DxO Tech Support Was Difficult

Hi Bryan,

It(support) has gotten somewhat better recently. I’ve seen at least two or three instances where @Cecile-C took a user’s complaint and personally herded it through the support system for them, as @sgospodarenko used to do. Now if we could just get Svetlana back on this forum!


@rrblint Agreed on both counts but we have seen issues arising from users contacting support which follow a similar pattern to the one that started this topic!?

I understand that staff need to be rotated through various jobs, some will leave and others will join and the experience of front-line support staff will vary but those staff members are customer facing,

How they handle the customers and their issues defines the relationship between DxO and its customer base and reputations can be made or lost in such exchanges.

Having worked for a mainframe manufacturer for 36 years in one support role or another I am well aware of support issues.

I was typically customer facing throughout those years and I had to rely on the companies support infrastructure to provide me will the support that I needed, so that I could support the customer as they sat beside a “sick” system with deadlines to meet.

I was “sandwiched” between the customer and the company I worked for and it was me who attended the monthly customer project meetings!? The most important thing was that the customer never lost faith in me and in the company backing me up (I think that last bit can be read in two ways and both are important)!

1 Like

Bryan, I certainly agree with you on all points, but the three(maybe five) instances that I cited were very well-done by @Cecile-C . Just like old times, no kidding! Yes, there are still cases like the ones that caused the creation of this thread, but there are also some cases that are handled well, so I call that “getting better” !


@Fabrice-B Nous sommes enchantés d’avoir le premier message du staff DxO depuis 3 ans sur ce forum ! Espérons toutefois que vous résoudrez le problème…
Puisque vous nous lisez, vous avez été interpellés de nombreuses fois sur ce forum et il a fallu un dérapage de langage pour vous faire réagir ; je ne dois pas être le seul ici à souhaiter relire des messages du staff DxO.

We are delighted to have the first message from the DxO staff in 3 years on this forum! However, let’s hope you solve the problem…
Since you are reading us, you have been questioned many times on this forum and it took a language skid to make you react; I must not be the only one here to want to reread messages from the DxO staff.


oh please…it’s pretty clear that DXO and other software companies typically fail to acknowledge or fix bugs to push people to upgrade to newer versions of said software.

I trialled DXO Pure RAW v4 and despite it giving better results than my now very old v2, it was very unreliable for me. I decided to keep using v2 and pass on v4. Or any future versions of the software.

Apple and other software companies have been doing that for years. It’s why I much prefer GNU GPL open source software wherever possible. Software such as FireCapture, IMPPG, AutoStakkert, PIPP, Winjupos smash any commercial software from here to kingdom come in terms of quality and stability (and not to mention features).

There are some software companies such as Pleiades Astrophoto, who develop PixInsight are amazing. Said software runs on GNU/Linux (primary development platform), freeBSD, Windows and MacOS. Can be installed on as many computers as you like. NO subcription model. Free and frequent upgrades, including new tools. Excellent technical support too.
Now that is quality software. Contrast that to other options…including DXO software.

When v2 of Pure RAW stops working, I’ll just switch to Adobe’s AI NR tool.

At this point, the issue has been escalated. Tech support has confirmed that the bug exists, and suggested some workarounds to minimize its effect.
For me, the watermark is my brand, and it cannot be corrupted, so I will use a different approach: I will apply a Watermark and not Resize on Export. I will Resize using Photoshop.

I hope DxO fixes this in an upcoming release.

