I’m not sure what a “power user” is supposed to be, especially as it seems largely self-appointed, and I’m not sure I care. People who have problems are not interested in those saying “I don’t have problems”.
My system is like yours - Windows 10 based - and I’ve had 1 random CTD today, more frequent CTD’s when cropping, and performance has gotten worse with every release. Those are the direct issues, and I’ll save time by not repeating what we’ve experienced with DxO’s communication and support here again.
I’m not sure anyone asked.
You’re not having problems and you’re telling others not to be negative when they do.
There are still some issues that need to be resolved, and for those who have subpar equipment they may never be able to use PL 9 to their satisfaction. But, for those with reasonable hardware, and who avoid the AI Masking keywords, the majority are able to use PL 9 effectively. For some others PL 9 seems to have serious problems for reasons currently not understood. However, for most of us PL 9 is not the disaster that some posters here would have us believe.
I never said that or implied that. Never! What I said in my response to Gareth was :
and with regard to him making fun of my use of the word naysayer, I said
I have never suggested to anyone that they should not post negative comments if they are having a problem. My posts were based on the amount and degree of Gareth’s constant barrage of negativity with regard to DxO and PhotoLab software which made me wonder why he even continued to post here. So far, my first post in response to him received positive feedback from 10 other members here.
Finally, I also don’t recall ever suggesting that you should not post anything negative when you are having a problem. If I have, please let me see that post and I will apologize.
Naysayer - as in Naysaying is first recorded in the 16th Century, so I thought it suitable to use middle English. But then I have an advantage in that it is my first language.
These forums are meant to be used as a method of users discussing their experiences and helping others. Unfortunately, you can claim many things but the simple fact is that by your own admission, many people are finding a multitude of problems. That the problems are very variable.
That should tell you something. It should tell you that there are not one or two problems but many. And although DxO have addressed the simple ones (like forgetting to add the lens sharpening when exporting ), most are not. DxO’s silence following repeated reports was deafening!
So which is it? DxO knew of these multitude of faults but still sent the product out to market. Or were they totally oblivious to them. It has to be one. Either is very unpalatable.
At this moment in time it is difficult to praise DxO for much. The AI masks are not great and unusable for some, the minimum specifications are very wide of the mark, the Fuji based DP is worse than the DP available in PL7 and removes no more noise unless you are using incredibly high ISOs. PL9 is to DxO, what Win8 was to Microsoft.
I genuinely hope that they can resurrect the situation but I have seen nothing so far to suggest that will happen. They will already be working on PL10 by now. And lining up their proxies on Youtube to sing it’s praises. In the real world as we have found out, thibgs are very different.
You have a great fan club and it is something you should be proud of. And fanbois around the world whether its is Apple, or Nikon or (add your brand name of choice here), will come together for the common good and ignore the facts.
I reported that DxO had extended or restarted their discounting of products including PL9. So basically they are trying to promote and sell a product that has numerous fundamental flaws and specification requirements that just about everyone has concurred do not match reality.
Difficult to criticise me for reporting the facts. Like many people (and countries) that purport to support free speech, they only do that when they agree with what is being said.
It’s interesting that Stenis states that his GPU is subpar and yet it is above the minimum specification required and then you mention sub par equipment. I think I see a pattern here……………………………………
Many people with computers that exceeded minimum requirements reported having problems. Let’s not make this about people trying to run PL9 on Pentium Laptops. This is about a piece of software coming out way before it is ready. I have never seen a piece of DxO software like it. The volume of differing problems……………… and you believe that this is down to “sub par equipment”? I think the kids call it gaslighting.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
630
3060 Ti is sub par in reality if it can’t be used without problems with PL9 and it can’t. That was the reason I ordred a new tailormade machine with sufficient specs to run PL9 without these earlier problems I experienced. It is as simple as that.
Honestly, I am not going to waste any more time responding since you seem to misstate everything I write, or perhaps you are having a reading comprehension issue.
I’d suggest reflecting on recent conversations, then. If you’re able to be honest with yourself, you’re very much defending a company to those who are having problems… while you aren’t having problems.
In fact, you mention surprise that Gareth is having so many problems yet he’s still here. I’m somewhat surprised you’re having no problems at all, yet you’re still here.
You did write: “for those who have subpar equipment they may never be able to use PL 9 to their satisfaction”. Since we’ve seen that equipment exceed the posted minimum requirements in many cases, it shouldn’t be “sub par” at all.
We find ourselves back at the awkward fact that competing software - Lightroom, C1 etc. - run reliably and quickly on the same hardware that sees PL9 running at a crawl, crashing, or failing to run. PL9 is not generations ahead of the competition here in terms of functionality, in fact it’s the opposite in some cases, so it does track that it’s DxO that urgently needs an optimisation pass (be that literal optimisation, or rebuilding to future-proof) of their product suite.
