Masking so bad it ought not exist

[brntoki]

Long run. Make it run silky smooth, get more users, make more money, use it to innovate. Go slow to go fast.

[stuck (stuck [Canon, PL9+FP7+VP5, Win11+RTX 5070 12GB])]

@brntoki

Make it run silky smooth

That desire comes up regularly. Here’s my recent response to a post expressing a similar sentiment:

My wish list for DxO PhotoLab 10

Don’t think anyone will argue with you there. However, simple observation of how DxO operate strongly suggests that financial factors mean they are driven by the constant need for new users, and that means a constant need for new features, to grab headlines. Optimisation requires time and effort to revisit existing stuff. While such effort would be noticed and welcomed by loyal users, such effort is never going to grab headlines, since it’s halfway to admitting stuff was only ever half-baked…

[brntoki]

My wish list for DxO PhotoLab 10

Don’t think anyone will argue with you there. However, simple observation of how DxO operate strongly suggests that financial factors mean they are driven by the constant need for new users, and that means a constant need for new features, to grab headlines. Optimisation requires time and effort to revisit existing stuff. While such effort would be noticed and welcomed by loyal users, such effort is never going to grab headlines, since it’s halfway to admitting stuff was only ever half-baked…

Understandable and logical take. You’re just being honest about what you’re seeing. That seems to me an explanation that matches what has actually been happening. I have a license for PL and FP from years ago that will no longer install on recent OSs, and the experience is the same. It wasn’t a smooth experience then, and it isn’t now. I have noticed no improvement, other than the option to have denoise able to be previewed as you edit (a very welcome and, more than I think many admitted, quite important usability improvement).

If this observation and explanation is correct, and I think it is likely spot-on, then someone needs a wakeup call. DxO is shooting itself in the foot if they think performance and experience needn’t be a VERY high priority. Potential new user “conversion” or sale rates will definitely improve.

What’s very interesting is this: DxO could really benefit from the general feeling of people that corporations and companies are only after profits and don’t care about their customers. Market a “We’re taking a step back and focusing on a smooth and improved user experience. Our users love our tools and create amazing work with them, but we feel they can enjoy making that work even more by refining the tools and speeding them up even more…” campaign. It admits nothing. All positive. And this would actually gain attention on social media. Then, drop a much smoother experience in the next release and watch people sing DxO praises.

But I know the thinking would be… “Why would people pay for an upgrade? They would just complain that we are fixing the thing they already bought and paid for.” And they’d certainly have a point.

They’d have to rely on new users coming over and make something like this a point release, then let the community sing their praises and focus on the next iteration. Something like that.

Anyway, DxO, please realize that usability is a “feature” too.

[jonathancolledge]

I find masking to be exceptionally well implemented. I sometimes really don’t see what other forum users here see and never comment, but this, I felt I should say, because it is the polar opposite to the OP.

[brntoki]

I appreciate your perspective. Certainly using it and knowing what it is capable of helps in not being disappointed because you know what to expect. Coming from LR, however, I was shocked at how hard it has been to get good results and how laggy and unrefined the experience has been. I have gotten excellent results, but getting there has been a real chore.

[Pieloe (Pascal)]

It is with pleasure that I follow the progress of this discussion, which got off to a very bad start.
The problem for DxO, and for all of Adobe’s competitors, is that Lightroom is the expected standard.
A new user’s first impression is to find the environment they’re familiar with… in the hope that they’ll go beyond it!
Pascal

[Fineus]

(Guess who! )

I am - within reason - one such user.

That’s not to say I think there should be no innovation in the next year or two, in fact there are some features I join others in crying out for (radial masks ala Lightroom, three-way split toning to include mid-tones again ala Lightroom or C1 etc.)

But from a performance, optimisation, and also usability point of view, PhotoLab is in a clunky place.

I don’t just mean “My system isn’t top-spec so it’s not as fast as I’d like”.

I do mean some curious choices around when and how the software generates previews, how long it takes to do that, how it locks up functionality until it’s done…

…and also, how many of the tools work and are presented. Although there are online tutorials, some of it isn’t nearly as intuitive as competing software.

The functionality under the hood is there… PhotoLab can put out incredibly sharp, noiseless shots that knock competing software out of the water.

But where it’s a breeze to run through entire albums in competing software, it can be a slog here. For that reason I do think they need to slow down a little bit and look at some housekeeping as well as worrying only about adding more and more features.