Personally I think this version added some real values and fixed a few really disturbing performance and interface issues even if some of them still are there.
Image quality even got better and the Picture Library problems are sorted and we finally got a possibility to compare pictures when culling. Everything seems to work
faster. That’s not so bad.
I did not think I would bother to upgrade, but I did.
It still has its limitations but its upsides got even more obvious
There were some nice things delivered in PL8 (Luma curve, seeing previews when hovering over a drop down), but overall I felt it was underwhelming progress for a year of development effort.
I know many disagree with me - but mostly, I wanted to see more improvements to the DAM part of the program, so I could just use a single software for managing and editing my photos. A few very basic things I was hoping for were:
I also shoot with Fujifilm, so didn’t experience any benefits of noise reduction improvements.
In summary, I feel they focus on minor iterations of areas that are already good enough in 90% of cases, and neglect some basics that shouldn’t be too difficult and would unlock Photolab for a much wider use case. But once again I know just as many people have the opposite perspective on any DAM features.
When it comes to the DAM-issues you might better look elsewhere. I know many international Photolab users are using iMatch as a DAM. They also offers perpetual licenses and to a very reasonable price especially if you compare it with the new pricing model for PhotoMechnaic.
I found iMatch to be a very powerful and versatile tool and it is very flexible and have no problems displaying my ARW-files side by side with my JPEG-files.
It integrates very well with Photolab too and will probably solve some of your other needs too.
If they delivered all that and none of what we did get, I’d be saying the same thing.
Thank you for the recommendation Stenis. It’s always looked like a good option- but unfortunately I’m on Mac and i believe iMatch is Windows only (which is funny given the name of the product…)
iMatch is made for Windows only indeed.
Adobe Bridge is available for both Mac and Win platforms and can be had for free… i.e. the price of registering for an account, something that most software asks for nowadays.
I’m trying out DXO 8 at the moment, currently on version 5 which is great for what I do, macro and wildlife
The colour adjustments seem to be easier with 8
Was already happy with the deep prime in version 5 for what I do anyway, I can’t see any difference with the RAW conversion on recent files using DXO 8 XD2 (Canon R5) but did try on a raw image that I took years ago and it was better so should be worth it for redoing old files
If it’s on offer on Black Friday I’ll upgrade
IMatch came out looong before apple started using iWords for their products.
I was using iMatch long before Smart phones came along 
Good to know! More of a funny coincidence I mean. Anyway the software seems great and I wish it was on Mac.
My needs are basic, so I’m still wishing DxO would make a few small improvements to improve the asset management capabilities- then I won’t need anything else
PhotoLab has been fairly static in this field…and as far as keywording goes, is up to basic tasks. Nevertheless, some additional capabilities would be greatly welcome like e.g.
the more apps one uses, the higher the risk is to change or lose metadata. In this respect: less is more.
If you consistently stick to only one metadata editor as a master, the risks are negligible., but you always have to check that you have a matching set of dataelements/fields in all applications you use.
The problem with Photolab compared to iMatch or PhotoMechanic is that the set of dataelements is static in Photolab and impossible to change or adapt to specific needs. Both Photolab and iMatch supports variables that can save you a lot of time both they are limite to. They both supports a lot of namespaces and their corresponding element but I haven´t seen a possibility to create your own namespaces. For some users that is a must in many bigger companies and organisations.
Thanks - these are all helpful suggestions for DAM options… but my main point is, I much prefer to use one application for organizing and editing my photos. Using multiple apps comes with overhead that I’m not interested in (learning 2 programs, worrying about sync issues / conflicting metadata, upgrade costs, needing to export finished files to see the changes when browsing, etc. etc.).
I’m only asking for the very basics (written above). Would have no issue using multiple apps if my needs were advanced or specialized. Anyway, the DAM conversation is a much wider topic… just my 2 cents on what I wanted to see in an update.
iMatch came out in 1998. So did the iMac.
Ok, I stand corrected! I forgot about the iMac 
Besides the lack of a improved DAM management, I wonder if an update from PL7 to PL8 is really worth it.
I found the last update from PL6 to PL7 disappointing for the first time.
For me, there were only minimal improvements compared to the price of the update, which was also increased for the first time.
Now I have the same feeling with PL8: the announcements of improvements are again quite shallow.
What would be the key reasons for an update?
XD2s and the new loupe are enough for me.
Only you can decide whether the upgrade is worth it.
Please check the release notes for specifications and news…
If you want to try it, install it to a new path, and as usual keep your “old stuff” in case you want to go back.
(ed !)
That is my opinon too.
Before I was pretty reluctant to use for example both Microcontrast and ClearView Plus since the latter is heavily dependent on Microcontrast too and often ruins the skies even in bright sun light. Instead, I have made extensively use of Fine Contrast since that is far less destructive for the image quality BUT I have found that Deep Prime XD2Ss neutralizes those problems completely now.
… and if I compare XD2s with Topaz Photo AI Topaz takes so much more of user intervention that makes it fare less effective. With the new version of Deep Prime the first I do is to activate it on all images I’m about to process because it really is a no brainer. It just does the job with negligible unwanted side effects.
Although PL8 now lacks an enormous range of features (panoramas, HDR and stacking), I have made the update.
The improvements in colour management and usability have improved again compared to the previous versions.
As far as DAM is concerned, I don’t care, in my opinion Excire does that very well. However, I understand that some people want a DAM, as long as it doesn’t lead to a catalogue like Lightroom, I have no problem with it.
Thanks for the tips.
Xd2 is not the most important for me, as I work a lot with Topaz, often just because it works faster.
Of course, I have to decide for myself whether an update is worthwhile.
One improvement will probably convince me:
Improvement: Enhanced loading performance for images in the FilmStrip.
In PL7 it sometimes takes an annoyingly long time until all images are loaded.