Dear DxO Community,

Thank you for your continued feedback. I’d like to address some key points:

  1. Customer support is integral to DxO Labs; our team is very much part of the DxO staff. Some agents also have other duties and responsibilities within the DxO organization.
  2. Our team varies in levels of experience, from newly joined to long-time support members. They are human, with all the imperfections and strengths that entail, and the workload can vary greatly throughout the year.
  3. Public insults are harmful and demotivating. Few enjoy being publicly disparaged.
  4. Insulting our staff affects the entire team and can slow down our response times. This is valid for both new and more experienced members.
  5. Forums are often a place where dissatisfied customers meet and share assumptions and generalizations that do not correspond to the initial facts, while the silent majority of users work happily and see no reason to read such posts or even post anything. So impressions may sometimes seem distorted.
  6. Following a ticket, the user has the opportunity to give feedback on the support employee’s performance. Our customer satisfaction rate is 93% (score over the last 4 consecutive months), which is higher than for comparable companies.
  7. If something didn’t go well, which we honestly regret, the feedback for the ticket is highly welcome and should be as constructive as possible. Of course, it will be read carefully by management; a separate channel is not required.

Thank you for understanding.

Best regards,


I think the watermark should be applied when exporting.
So you can adjust it to the size you want (and to fit your image).

see also here …

The bug occurs whether I apply the Watermark during Export or not. If the image is Resized on Export, the watermark is corrupted (bad scaling artifacts.)

@Fabrice-B Thank you for your response let me see if I have understood it correctly

I never thought otherwise but the response from customer support, as reported here, showed little insight into the nature of the problem being reported.

It looked as if that response was coming from a script. Scripts are essential to ensure that a common standard is employed for all support requests, at least at the start but it needs to branch and provide additional guidance based upon what is being reported.

In this case a specific, repeatable, reproduceable issue! Where was the branching to an alternative approach?

As users we have never been advised on how the support data collection system works, i.e. for this issue is there likely to be enough data already in the logs or does the user need to deploy what is supplied and then reproduce the problem and then send the necessary data to DxO support?

Understood, so any such “attack” should not have been levelled at an individual support member but at/to DxO Support and the support management in particular!

Agreed and an apology has been given, none of us, DxO support or users, like being publicly disparaged in the forum by other users or DxO staff.

The title of this particular topic might well upset the team since it “tars all support staff with the same brush” but it did appear to get this topic noticed.

“Frustrated with DxO Support” might have been a better title, perhaps, but the original topic and the title may have been driven by frustration with DxO Support and the lack of any recognition of the true nature of the problem and an explanation of why certain actions were being suggested!

I will take the statement that demotivating the team can slow down support responses as a statement of fact rather than a veiled threat!

Now you are tarring all users who respond to this or indeed any topic with the same brush which I consider unacceptable.

The silent majority are the heroes of day in your opinion.

In fact I consider item 5 is as big an insult to the users as the title of this topic was an insult to DxO Support personnel!

The forum is here to provide support to the other users and once upon a time that included input from DxO personnel. There are certainly disappointed users in the forum, disappointed in elements of the product which fail to live up to their needs or expectations or in the organisation that develops and supports the product(s) etc.

I am sad to say that almost everything that I have learned about the inner working of DxPL comes either from other users or my own experimentation or both i.e. my own experimentation and then interaction with other users and then more experimentation and then etc. etc. and little or nothing from DxO whatsoever!

The “Unwanted VC” topic ran for over a year with no sign of DxO involvement whatsoever and it could have been stopped almost immediately. There is now a help topic that covers this issue but no product fix to help avoid the problem if encountered or rectify the consequences of this pernicious “feature”.

If impressions seem distorted then set the record straight by providing useful information.

The support system is a closed book to users whereas the forum is an open book.

So I submit a support request and document the issue in the forum if I consider it appropriate.

Congratulations on the 94%.

I consider that is understood by all users.

What is wrong with DxO Support:-

Building confidence in DxO Support mechanisms:-

  1. The product has no release id. in the title.
  2. When a product is released there is no definitive fix list attached, ticket numbers would help users identify when their ticket is closed by a new release.
  3. There is no visibility of identified problems coming from DxO, so different users may raise the same issue again and again and … That is an element of what the forum is all about so please use it.

