It is unfortunate if you purchased FilmPack just for access to those few simulations. Sometimes sh*t happens. Along with a number of other users I was very disappointed by the removal of those simulations which I also liked using, but given the fact that DxO was blindsided by Fuji and had to restrict their use, I am not going to whine about it. There are plenty of other useful features in FilmPack that give it value far beyond those simulations.
Mark
Actually, based on all the film simulations and other features it is probably less than 1%. Perhaps $1.00 USD. I donât think that would satisfy you. You are pissed off because you donât have what you paid for, and I donât think anything less than a full refund would satisfy you.
Mark
How would you know what satisfies me or not? Clearly you donât. The $1 would mean they acknowledge their fault and try to make up for their failure. Offering full refunds would show they cared about the situation. Instead, they chose ânah, screw our customersâ. Itâs beyond me why you would defend DxOâs apalling behaviour.
DxO wasnât blindsided by Fuji. They sold these simulations for years. They could have renamed them, they could have warned users beforehand, they could have offered partial refunds, full refunds⊠they could have done many things.
What they chose to do was not right. Do you know what their official stance is on the matter?
So again, does this look âfully operationalâ? Or does this look like âeh, screw the customers, weâll tell them itâs perfectly fine, weâve sold enough licenses anywayâ?
By the way, the 12 removed simulations are 7% of the total.
This is a $10.5 USD equivalent, from the $150 USD price tag.
Yes, 7% of the simulations sounds about right, but there are also around 10 other features in FilmPack besides the simulations.
As an example, the 4 additional Fine contrast sliders added to the Contrast section of the Light palette are considered by many to be among the most important tools in PhotoLab and are only available with a FilmPack license.
The very desirable Luminosity masking feature is added to Local Adjustments with a FilmPack license. There is also the global Creative vignetting feature, the global Blur feature, and several others.
Some of FilmPackâs features are integrated across PhotoLab and it is not always obvious they are part of FilmPack, such as the DxO Time Machine, which is now called the DxO FilmPack Time Machine in PL9.
I was considering all those features in addition to the simulations when I suggested less than 1%. A lot of people think that FilmPack is just about simulations. It is much more than that.
Mark
That in itself is controversial. Fine contrast sliders and Luminosity masking have nothing specific to do with the FilmPackâs scope and everything to do with PhotoLabâs scope.
Those functions belong with the main program.
The only reason theyâre not is that DxO wants to position FilmPack licenses as a necessity, not an optional extra.
Itâs a very cynical business practice, and further cements the growing impression that they arenât interested in their customers beyond the wallet.
The elephant in the room. With this latest v9 build, performance is worse than ever (and Iâm now one of the lucky ones - if I go and make enough cups of tea, eventually the programme will be responsive again).
The competition is way ahead in this respect, to the point PhotoLab is painful to use on a system where other options are a breeze.
For me, PhotoLabâs potential (its sharpening and noise handling remain second to none) are the reason Iâm still here, along with extensive invested time and money into it. Itâs a sunken cost.
For anyone asking if PhotoLab is right for them as a new user, at this point, I canât and wonât be saying âyesâ.
When I bought my first version of PhotoLab, I bought the bundle of three appsâŠ
Date : le 07 décembre 2017 à 18:09:36
DxO PhotoLab Elite x 1 : ÂŁ132.50
DxO FilmPack Elite x 1 : ÂŁ82.50
DxO ViewPoint x 1 : ÂŁ49.17
PromoCode DXO_PHOTOSUITE x 1 : ÂŁ-73.33
Sous-total hors TVA : ÂŁ190.84
TVA : ÂŁ38.16
Total de la commande : ÂŁ229.00
So, I essentially got FilmPack for only ÂŁ9.17 after the discount.
I was looking for a way of avoiding Adobe subscription and what I got more than matched my needs as a photographer rather than a graphic artist.
DxO PhotoLab 9 x 1 : âŹ239,99
DxO FilmPack 8 x 1 : âŹ139,99
DxO ViewPoint 5 x 1 : âŹ109,99
Total individual prices : âŹ489,97
Total bundle price : âŹ359,99
Effective price of FilmPack 8 : âŹ10,01
So, after 8 years, FilmPack need only cost around the same ÂŁ/âŹ10 when bought in the bundle.
Considering alll the advances that have been made with it over the years, I donât consider that to be at all unfair.
Like others here, I have always regarded the whole bundle as the full package and the ability to separate the three apps as a convenience for those who donât want all of them.
Unlike other apps that require all sorts of importing, exporting and plugins to make them work, I have a singe, integrated app that I never need to leave from opening the RAW to outputting for printing.
I always recommend the bundle to anyone contemplating changing from the big A.
May Fuji always reserve the right (IP). And they change their mind in one point. May to sell more Fuji cameras.
they could have warned users beforehand
Its was noted in the release note. But i understand, even i not read thru the release notes of FP.
they could have offered partial refunds, full refundsâŠ
Hard to decide what can be a the ârefundâ or how, i guess its near impossible. If we count the âemulationsâ amount:
[TomDX] describe: "By the way, the 12 removed simulations are 7% of the total.
