Not quite right.
Just look at one of the more needed tool : the curve tool.
I think this is the weakest implementation of this tool compared to about any other software.
And this is the same for lot of other tools.
The only parts of Photolab which are better than what other softwares provide (or at least very specific to photolab) are it’s ability to do qualibrated lens correction when demosaicing, and it’s denoising algorythm for high iso (not specific to photolab but with really high quality results).
Those are the 2 only points which make photolab interesting.
But this is what happens everytime a new feature is added in photolab : it does not excel over competitors (look at color wheel, project management, etc, etc …).
So if they say they don’t release a feature because it is not good enough yet, I think you should better trust them : it is really not yet ready at all.
What I hope is they have redesign their v6 and v7 code in a way that will allow them to implement more easily, fast and with good design new features. And that what some only see as little improvment is in fact a big improvment in the software architecture. And that it will enable DxO to make its software evolve with fresh code, rather than hardly try to mix old bought code into it.
It is in some areas but isn’t in others (denoising high iso for example).
This seems to be a mischaracterization of the views shared in this forum.
Feedback is useful, even when perceptibly harsh and unpleasant. For those of us who work in industries that create and sell products and services, we dismiss feedback at our own peril.
I agree that feedback and criticism is essential. I never suggested it wasn’t. But what I am seeing in this and other threads is is the repeated use of angry and bitter criticism by various people. That is the very definition of vitriol. It is often confrontational and does nothing to enhance the discussion process.
But there have been many remarks and suggestions, which have not been accepted, see e.g. cropping, GUI-flaws or that “magic grid”.
As you can see in same posts, Beta-Testers are a bit frustrated as to this.
Yep, film lenses didn’t have a profile, they had a reputation as well corrected or distorted. Nowadays, manufacturers can save a lot of expensive glas by correcting distortions in software, either in camera firmware or bundled programs. Just try a modern electronic lens on an old film body!
Depends. Although I don’t know if such a device ever existed, but if you’d use the lens the photo was taken with as projection lens and the projection room (and the screen) would be big enough and the light source would be bright enough without melting lens or slide, it possibly could work. Although only in terms of equalized distortions. Vignetting would become double as worse.
But as most conditions are close to be impossible, this is just kind of a silly mind game
Btw. the lens doesn’t need to be a macro lens. Each enlarger already has a bellows and is capable to adjust the distance between projection plate, lens and negative holder. But you’re right, it would be better as macro lenses are optimized for closer distances.
Unfortunately that seems to be the case. Not listening to customers generally doesn’t breed success.
If there’s a good Black Friday deal I may upgrade from PL5->PL7. If not I’ll probably soldier on with PL5 for another couple of years then reassess (likely move to CaptureOne).
This is coming from someone that was a big fan of the PL5…but the development focus just isn’t there
This is actually one of the positive sides with non subscription software.
You are not forced to keep paying to continue using the already payed software.
Although a negative side for DxO which don’t get any revenue from you but also a motivator for them to keep developing and give the customers what they wish for.
With a subscription model of the current DxO PL, you would have to keep paying and still not receive anything beneficial to you.
For cameras doubling as enlarger, check Intrepid 4x5 Enlarger Kit
I vaguely remember an enlarger back for Exacta(?) 35mm cameras.
Using the same lens back and forth for correction of geometrical distortion is the principle of symmetrical lenses, like double-Gauss designs; they are costly in glass and weight.
Chris
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
113
I think they are three:
One to the sensor
One through the mirror to the focusing sensor in the bottom of the camera
One via the mirror through the prisma/mirrors to the matte glass to the photographers eye (the view finder)
I remember when I bought a separate matte glass to one of my Sony DSLR-cameras and had to fine tune it with a bunch of “distans frames” that came with the split screen and microprism glass to get even that in sync with the other parts of the focusing system,
Mark, I think what you are seeing is DxO offering less and less for more and more money, more and more often. We now have annual upgrades, whether ready or not. The annual upgrade on Black Friday has more or less doubled in price.
On the old prices, with less frequent and more significant updates, DxO has effectively broken its contract with its users. I have the feeling that DxO conceives us less as its advocates to expand its markets and more like a cash cow to be milked. It’s sad that DxO seems to have partially given up on grabbing more of the photo processing market by simply doing it better.
These days one might argue that PhotoLab processes photos differently (interface, workflow) but not better. I like the way PhotoLab does this but the face plant on changing the local adjustments system is dismaying, as well as the entirely unnecessary Film Pack update, slyly slipping luminance masking there rather than putting where it belongs in the PhotoLab.
This is the first year, DxO might not get any of my money for updates. If DxO was asking less money or the features were more impressive or less buggy, I’d be more enthusiastic. PhotoLab 6 with better local adjustments and better repair tools has been awesome for me, so no hard feelings. DxO lost me on Nik after v3 (too frequent upgrades, very buggy, less cross-application compatibility, interface downgrades).
Hopefully PhotoLab 8 will be awesome and DxO will solve the local adjustments anti-intuitive interface conundrum they’ve created for themselves and for those of us who do upgrade to v7 (probably not me).
7 Likes
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
115
Well spoken Alec I also think DXO seems to have broken the contract we had with them and in my case that happened some year back when I could not use my new camera with Photolab despite I had paid for it, because I had to wait half a year on a mandatory camera profile that effectively locked me out.
This year I upgraded because I really wanted to support them this time too but I really expected them to swiftly straighten up that half way mess they now have created with the Local Adjustments. Maybe the next year will be my “first year” not upgrading at all. I might rather spend them on a new yearly upgrade of Capture One instead before I can see a change and that they start to listen and take part in the dialog in their own forums.
Maybe this is the prelude for a subscription path after all. Even CO has ceased to release improvements between the annual major releases. Now they will only deliver bugfixes to the perpetual license customers. The release of new features and improvements will only be available direct for the subscribers.
A couple of months has past now since version 7 was released and still nothing of the problems with Local Adjustment has been fixed yet. I expect them to fix that mess as promptly as possible and frankly I don´t understand why they don´t fix this. In some cases, they already have the code. So, what are they waiting for? Has a leaking roof ever got better by just letting it be?
I can fully understand peoples frustration towards something they have or had high expectations about or which somehow touched them personally. Often those who are loud are those to actually cares to voice their opinion and feel it’s worth raising. Sure some are very loud but hey, we are all loud sometimes.
At least they give their time to share their frustration. Users which simply leave and never come back are those a company loose their chance of keeping.
I went from Aperture and invested in CO which back then was a disaster. The application was as buggy and unstable as the support was bad and ignorant. I left CO and went with DxO instead.
DxO have so far lived up to my demands and have given me the quality, tools and speedy workflow I was looking for - even though I jump back to Nikons NX Studio sometimes.
I didnt really “need” PL6 but upgraded anyway to show my support for DxO and have actually come to love the features.
I dont “need” the PL7 either but I will upgrade anyway even though I was gifted with a license and I will most likely come to love the features and see them as essential
Telling DxO how we feel and what we are looking for is a good thing - but we should try to keep a humble approach.
I have been a user of all DxO products since PhotoLab 1. I have maintained a heavy daily presence on this site since 2017. I can safely say that the noise you refer to is no more effective in getting results than those with a more humble approach. It is just more unpleasant.
