And then for each following year you’d need to pay-up again … No ?!
About two weeks earlier every year starting with PL6. And this time a new release of FilmPack didn’t accompany PL9 (PL7 and FP7 both arrived 27 Sep 2023). I’m going to wait a bit before upgrading to PL9 anyway - but it looks so good that I can’t imagine FP8 coming out this year.
But then I tend to do that with PL anyway so the fact that something is a subscription does not worry me, but I do take your point. That said, having played with the PL9 trial I am impressed with what DxO have done.
1 Like
That’s the elephant in the room. Whether you’re paying a yearly subscription of ~£100 or a yearly upgrade price of ~£100, it becomes the same thing.
Sure, you could not upgrade, but then your software starts falling behind the useful tools that the competition gives you.
For me, DXO’s edge right now is superior de-noise and sharpening tools. If Lightroom matches or surpasses that, it suddenly becomes the better prospect (as it already has better realised tools for other functions).
The difference being, tho, that you can continue using an older version of PL (as long as it still supports your body/lens combo) … but stopping one’s LR subscription means you can no longer use it (as I understand it - but correct me if I’m wrong).
John
That is true, but as long as I’m committed to upgrading Photolab versions yearly…
…(either because I’m shooting myself in the foot by not taking advantage of the latest released feature e.g. AI masking, luminosity masks etc… or because if I fall too far behind in the upgrade path, I’d have to pay more to “catch up”)…
…it’s much the same as Lightrooms ghastly subscription policy.
I don’t want to have to subscribe to software, but while I have every right not to continue to update Photolab if I choose not to (and it’ll still work, like you say), I’m paying the same price yearly to keep my software as enjoyable and powerful to use as the competition.
You can use the library but not the develop module.
Your logic is weird to me. It’s like saying, if you do not update your graphic card you do not get the benefits of the new graphics card. That is true but your old 4090 still works and it works very well.
It is plain and simple. If you stop paying, LR stops working. Photolab still works.
If you forget about your laptop and your camera for a 10 years and decide to give it to your children, Photolab will still work, Lightroom will not.
It makes sense to me - some people, and I confess to being one, like to keep their software current. When in that position it matters not whether you subscribe or buy, you are still paying annually.
But still we are talking between can vs forced. True, you pay if you wish. But you do not have to and your software still works.
No we are talking about choice. I upgrade each year so I am committed to spending the money. The cost of the upgrade is therefore material as a comparison to the subscription and what I get for that subscription.
But still we are talking between can vs forced. True, you pay if you wish. But you do not have to and your software still works.
It works, but not as well as the competition (who continue to receive live feature updates throughout the year, rather than one feature update around Q3 time as is the case with Photolab).
The huge draw of non-subscription software is that it will still - as you say - work, even if you don’t pay yearly.
However the draw fades somewhat if the price is identical (or even more than) the yearly subscription options, and/or doesn’t match them for features and content. It must be competitive.
Right now…
- A 12 month subscription to the Adobe Photography plan would be £19.97 p/m. £239.64 for the year.
That’s Lightroom (including desktop, classic, AND mobile) AND Photoshop, plus 1tb cloud storage, 20k fonts, and a library of stock material.
- A brand new copy of PhotoLab 9 is £219.19.
No mobile. No Photoshop option. No cloud, and none of the other stuff. Plus…
- £99.99 for ViewPoint 5
- £129.99 for FilmPack 7
It is possible to buy all three as a bundle from DxO for… £329.99.
It’s £449.17 if you don’t do the bundle.
Now granted once those are purchased, you own them (in theory) for life. But all the time you don’t spend another £/$, you’re only receiving bug-fix updates while technology moves forward both for PhotoLab and its competitors.
So really, if you’re a current photographer, you’re likely to want to keep up to date with new releases which means spending more money.
That brings us full circle. If you’re committed to spending money yearly to maintain your software, it’s important for that software to be competitive both in pricing and offering.
I want PhotoLab to succeed. I’ve enjoyed using it since moving away from Adobe some years ago, but that doesn’t mean it should be free from scrutiny over its business or development moves.
1 Like
this is so true. I stopped as betatester long ago, because of the many arguments I had to scroll through instead of filing bugs/improvements after testing. In other Beta programs I’ve joined, there was no place for discussion between the testers. Only a tool to report something and discuss this afterward with the staff.
And on this forum. There are to many discussions about how DXO is handling their customers. My blund advice is: if you don’t like their software, feel free to buy something else. And if something is broken after you buy it, contact support.
This forum is to share ideas, or help each other with questions about how to use the software, share presets, share results of your photoediting. This keeps high spirits on this forums and lets everybody enjoy photography. Use X or wathever social media if you have the urge to complain or to moan.
5 Likes
This, and all forums, are social media.
Paying customers have every right to comment on how a company behaves and to provide feedback about products and their development. Here it’s actually quite mature discussion - head to a Call of Duty forum if you want to see how it could be.
Your advice was “if you don’t like it, go elsewhere” (despite it ironically being in your own best interests that DxO behaves well as a company, and develops high quality products)… well… if you don’t want to read discussions like these, don’t?
1 Like
true. But the moaning on this forum can also chase customers away.
And yes, this forum is like a social media. But complaining about thinks you can’t get rid of (government, the weather, sociaty) is not the same as complaining about a product you pay for or may not pay for. You’ve to option to leave the product.
Negative feedback never works very well. Telling the truth (something is not working the way I want, it’s broken in this way, etc) is good for the company to improve their product. But everytime telling them that they don’t take their customers seriously, isn’t helping in anyway.
I’d have less to moan about if e.g. AI masking worked, my copy of PL 8 elite didn’t crash while cropping… but don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to be here moaning.
But the above examples don’t work for me.
And DxO did decide to split luminosity masking into FilmPack and perspective controls into ViewPoint so that even £200+ PhotoLab and its £100+ yearly updates isn’t enough.
So here we are. PhotoLab is pretty good (especially if you sigh, and dig deeper in your wallet) but it has the potential to be excellent, and hey, I’ve been willing to pay for it year on year (over £700 so far) despite the issues.
I’d say that’s bought me and anyone else who’s paid the right to speak about what they like and don’t like.
Hell, it could give new customers some real insight into what they might be paying for - the good and the bad - and we provide that insight free of charge!
Yes, you’re right. To get all functions of Photolab, it’s getting expensive. For my taste, paying more than 200 dollar/euro/pound, all functions should be included. I think the DXO licensing structure needs work. In the end, upgrading every year makes DXO more expensive than subscriptions to other software. An hey, not upgrading triggers my FOMO…
1 Like
DxO staff rarely post in this forum, but are reading what’s posted by customers to some extent.