Or we can keep up the “But I have no problem” narrative and see where that gets us in a year or two.
All I can say is PL9 is not smooth on my M4 iMac with 16 gig ram. Ai masking is poor and sometimes it does not even recognise a very obvious sky. Sliders also become laggy and uncomfortable to use. Last night I tried LrC again - it was buttery smooth, fast and responsive and Ai masking is far superior. I cannot see me continuing with PL for much longer - DxO are not admitting to the performance issues and have no published plan to put these right that I have seen.
Hmm, your only option must be to switch to Windows…
To be serious, that’s not good. PL 9.3 works perfectly on my PC with 32GB RAM and an RTX 5060 16GB, so I assumed that it now was sorted for MAC. All masking works perfectly and fast on my PC, including all AI masks, except sky that cannot find the sky in between trees.
But the minimum specifications do not reflect this. So when someone buys the software, it is reasonable for them to expect it to work, no? It is literally as simple as that.
Their masking is first generation. If you compare to Luminar Neo or ON1, there is no comparison. If they catch-up, it will be a long time. To be honest, most masking produces photos that are so evidently over-processed that, well they don’t look real. If cartoons are your aim ideal.
Literally quoting your own words back to you is not misstating. You might not like the words but they are yours.
I get that you live in a land that has temporarily forgotten that words really matter, but they do. And I get that the current narrative is that if you keep saying the sun is black, then there are enough people who will believe that. But that is not the way forward long term.
Nothing improves when companies ignoring their problems. My suspicion is that the “AI Masking route” has caused the vast majority of the issues customers are facing. A decision was obviously made some time ago to jump on the bandwagon. Once that decision was made then there was no turning back.
They would have realised at some point that computer specifications were going to need to be a lot higher but telling customers would be economic suicide. From DxO’s previous history, they will have a good understanding of this. Buying Nik off Google in 2017 and filing for bankruptcy in 2018.
So we are where we are. 8 months before PL10 will be launched. 8 months to try and get PL9 right. I wish them well but if we all pretend that it’s all Ok then nothing will change, nothing will improve.
And DxO should really be thinking about how a pretty large chunk of their customers are feeling at this moment. Buying a piece of software that obviously is not ready for launch, and DxO’s continual silence. I suspect there will be a large number of customers who will run with PL7 or PL8 until they find something better. It’s a trust issue.
I’m running the latest build of PL on this Mac and an Apple Studio Display. Since I purchased PL 9 last summer, after trialing Pure Raw and getting exceptional results from my Z8 images, I’ve had not a single crash or hang-up with PL and only experience some slowdown in performance when numerous A.I. masks are applied.
I cannot account for the variable performance reports I read here regarding PL on Macs that meet DxO’s system requirements. IMHO they really need to up their bug testing if their product is not stable on the small subset of approved Mac computers.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
640
Yes and this we that have been using MS-DOS and or Windows seen over and over again since the eighties. How many Intel-processor generations have we experienced with limited backward compatibility over these years and on top of that quite a few Windows leaps too with limited or non backwards compatibility. The worst and at least in rhe beginning was Intels and Microsofts joint creation of the Windows 10 dwad end.?
You sound like you slipped into this yeasterday. The real demands of AI have taken many different software developers with their pants on their knees. I think nobody really could fore see how that should shake up the status quo of the whole IT-industry and in fact the whole society. To expect not to be affected at all of all this is really to expect too much. The ones that refuses to adapt now will find that this is nothing compared to what is coming.
On top of this we have seen a lot different computer interfaces come and go for disks, expansion slots, printers, scanners, monitors and a lot of other things too.
Countless softwares have become obsolete just because Windows driver platform changed over time and there has been quite a few of these too.
I would not define equipment that exceeded minimum requirements as sub par so don’t attribute that to me just because someone else did. There are various issues for a number of users whose equipment exceeds the minimum requirements
But here we are, with non-sub-par equipment that exceeds the minimum requirements still having problems.
So it’s not just “those who have subpar equipment” who “may never be able to use PL 9 to their satisfaction”.
I appreciate this sounds picky, but waving issues away as a user equipment problem is another thing we don’t need. DxO’s software needs an optimisation / QOL / bug-fix / crash-fix pass that would benefit us all, not just those trying to force the apps to run on minimum spec equipment.
If you are going to criticize, please include all the things I wrote previously, not just selected passages. See the two bolded passages below. By leaving things out you change the meaning of what I said. For the record, I never said that those with equipment which exceeds the minimum requirement and are still having problem may never be able to use PL 9 to their satisfaction . You conveniently left out my statement that, “ For some others PL 9 seems to have serious problems for reasons currently not understood. “
), most are not. DxO’s silence following repeated reports was deafening!
