Using another DAM makes a lot more sense, than running C1 w/ DXO, I’m more concerned processing the best image possible without taking lot of time doing so.
1 Like
But I didn’t write anything about that. If an image absolutely has to be edited in DxO, then it will be edited in DxO. But even if it does, what’s so complicated about it? Why has pureRAW been available for years and is it used by many users?
Yes and No.
I use C1, DxO PL and DAM Photo Supreme.I have been using C1 since version 4, i.e. since 2008. I know everything there, including the database structure. With DxO I always have to think about where to find the right tool. I simply need more time for editing.
I primarily use CO at the current release. I have PL7 and use it for noise reduction, using CO’s “open in” feature to open, correct and send back a dng.
PL7 is better by a long way in noise reduction and camera/lens correction. But I find their algorithms on Whtes/Blacks/Highlights and Shadows have stopped my migrating. CO targets the top/bottom 5% for W&B and the top/bottom 20% for H&S. That suits me. When I make similar adjustments on PL7, it affects a huge part of the image so, for example, over-bright clouds can be tamed in CO with one or two sliders - that is not possible in PL7 using the same sliders. I’m not saying CO is better nor am I criticising PL7’s approach … but I have struggled. The approach with PL has to be very different. You can reduce the exposure then bring up the darker areas or you can use local adjustments to target the highlights while leaving the rest of the image in tact. But, of course, PL’s local adjustment approach is very different to CO’s masking but using PL inventively it can become workable.
Thing is - all the rest operate similarly so moving between, say, LR, CO or ON1 is more about learing the menus rather than figuring out what the sliders do. With PL it is both and PL requires a very different approach. But seeing images posted in this group it is absolutely clear that once mastered, it is a very capable tool.
The PL7 DAM, despite getting criticism on this group, is better that CO’s and the search capability is superior - it may not be the best, but your wish was to compare PL and CO.
The areas in CO that I find immensely useful are in the UI. The ability to shortcut almost every feature and to tailor those shortcuts suits me - as does their immensely useful SpeedKeys where holding down a key and rotating the mouse wheel or two-fingers on a trackpad gives access to a dozen of the most used adjustments.
CO’s layering and masking is very helpful - I know Joanna and others suggest a way that PL can ‘sort of’ offer layers using local adjustments feature (and the ability to use a graduated filter with the gradation set off the image so that the whole image is effectively 100% was a revelation to me) but nonetheless, it is something of a compromise.
In the latest incarnation, CO’s auto-masking is very good - for people (clearly designed for wedding and portrait customers). For other things it is still perfectly fine. Their “Match” feature appears to be a great saver. This is AI-presets, almost. You load a batch of images into a ‘compare’ box then select an unprocessed image or batch of images and ask CO to make the unprocessed images like the compare set. It does not make fixed adjustments like a preset, but appears to make ‘clever’ ajustments based on the starting condition of each image. I take infrared and they always require a lot of variable processing. Having tried this out using some already-processed IR images as the ‘source’ and a folder of fifty-or-so new images I was staggered at the job it did in a few minutes (its not instant). A number needed tweaking but that is a much quicker job than starting from scratch.
CO’s noise correction, and their HDR feature are atrocious. Over a two-year period I encountered over 70 occasions of a corrupt database over two major releases (Windows). Moving to Sessions and changing to a Mac and the problem has gone away. Customer Support did not do what it says on the tin. But then there are similar DxO CS stories.
CO is more expensive than the minimum DxO set of Elite and FilmPack (most of us can manage without ViewPoint). For information, and ignoring possible Black Friday deals: I am in the first year of a subscription; my CO renewal will be £179 - PL7 will be £99 plus (I think) £55 for FP. So not a huge difference 154 vs 179. I used to use a perpetual licence but it is now a bummer. You get the version on the day and get no feature updates whatsoever (CO say you will get stability updates but they do not explain that). So, whereas all (?) other similar packages will include updates to the current version, CO does not - if they release a feature say 6 months later which is a ‘must have’ for you then you buy a new copy at whatever the deal is at that time. Their policy is clearly to move towards full professionals, a view supported by the current splitting of their product line into three types. Is this years ‘upgrade’ worth £179 - no. But there again, with all upgrades, you are partly buying a promise of features to come. Their subscription offers an ‘off ramp’. You get a 20% discoount off a perpetual licence for each year on a subscription - so after five years the perpetual licence is free and after three years the cost is lower than the perpetual upgrade cost so it sort-of works.
Sorry this is so long. Sorry if what started as a, hopefully useful, comparison drifted into a moan about CO - but the essence of the moan is relevant to anyone comparing the two.
Oh - drag-and-drop from a third-party DAM to CO in the Windows version no longer works - but it does in the Mac version. Drag-and-drop between CO Sessions or between Catalogs and Session do work.Last time I tried it, it still works in PL7.
Clive
1 Like
Great point about the sliders - I should have mentioned that as well. I’m able to get nice results in Photolab, but I rarely use the sliders. Tone curve update in PL8 is really helpful to avoid using the sliders.
