How long do you think PL9 users that have problems should wait for DXO to fix them?
Then why do you even bother writing your post…?
1 Like
Welcome to the real world. It is just some year since Microsoft and Intel together made many miljons of computers obsolete because Microsoft initially forced the users out of the Windows upgrade path. Later after a lot of criticism they have opened for a work around. Even Mac owners have faced hardware induced broken upgrade paths lately.
There are very many examples historically where the software also have been adapted to new hardware architectures making older computers struggling with the new software demands. In some cases it has been binary like with the Windows 11 case.
In our case it is AI-driven and like iMatch DAM both DXO and others could have offered an AI-solution that was not just local. With iMatch we can chose between several local AI-solutions that are free but GPU demanding (might like with Photolab cost you a new GPU) or a subscription of an AI-API of your choice possible to use even with low end GPU-cards. The later often reasonable priced but not entirely free. Hopefully more software vendors will do like Photools with iMatch DAM and give us options that not lock people in like Adobe or Topaz arr doing.
There is nothing like future proof computers, graghics cards or RAW-converters in a developing IT-world and never will be. From time to time there will be compatibility problems or performace issues and there is nothing we can do about that really than to adapt or just start to plant potatoes on the New Hebride Islands or so instread if we feel it gets too much to cope with.
1 Like
I am not really sure what you mean by that, but anyway. If DXO says PL9 will work on your computer, the customer expects that it will. If it does not, he has the right to complain. End of story.
Are you the moderator of this forum? Otherwise, great work arounds! But DXO still has to fix the problems with PL9, not Nvidia.
100% Right! 
1 Like
The trouble is; this isn’t DxO’s first, second or even third attempt…
We’re now on version 9 of the Photolab, v 1.0 came out in 2018 (prior to this, DxO Optics Pro first came out in 2004). In other words; over 20 years of software development history. For contrast, Adobe Lightroom first released in 2006.
…and yet we’re seeing buggy public releases where the flagship new feature simply doesn’t work as well as ongoing performance issues.
Did I mention - on my system at least - PL sometimes hard crashes while cropping? This happens in v8 and v9.
Make as many apologies as you like, but this software is expensive (especially for those of us who choose to buy upgrades to stay up to date with features) and when it doesn’t work, or isn’t nearly as smooth as competitor software already proves is possible, one has to wonder how far fan loyalty and excuses will get DxO.
I’d be quite thrilled if no big new features were worked on now for the next release, but all that effort goes into making v9.5 (or v10.0 if they must) smooth as butter and a joy to use.
Lightroom just introduced AI powered generative removal and object removal tools. Could be handy. But I’d rather DxO didn’t even try and instead go the next release (or an update) to make what we do have work, work well, and work as smooth as butter.
Not to reduce DxOs challenges in any way. But I’ve been using Adobes software since ‘91 and been working professionally with them under 25 years - and I’ve done beta testing for them as well as for DxO.
Don’t get me started on Adobes share of bugs and security issues. 
It’s software. Both Adobe and DxO are pushing the forefront of their areas.
And with that comes bugs or compatibility issues.
They will get sorted.
6 Likes
Fair point, I can’t claim Lightroom et al never had a bug or are some paragons of development (!)
But I would say DxO is lagging behind competitors in terms of some features (their AI offering is late to the party, and doesn’t exactly work), and other products run better on existing hardware.
(I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again) I do want DxO to succeed, I’m here instead of on Adobe or Capture One’s forums, I’m using DxO’s products… but some criticism is warranted, I think, where they’ve slipped up. I do hope they (as you say) get it sorted!
2 Likes
What he means is that in the real world things are never perfect. You certainly have a right to be upset if PhotoLab does not work on your computer in the way you expected it to after purchasing it. However, that doesn’t mean that DxO did not do their due diligence, or developers coded poorly, or PL 9 was insufficiently tested, or DxO was just being sloppy, or just didn’t care.
It is almost impossible to insure that a major release of software will run as expected on every computer with varying operating systems and every mix of hardware and software, and personal usage habits. The number of variables are just to large for any company to ever guarantee that their software will work as advertised in every situation.
As a result it often calls for some patience from some users as issues are sorted out after major new versions of software are released. This is not a DxO issue alone. All software developers face similar issues. However, I completely understand the frustration and anger of those users who are impacted by these issues.
In the case of PhotoLab 9, the recent 9.02 Windows update fixed some of the issues and more updates will follow. With regard to the Nvidia driver issue, there was a recent post here by a user who reported a conversation they had with Nvidia support in which they acknowledged the driver issue and were working on a fix. This suggests that Nvidia is taking some responsibility for a problem that you and others have laid solely on DxO’s shoulders.
