Well I have been a user of Capture One for well over a decade now, I’m seriously thinking of migrating to DXO 8. As a commercial photographer, primarily architecture, my main goal is, the best possible image and after testing DXO against C1 I I’m constantly getting better images at a fraction of post time, with my Fuji GFX 100 files. Couple of questions, I do like the profiles in C1, although I don’t seem to get the best simulations, especially the Fuji Sims with DXO, even with Filmpack. No AI layering and no tethering, can work around that. Have there been issues with other that have migrated from C1 and / or are there other concerns? Considering this is a business decision as well, any and all feedback is appreciated.
I use both. Generally, I prefer the experience of editing my images in Photolab. I also feel like I can get the image to where I want in less time, as you mentioned.
Most of my frustrations are around file management. Not one specific thing, just in aggregate, the longer you use Photolab, the more you’ll notice little things that you expected were possible, are not possible with the DAM angle. Filtering, viewing, album functionality, etc.
I really don’t like that I can’t click on a top level folder and see all of the contents of subfolders inside of it. I lose the ability to “zoom out” and see my whole library. Probably less relevant for someone working on specific professional projects, but maybe still relevant.
1 Like
dxo does not read focusing distance from RAF raws, so with some ( most actually ) lenses you might need to make a (n educated) guess and do a manual input to get the best correction … it may or may not be a pita
for example this RAF ( https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/4314410403/fujifilm-gfx-100-ii-pre-production-sample-gallery/7641820291 ) in pl 8.1
as a businessman making a business decision you shall be able to tell better what exactly … so what is better ?
Launch ViewPoint 5 trial at the same time as PhotoLab 8.
It’s the ideal companion for interior arcitecture.
Pascal
2 Likes
So that better / different than the perspective control in DXO 8?
All good points not to worried about the lack of cataloging but improvements would be nice. Have you seen a significant quality of the image coming from C1 as I have?
I prefer the colors from Capture One (especially with my Fujifilm raw files).
I prefer the detail and the noise reduction of Photolab.
So in reality, I still bounce between the two programs occasionally depending on the specific photo I’m editing. (I.e. often portraits in CO, landscapes in PL). I’m not a pro by any means, but these are my preferences so far.
That’s good to know, however so far I haven’t had any issues with my RAF files, not sure where this could be an issue?
Originally C1 was tuned for PhaseOne MF cameras and studio portraits, fashion, etc. But it has changed a lot since then. You have to try PL if it suits your specific needs. It should be your business decision. After all, you may use both and always have Plan B.
Off-topic:
That’s because there’s no such documented or reversed-engineered info in the RAF files (see e.g. exiftool or libraw library). If it’s there, it’s probably under NDA+payment.
2 Likes
as you understand ( I hope ) optics correction can be different for different focusing distances - so if you are “not sure” then either you are lucky to have only lenses where it is the same for all focusing distances ( or - also possible - dxo does not provide multiple corrections ) … or ignorance is bliss 
and architecture / landscape / reproduction work too
that’s why a proper customer oriented raw converter simply provides an option to use a manufacturer-supplied optics correction / which in fuji case already supplied for a proper focusing distance accounted / ( C1 does ) and let customers decide what they want to use
In its own oxymoronic way C1 fulfils every aspect, yet manage to not be a proper customer oriented one. slight_smile:
But I’m with you. There’s a lot of walled gardens.
there are lot of options as to why dxo does not want customers to use manufacturer supplied optics corrections ranging from : they are afraid that users will see that in most cases the results are not worse than marketed modules ( or god forbid what if in some cases - better ) TO they don’t know how to get the data TO they don’t want to invest any man hours ( tight budget ) to implements that … curious how pureraw deals with this during batch conversion ? always applies correction for what ? for “infinity” ? does it warn a customer about this ? now that will be bad for marketing though
In that context, migrating to me means: migrate one database into another. That might be my misunderstanding? For my image management I rely heavily on C1‘s (mediocre) DAM part and could not „migrate“ to DxO‘s (just poor) DAM, even if PL would deliver sometimes better results. I tried to get along with PL for nearly 2 years. More than once I read in this forum that users delete PL‘s database on a regular basis as it can cause more troubles than it solves.
And about the lens corrections: I also prefer to have a choice between none/app based/manufacturer based corrections. If all your lenses are supported and you don‘t plan to buy a „rather new on the market“ one anytime soon – great. Else – no fun.
1 Like
Why migrate and not use both in parallel? If there are certain things that you can “only” correct with DxO, then use DxO for the image, otherwise continue to use what you know C1. DxO has absolutely no DAM functionality and as soon as you need some of it, it quickly becomes tight. My 5 cent
Very valid points, I know people really seem to have an issue with DXO’s DAM or lack of!
Its never has really been main priority, since I use a designated storage, and and have always had my own system. Never been a fan of running two programs, that basically do the same thing, but hey we’ll see.
I know many are a bit upset or annoyed at the lack of features as a DAM.
I myself don’t use the DAM part of PL but instead I run a dedicated server based DAM. I use PhotoSupreme while many others use some other DAM solutions and are very happy with those.
So the lack of or missing features on that part can easily be solved.
1 Like
it complicates things with intermediate DNG or TIFF files ( dxo → … → C1 ) … you either need to backup them ( which will extra stress cloud backups due to their size ) or if you delete you run into a chance that something goes wrong when you need to reproduce them again to use in C1 in future