This is a $10.5 USD equivalent, from the $150 USD price tag."
âPriceâ may also can count in different ways, like: FP itself (as engine) worth like 70%, and all emulations 30%. I think no good way to calculate this.
Thatâs my problem with how theyâve approached FilmPackâs contrast sliders and Lumo masking⊠by not taking FilmPack you immediately use what ought to be core PhotoLab functionality.
If we must have PhotoLab and FilmPack and ViewPoint to make a fully functional suite then it shouldnât be segregated at all - bundle it all together and charge the inevitable higher price.
For me, that would be more honest than presenting it as an option - when in fact itâs like selling us a car, but only including windscreen wipers, turn-signals and brake lights in an âoptional extraâ package.
Who are we kidding? Those things are essential.
Maybe to you, but not to everyone.
You definitely able to run it. You even able to create (and use for editing) âmanualâ AI masks with 4GB GPU! Its in âvery edgeâ on GPU VRAM amount, but definitely works. I also with 4GB GPU, so i know and its works prom 9.0 unit latest at least. But - and its a very big but: with âManualâ AI mask with 4GB GPU VRAM and if you use âGPU modeâ â you cant export, cant use Loupe with DP, cant use Deepprime rendering. As system âruns outâ from the 4GB VRAM.
In âCPU onlyâ mode with 32GB of system memory everything expected to work (as least i try, and seems everything works, like pre-defined AI masks, DP XD2s, etc.).
Otherwise if you use the same editing style like in PL8, you can do the same with PL9, and can use like PL9 âadvancedâ masking, etc.
But I get you. Now i works in the following (with 4GB GPU): GPU mode turned ON. Use only âManualâ AI masks. Works just fine - rare âinternal errorâ cases, but acceptable for me. When all editing done â Switch to âCPU onlyâ mode â Restart PL (now its run on CPU only, may also âOpenCLâ disabled doe the same) and Export edited photos in batch (usually with DP3). Export usually works fine, may some cases its fail like 1-2 from every 30 photos. But re-export those works. âCPU onlyâ export works may better (at least not so worst) performance what you expect.
For some of us the âPre-definedâ AI masks important. For some Loupe is important. For some Export performance is important. For me these is less important. And also donât have a budget for shiny new GPU. So i live as can.
Ps.: i write in the past:
âActually Wife never was happier with PL version upgrade like this - all dishes is clean in time, dinner is served.â As under export i do kitchen stuffs, vacuuming the flat and so on.
Well, as far as I know, Luma masking is available with the core application of all of PhotoLabâs rivals 
Both it and fine contrast controls have nothing directly to do with the concept of film simulations.
Maybe. But FilmPack has never been totally about sims.
I had noticed a bad performances in PL9.21.
But ⊠but ⊠Installing the Nvidia driver 581.80 the performances got way better. I had the so-called âstudioâ driver, and indeed the performances were bad. A batch export took an average 4.4 seconds each file. Then I decided to uninstall the studio driver, and I did a âcleanâ install of the latest 581.80-notebook-win10-win11-64bit-international-dch-whql.exe
Now each jpg is exported in less than 3 sec. each !
This score is with the same .raw files, same .dop files. Nothing changed in between the tests : only the driver changed.
My pc is an I7 , 32GBram, Ssd disk, Nvidia 4070. In the PL settings I have âsimultaneously processed imagesâ = 3
TO be precise, there is a noticeable lag before the export starts : up to 6 seconds. I donât know why.
This means that exporting a single Jpg file is a pain, but when exporting a large batch, the initial lag doesn not count in the final average score.
Yes, this âlagâ its happen before first Export (DopCor loaded). Afaik.
May this interesting for you: DxO 9.2.1 + Manual AI mask + DP3 NR Export can work even with 4GB GPU VRAM!
Thanks for the workaround! I am a little tempted to at least try it thanks to your comment, but for $300+ USD Iâd rather not jump through hoops to work on my photos. I will stay on PL8, and upgrade to PL9 or 10 until a) I have the horsepower, or b) DxO optimises and fixes the program. For the time being, if I need AI stuff, Iâm going to buy Luminar or ACDSee [still in the air].
My Win 10 machine is well below that but amazingly it does run Pl 9.2.1, and it doesnât crash unless I use one of the preset AI masks (sky, background. etc.) Having said that, you do need patience to use it so Iâm definitely not suggesting / recommending such old tech as a truly viable option. If youâve not trialed PL9, give it a go.
I have used ACDSee forever. I use ACDSee primarily for file management and Photolab for raw processing, but sometimes I will use ACDSee for RAW processing as well. I always denoise with Photolab first no matter what workflow I use. I find using both systems gives me a ton of flexibility.