However I have to strongly disagree about DxO having a better DAM than Capture One - in fact I think it may be the among the worst DAMs on the market if you compare it against any other software that advertises itself as having DAM functionality. But I understand a lot is preference. Lacking smart albums, can’t even view, let alone organize smart phone photos. When you have missing files in the database there’s almost no way to fix it, etc. Search is an exception - I also agree Capture One is terrible here.
I think most people coming from Lightroom or Capture One will be disappointed with the DAM features - but perhaps I’m wrong.
Editing capabilities are so good though.
Now that I realize metadatas are worst than babel tower, I think it is better that DxO let this to specialised applications and keep it’s ressources to other improvments.
And as I can see, there’s no DAM feature in not specialized application which seems fully reliable and that fully satisfies all users.
This DAM thing is a trap.
1 Like
I understand this is the view of many people here. I personally prefer to stay in one application rather than jump between many, but I do understand some of the logic.
Last year I split my workflow across multiple apps (I now mostly use Photo Mechanic Plus and DxO) - I now find I spend 10x more time troubleshooting, syncing, researching workarounds, etc. - at the expense of time spent on photography. I also wish that when I converted a photo to B+W in Photolab (for example), I could see the edits when scrolling through photos in my DAM (without exporting a jpg in the same place).
In either case, the DAM as it stands today IMO is not a good one. Whether or not they should improve it is another topic.
In my opinion, they should not aim to be a class-leading, do everything DAM. But some very basic improvements would make the app infinitely more useful:
- Clicking on a top level folder and seeing photos within the subfolders
- Smart albums
- Ability to see photos from a smart phone, and organize them into your albums
If they made those basic changes I’d switch 100% of my workflow and upgrade immediately, but that’s just my view 
I do too. Oh yes !
But it seems to me that trying to have a truly efficient DAM would require to write constant or frequent updates, and therefore allocate a lot of resources to it.
I agree with you, particularly about the metadata rabbit hole. I think for the most part (titles, headlines, keywords, etc.) - DxO already does plenty, and beyond that I’m happy to use a specialized app.
I just think they should put a bit more effort into features around viewing and organizing your files (seeing into subfolders, smart albums, choosing the order of photos in an album). It feels like an unfinished product for now, which is very close in some key areas.
Indeed some basic organisationnal features could improve it a lot.
Thanks Clive for taken the time and your detailed thoughts. I will say over the many years that I have been using C1, stared when I used to shoot w/ Phase One, its really become a resource hog, even with my MAC M1 Pro. Also, over the years I’ve shot everything from Phase to Nikon and Fuji, and I will say depending on the camera brand, I get vastly different results, and not always good. In addition there are so many tools in C1, at times they seem to replicate. In PL 8 there they added Luminosity to the curve, which I find as a selling point, for that feature alone. That in conjunction with smart lighting, and a few other features I find myself, getting on target in way less time and we all know time is money in the commercial arena. All I am concerned with is better results cross the spectrum and w/ DXO 8 I am certainty finding that to be the case. The DAM has never been an issue, everything is organized on my drives and I simply use DXO like C1, a browser, although it does have “projects” which may be useful. I will say on the side, I shoot b&w which I sell as fine art, DXO along with Silver Efex has given me stunning results. I’m sure this will spark some disagreement however I get paid for the best results I can achieve, and, frankly I’d rather be out shooting, than behind the computer.
And possibility to get as precise results as needed on any curves :
numeric inputs + tone picker which allow very subtle modifications when dragging mouse up/down just after clicking on the image.
1 Like
100% agree with you there! Having a few more organizational features would get me there, sounds like the app is already doing it for you. Either way I love the images I can get with PL7
I’ve been around the Capture One block for about four years before they switched to their new subscription model, so revisiting this topic is like visiting an old neighborhood and realizing there’s a Starbucks on every corner…
Transitioning to Photolab will probably feel pretty smooth (though expect a few bumps along the way of the learning curve). There will be moments where you find yourself wishing for some familiar Capture One tools that Photolab lacks – like the good ol’ AI layer masking that pretty much everyone else has these days. Well… everyone but Photolab. But also generative AI removal or expansion of photos. Hopefully DxO is working on that because it’s really starting to be a mandatory tool for time consuming tasks.
DxO seems to have a different game plan altogether when it comes to bringing in new features. They’re going full steam ahead on noise reduction, and honestly, they’re crushing it there. Color rendering is also very solid, practically neck-and-neck with Capture One, in my opinion. Personally, I’m a fan of their latest FilmPack – it’s like developing film without having to smell any chemicals.
One thing you won’t find a real match for is NIK Silver Efex. Most RAW editors dabble in black-and-white conversion, but Silver Efex is, again in my opinion, basically king of the hill. The results are unbeatable and way ahead of anything else I’ve tried.
As you saw, DxO has a trial for Photolab 8 – a little test drive to let you get a feel for it.
And hey, the user forums are there too! This is where we gather to rant, digress, and occasionally support each other.
Wishing you luck on this editing adventure!
Thank you, appreciate your insight Vincent. Starting to come up with my own workflow within PL and I’m finding way more detail and better color than C1 in less time, without hogging my CPU. Also couldn’t agree more regarding Silver Efex, that in combo w/ PL is bringing new life into some of my images, that over a decade old. It truly gives images a real film look. Thanks again!
1 Like