Winning back customer confidence:-

  1. Use the forum to actively engage with the users, not to simply react but failing all else reacting is better than nothing!
  2. Start to actually fix long standing issues, particularly those for which there is no easy fix, e.g. “Unwanted VCs” and drive replacement, both Uuid issues albeit different Uuids. Add to the list and engage with the users what needs to be fixed and what features would keep them using DxPL instead of drifting away.
  3. If formally fixing the product is too big a task consider one off utilities to aid with certain situations. The unwanted VCs needs to be fixed in-line, albeit I am investigating post occurrence fixing of sorts at the moment. The disk id could easily be fixed with a simple external utility.

There are probably more items that could be added but I am actually trying to reduce my commitment to DxPL and reduce my input to the forum.

PS:- @Fabrice-B the “Thank you” at the beginning of this post was genuine please do not be deterred from participating in the forum by my response which was not intended to be adversarial, we don’t see enough of DxO these days!

My response to item 5 was intended to be adversarial and you should always consider why there are dissatisfied customers who then share their opinions in the forum.

The “assumptions and generalizations” exist in the vacuum (lack of accurate data) that has surrounded DxPL for far too long!


Interesting posts.

Me with decades of experience in field repair of office printers has bin surpriced often of mismatches of customers asking of aid and respons of our customer support.
This seems that i am bashing our CS but that’s not the case.
Point one on email or telephone issues don’t seem to travel well and often got blurrie disformed.
Mistakes in naming parts and there problem originated in which action is one of the misunderstanding of the reciever.
And when i arrive on location i SEE what the customer is doing which has much more value for me as troubleshooter then the written complain of something not working which i recieve in my workapp in “calls”.

My telephone supportteam/one guy has to resolve 80 calls of all levels a day.
(in retrorespect: ill visite 3 till 10 site’s a day tovsolve 1 or more problems.)

  • Take action by sending a solution of the question/request
  • call back to try to resolve the problem with aid with the customer/user on distance.
  • when that’s not helping forward the call to planning which sends me in action.

Often i think should i call and try or just drive and fix?
Main discusion que is less or more then 20min drive?
Less? Just walk in
Try to call wile working on an other location on a problem so i can drive later to that problem or sent it back as remote solved.

What i try to say is remote support is a slippery job. Which i never wanted to do. (yes step in when asked to help out but not the full package.)
G.I.= G.O. Is also true in this communication system.

Non the less i really miss @sgospodarenko on this forum as communicator and connection between dxostaf tech’s and us customers.
She or someone else should be reinstated as general “ask me first” if the experienced users don’t have a clear answer.



An overarching statement like “DXO Tech Support is Very Incompetent” seems like an over top way to title a post about one tech support experience. It was bound to attract people to pile on. It’s also, based upon my experience with DXO Tech Support, inaccurate.

When I had an issue with the lens correction module, DXO support was extremely responsive and competent. The problem was identified in testing and even though it was a function of how the module was designed, what seemed like all of DXO put a lot of work into troubleshooting and recreating the problem and addressing the issue with a new lens profile. Communication throughout the process and in the time between identifying what needed to be done and doing it was thorough and continuous.

I can’t recall a time I received better tech support than the support DXO provided me. And having worked in tech support, I can’t recall a time I did better. While I understand the frustration of a support issue not being handled to someone’s satisfaction, an overarching statement that DXO Tech Support is incompetent isn’t accurate or fair.

1 Like

What can I say? I was very frustrated. I apologized to them, but please, dogpile away on me if it’ll make you feel better.

Its not just here the problems are expressed but every forum covering DXO have seen a regrettable need in users and former users expressing there dissatisfaction. Its noticeable how much many former participants of this forum and others have largely withdrawn from activity to a great extent I suspect due to frustration of being largely ignored by DXO. In part the competing programs have overtaken PL in many area’s but the main problem I feel if the relationship between those active on line and there management. Many participants here have expressed in detail issues that they feel need addressing, your self and others in problems with DXOs attempt at creating a data management part to the program. There have been long running problems in simple refusal to implement simple things like version numbering to updated programs, they did it but for a short time then… Saying what bug fixes as you say have been done, I found out one of my ones had been fixed months after it had been done as no one told me that bit had been done. At times I don’t think support even know themselves what the developers have fixed. So I don’t think its just us largely left out of the loop often. I contrast all this with Affinity (as it was anyway), Syncovery, Photo Supreme and FastRawViewer all of which I have interacted on there forums and support. All totally different to DXO. This isn’t even covering the issues many including my self have raised about the way changes were introduced in V7 which have cost DXO a lot I think. There refusal or inability to bring the local adjustments back to the level of usability in V6 is poor.

