What I’m saying is that DxO does not have to provide the soft proofing environment. There is existing software like Photoshop (including CS6 which has no renewal fees) or Affinity Photo could handle the soft proofing part for those who need and use soft proofing. If PhotoLab were not cross-platform, hence requiring developing and maintaining advanced CMS and soft proofing tools for both Windows and Mac, I’d be keener to see DxO take on soft proofing.
Soft proofing is a great feature and on missing. Personally I’m keener to see performance improvements like real time sliders and enhancements like luminous masking first, as other applications cannot carry part of the workload for performance. DAM can be handled by external applications like FastRawViewer and soft proofing by external applications as well.
As you see above, laurentia is not satisfied even with AdobeRGB. I’d really like to know:
- what percentage of DxO users are using wide gamut colour accurate monitors
- what percentage of DxO users are hardware calibrating their monitors
- what percentage of DxO users are making prints in wide gamut laboratories
- what percentage of DxO users are doing all of using wide gamut colour accurate monitors, hardware calibrating their monitors and making prints in wide gamut laboratories
Without all of these conditions being met and just sharing one’s work on the internet, there’s absolutely no point at all in soft proofing.