) and everybody will be happy… if users see that DxO delivers materially better corrections they will happily use DxO’s modules ( when and if the modules are available of course ) … plus this will address the question of perpetual licenses vs DxO possibly going out of business and getting modules from defunct servers ( as DxO does not ship all modules at once w/ installator ) - of course the question of activation still stands ( but at least one less item to worry about )
1 Like
maybe simple was a bad phrase ; ) but hey if someone wanted to calibrate using a bedsheet as target for lens distortion, then maybe allow us to enter the needed parameters ; ) Yes GIGO. But thank you for the lens rentals blog, never knew about that site.
There are a lot of give users the option I see here… same with the Prime de-noise being strangled into a tiny view which is pure bulls**. let us choose to at least see it in the large preview! I will wait the few seconds for it to render, and hey with the new Macs coming out next week it might even be a second or less ; )
be happy that you are not a PureRaw user in this regard 
I can see it now…PL8 with *Prime de-noise now in full preview! Still I will probably upgrade to PL7, it costs less than most meals for two I have out which most of the time you just do it to socialize and get out, not for the food. So why should paying for an upgrade to PL7 be any less non-sensical ; )
Exactly
But DXO is DXO
They know better than you what is good for your needs.
Read the support team Reply, back in 2019.
I was asking for standard lens correction even though they don’t have precise optic module (as you suggested)
Pay attention to this sentence:
"to insure that the best results are provided by PhotoLab."
Well, if it not “the best”
If it just “good enough”
You won’t have it…
Hello Doron,
Thank you for writing. We presume you are using DxO PhotoLab 2. Please note that all of the modules used in PhotoLab are created using extremely precise measurements of actual output files from specific camera and lens combinations. Because of this preciseness, you cannot manually assign a correction module to a photo file where the camera and lens combination is not already supported in the program. This can only be done automatically by the program itself to insure that the best results are provided by PhotoLab. You can make a number of corrections and adjustments manually to the extent that they are available for a non-supported combination.
We will be happy to pass along your interest in the Sony a7 and Samyang 14mm f2.8 lens combination to the development team for their consideration.
Thank you for contacting DxO Customer Support and please have a good week. If you should need additional assistance with other program related issues or have any other questions, please do not hesitate to use our online support system to open a new ticket.
regards,
Seth
DxO Support Team
The lens profiles that DxO creates are correct for that specific lens. That means the sharpness across the frame is corrected, the vignetting is corrected, the distortion is corrected and the chromatic aberration is corrected. There is no such thing as good enough. The corrections for a specific lens are either complete or incomplete. If they started releasing mediocre uncompleted lens profiles, not only would people start to complain, but DXOs reputation for providing the best lens corrections would suffer.
Just because you’re willing to sacrifice quality doesn’t mean we all are. In any case, what good is a lens profile if it is not up to DxO’s high standards? If you’re willing to accept less than the best results, then maybe you should be using other software. I don’t use PhotoLab in order to achieve mediocre results.
Mark
2 Likes
Few seconds? I think you’d be disappointed.
How long does it take for a full size export of a photo on your system? Assuming you are zoomed to 75% or greater, you’re asking for that export time every time you move any slider.
There is a potential way to avoid that, and that is to cache the demosaicked image before all of the other sliders, but even then, if you’re trying to hone the noise reduction and sharpness parameters on a particular photo, you’re asking for that delay every single time you move one of those sliders. That’s not so far removed from the Lightroom approach that insists you render the noise reduction ahead of time.
As for new Macs being materially faster for DeepPRIME/XD, do note that every current Mac except Mac Studio and Mac Pro has exactly 16 neural engine cores, so unless that changes with M3 (and it didn’t with M2) you’re out of luck with anything less.
1 Like