PL 9 not really ready for release!

To be clear, DxO hasn’t taken these measures. That’s exactly why I’m talking about it, rather than simply finding new software. My copy of Photolab 9 works perfectly as of right now, and I don’t want to see it get crippled. AI masks work, Deepprime works, and it’s stable. Caveat being, my system doesn’t have a dedicated GPU, and it’s a few generations old. I’m working with the iGPU on a Ryzen 5800H, and it works fine. The problem is, people have been suggesting that due to the issues with AI masking, DxO should disable the feature partially or entirely on systems that don’t meet the minimum specification. I’m saying that would be terribly problematic given those features work fine on my system, despite it being hilariously underpowered compared to the minimum specification as set out by DxO. I’d like to think DxO understands this and wouldn’t make such a change, but I’m worried they might given the amount of people talking about it.

The whole reason I upgraded to Photolab 9 from v8, is because of AI masking. That’s the one feature I was missing from Lightroom, and now that photolab has it I’m totally happy. So if they removed it for my system, even knowing it works perfectly fine, you can see why I’d be pretty upset about that and see it as changing the terms of the sale after the sale.

3 Likes

Okay i get it! Thanks! I think the same as you.

as long those specs meet the minimum system configuration indicated by DxO
( btw identical for PL9.0.2 and PL9.7.0 )

.

One important change was the introduction of Windows ML

.

Otherwise, I refer to what has been said before → here and → here.

1 Like

Note: lower spec PC (Windows) like: 4GB GPU can also work just fine → IF used things (at the same time / session) limited to like: AI “manuals” masks + DP3 export (sometimes even export with DP3 XD also works same time) or AI “manual” masks + Loupe (DP3). Regarding WinML vs AMD GPU: i use ancient AMD with 4GB, and WinML mode seems just works fine - may the newer/latest AMD cards not like it yet.

1 Like

The folks happily saying “You don’t own the software, you own a license”… …yikes.

I remember when that kind of sentiment was laughed at across the internet and people cracked software to ensure the user who paid for it retained autonomy over it, rather than allow it to e.g. require an internet connection to run, or be remotely shut off at the publisher’s side. Now it seems the turkeys would vote for Christmas.

To try and keep things practical and user-friendly; I’d be fine with some pop-ups when certain things occur, to warn (us) that we may lose functionality, performance, or encounter bugs if we try to get (the software) to run on systems it’s not entirely rated to run on. Let us acknowledge them, hide them, try anyway and then it’s on us if it still doesn’t work.

But to the suggestion that functionality be automatically restricted based on what the software thinks, with no “I accept the risk, do it anyway” prompt? No thanks to that.

And definitely no thanks to “You own a license, you didn’t buy a product - you’ll rent it and like it". That’s why so many of us moved away from Adobe in the first place.

1 Like

What really bothers me is your insinuation that I (we) would say “happily”…

That’s not just nonsense, it’s an insult. By using the DxO software, you accepted DxO’s EULA. If you don’t agree with them, simply don’t use the software. But please stop talking such nonsense.

You’ll have to imagine me shrugging here, I didn’t tag you (or anyone, in fact).

But just as you’re reading tone in my post, I’m reading tone in others. That tone is not frustration or dissent that we don’t own the product, but merely license it. It’s complacence at best (but it actually reads worse than that, in some cases).

Here I will quote you:

Nothing “simple” about it. There are limited options on the market and I want to go with what suits me best.

That doesn’t mean I need to be happy that buying something doesn’t equal owning it, or that I support that business shift. Again; look at how many are fed up with Adobe, and how Adobe are behaving. Complacence will make that the final destination of more and more products and services.

2 Likes

@Fineus ,

It is not complacence, it is reality. Legally, none of us own more than a limited license for most commercial software offered for sale. I certainly understand the frustrations of end users when software they spent a lot of money to acquire doesn’t meet their basic expectations. Over the almost 9 years I have been using DxO’s offerings, I have had to deal with frustrating functionality issues on a number of occasions.

I only objected to one paragraph posted by @Lindon_Slaght. At the end of that paragraph he indicated with some degree of self-righteousness that, “It’s my computer and my owned software, therefore that is my right.“ I absolutely stand by every word of my response to him. It may be his computer, but despite being a frustrated end-user, it is categorically not his owned software and he does not have the usage rights he claims.