However, I acknowledge that none of this will lessen your frustration or general annoyance which I why I said I would not even try. But, this is how things are. As @Stenis said, “Welcome to the real world”.
Mark
1 Like
As ususal, you just have to point out that you know better, in your opinion, most likely you however KNOW you know better. It is called being condescending, as I have pointed out to you before. But I realize this is just you being you, and that is ok.
DXO has a really poor conversation with the customers. They should inform on a weekly basis, at least, what they are doing to find out what the problem is, but they do n o t.
Sorry if you thought I was being condescending. I was just trying to explain some things to you that you don’t seem to understand. I was genuinely trying to help you. I have better things to do with my life than write long posts just to impress you. I will not waste any more of my time responding to you. I hope you will eventually be able to use PL 9 to your satisfaction.
Mark
1 Like
U r just proving what I am saying. Ditto. Over and O U T 
Very few people has criticised DXO more than me when they have deserved it and I have done it to the extent of probably holding the record so far over posts rejected. That list is very long and I can´t even see them all anymore. Here are the recent “letters” to me with the message that these posts have been deleted. From time to time I can´t even post on this forum because often DXO did not like what I have written, so I can tell you that it was not me that moderated those posts away 
Yes in a way I´m definitely a fan boy (even if I´m pretty sure DXO has a VERY different definition of that concept than I have. I´m probably more of a blister in their ass). I have invested a lot in DXO and Photolab all the way since Optics Pro and after I left Adobe for good at version 6.14, that is why it is important for me that DXO can concentrate on fixing these problems than even engage here.
I just say that no one will benefit of one after another posting exactly the same complaints without even bothered to read even the most recent discussions on these subjects. I just don´t think this leads anywhere.
DXO has been unprofessional when developing version 9 when they haven´t used up to date Nvidia-drivers and that is the main cause of these problems. That has definitely caused a lot of problems for many users.
The second big mistake has been to not inform the users both here and on their support pages better than they have done.
… BUT every user ALWAYS has his or her own responsibility to test Photolab with a 30 days fully functional test-version before buying it. Very many here seems to have dodged that own responsibility.
Buying software is not like buying a liter of milk and most people that have used at least Windows and Windows-programs knows this. In fact in this IT- and AI-driven and more and more complex world most people has for many years ago passed their incompetence level which is causing most of them serious problems and what we see now is just one of all these late exemples of this.
As I have written before these problems did not really had to occur if DXO had offered also a possibility for the users to use an external AI-service instead of these local AI-models that we are forced to use today. This is not just a problem with unoptimized AI-models we see now because these AI-models just seems to get bigger and bigger and the only really future proof AI-support that do not need really high end GPU-cards is an AI-support using external AI API-services. Of my softwares both iMatch and Topaz offers external AI-support and I will not be surprised when even Adobe and their competition will need to go the same way in order to fall in the same trap as DXO now have done.
Ollama and LM Studio are free platforms for users to use BUT the price is a GPU card that can manage the AI-models used since they are made to run locally. The smallest free Google Gemma API runs on 4GB mot is much less powerful than the one that demands 12 GB and 12 GB+ cards cost around 500 U$ at least.
All the other API:s in that list are commercial but mostly still pretty surprisingly cheap to use.
If you haven´t heard this before I can assure you that this will become an increasingly common way for software companies in the future just to avoid ending up in the same problems like DXO is sitting in now. I´m also pretty sure DXO will not be the last company to make the same mistakes as DXO now have done.
Users can not just continue to blame companies like DXO for these early AI-related problems. It is high time to start to learn about the true demands of AI-driven systems.
4 Likes
I would question this… it’s their decision to release what they made and charge money for it.
Other companies have it working in their products where DxO is having problems.
Combine those two facts and there’s only so much consumer good-will I’m prepared to offer up. We are paying customers, at the end of the day, and the product isn’t cheap.
2 Likes
Practically every one of PhotoLab’s competitors have issues when major new releases are implemented. You may not as many issues with the Adobe suite’s upgrades because it is not updated on an annualized basis, rather throughout the year. But for software that is upgraded on an annualized basis, like ON1. for example, there are plenty of issues.
When ON1 implemented its generative AI feature in 2025 It was a real mess that took months to fix which annoyed many users unless you were happy with a bird or a rabbit or a building or a car replacing the object you wanted to removed.
