I can think of dozens of things to add to, or improve, the core functionality. Spending their limited resources on the type of DAM you envision would be great once they upgrade the core with omitted features and fixes to current limitations. However if that type of DAM requires that images must first be imported, I am 100% against it. The import requirement is what I hated most about Lightroom.
I must say that I don’t really know how works DAM with import of files. I’ve never used and worked with Photoshop and/or Lightroom.
My present develop & editor application works like PhotoLab, that is to say I open a folder and I have all the images of that folder displayed in the browser. Then I can choose images and assign keywords to them (or other information). These data (Exif, IPTC, XMP) are linked to the RAW file and after export in TIFF or JPEG format are still available.
If my basic (“exotic”) program has such features, it should be possible for good programmers to get to integrate these in PhotoLab, without too much efforts - but of course I may be wrong for that … Easier said than done.
DXO has a small development team, two of them actually, one for Windows and one for Macs. Any resources taken from both those teams to work on a DAM will mean less resources to fix bugs, update current features and add new ones. Can you define “without too much effort”? I’m a retired software developer and what you are suggesting could take many weeks of full time analysis, design, coding and especially testing by two or 3 people from each team before it would be ready for implementation. They are currently using some of their resources to build a DAM, but unless they dedicate both their teams to that effort any full featured DAM will probably not be implemented any time soon.
No, I couldn’t define the “without too much effort” …
And I wasn’t aware of the fact that the DxO development team was so small.
However, there are other users who would like to have the benefits of the DAM.
On the other hand, you said that you “can think of dozens of things to add to, or improve, the core functionality”. What are your ideas ? Have you made any suggestions on this topic?
if you go through all the posts and topics that have been discussed for the last several months leading up to the release of PhotoLab 2.0 you will see dozens of suggestions by various people for fixing existing issues, enhancing existing functionality, and adding new functionality. I have made a few suggestions myself and have joined in with others to support various functional changes in order to make DXO an even better raw processor than it is today.
Some of those suggestions were made because DXO’s competitors have already implemented them. Many of us came to DXO PhotoLab despite the fact that it did not have a asset management system. We came because of the clear superiority of its raw conversions and tools. However, there are a whole host of extremely useful features that software like Capture One Pro, ON1, Luminar and Affinity have that Photolab does not. To remain competitive DXO should build on its strength of delivering the best raw conversions. Its still leaves most of its competition in the dust when it comes to quality of output, but it is frustrating because it could be so much better.
Just a few of the many items I’m hoping to see addressed is the ability to preview the results of PRIME noise reduction on the whole raw file, and to be able to view the effects of sharpening on something lower than 75% magnification which is available in virtually every other program. There are also many improvements and enhancements that need to be made to local adjustments, better 4K monitor support, better integration with external software applications including DXO’s own Nik Collection, the ability to rename exported files, better color support, a clone tool, and a large number of other things I can’t recall off the top of my head. The point is, a good quality DAM would be very nice to have once the core functionally of PhotoLab is where it should be. Nobody wants Photolab to turn into a Lightroom look-a-like but with a poorer DAM and raw conversions that eventually may be no better than Lightroom’s which are constantly being improved upon.
Once the development teams demonstrate that they can address both DAM and meaningful core functionality upgrades at the same time I would be happy to support your suggestion. This all came to a head recently because after months of suggestions for fixing and improving Photolab, Photolab 2.0 had nothing new in it except an upgrade to Clearview and a minimally functional attempt at a DAM.
It is the quality of the results given by the RAW development of PhotoLab that made me acquire the application. That was about two months ago. And I have not yet had the opportunity to find out what should be improved or corrected.
Actually I am very satisfied with PL.
We’ll see what the DxO team will be preparing for the next few months.
The recent upgrade to the Elite version of PhotoLab 2.0 was $69 USD and had almost no meaningful updates. The Essential version upgrade was $49 USD and had even less. We’re hopeful that the point updates will contain more. Version 2.1 should be available before the end of the year.