I think PhotoLab 6 is exceptional. I greatly prefer it to Adobe. It used to be that I always needed a RAW editor + Photoshop, but with PhotoLab I can output finished, ready JPEGs directly… although for now, I need to resize externally, with a Photoshop batch. And I can give you a long list of reasons why I love PhotoLab.

Yes, I had a frustrating experience, but I’m still very keep on the product’s quality and performance and ease of use. I have no intention of switching and I will happily pay for the upgrade if it fixes the bug I’ve reported.

@MarshallG You reacted as I have seen some others do in posts on the forum when the user feels that DxO Support is either not listening and/or doesn’t understand and you have already apologised.

I have never seriously played with Adobe products and so DxPL is my product of choice but to see things left unattended (apparently totally ignored in some cases) does not help.

With respect to the problem which started this whole topic, has anyone tested this on PL7 and reported back?

@APS-C The topic heading is somewhat “blunt” but the experience may well have “helped” induce that response.

You are not alone in having received good support from DxO but it sometimes seems a bit of lottery and may not simply be who you make contact with in DxO but also the nature of the problem you have encountered

Some are easier to understand than others and/or the problem may have been reported by other users already so the support rep has a “head” start.

@OXiDant although @sgospodarenko was a useful presence in the forum I do wonder how much support DxO Support actually get from the software developers or whether they are sandwiched between the users (us) and the Software developers!

@John7 I am reducing the amount of posting I do to as near to zero as possible. The testing is time consuming and the reporting even more so!

I wrote the lines above before your post was published and it appears we are in agreement with respect to the doubts we have about what support are told and when/if they are told at all!

I consider the lack of published fault data lamentable but have resigned myself to the status quo, the only thing that improves the headache is to stop banging you head against a brick wall.

I am currently exploring amending DOPs to reverse the order of copies within the DOP (to help simplify the issue of “unwanted VCs”. A by-product of which will be a DOP backup facility (extended to optionally include the image, DOP and xmp sidecar files), i.e. so that I can revert easily after testing again and again and … but also so that I always have a backup in the event that I need to run the program for real!

Way more entertaining that the forum and a “time waster” when it is too wet outside to do gardening or cleaning or DIY!

I downloaded the PL7 trial version and duplicated the bug with it. So sadly, at least on Mac, no solution.

The reason this matters to me is that doing everything on one editor is a massive time-saver! PhotoLab lets me export my images several times… at full res, half res, quarter res, etc., with or without watermark.

As it stands now, I cannot Export resized images from PhotoLab if I also want the watermark. So either watermark in PL and resize externally (e.g., Photoshop), or resize in PL and watermark in Photoshop.

I’ll try creating a PNG watermark but I am very doubtful it will solve the problem… still, it’s worth the time to try.

And, it bears repeating: It was wrong of me to express my frustration the way I did. I feel bad about that and I’m sorry.

1 Like

The fact that she was able to test and confirm or got an other result was often the first step for resolving the problem. and she called/ summond the DxO expert in for second opinion if needed. or for more explaination in detail of how it suppose to work.
Now we just swimming in the dark with a flashlight hopefully shine the beam on the right path/way.

The retreat of all communication to nealry none could be a respons to some overflood of requests and questions and remarks and complains so they closed all short cuts and only respond to the frontdesk door. (support of DxO from the website)
good or bad it’s a fact that many things has bin changed around this forum and in this forum.