Mark

2 Likes

I share your astonishment. These citizens are basically clamoring for the return of serfdom. @mwsilvers, you should be ashamed of yourself. You used to attempt to be the voice of reason, but over the last couple of years have turned yourself into the baron’s clergy…

I don’t care what fatuities the latest lawyers at DxO put in their license agreement. We own the software, as they go out of business the moment we stop paying for it. And they should never forget it.

Anyone who values their use of PhotoLab should ensure that they have a copy of the software which runs without access to the internet.

If paid software houses continue this kind of behaviour, most paid software will cease to be commercially viable as software advocates and thought leaders all move to Linux and FOSS. And we are slowly but surely getting there.

In specific, DxO insisting on the latest OS and absolute top tier hardware with yearly update cycles for hardware and software updates narrows their new userbase and really gets in the craw of their existing userbase. It’s self-destructive behaviour and partially accounts for their poor marketshare, in the face of rather substantial improvements to the software.

DxO developers should learn to code more efficiently and should get off their duffs to test on more than one version of Xcode not just the most recent one. I’m covering the macOS situation as I know how the cake is baked there and what the issue is with supporting older OS.

2 Likes

Alec,

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one.

First, my comments were not based on any agreement by me with DxO’s support policies which are too often restrictive and insulting to end-users who have shelled out a lot of money, and who are rightfully angry when the software doesn’t meet their basic expectations.

However, the fact is we do not own most and possibly any commercial software. We have merely purchased a limited license to use it within the boundaries set by the software’s publisher. As a result I took exception to @Lindon_Slaght’s claim that PhotoLab is his owned software and he has a right, at his own risk, to use any features disabled by DxO when the hardware falls below the stated minimum requirements.

We are not talking about some sort of moral imperative here, just a limited licensing agreement between end-users and DxO. Don’t make this something it isn’t. There are plenty of commercial software programs over the years that frustrated and occasionally angered me when they failed to live up to what I felt were reasonable expectations . The options I had were clear. I voted with my dollars and moved on to other choices.

Mark

4 Likes

If you wish to accept the terms of slavery and indenture, Mark, by all means be my guest. Some people nostalgically yearn for the unheated hovels of serfdom again.

DxO along with all these commercial software houses have slowly but surely waging lawfare on their paid users. I do not accept their terms, I do not accept that I have to abandon their software or my art, because they impose them. And I don’t recommend anyone else accept them morally either. Practically there is little that DxO can do. Though I own paid copies, I take care to obtain copies that will run without any internet access.

When I bought into the DxO system, the terms were far more fair. Licensed once meant licensed forever, there was no phoning home. Update discounts were available from any paid version not just the most recent.

If DxO decides to change the terms mid-way through the relationship that’s their lookout. I accepted the original terms when we started the relationship. DxO may think they can change the terms part way through the relationship and may be able to get a court to agree to their lawfare. But it is fundamentally wrong. Working with creative software is like a marriage – and neither party has the moral right to change the terms part way through.

DxO’s bait and switch is exactly why I do not recommend PhotoLab or DxO software to people any more, and in fact, where possible warn them against it. My children will use either RawThereapee or DaVinci Resolve (there’s a new photo section which I’m eager to try) on Linux. Those of you out there are parents, take care not to indenture your children to a life of digital peonery.

I’ve put enough years into working on my images in PhotoLab that no one, including you Mark, is going to nanny mind it out of my hands. If you wish to celebrate your digital serfdom, it’s your lookout. It’s exactly your celebration of your non-status which is so depressing to see.


On a larger scale, what we are witnessing is the inexorable decline of a civilisation, on a scale with the fall of Chinese empires (the richest in the world), the Roman Empire (both Western and then Byzantine) and the Ottoman Empire. What happens is the ruling class and scribe class both become so greedy that it is no longer possible for the makers to continue to work. Protests like mine start, people like Mark wander around telling the workers to go back to the fields, but gradually but surely the whole edifice collapses on itself. This time is different say Christine Lagarde, Larry Fink, Peter Thiel, Alex Karp and Elon Musk (just four relatively loud voices). Our instruments of control are so much stronger. The serfs will never free themselves of their digital chains.

