Photolab 2.1

Ah optimism :slightly_smiling_face:

Colin

Iā€™m coming from a completely different approach on this. I was a long time user of Lightroom, from version 3 to version 6.14 and I dumped it altogether in favor of PhotoLab. I have found I get far better results in Photolab and I get them much faster than I ever could in Lightroom, I continue to learn the subtleties that various combinations of PLā€™s controls afford me and I will never go back to Lightroom. And a major additional benefit to me is I donā€™t have to waste time importing images into Lightroom and I can safely manage them outside of Lightroom without confusing a database. Yes there are things in Lightroom that I would like to see in PhotoLab, but frankly I donā€™t miss them enough to go back. But I appreciate that everyone has their own preferences for getting satisfactory end results.

Mark

1 Like

As you say, we all have our preferred way.

Ash, youā€™re right - the GX9 modules are only available in PL2. Itā€™s one of the (few) new features in PL2 to get users to upgrade. Canā€™t say I blame DxO for following this practice - although, I do think it took way too long to add GX9 support to PhotoLab in the first place. I hope that new camera and lens support wonā€™t take as long in the future, now that DxO Labs has reorganized. I strongly believe thatā€™s in DxOā€™s best interests. (The new Nikon Z cameras seem to be getting support quickly enough.)

On the bright side, thereā€™s no need to pay for new versions of ViewPoint and FilmPack every time PhotoLab gets updated. For the most part, those have been getting new camera support via minor updates.

Once a new version of a companyā€™s software is released, previous versions generally no longer receive updates. While this is not universal it is certainly very common, and not just limited to post-processing software. Adobe has been following that pattern for years. That is the reason that PL 1.2 did not get updates for your new camera.

Mark

I have exactly the same feelings when it comes to comparing with Lightroom. I also used Lr for a long time. I also get better results in Photolab. Only some PhotoLab functions work worse than in Lightroom. From my point of view, the biggest weakness of PhotoLab in comparison with Lr is a much weaker ability to efficiently / predictably recover and ā€œfine tuneā€ overexposures and very dark parts of the image. However, this applies only to some ā€œdifficultā€ images and usually is not a particularly serious problem. In general, I am quite satisfied.

If you are.referring to deep shadow detail recovery my experience is that Photolab is much superior to Lightroom. To address it I use a combination of Smart Lighting, the Shadows slider, the Shadows contrast slider, and Prime noise reduction. And of course local ajustments, alone or in combination with these other gobal tools, can also be very effective. This assumes one is using the PL Elite version with the integrated FilmPack 5 Elite functionality.

Mark

You are right. I know that in PhotoLab I can ā€œrecoverā€ shadows much more than in Lr. However, this is a quite complicated process in PhotoLab. Strong brightening of the shadows causes a significant change in the overall tonality of the photo. This has to be corrected with many tools. I have the impression that in the case of Lr, the sliders which adjust shadows and overexposures, give much better and more natural looking results right away.

1 Like

I try to achieve as much shadow retrieval as I can with Smart Lighting and minimize use of the shadows slider. Sometimes a slightly negative midtone setting can compensate a bit. But in more difficult situations have you also tried using local adjustments?

Mark

I also use Smart Lightning and local corrections. In general, I get very good results in the end. What I mean is that the ā€œmanualā€ overexposure and shadow adjustment tools should work in a similar way as in Lr. I think that would be better. I like Smart Lightning. I just have to take into account that, like any automation, it sometimes gives unpredictable effects. :wink:

Do you have significantly more experience achieving good results in Lightroom than you do in Photolab? I canā€™t tell you the number of hours Iā€™ve put into Photolab to understand the subtleties of various tool combinations which differ significantly from similar tools in Lightroom. I think itā€™s unrealistic to expect similar tools in different software packages to work the same way. Itā€™s just not something thatā€™s going to happen. It really comes down to learning how to get the best from the tools available in each package.

Mark

1 Like

I can easily and efficiently achieve very good results in PhotoLab. I started using PhotoLab from version 1.0. I used Lr for several years. I realize that the way both programs work is very different and I need to adapt. I just noticed that some (more or less analogous) functions work in Lr in a more " sophisticated" way. This is especially true for the sliders that regulate shadows and lights. But in general itā€™s much easier for me to work in PhotoLab. In many aspects, PhotoLab gives much better results right away.

I have a similar background using both LR and PhotoLab and a similar experience with PhotoLab.

Mark

Strange how our experienced differ. Goes to show we all see things differentlyā€¦thankfully.

If we all thought the same there wouldnā€™t be a dozen or more competing post-processing software programs. There would be two. A budget one for those without much money and a premier one for those who have the money.

1 Like

Agree to some of the post related to different workflows and expectations. For me DXO, now PL has been a revelation, after searching for the right tool to edit and develop my photos.
My main problem is time. Also photo is a hobby for me. So I have no time to dig deeper into for sure great SW like LR or CO, or whatever. They have a to great learning curve for me in matter of time.
So if I for example have made a hundred of photos from the soccer game of my son and have to edit those as if on an assembly line, PL does this job. And there is besides the standard editing I do enough left in PL to go deeper. Still havenā€™t gone through als the tutorials and this great http://dxo.tuto.free.fr website.
A pro for sure has other milestones his SW has to offer. But even among the pros there are for sure a lot of different approaches to do the job.
I have a good comparison from another area. Iā€™ve been working with Cubase since Atari times. You have to take a look at their forum. Every new version causes a wave of complaints about what was better before, what still doesnā€™t work and what still hasnā€™t been implemented.
And in this area there is certainly a much greater number of work scenarios than editing photos. And to be honest, I admire the software developers, how they manage to make something available for everyone to do their work.

1 Like

For me, Photolab 2.1 already fixed a small and annoying bug (here).
Yes the version number is a bit ā€œbigā€ for this small step, but it is a (small) step forward.
I think they are at work and they got ā€œthe messageā€.
Letā€™s wait and see now.

Perhaps the big version number change is to enable DxO to get quicker to the PL3 release? Then we can all pay for another upgrade. Cynical? Perhaps not.

1 Like

If I am not happy I will just stop paying and get another software.
In the meanwhile I will let DxO work at peace.

2 Likes

Hello Ash,

As Panasonic GX9 body was introduced in PL2, itā€™s impossible to have its support in PL1 (same behavior for LR and other apps).

Regards,
Svetlana G.