Latest Capture One marketing decision may increase opportunities for PhotoLab

it appears that Capture One will no longer be marketing camera system specific versions of their software. They have announced that they will stop offering Sony, Fujifilm, and Nikon versions which cost users significantly less than the standard full version of Capture One. This decision is effective today. It will be interesting to see what the fallout will be as a result of this decision and whether it will create new opportunities for PhotoLab.



That, to me. suggests C1 has cash flow problems. If so this will not solve it, they would have been better off with more competitive pricing. I shoot Fuji and C1 still leads the field (just imo) and I agree this presents an opportunity for DxO. Personally, I gave up on C1 a while ago because off their excessive pricing.

Since I am not a Fuji shooter and I do not use Capture One I cannot speak to the superiority of their X,-trans support.

PhotoLab’s is a bit late to the game and just started supporting X-trans sensors less than 3 months ago. This functionality is still considered to be in beta. I assume that DxO will continue to improve support of these sensors overtime and may eventually exceed the quality of Capture One’s demosaicing.


1 Like

Well, the last “22” version I also skip as the new features are either a bit lame (panorama is rather mediocre) or I don’t need it.

However, if you add to PL what a lot of users here added to make it at least work better (perspective and film stuff are onboard on C1, an image viewer with sort of advanced DAM functions as well), the pricing is more or less equal. And PL still behind in terms of DAM, manufacturer lens support, better “filmstrip” browser and a couple of more features. I usually like layers of C1 better than PL’s awkward “local adjustments”. Tethered shooting with C1 - does PL offer something like that? DxO is slower in exporting, C1 21 is crashing rather often on my machine and leaves it’s database in a mess. So far I always could fix it, but that makes the 10-20% more speed (didn’t measure, but it’s not tremendous) a bit questionable. What good is a racing car if it’s loosing it’s tyres twice a day?

DxO has the lead in ClearView and DeepPrime - but I don’t often do “side-by-side comparisons”, so my judgement is only relevant to me. I really don’t care if the two apps get the very same identical results as long as I get fast and secure enough to the results I want.

What you say about pricing is true…at the start. But C1 upgrade pricing is high. I do agree with you re masking, control lines/points seem clunky to me and do not compare with C1 or Lr, the same is true of the DAM. Which is why I retain Lr. IT is also worth noting that the perspective control in C1 is a purely manual affair.

But for the upgrade pricing goes the same – the flock of additional “needed” stuff might not be upgraded annually, but it adds to the update costs of the “core product”. Also, Photo Mechanic Plus at non-discount price is as expensive as C1 alone, but in C1 the RAW converter, DAM, perspective correction and color grading tools are included. I don’t see a real benefit in the fact that I’d need a flock of additional work(around) software. Sure, I can decide to buy the FilmPack update only when necessary. In the beginning I just wanted to support DxO as they were already offering LUMIX FF support whereas C1 had nothing. But that has changed and being able to work with two RAW converters might be an advantage in the future depending on which way their companies keep on going.

I took a very brief look at C1 before I found PL, and was instantly turned off by two things:

  1. The high price, and
  2. That they would offer lower prices to select camera brand users, but not me, as I am a Pentax user.

So in my mind, they’re just a very expensive proposition and this doesn’t change anything.

Of course, the combined price of PhotoLab Elite, Viewpoint, and FilmPack, costs about the same, I believe. But since Viewpoint and FilmPack are only updated every several years, the annual cost of upgrading to new versions of PhotoLab is much lower than Capture One.


Can you imagine the uproar if DxO combined the three products into one and raised the price accordingly?

For me, it was specifically the fact that there was this expensive product which they could obviously sell more cheaply by limiting the brand of camera it would serve (a practice that made no sense to me) but because they don’t consider my camera brand popular enough, I get to pay the full, and rather substantial price. All the more galling because I have been loyal to Pentax for 35 years and am unlikely to change any time soon. If they’d had a Pentax option I may well not be here today, but we’ll never know.