Mark
1 Like
I do appreciate ‘problems’ aren’t something exclusive to Photolab but (for example) Lightroom’s first AI masking effort was in 2022, Capture One’s AI powered object selection came along in 2023.
If we were seeing good communication from DxO on their progress to address the problems that would be great. As it is, what I’ve seen is a vague update to 9.1 citing “bug fixes” but not specifically fixes to the AI, and forced adverts for the new FilmPack which I don’t want.
Again… customers, money, expensive product, good will…
1 Like
I certainly understand that. I’ve been a user of PhotoLab since PL1 in October 2017 And I can’t argue with the frustration over communication. However, I like their products so much and have always found them to be superior to anything else I’ve used to meet my particular requirements that after significant complaining over the first couple of years, I’ve gotten used to it and I’m willing to overlook their lousy communication as long as the product continues to meet my expectations.
Mark
3 Likes
“Can not JUST continue to blame” … just DXO I wrote of a reason.
Photolab is a part of an IT-ecosystem living on the Windows 10/11 OS-platform and like Mark has written nothing is more complicated than the Windows-world, since no other platform is more open for external hardware options and their drivers. Compared to that, the Mac-world is a small carefully sheltered workshop.
With the new AI-demands more and more softwares in reality puts on our hardware people will have to understand that there will be “tipping points” where your old systems just doesn´t cope perfectly anymore. It is of that reason it never has been more important that people download a 30-days trial before giving DXO or any other vendor their money before they are satisfied with what they are buying.
No one today can outsource that to anyone else than themselves.
Every user of softwares like Photolab, Topaz or Imatch DAM, that in fact are AI-applications today will have to understand what it really means to run AI locally or by using an AI API-service like in Imatch DAM because this pushes boundaries that DXO have no control over. The only one that has that is the single user since every Windows PC is uniquely built and configured.
People that want to or feel a need to use these softwares and GPU-cards has to take resonsibility for their own situation or else they will make better in not using these systems at all. Maybe they just shall stay with version 8 instead until they get mentally ready or decides to upgrade if they sit with old GPU-card with less VRAM than at least 8 GB today and you better be totally prepared that the limit for running bigger language models will soon be 16 GB or even more.
I don´t know wether DXO has built the models they are using locally now by themselves but I assume these predefined AI-models for people, skies, backgrounds etc. are pretty limited compared to the bigger more general models Google and OpenAI are using in for example iMatch-DAM and there is for sure a reason why even Topaz has decided to add an external AI-source for some of Topaz heavier features. It is the only way for a AI-software vendor to be sure that every user that want to use these features actually can use them regardless of the GPU-card they are using.
Since there is yet no external AI API-interface in DXO Photolab that way is closed and that leaves every user with the responsibility to test the 30-days version before buying it.
There is an old marketing cliché that says “the customer is always right” and I have never bought that stance because some customers just don´t know their own limitations and their own good and just when it is time to back off or get some new knowledge that might change that situation. … BUT the customer has always the last word and can always turn down an offer or ditch a deal.
Maybe it is time for some users to realize that the AI in Photolab 9 might not be for everyones present hardware in the short run and in the shape it is right now, before it gets better optimized - if that even will be possible in the short run on top of that there might even be some bugs that causes specifi problems with certain GPU-cards.
1 Like
You mention less VRAM but I’m sat here with 11gb of it on my system and - sorry to sound like a broken record - but other companies have their AI-mask offerings working just fine on systems like mine (and managed it several years ago).
I don’t mind DxO being late to the party, but it is disappointing that their attempt simply doesn’t work, communication has been lacking, we’re seeing forced adverts in the PL9 trial and a focus on FP8… where you can see the forum is awash with concerns around the masking, incompatibilities, performance issues etc. (the single largest topic besides the ongoing “new lens/camera support” thread being “PL9 not really ready for release!”).
I take no pleasure from jumping on forums to complain, I’d rather everything worked fine and that there are no problems, but there are and I think the writing really is on the wall there. DxO needs to step up.
5 Likes
I dont´t think it just is the physical memory, it is about every cards possibilities to parallell process and the bandwith they support - which also differs.
When I was using Photolab 9 saving pictures I couls see a very high memory usage:
Memory used was over 8GB and System Memory was over 12 GB and that might be fine and long as the system manage to handle that without getting totally choked. For me this is fine as long as it lets it take its time. So I don´t care really about the speed as long as the job gets done without the system crashes and working with using the freehand masking method not even the speed is an issue because it is really working really well as it is both with the masking and the exports and printing.
1 Like