Parler aux utilisateurs / Talking to the users

@Joanna If I don’t travel outside the UK for holidays anymore or even do long journeys in the UK so I won’t physically be coming to any meeting in Paris any time soon but no great loss there.

@platypus a better idea and it means that US and Australian and … users can also join in if they so wish.

@black-raven I have taken the liberty of translating your post so that I can read it hopefully I got it all but not formatted as your original.

I stopped learning French at the age of 15 albeit I remembered enough that when doing an audit of a banking system in Arras by the end of the week I understood enough of a conversation between the customer’s technical support and their senior analyst to be able to interject my own comments, much to their surprise!

I got a better reception from the customer than I did from my French colleagues but that is another story!


Good morning,

This is my very first message on this forum and I don’t know if there is a presentation section…

I’ve been using DXO since Optics Pro 9 and have stuck with Photolab 5, FilmPack 6 and ViewPoint 3 (I’m on Windows).

Photolab corresponds to my way of working and I particularly like the quality of the final result, even if everything is not perfect, far from it. This is why the subject raised by Pat91 made me want to contribute here.

For years, there have been many things that have remained unchanged even though they exist among the competition. Here is a list of what I would like to see added or improved:

An automatic white balance option. It’s not much, but it would save a lot of photos. I mainly do wildlife photography in the undergrowth, and in the event of an incorrect white balance, the eyedropper is rarely effective in these conditions. This option exists in other software and I don’t see why DXO couldn’t implement it.

A more advanced curve tool with, why not, predefined curve shapes

Selective tone sliders that finally work in the right tonal ranges. This is a known and recognized problem and it turns out that in reality, its use is problematic.

A history that is preserved upon closing.

A Panorama tool as well as HDR fusion would delight landscapers.
I agree that the interface could use a little refreshing.
Personally, the tabbed layout suits me perfectly, but I find the font used to be too big. It lacks finesse and takes up a lot of space.
Furthermore, the software lacks responsiveness, even on large configurations.

As I said above, I stayed with version 5, because 6 did not meet my expectations, and 7 even less. And I’m not talking about petty pricing (luminosity mask in FP7, for example).

I think the DXO team needs to open their eyes and listen to their users.
Like Pat91, I work in IT (system/network administration) and I can assure you that software lacking in ergonomics is quickly abandoned.

This idea of ​​meeting, physically and/or via video is an excellent idea and would, in my opinion, allow the DXO team to evolve without remaining stuck on its achievements.

Competition is progressing quickly and is questioning itself. If DXO wants to continue to sell and offer new things, it has no choice, it must listen.

My comments:-

Like you DxPL suits me better than any other editor I have tried, I can start and stop editing at any point and return, or not, when I desire.

The issues you raise are some that I would also raise but DxO appears to try to play catch and put a spin on it in an attempt to appeal to new users but they have fallen way behind in so many areas I am not sure that is actually possible!

1 Like

Thanks to all for your comments. It seems that we have raised a subject.

I have nothing against taking the initiative ourselves (be it by organizing a meeting or by setting up a Zoom conference) but I’d really prefer if the initiative came from DxO.

This section of the forum is called “Feature requests”. This implies that someone at DxO is keeping an eye on what is posted here. If they don’t, or if they do read these threads but don’t react after a reasonable period of time, I think we’ll have a meaningful and definitive answer. Then, we can always decide what could be done to organize users outside of this forum and to facilitate exchanges and meetings.

If something happens on their side, let’s see what they have to offer first regarding their customer relations policy. Another webinar, be it animated by a DxO representative or a designated expert is not what I’m looking for.

Re : Zoom
In my photo club, during the COVID period, we used Zoom for our meetings. Most of the time, the sessions ended in confusion (OK, I admit, we’re French :stuck_out_tongue:). Zoom sessions are really useful for making decisions about well-defined, precisely listed points. Otherwise, they rarely lead to anything constructive. Just my opinions, though.


…and that is why I proposed to create an agenda, rules of communication and to have a moderator. An agenda could be set up with adding topics to a list that is best shared so that everyone can add to the list and, at a later stage, participate to isolate the most important topics, which need not necessarily be of photo-technical nature.

Waiting for DxO to take the lead is not going to take us anywhere, but if we look at the zoom conf. as a project (that will take some time and effort to accomplish), we might be able to start something. Inviting DxO will help them take a decision and if they don’t want to participate, we’ll have an answer too.

The current silence feels like a symptom of utmost stress at DxO, be it financially or organisationally…and I’d be happy to be proven otherwise by DxO. After all, customer relationship management is not new. But maybe we’re dealing with a more agricultural paradigm here: Milk that cow!