First, your camera brand is not popular enough for C1 - but neither are PhaseOne bodies for the majority of us. For which Capture One was programmed originally. Of course you have a different opinion on that, but I don’t recall to have seen a Pentax somewhere else than in the 2nd hand shelves during the past 5 years. Although pretty capable cameras, this brand is no longer “popular”, just check different shopping malls.

Second, if you compare an app with a lot of features another app doesn’t have and this other app need (!) additional apps at additional costs to deliver the same spectrum of features, you’re not acting exactly fair. But I’m glad you found your RAW converter of choice.

Capture One was probably sponsored by Fujifilm, SONY and Nikon. Some customers who stepped into the C1 realm because of the cheaper versions will stay onboard, others abandon ship, so far, so normal. But if a lot of these come to DxO PL with it’s rather limited functionality without FilmPack and ViewPoint, not to mention the less than lousy DAM – that remains doubtful.

Btw., it’s not “your” brand, but Ricoh’s, and they want to go the “customizing” way, like they did with all the colourful plastic bodies. Why don’t you ask “your” brand for a decent RAW converter? I know, each Pentax user defends “his” brand til the bitter end, but somehow the question remains unresolved why “your” brand became insignificant? There was a supercool LX, a very great 6×7 decades ago and… well, the Km, Kr, Kx simply didn’t deliver enough reasons to not switch brand 12 years ago. Time always moves on. Companies less so.

1 Like

Just to clear a few things up…

  • I did not consider that the brands may have sponsored C1, which would then make sense that those brands’ versions would be cheaper.
  • When I said “my brand” I was not inferring ownership, just like people who say “my school” or “my company” are referring to a strong association only.
  • Pentax customised bodies tended to be mostly for the Japanese market, and was only done for a handful of bodies. They do “think different” than the more popular brands which is what many of its supporters like. One of the biggest bonuses of the Pentax brand is that every lens they (or compatible third parties) ever made can be used on the latest bodies, all but the earliest with no adapter. I have my father’s lenses he bought in the early 1970s and they work great on my 2017 body, complete with lens-aware IBIS. There is a vibrant market in “vintage” or “classic” lenses.

I have no solid knowledge about brand sponsoring but it’s too tempting to believe it.

I know, you didn’t refer to it as your’d be the owner, but we tend to be defenders of a brand although we’re just defending our decision to buy into that brand. I changed digital brands twice and added a third brand as supplement, and all I can say: No one really has an excellent user interface, Pentax also had a couple of quirks, but the K-m and K-x used AA cells instead of dedicated batteries for multiple price. And made their RAWs DNG, so no user was depending on that crap they called silkypix.

Vintage lenses are no concern at all for me. Made for film resolution and also a bit of field curvature as not many film panes were really even and true. I also own a Nikkor made in 1963, but it doesn’t stand a chance against today’s optical calculations. I once bought a Pentax 50/1.4. It arrived with fungus on the lens, had to dispose it. The troubles in AF I had with my Pentax bodies made me change systems and I don’t miss a single feature of them.

As to the OP, yes, I believe you are correct. Except they are not strap for cash but killing the golden egg laying chicken due to greed. I was Just about to purchase C1 for Fujifilm when overnight the cost went from $199 to $299 for all cameras. No, thank you, C1. I am walking with my wallet.


Getting dumped with snow here in SNJ

I too jumped to C1 when leaving Lightroom and Adobe about 10 years ago. The at that time pretty inexpensive Sony-version was a very appealing offer since I was looking for a good tethering function too. Many years there were no tethering like the one in C1. In LR tethering was just for Nikon and Canon-systems. There is no converter as competent as C1 but I never found it all that efficient so thats why I started to use Optics Pro and later Photolab in parallell using C1 mainly for tethering.

Interrestingly enough when C1 has decided to change their pricing model I have discovered that Sonys own free Imaging Edge 3.0 finally has developed to something really useful. Especially the IE Remote has a wireless tethering now with my camera A7IV that I think works brilliantly. So I have finally decided never to upgrade my C1 20.

