Luminosity masks (which are not present in DPL 6) require a FilmPack license. I’m just wondering why they couldn’t just copy the code of this feature from FilmPack to Photolab. I can’t believe that it’s just a way to sell more FilmPack licenses. This is why I advocate for a unique product : things are becoming very messy.
2 Likes
You already have it. There is now only one version (Elite) which has lost its name suffix. There is only one Photolab (7).
@DxO : I repeat : stop that mess. You are losing customers.
4 Likes
code copied, license activates access to copied code … call it DxO PL Elite FP Edition and call it a day
Are you privy to their financials ?
Patrick,
A lot of people have been confused by this. Perhaps when PL 7 was first released, it only referred to a single version without the “Elite Edition” suffix. However, I just checked DxO’s website. The Elite version is still called “Elite Edition” and there is also still an Essential Edition version, (circled in red).
Mark
Filmpack only has one version now.
Photolab still has elite and essential version now.
2 Likes
We have
1 pureraw which is mainly a rawdeveloper and denoise aplication.
2 photolab essential(why would you with no deepprime?)
3 Photolab elite which is mainly the deeprime adding.(atleast that was the difference in former versions)
4 viewpoint which is a strong perspective tool. A manual version is default in elite i believe.
5 Filmpack (elite)
This is a bit odd. It holds a lot of tastes/presets emulating classic film. That’s where the name is from. But it also holds some advanged contrast sliders which are also usefull in generic renderings profiles, and some more general usefull tools.
I endorse the reasoning why are general all purpose tools( not special for film emulation made tools) stuck/placed in FP?
Personally i almost never use those b&w emulations called after epic, famous filmtypes but i use the general tools very often.
That’s why i bought the suite elite package years ago.
The VP and FP are version carrying. Updating photolab means they are embedded in the new version so you don’t need to update VP or FP every year to use them.
Maybe they can bundle the dxo PhotoLab v7 elite full package as in v7, vp and fp elite again? To make things more clear.
I suppose there is a check list of compared features ?
In the application they tell you if it’s filmpack/viewpoint licenced tool by clicking on the [?]
Not in the trailversion?
And don’t forget there NIC package which has still a lot of fans and users.
So does it be odd to have general tools in a filmemulation package?
yes in customers perspective it is. But dxo has a point of view and a businesplan build around it so it must be clear for them.
The main point is investigate, trail and ask around about what you purchase, buy.
Does it holdup the expectations?
I do that for every device
Specifications.
Reviews
Featurelist’s agains compatators featurelist’s.
My own testing if possible.
Break it down.
What do i need?
What can i skip if needed to keep budget?
What would i like to buy if money isn’t a factor?
How many skins do i have peel off/skip options before i hit assummed budget?
Don’t buy impulsive and complain afterwards you miss things which you expected to be included. 30 day’s is quite alot of time if you plan a testingsequence propperly.
Even prestarting a trail you can join a forum to aks for testing/comparing by handing over some test rawfiles to compare those with your present application so unexperience of dxoPL way of use isn’t a factor in the edit. And then starting the trail in order to compare faster images against your present editor. See if it’s worth the money. They don’t twist your arm or leave you with nothing if you don’t buy /upgrade.
Peter
4 Likes
Whether we consider DxO’s price policy absurd or not depends on our own expectations.
If we regularly upgrade to the latest versions, I find PhotoLab to cost more than Affinity Photo, Adobe’s Photo plan, and cost less than Capture One.
If we include other criteria like e.g. features, ease of use, dependability and our actual needs, a price can become a value and relations can change.
DxO currently bundles its software (PL, FP and VP) to make its price more accessible.
If we check interoperability on support.dxo.com and search the Internet, we can get an idea about release cycles and find that different companies make this info more easily available than others.
But again, our feelings are ours and it’s okay to let off steam from time to time, as long as we let others do it too.
3 Likes
I’m confused: I asked “Which feature of Photolab 6 is missing in Photolab 7?” and you mention a feature “not present in DPL 6”?
OK. My mistake. Sorry. Still, the DxO offering is really confusing. I don’t understand why they didn’t include luminosity masks in Photolab anyway, be it in the Elite version only.
3 Likes
unfortunately only for the money…
because who else would have bought version 7 (or updated it) FOR SOME film SIMULATIONS that are mostly useless?
almost no one…
their strategy risks being their downfall in the more or less long term.
because when you are an outsider you have to have an aggressive strategy to have customers. they behave as if they were market leader/serious mistake?
in any case, it is out of the question to spend money just for a luminosity mask that you can do without
4 Likes
Why do people get expensive cars if they can get from A to B in a less costly vehicle?