1 Like

may be C1 can buy DxO and simply discard everything but NR and optics corrections part … they don’t have AI/ML NR ( yet ) - so that might be worthwhile … I do not see any other buyers

Auto WB is already implemented… when you use a picker that covers more than 2x2 sensels ( if you operate on un-demosaicked raw data from a camera with CFA - adjust for few more sensels if you have X-Trans CFA ) or more than just 1 pixel for demosaicked data then you ALREADY do Auto WB … there is no big deal to do it for the whole image area, instead of sampling 50px radius spot … ACR/LR nailed that many years ago - you draw a rectangle in a frame and use that selected area ( that can be as small as you want or as big as you want ) to calculate WB … you can draw rectangle covering whole frame if your religion does not allow you (DxO !) to provide “Auto WB” option in drop down list in UI WB tool

What is more outrageous that DxO EVEN DOES NOT USE manufacturer’s own AUTO WB ! most of camera manufacturers will write AUTO WB in raw files even if you are not using that option in settings for a shot ( so you have several WB tags present, one of them has manufacturer’s calculation of Auto WB using their algorithm ) … so it is already present and calculated - so you only need to provide user with an option to select it ! in that same UI tool, extra options in drop down list

or not … if you are talking about custom made core business system where the cost to abandon and migrate / map all data / business processes, train people, etc is simply too much to " quickly abandon" it

and I am not mistaken DxO did send some marketing guy to a meet with some locals ( Fédération Photographique de France = “As part of the partnership department, we organize video conferences with our various partners. Monday October 9, we invited DxO to tell us about their company and especially their strategy in terms of development and positioning of their products.” ) and those people produced a tube recording = ( Table ronde avec DxO , sic ! )

so they do meet just with more pliant audience :see_no_evil: :hear_no_evil: :speak_no_evil:

1 Like

A good global presentation of DxO’s product line. Period. The only thing that I have learned is that all evangelists at DxO Labs are photographers. Good to know but what about the developers ? The only moment when someone asked questions about technical problems, the immediate answer was : contact the customer support.

So, this kind of meeting is exactly what personally I’m not looking for. What is really needed is a direct connection between the development team and the users, be it in this forum or during a face-to-face meeting, whatever the number of users who could be invited. Otherwise I’m not very interested. I’m not sure that a meeting with more than 25 or 30 users would be very productive. This was approximately the number of (non-Microsoft) MVPs attending the technical sessions where we had direct access to the MS developers and could get non marketing driven replies. Advanced users talking to developers… In some cases some of the attendees were also developers :

  • Microsoft .Net developers talking to the developers of the .Net framework (which is used for Photolab, by the way)
  • VBA Office developers talking to the MS Office developers
  • etc.

Most of the time, these meetings were extremely profitable and often had a significant and visible impact on the product evolution. I have to admit that Microsoft MVPs were like spoiled children but until they asked us to become evangelists, the free speech rule was respected. Not only was it possible to be very critical but this was also expected.


We’d need open-minded persons on all sides.

Sales and evangelists have their agenda, product owners should be less biased though.

@BHAYT Thanks for the translation, I’m not very comfortable holding a discussion in English!

@black-raven that’s fine except I “earned” a few “hearts” that really belonged to your original mail, sorry!


The english version of my initial post has just been removed by the staff for the following reason :

Your post was flagged as off-topic: the community feels it is not a good fit for the topic, as currently defined by the title and the first post.

This post was flagged by the community and a staff member opted to remove it.

The good news is that we are now sure that someone at DxO is reading this section of the forum. But I’m wondering why the english version of the message is off-topic while the french version is not. Is my english that bad ? :stuck_out_tongue:


Strange people these French.
Free from Asterix. :smiley:
Seems they reject your proposal and can’t read french.


1 Like

@Pat91 Who in the community would flag the original translated post, that makes no sense and its removal even less sense!? Unless it was felt that is should only be expressed in French???

There is nothing in that post that warrants such action, in my opinion and in case the very reason for this topic is lost, except to the French speaking community, then here it is.

The opinions I expressed in response to this and other posts have not changed.




Hello everyone,

For many users, DxO Photolab is technically the best RAW file processing tool available on the market. It is indisputable. However, year after year, we see inconsistencies in its user interface, without seeing an adequate reaction from DxO. From professional experience, I know that neglecting this aspect of software for too long can lead to weariness among users who, ultimately, will sometimes prefer software that is perhaps less efficient but more coherent in its interface, and therefore more easily usable. In the past, I have seen technically almost perfect software suddenly disappear from the market due to gross negligence regarding user requests. The functional quality of software is not necessarily the guarantor of its success and sustainability. We sometimes have the impression that Photolab developers are not photographers themselves and that the choices they make are made without being based on actual digital development practice. I have the feeling that 2024 is the year where DxO should refocus on this type of problem, even at the cost of a pause in technical innovation. The current features are sufficient and careful maintenance should be enough to keep this product significantly above the rest.