Andre, apparently you are unfamiliar with feature request management and/or bug reporting systems. Here’s how it works. This section of the forums is a feature request voting system. You add your feature requests one by one and we vote on them. You don’t just add a post called “Required/wished features by Apaulus”. So in your feature request, there are at least three if not six feature requests:
Photo Library enhancement: Keyword-based search function (with keyword management)
Photo Library enhancement: Integrating a map with GPS coordinates
Tone Curve enhancement: histogram overlay in the tone curve
Improve export to application (this is basically improving interoperability with other programs)
Most of these requests already exist. You can vote on the existing requests. If you have anything important to say about the topic you can add it there. Here’s the full list of existing feature requests.
The first three requests are largely covered by a long existing DAM thread which anyone making feature requests for the DAM section of PhotoLab should read first.
There’s actually two existing feature requests for Histogram inside the tone curve. Some interesting discussion there. Go and vote. The duplicate feature request should be merged into the other (DxO moderator).
There’s a very similar Export feature request to what you suggest. Your vote and input there would be useful.
Before making any feature requests I’d suggest reading the full list of feature request titles. Any which interest you you should read in full. You have five votes - spend them wisely (one can move one’s votes around by removing a vote and placing it elsewhere) on real priority items for you.
PS. One can add one’s full name to one’s profile. In that case everyone will be know to address you as Andre (I just saw you signed your post now).
If someone wants to play the game, Andre, it behooves the new participant to learn the rules. That’s how modern life and society is structured. Not taking the time to learn how a system works is discourteous and disruptive.
It would help if you would convert this existing thread into a single clear feature request rather than your own personal wishlist mixing three unrelated issues. After that read the other contributors feature requests and vote for the ones which resonate with you.
Yes. Right. I should have read the “User manual” or something like “General Instructions” for the Forum before I started writing. But I did not find any. Sorry.
I read an interesting article (under another thread) by
Fdeitos OpticsPro EA member (I don’t know if he’s a member of DxO’s staff but it seems so).
(…) The DAM feature: Though some of you don’t see the need and the reason why this feature is coming to Photolab, it’s still one of the key feature part of our users ask for. Same goes for people that use other solution at the moment, and would love to switch to Photolab , but wait for this specific feature to make it happen. As for local adjustments, It was one of the “last” big pillars that was missing to our fundation as a complete photo editing solution. That’s the reason.
Will the DAM get all attention, leaving the rest of the features on the road? I’m Not sure. You’ll understand, by reading between the lines, that’ve been through lots of solicitations, leading us to choose to have the DAM released by “Steps”. We know, and have in our bag, the sets of functions that will make it a perfect assistant to your photo organizing, and we’ll keep on releasing this functions in the upcoming months.
(…)
You’re right there isn’t a manual to how to use the feature request forum - that’s why I wrote the above, as a reference for anyone posting his or her feature request - to help. I’ve used feature request systems a lot in the past as both a user and a developer.
In terms of the DAM discussion, we should probably keep it on the DAM feature request discussion or on the announcement you referenced. I chose the DAM feature request as the place to post as the discussion there is focused, whereas the announcement covers many issues.
I’ve explained my concerns about DAM (consuming too many development resources, inadequate in comparison to existing solutions, narrowing the scope of users interested in the software by excluding users of other DAM technology, not part of DxO USP) in my existing posts on the DAM feature request thread). There’s many interesting comments for and against my suggestions there. It wouldn’t make any sense to repost them here.
I look forward to discussing DxO software with you in the feature request forum and elsewhere, Andre!
PS. If a moderator happens to see this discussion, it seems to me this post might be moved to the DxO PhotoLab discussion forum as it’s general discussion and not a specific feature request.
I agree: I came to DXO PhotoLab despite the fact that it did not have a asset management system but because of the clear superiority of its raw conversions and tools.