1 Like
Safely, more comfort, more reliability and responce to customers
everyone judges what is or is not useful. your comparison seems inappropriate to me.
a high-end car provides added value on many criteria.
the added value is only on one criterion (mask) which can be quite easily approached with the other local retouching tools available without adding money (using the black/shadow/exposure sliders etc…)
2 Likes
I hadn’t thought of it that way, but you’re right… (unless someone wants to tell me otherwise):
Control points can make a Luminosity mask if you tweak the Luma/Chroma to only target the areas you want (say: the highlights) and from there you’re editing based on that mask. You’ve got your Luma mask. Luminosity masks are therefore a nice quality-of-life feature to do that for you perhaps more accurately and with less footwork, but you can absolutely work around them.
That’s right, I believe?
But regardless I’ll add my voice to those who’re irritated by the choice to push Lumi. Masks into Filmpack as it’s the only reason I have for thinking about purchasing Filmpack. Add ViewPoint to that and the “real” price of PhotoLab Elite isn’t £209 in the UK, it’s £209 plus £129 plus £89 or a cool £427.
As food for thought, I purchased a year’s Adobe subscription to Photoshop and Lightroom last year for £72.
So buying DxO’s suite “new” could buy me nearly 6 years’ of Adobe subscription at that price (and Adobe would continue to update throughout that 6 years, whereas my DxO suite would be out of date come October 2024). If I pay for yearly upgrades then even just upgrading DxO from v6 to v7 would cost me another years’ Adobe subscription.
I like Photolab and DxO’s software in general, but I’d like to not feel my wallet’s being abused when purchasing it. In this case… just amalgamating important features like Lumi. Masks into the main product, rather than pretty obviously moving them to a less popular product area in order to sell more units… would be very well received.
11 Likes
…which proves that perception of added value is highly personal.
Anyways, we can always vote with our wallets and share our thoughts here.
I’m still concerned about DxO’s pricing policy, and I know people who don’t invest in DxO apps just because of that policy. It’s DxO’s choice, but the folks need to eat too - and some of them will definitely want bigger cars too 
1 Like
After DXO busted its self over the ONE many of us effectively paid yearly updates for very little but kept them going. At times despite lots of marketing promises almost nothing was added some years but I fear they think all users at all times will keep on doing that, paying to keep them going. I fear there are not that many now. Many like me are getting fed up of being taken for granted and milked for ill finished updated versions. When you look at other forums there is a great deal of ill feeling towards DXO and this approach, much more than has been expressed here.
7 Likes
This is exactly the reason why I started this tread!
And then you have to be lucky to buy the Software at the proper moment in time or you have to pay half of the price again of PhotoLab’s new version to be up to date.
The issue is not that you don’t have to do it, but as a new user of “PhotoLab Elite” I expect to buy the whole package or they have rename PhotoLab in: “PhotoLab 7 Skinned Version” to make it clear to new users. Where does the “Elite” stands for?
3 Likes
Sadly I agree John!
I’m not trying to take away from what the development teams are doing and overall the suite really is solid and I enjoy using it.
But there’s a cost of living crises here in the UK at the moment and photography is not my main income. In other words I have to really think “Do I have £xxx to spend on software?” and that question becomes even more profound when the software company is fairly openly trying to milk more money from (me).
I’m paying upgrade prices now, so if the upgrade price isn’t right on Black Friday, I won’t be upgrading. I’d like to, but I’m not a bottomless wallet, even though I’d like to be.
I agree it can be confusing David!
I’m torn… on the one hand I think it’s good to be able to “build your own package” and say “Ok, I don’t need FilmPack because I don’t use those filters. I’ll save money there.” - but then they put more important functionality like Lumi Masking in there, making the core product less potent than the competition which does include it.
So in some ways I’d rather they said “right, everything is included but it’s £50 more to upgrade” and be done with it. One price… one product… all the functionality.
2 Likes
Approched only. With luminosity mask as it is implemented you can (should - I didn’t test it) easily control falloff of the mask depending on luminosity.
An other (maybe better, giving more options) approch would have be to add the curve falloff parameter to the local adjustment luma selectivity instead of just a slider.
So we would have had a spatial falloff combined with a luma falloff. (No spatial falloff would have be easily acheived with a control line with falloff (gradient) positionned in the outside of the image).