New user, here. It appears that the ability to create a folder is only available in the Windows version, as I cannot add a sub folder to an existing one to store a new set of images on my Mac. This seems to verify based on what I’ve been able to glean from the users manual.
Colin, absolutely, it’s a pity that PhotoLab is not Lightroom. Fortunately Lightroom exists for those who prefer that kind of jack-of-all-trades Finder replacement non-Mac-like software.
How difficult is it to use “Show in Finder”. DxO, please continue to focus on RAW development tools and not replacing the OS.
File renaming in PhotoLab would be a disaster as it would never be enough and photographers would scream bloody murder any time something went wrong (and file renaming is complex enough that sooner or later serious bugs would come up). These are problems DxO do not need to take on. There’s lots of dedicated file renaming tools which work at the OS level which is where this functionality belongs.
My main fear about PhotoLab becoming more like Lightroom would be the implementation of a import feature. I absolutely hated the fact that all images had to be imported to Lightroom before editing them. I would be extremely unhappy if DXO implemented a similar approach. Unfortunately, implementing a full featured DAM might require it.
I think some of the views here are based on what was rather than what the market is now expecting. It is my honest opinion that DxO needs to move closer to being a functional file manager plus raw editor - that does not make it Lr, it just makes it better. As a raw editor alone it will not survive, it is not so good or different that it will get the better of Lr or Capture 1. Yes there is “Show in Finder” but I do not want to work in different windows. How hard can it be to take a broader more comprehensive view. Anyway given those views what the hell is DxO doing building a DAM? It would be better off improving its integration with stand alone DAMs and dropping that futile file browser and related project files.
And what exactly Effstop has that got to do with anything? Where exactly did I suggest you take out a Lr subscription? I just make the point that maybe the results from DxO are not imo so great that it will grow market share without evolving. Oh yes and the file browser is superficial, it even insists on showing me folders in which, image-wise, I have absolutely no interest. Much like I have absolutely no interest in what software you do or do not use or how you pay for it.
In my opinion the best file browser is the one in Raw Power by Gentlemen Coders. I believe the next version of Raw Power will have some local adjustments and other requested additions. At that time I think it will become my Raw processing and editing software. The support is also great.
Will do. Strange though it is saying lens correction is not available on the file, which is a raw (nef) from a Nikon D5300 and the18-55mm kit lens. Only other thing I see missing is control over the colours (Luminosity, Saturation and Hue).
Colin, you persistently show an incredibly naive view and misguided understanding of software markets. DxO PhotoLab carved out its position in the market by being the best RAW development solution on the market. ViewPoint is part of that solution (ViewPoint is actually a fake product invented for marketing purposes to charge more for OpticsPro) and FilmPack 5 corresponds to the wave of interest in “film looks” which seems to be slowly passing. At least here DxO did get ahead of the curve as Phase One is charging a lot of money and making a lot of users angry with its second rate “Style” add-ons.
In any case, DxO has a product which is best in market as a RAW developer for which they charge roughly €300 (any package less than the full Elite bundle exists only for marketing purposes and is of no real use to photographers, just as C1’s free Sony and Fuji packages are marketing only, they are not viable in any kind of a pro or large scale or high quality workflow).
The people who pay a market leader $10 or €10/month (less with discounts or packages) for both two DAM solutions (Lightroom Classic and Lightroom CSS) with a so-so RAW developer and Photoshop and portfolio software are highly unlikely to splurge €300 on RAW development software. They would still have to pay for Photoshop as most probably don’t own CS6 and wouldn’t know how to install and run CS6 on the latest OS.
PhotoLab is not competing with Lightroom. Adobe has DxO beaten hands down on every front, except the subscription requirement. In combat or in business, it’s extremely foolish to start a fight which you will lose.
PhotoLab can beat Lightroom for the higher end of the market by:
continuing to offer the best output (via its Prime Noise)
continuing to offer the smoothest workflow (via its AI style Smart Lighting, ClearView and Horizon and Perspective with auto crop)
improving performance to offer real time sliders on larger images (5DS R, A7R I II III, Nikon D850, Z7) and 4K monitors
DxO’s file browser is incredible slow switching from image to image. Where you have the misguided notion that DxO who have a limited grasp on hardware optimisation of any kind should be trying to build a DAM (which is all about optimisation) mystifies me.
The kind of people who pay €300 for RAW development software are the same ones who don’t mind spending $15 to $100 for a dedicated DAM tool. Most of the are probably intelligent and experienced enough not to want to trust their image management to any tool and keep the bulk of their image management in the OS (Finder on Apple).
The only thing your bleating about Lightroom will manage to accomplish is knock DxO off course as with the equally ambitious and company destroying One hardware add-on for iPhone and encourage them to place most of their development resources into DAM. This would have the consequence of DxO neglecting to optimise performance of their class leading RAW developer PhotoLab and neglect to add new bodies and lenses fast enough which would lose DxO their existing client base (pretty good clients if you ask me, €300 for a RAW developer is a lot of money).
Capture One is direct competition for DxO PhotoLab and in the same price category, also marketing RAW development excellence. Capture One’s advantage is that it has built-in DAM tools and its own workflow if you like them. PhotoLab’s advantage is that it plays well with external tools as it doesn’t have its own DAM tools and PhotoLab does not impose its own workflow on the photographer. There are customers for both workflows. By trying to compete on Capture One’s home ground giving up PhotoLab’s advantages (allowing photographers to use their existing tools around it), DxO would be conceding the high ground.
A bigger issue for competing with C1 is not a second-rate DAM (unlike Lightroom, C1’s DAM tools are very second-rate) but C1’s excellent colour tools. DxO should be rushing to recreate and improve their colour tools to compete with C1. PhotoLab photographers will abandon PhotoLab very quickly if other tools are able to do better work with colour and create better output.
Other products you mention:
Luminar an impossibly slow and buggy program with mediocre output and an awful half-baked DAM which is 1.5 years late and unusable (exactly the purgatory DxO should avoid).
On1 which I know less about but do know that photographers used to C1 or PhotoLab come screaming back from On1 about the quality of output and speed of the program.
Luminar and On1 are €69 and €79 full solutions to PhotoLab’s €300 price tag. At that price tag, yes they can hope to compete for Lightroom users. I’d be surprised to see DxO abandon the premium market to play in the sub-$100 category, all in. If DxO plans a pricing change to €100 for Elite, then yes, the DAM would help them compete in that market.
I remain astonished by your posts. Sometimes I wonder if Adobe or Capture One don’t have you under contract to knock DxO off mission. You would like DxO to:
devote resources they don’t have to solutions which will be weaker than what is already on the market (DAM)
destroy their premium market position to chase a crowded $100 market segment for the “okay” category tools
alienate their existing users by imposing a DAM between the users and the RAW developer which existing users both paid for and love
Lightroom exists. Please enjoy it but could you be kind enough to stop trying to destroy the tool PhotoLab users love.
Your post illustrates my point admirably, you are but a dinosaur who believes what was still is. Now that is really naive and of course dinos are now extinct. To succeed a business needs to grow and develop. I think DxO sort of sees that, hence this work on DAM type stuff. Yes Luminar is buggy and I would never use it but it has a great approach. ON1 is now pretty good, gives decent results and is not a silly price. Anyway enough, I have a new Fuji to play with so I shall leave DxO to carry on with their DAM and keywording - clearly they see the need to evolve even if you don’t