Even in dPreview’s IE vs shoot out with Adobe Camera Raw it appeared that IE gave better results in some respects also because IE was using the settings the users applies in styles sheets etc. in the cameras. ACR is more if a general tool and IE more specialized for the developement of Sony ARW and another thing discussed in a few other treads is that this proprietary developer also has the advantage of supporting both my A7IV-files and any other new ARW-file from day one. DXO seems to lag a lot here. I got my A7IV the 4th of december and they are talking of March as the time when we can expect profiles to both A7IV and Nikon Z9. Many don’t think this is acceptable.

I have tested the image quality IE produces and it’s really good and really good enough in most cases. If it hadn’t been for the integration with Photo Mechanic I might have left even Photolab now, because this pretty hopeless handling of the profiles has really pissed both me and a lot of other people off a lot. The way Photolab is written now it refuses to open all files that lacks a approved profile in Photolabs profile database and DNG is not an option either because Photolab does only accept DNG-files made from RAW-files approved by Photolab.

I hope DXO really will listen up now and decides to open up the controls in Photolab that today prevent us from using our converter of choise even for files from all these cameras hitting the market in an never ending stream despite they lack profiles.

I am sure there are users out there with more that 50k images in their C1 catalogue. C1 certainly does have dam functionality. The idea of using the free Photo Supreme does not appeal as I would have to start a new catalogue every 5000 images. You would not expect the C1 dam to support PhotoLab or any other software as it is C1 centric - as the Lr dam is unique to Adobe and the PhotoLab library unique to PhotoLab.

1 Like

Are you sure you know at least the most things there is to know about C1?

That already is plain wrong.

That is the next highly doubtful part. I don’t doubt you see the exported results of C1, DxO, SFx, but I’m not interested in quadrupling the amount of images by exporting multiple versions in various apps. So you will not see the RAW with it’s edits, you see the exported TIF or JPG, right?

I don’t want to defend C1, not by far, their ocassionally crashing app is a nuisance. But DxO’s non-reliable DAM part with more shortcomings than benefits is a bigger one. Did I mention that I hate to clutter my hard drives with a variety of apps to “work around” the image related things one app can’t do, but the other, which again can’t do something else and so on? Having their interoperating hiccups makes nothing faster or better. DxO is a nice RAW converter, nothing more.

So you’re running the server version of Photo Supreme - you said “we”?

DNG is something I stay away from, fat files with no real gain. And what is CO1? CaptureOne1? version 22 is around, right?

XMP sidecars? Only if I choose, else it’s in the catalog. I thought, you’d know about that? I agree, that catalog is nothing to write home about, but anytime better than unrelated apps. And Photo Supreme - well, glad you’re happy with, I would not pay a penny for that.

Next to “no one will ever convince me to use 2 apps for organizing and editing”. Too much work for my purposes.

Call it “filtering” and be wrong with that, I don’t mind - I don’t use keywords as main base of library organisation, but I understand the need for it when working in a team and need to find other people’s images quickly. To me, the project/folder/album/intelligent albums (that’s the filtering bit) of Aperture was absolutely the easiest way to keep pictures organized for myself. In a team – different story. And in a huge pile of files – also different story, but a 5000 limit - okay, that’s for the free version, I don’t expect that to have all bells and whistles.

Let’s just say, yours and my definition of a DAM are different and we have different needs. No, I’m not a huge C1 fan, but I’m an even less huge fan of keywording.

C1 has a respectable dam. I am sure many will agree with me. You have your views of course but they appear to be based on a desire for a free solution. Free solutions are never a complete solution they are there in the main to entice payment. Either way, this is a DxO forum and this is not a DxO subject. So we should close this now. Your argument, which I did not understand really, remains a mystery.

I know what a dam is and it is pathetically rude of you to suggest otherwise. I have used them for years both open and provider centric. However I have no desire or intention to explain myself to you and suggest the mods lock this meaningless thread.