Every empire who has pillaged its people has fallen. So will this one. DxO is just another brick in the wall. In the meantime, PhotoLab is at the core of my photo work and I’ve DxO a lot of money to have access to that tool. They can change their terms of service all they like, I will continue to use the software. It is equally my ethical obligation to warn other potential users to be very cautious of DxO, who continuously change terms of service in their own favour at the expense of its users (and funders).

Alec,

I don’t know how to respond to the absurdity of these two sentences as well as your other self-righteous pontifications in your most recent post. It is beyond over the top and doesn’t require a more detailed point by point response from me. It appears that you believe that DxO is, in part, responsible for the decline of civilization. While I am deeply concerned about the state of the world today, I hardly think that DxO has anything to do with it. Perhaps you should consider redirecting your ire towards more appropriate world problems that face us today rather than issues with DxO’s customer support.

My only arguments in this thread were in relation to the erroneous claim of end-user ownership of PhotoLab vs DxO’s licensing agreement as stated in their EULA. For some bizarre reason you have decided to turn those comments into my acceptance of the decline of civilization. I am really concerned about you. :roll_eyes:

Mark

4 Likes

The reasonable man who considers any after the fact change in the EULA the full and consequential right of the software publisher.

Sorry, old chap, but DxO already had a stack of my cash and years of my time before the bait and switch. DxO can do whatever they like apparently. And so can I. And so can you. And so can every other purchaser of DxO software.

I do not accept the new terms and do not accept to be separated from the software in which I have already invested my time and money.

And yes, DxO is part of the collapse of ethics among small and medium-sized software publishers. If you are unable to recognise civilisational shifts, or uninterested in them, it’s your lookout. There is vast and widening gap between the law and the ethics today. Such disparity tides no good. It’s what creates violent revolution, with all its anarchy and destruction.

1 Like

Alec,

I am not here to discuss politics, philosophy, or the legality of the rights of ownership. I am here for a single reason, to discuss the products created and published by DxO..

You’re concerns about the current state and direction of the world order are very valid ones, but in my opinion have no place on this site. Despite any agreement I may have with your overall view of things, I have no desire or intention of being dragged more deeply into this conversation.

Mark

Here in the UK there’s been a recent “renters rights” change to give people who rent homes more power, where previously it sat with landlords.

Digitally I feel we’re in that era now. Publishers get to make whatever anti-consumer moves they like and (we) have little choice but to accept the EULA and (to paraphrase Darth Vader) “Pray they don’t alter the deal further”.

I don’t much like it, but ethically it’s made me less of a stickler to the word of the law. I would like to believe in supporting small developers and companies who do good, honest work (look at VLC for instance!) but those that turn anti-consumer and self-serving? I’ve fewer qualms about turning equally self-serving myself. It’s one of the reasons I moved away from Adobe.

2 Likes

@uncoy, @mwsilvers, I forbid you to take this post seriously, just couldn’t resist…

Getting excited…


…but the cows, they don’t care:

Taken about 10 years ago near Kazbegi, Georgia.

Same here.
Background in above images was originally a bit busy. Using PL9.7/Win, AI mask in select mode, click on a bull, then shift-click on another one, negate the resulting mask, decrease microcontrast, sharpness, LSO, slight selective tones tuning, to dilute background just a bit.

In few similar cases LA Blur may work when used sparingly, but I would prefer more advanced tool for the purpose. Using Blur for background can easily result in unnatural look, so personally currently I prefer to start with negative microcontrast. Some kind of diffuse/blur control would be VERY welcomed (for bokeh smooth transition). Sometimes one may also use gradient tool, if background is partially in focus.

Sorry for being off-topic :wink:

4 Likes

PL9.8.1 currently appears to run stably with AI masks on an i9 with 64 GB of RAM, an RTX 4000 with 8 GB of VRAM, NV 596.36, and Windows 10.

Performance seems to be quite good.

CPU and GPU utilization are quite reasonable.

So far, no issues regarding performance or stability have arisen. :grinning_face:

4 Likes

Excellent news, I look forward to V10 having not been able to use V9.