Inverted mask for bokeh in control point feature


“Blur” palette is available only in the Filmpack palette, which means you need to have a license for it.

Svetlana G.

Which is part of Elite?

Filmpack and Viewpoint are not part of Elite. You need to buy it on top


Must have bought it seperately then. Thanks Sigi, think I lost it there :thinking:

Definitely makes no sense to me how the local adjustment works in this case. Ok, maybe there are some cases you want to blur the content under the mask but usually you want to blur everything else. Generally there needs to be a way to invert the mask for local adjustments. Such a feature would greatly improve the application of local adjustments.

1 Like

Well that’s all very nice but so far we’ve got nothing more than promises. It’s about time that some of those changes in the “backlog” finally materialize or otherwise DxO will probably lose a lot of customers (me included).

Harsh words but perhaps not without foundation. I bought into DxO when Nik was acquired in the hope that this was a new dawn. Thus far I have not seen a lot - Nik has just stagnated really apart from the one update. As for Photolab it seems that the only thing in the universe is that damn DAM, which was never a prerequisite for me and was in fact something I did not want. I bought into an editor not a data storage application. As it is I have gone back to Lr as my main raw editor with Nik as my plugin - no change there then. Come on guys can we have some decent upgrades - I see no future for the software without it.

There is no need for further discussion of the topic. Either DxO realizes that they must deliver now (without charging us again) or it is finally time to move on to another Raw converter. There are plenty of alternatives out there. It would be a pity but the point has now been reached where I simply cannot justify any more investments in a software that has not received any significant (feature) updates for a long time.

While, like you, I have no need for a DAM, the market clearly says otherwise. Almost every review I’ve I’ve read for PL2 praises the software in general but gives it a lower score because of its lack of a DAM. Look at the mess Luminar was in. Their previous version was highly criticized for lack of a DAM, and when they were delayed in implementing the scheduled release of the DAM, they were roundly criticized even more by users. Finally they released the version of the Luminar with the DAM and initially it had some bugs, garnering even more criticism. A DAM for PhotoLab is inevitable. Let’s just hope they implement it one piece at a time so that their resources can be working on other functionality. Implementing it in increments may also minimize the chances of implementing serious bugs.


1 Like

Since many years DxO updates his product each last week of october.
There is no need to yell louder. You just have to wait this date like all of us.


1 Like

While I have been frustrated as well, and am disappointed by the lack of new functionality in PhotoLab, I also believe that abandoning it for that reason would be a mistake for me. This is first rate software. I own PhotoLab 2.1 Elite, FilmPack 5 Elite, View Point 3, and the Nik Collection. Within the context of its current functionality, these products provide results which is as good as, and in many cases better than, anything else out there and it does it more quickly and more easily. It’s worth it for me to wait.

That is the difference I do not find that it does it quicker or more easily. It can do it yes but the learning curve is steep, the process is not easy and the training aids are poor by comparison. Sorry but that is how I see it. I do love the software but they need to compete.

Each of us has different needs and may respond to a particular piece of software differently. There’s no right or wrong about it. If there was one perfect set of tools that met everyone’s needs there would be no reason for any competition.

Your impressions of PhotoLab or no less valid than mine and I understand that in your experience the learning curve was steep and the lack of training materials made it difficult for you.

The lack of training tools is indeed an issue. However, of all the software packages I tried, and I have played with almost every one of them extensively, I found PhotoLab far and away the most intuitive and the easiest to learn. I also have fully configured it to meet my specific needs and process flow by creating customized palettes. Furthermore, I’m able to finalize my images with better results and much faster than with any other software I’ve tried. But that means absolutely nothing if it doesn’t work for you.

1 Like

Well it certainly is not working for me at the moment Mark. It would help if I could find an easy way to deal with highlights and shadows. This has been mentioned by others but these sliders are not as focused as those in say Lr and pulling back on the shadows for instance inevitably leaves a flat image. Adding contrast does not seem to help. Whenever I do a comparison edit every other editor I have tried comes out with a better image.

I don’t really need a pixel editor and looked at a number of raw processing options. I used to have LR/PS loaded but found my raw images were better when processed in PL2. I also had PhotoShop Elements which has some very nice features but limited raw functionality. I was unhappy with the results I got from Luminar and Affinity compared with PhotoLab and did not care for the implementation of their tool sets. I even tried Corel’s AfterShot Pro 3 which was not even close to competing with any other software I tried. I tried ON1 which I believe has a lot of potential but currently the performance is way too slow and the raw conversions have some serious issues which are not immediately obvious until you compare them to PhotoLab. Finally, I play with Capture One Pro 11 for a month. It is the only one with raw conversions equal to PhotoLab, but I did not care for the interface and the implementation of some of the tools. However, after all my comparisons, Capture One is the only other PP software that I would consider owning


Affinity as a raw editor is awful I agree. Luminar is full of unrealised promise. I love the interface and the concept. It is not unlike Nik but there are so many bugs and the raw editor has some awful flaws. Agree that Capture One is excellent but I have not tested it for a while but remember liking the layers. The price makes it prohibitive anyway. That leaves Adobe and PL2. I still like Adobe, best highlight and shadow sliders I have encountered, bags of free training resources and a huge user base. Results are good as well. PL2 is clearly powerful but I do find the interface messy and unintuitive. I have just spent an hour on an image trying to get it to the same place I managed in Lr - I just cannot get away from that dull flat look that arises once highlights and shadows have been moved (especially shadows). I am told its a mix between several sliders that is required but if that is the case I just cannot find it. I also find the colour controls on PL2 inferior to Adobe. For all that I still have a liking for PL2, but whether I’ll never crack it is open to question. I play with it often; rusults are very mixed so at the moment Adobe rules here for production work.

I do agree that color control is an area that is superior in Adobe and needs to be addressed by DXO. As to the flatness you are seeing in PL2, I don’t seem to be having a similar issue. Have you tried using the micro contrast tool? Also, have you been adding Clearview to the mix? It is useful for much more than haze removal.


What it might be Mark is that I push the shadows slider too far. Lr does not tend to suck detail/contrast that easily but maybe DxOPL’s shadow slider can be more aggressive. I’ll check that out and your tip re micro contrast. Thanks!

What value have you been setting the shadow slider to? I used to set the value higher than I should have in order to recover deep shadow detail until I discovered that a combination of Smart Lighting in conjunction with a lower setting of the Shadow slider gave me much better results. Additionally, I often apply some Clear View Plus which restores a bit of structure to the image after overusing the shadows slider. More recently I’ve also started to use the shadows slider in local adjustments using the auto mask for selective areas, which has no impact on the rest of the image. The right combination of tools and adjustments can vary dramatically from image to image, but I find I can quickly and easily get the results I’m seeking