Currently, communication between DxO and its users is limited to the beta test program with a level of listening to user suggestions that often leaves something to be desired. It is insufficient. There are no longer any exchanges or responses on the “Requests” forum. Certain requests of obvious interest (and I’m not just talking about mine :slight_smile:) have gone unanswered for years. I think this situation needs to be corrected. I see 2 ways to do this:

  1. Increase DxO’s participation in the Requests forum, as close as possible to the development team. The fact that non-English speakers are in practice completely excluded from exchanges should also be taken into account.

  2. It seems to me that direct exchanges (I mean face-to-face) with users should be considered. DxO Labs is based in Boulogne-Billancourt, near Paris. I think it would be relevant to organize a one or two day session where direct exchanges with the development team would be possible. This is a strategy that Microsoft successfully applied with its MVP program, albeit with considerable resources. But this can be considered on a smaller scale. Of course this would exclude users very far from Paris but I think that the benefit that could be gained from such exchanges would have positive consequences for everyone. No need for major logistics to set up such a session. There is no shortage of active users on this forum, not necessarily beta testers, who have a good knowledge of the product and whose opinions are relevant. It’s up to DxO to decide who to invite.

I have been thinking about making this proposal for a long time, but it seems to me that now is the time to try something. The Photolab UI theme has become, in my humble opinion, a crucial part of the future of the product. Neglecting it would be a mistake.

Thank you for your attention.


2024-01-04_121507_Parler aux utilisateurs (Talking to users).pdf (2.7 MB)

1 Like

I can’t contribute much technically, I haven’t been familiar with the software long enough for that. In my professional career, I have learned that new functions should exceed user expectations - this is not always the case, but should happen more often :slight_smile: .
A meeting can be used to test the strategic function planning against the wishes, ideas and requirements of the users. In this respect, there is a win-win situation with a meeting. My 2c

1 Like

I just want DxO to make money and remain profitable so I can use its wonderful tools. If it has to sacrifice a few niceties so it can invest in what it is really great at - I can live with that.

Full disclosure - I am now using (gulp) Lightroom Classic for managing my photo library and DxO for editing - having now watched all but one of the fstoppers tutorials on DxPL, I am more excited than ever about using it and squeezing even more out of my favourite images.

I also appreciate this forum and all the passionate contributors yet we have to remember the forum users may not actually reflect the broader/wider user base and also the “non-users” , that DxO need to attract to generate revenue.

Like most companies, it’s profit before passion but hey they do it right and more people will become passionate and perhaps then they will take on board the many valid requests and frustrations.

What would be nice / valuable and really at the heart of this thread is the need for a two way conversation with DxO. So thank you @Pat91 for starting the thread. May it remain open and would someone from DxO please listen to what forum users are expressing. A response would be great as many of use are keen to understand what the future holds.

I wish all a wonderful 2024…

1 Like

I sincerely hope that DXO will listen to user feedback.
When I see the substantial list of bugs in PL7, I’m very happy to have stayed with PL5…
Maybe PL8 will finally meet our expectations.
If not, I think their future looks bleak…
That would be a waste because the image and processing quality is really excellent.
I haven’t tried the latest versions of LR and C1, so I can’t compare. But I think they must now be as good as PL?

PS: I used Google translator. Sorry if the English is not correct…

I also appreciate this forum and all the passionate contributors yet we have to remember the forum users may not actually reflect the broader/wider user base and also the “non-users” , that DxO need to attract to generate revenue.

Thanks for this comment, as I’m one of those people who love DxO (since 2005) but aren’t a specialist in checking DxO’s features.
Thanks Derek_K

1 Like

Could you please elaborate a little on this ? I didn’t notice this problem until now but I’m currently working on a photo where DPL says that a given sky area is totally blown out (no correction applied) and is unable to recover while Lightroom clearly shows exposure differences in the same area and can recover from this. The RAW file comes from a Fuji X100 (not an X-Trans sensor).

I’m aware of the “lower exposure first” method that should be used in DPL contrary to other RAW converters but in this case, there’s nothing I can do to recover this part of the sky.

Sorry, I can’t make the file public.

what is to elaborate more about this - unless v7.3 did some changes ( for example that somewhere between first v7 and 7.3 DxO fixed how they write baseline exposure tag at least for some camera models, Canon R5 for example - so they do some silent un-announced fixes in core functionality - writing DNG tags/their values when generating linear DNG output is a core functionality unlike various local adjustments ) DxO for example will clip data to whitepoint when generating demosaicked DNG output ( same areas will not be clipped by Adobe software for example ) and when working with raw files will not be able to use unclipped data that is very close to clipping in raw channels … it is not the end of the world, but it is SLOPPY CODING which in turn makes one wonder what other frivolous stuff happens inside