1 Like

It isn’t a matter of the topic being blunt. It is inaccurate and unfair based upon what the OP posted. Similarly, you’re suggesting with no evidence (and contrary to all evidence I saw throughout the process) that there is some contributing factor that minimizes the competence and effort that went into the support DXO provided me. That’s also inaccurate and unfair.

The assistance they provided to me wasn’t of the nature of a one-shot lucky answer. It was the result of a team of knowledgeable and committed people working together to resolve a problem. That doesn’t happen when a company’s tech support is incompetent by culture or capability. I’ve had a couple other tickets, they were probably gimmes from their side and maybe one or two people got luck or there was an existing answer. But, providing existing answers is part of first-level support, if that was why they were resolved, that’s a job well done.

I understand people get frustrated by experiences with customer support. I do as well, even if I haven’t had a frustrating experience here. But the overarching characterization of DXO Support by the OP (and others) isn’t fair or accurate. And a lot of the complaints seem to be about the process of investigating issues.

First level support has to ask the obvious questions. If they don’t, it disrupts the entire support process either because there is a ghost issue that would have been resolved by the obvious steps and its incredibly time consuming trying to resolve a problem that isn’t there or because information is missing as the ticket moves further on. I have to fight the urge to try to rush and try to skip steps in the process by presenting what I think is the problem and what I think is relevant all the time dealing with support. Results are better when I succeed in fighting it.

I get the frustration. It’s annoying hearing for the 99th time, “Is the cable plugged in?” It’s embarrassing the 100th time when the cable isn’t plugged in. And it’s annoying again from the 101st time when it is plugged in until the next time it isn’t. But it is how things get done.

In my experience, good support asks me to run a diagnostic tool of their own making or a DXDiag or something similar to deal with the sort of thing OP reported. I can’t understand objecting to performing simple tasks when asked to provide the necessary information for the engineers to investigate a problem.

Diagnostic reports help often enough to be worth the time to ask for all the time up front… Getting reports up front facilitates smoother workflow. And reports that one person submits can be compared to reports from other people who are having the same or other problems. Similarities or differences in those reports can help explain why something is happening and how to resolve it for a single user and/or issue and/or for multiple users and/or issues. Information gathered in aggregate accumulates and builds solutions.

We all share the same support people. Personally, I want them to do the properly efficient thing and ask that people (including me) take the obvious steps like rebooting and submitting information up front when asked (even if I find it frustrating at times). It’s the most efficient use of the time of the support people and engineers we all share, which means more time spent doing work resolving problems and improving things for all of us.

Edit - removed a random ‘6’ that was in there for no reason.


For me, the watermark is my brand, and it cannot be corrupted, so I will use a different approach: I will apply a Watermark and not Resize on Export. I will Resize using Photoshop.

The bug occurs whether I apply the Watermark during Export or not. If the image is Resized on Export, the watermark is corrupted (bad scaling artifacts.)

While I don’t use watermarks in PL, I add descriptions, copyright notices and the like on custom “frames” in PS to then print the image.

Did some experiments …

To generate an “Image Watermark", I went to PS, opened a new file with transparent background and chose the Shelley Andante font. Its alternating thick and thin lines and curved shapes are well suited to reveal scaling artifacts.
I adjusted the font (size, spaces) and smoothed it (antialiasing) to then save the image as *.png file.
Back in PL, I generated a preset to register everything and used it when exporting the whole pic (checked with export to 2048px as well to 6000px / longest side).

Screen Shot 05-22-24 at 06.45 PM
screenshot taken at 100% from pic export to 2048px / longest side

Now the same with a “Text Watermark" to check again for visible artifacts.
Screen Shot 05-22-24 at 06.50 PM

Screen Shot 05-22-24 at 06.48 PM

In comparison, the “Image Watermark" appeared smoother.

To show the actual proportions

the exported pic with “Image Watermark” = 2048 x 1400 px || the ruler shows =

  • 354 real pixel (green)
  • 283 virtual pixel (black) → my 2560 x 1440 screen is set to 125% magnification
  • 8,24 cm real length (blue)