I am one of them.
But I follow closely other softwares and know what they offer (even if I haven’t try every features).
I’m freelancer and I’m forced to use adobe softwares when I work with companies for which this is the workflow (and there are many). But when I can, on some projects, I force them to change workflow.
I do see this too.
Nonetheless I think I can do without it for my photo work.
And hope DxO will stay ahead of the game on their strengths and overcome their weaknesses.
For comparison, look what some people said about nikon a few years ago, and see what nikon offers now. And how they may be on the verge of redesign the prices of flagship cameras for the whole market (i’m not thinking about DxO with this last point ;).
Which is why the other excuse of needing DxO to do all the corrections untrue. It’s just doing the same corrections that can be done to jped but with greater bit numbers.
I don’t think anyone is ignoring this. Very much understand that a “RAW” file from a phone is not the same as the file from my camera. But I still think this is a challenge worth solving, given the size of the smart phone market. Plus, we can edit jpegs which are already “cooked” as well.
Even being able to SEE my iPhone images in PL would be helpful. I try to use it as a lightweight DAM, but if I want to delete a folder which looks empty in PL, I have to first open the folder in finder to make sure there are no invisible iPhone photos which I would be accidentally deleting. It’s cumbersome.
(Anyway this is a larger topic that can be continued in the relevant thread)
These are just Catholic theological games. We have images from our phones which we would like to process in our main photo processing software. DxO chooses to give us the finger. This attitude makes those of us who have invested many hundreds of euros in DxO software very frustrated. We are angry, and will keep speaking up.
DxO motivation probably some kind of weird revenge because DxO fell flat on its face with the DxO One in the mobile space.
Could be, but I prefer the conspiracy theory that says it’s because Apple refuses / requires $megalots to let DxO dabble with iPhones, after the DxO One saga.
Nope. DxO are lazy developers and can’t be bothered to maintain any kind of reasonable backward compatibility. I got stuck upgrading my computers at great expense to M1 to keep PhotoLab support. Now I’m being told to leave Monterey behind (where everything works now) to be able to upgrade PhotoLab.
We are photographers, not IT people who want to spend all our time updating our OS and dealing with fresh bugs in our software, like dogs chasing our own tails.
DxO makes its own policies, due to the lack of support for older OS, I’ve stopped providing determined advocacy for DxO across photo forums and external websites. At the peak, the free marketing work I did for DxO would be worth at least $20K year. I’m sure I’m not the only one enthusiastic user who has been alienated by DxO selfishness. Expensive choice to treat one’s users badly.
Is there anything concrete to suggest that DxO needs licenses/cooperation from Apple to be able to process ProRAW?
Moreover, DxO flips off Android users as well, even generic DNG. To be honest, if PhotoLab supported Android RAW, I’d probably switch away from iPhone (I’d miss the video quality) to Android. Having to use multiple RAW and photo finishing programs due to DxO not handling mobile images is a bane in my creative life.
So you are telling me that a professional software doesn’t support a professional version of an OS? This has happened previously with PhotoLab, but what they did is explaining what didn’t work and why, and allowed to install the program anyway. I don’t find reasonable to treat customers this way
