Enhanced Tone Curve: This along with user presets has existed in LightRoom for many years. Although it sounds good on paper, it is a tool that I seldom used. I found that it has limited usefulness.
I have tried the PL8 version and it is not a feature that will entice me to buy it.
However, the improved noise reduction is very good.
We all have different requirements. Thatâs why there is no software that is the best for everyone in every situation. I have always owned the entire PhotoLab suite of PhotoLab, FilmPack and Viewpoint since PL 1. For me PhotoLab 8 is an excellent upgrade although it is still flawed in some specific areas. Some of those flaws are more annoying to some of us than they are to others.
Besides the powerful updates to the tone curve, which I use all the time, and the fantastic NR upgrade to DeepPRIME XDS2, there are several other significant new features and updates which makes this a worthwhile upgrade.
I really like the new Local Adjustment Hue mask and use it very often.
In PL 8, DxO finally has added the ability to immediately see the results of most settings by just hovering over them with a mouse. While other software titles may already have that ability, It is major new update to PhotoLab.
PL 8 finally has a new image compare feature which has been an often requested update for years.
PhotoLab, has also upgraded the lens softness control, to eliminate fringing and artifacts. It is a very noticeable improvement on many of my photos.
The significantly updated Viewpoint 5 Reshape tool, available from within PhotoLab, now makes that tool a very usable feature in a number of situations.
While many posters show no interest in FilmPack and Viewpoint, to get the whole PhotoLab experience requires licenses for all three. Anyhing less is a compromise. Yes, the cost for all three is high, but based on my personal experience using and upgrading them over the last 7 years, theyâre worth every penny.
Although far from perfect, PL 8 is a very good upgrade in my opinion.
Mark
What do you mean by HDR in this case?
I asked Bing Copilot that answered:
Quote:
âDxO PhotoLabâs Smart Lighting tool is designed to optimize the dynamic range of your photos by adjusting the exposure and brightness levels. While it isnât specifically labeled as an HDR (High Dynamic Range) tool, it does perform some similar functions by enhancing details in both shadows and highlights, which is a key aspect of HDR processingâ
Thanks @mwsilvers Mark for your comments.
I agree with you on most points. I have also been using PL in conjunction with Viewpoint since version 1. I donât have the need for FilmPack, but PL in conjunction with Viewpoint is one of the best, and as you mentioned, worth every penny.
Just few centsâŚ
Iâm PL+FP+VP user since PL7.
I had an urgent project the day PL8 was announced, which included non-typical high ISO images, hence I risked and bought PL8 (no trial this time, still having PL7 as âplan Bâ). Note that it was contrary to my usual policy of waiting 3-6 months, before guinea pigs will give their verdict (nothing offensive, just a different mindset â we are all different after all for good reasons). The upgrade took me less than an hour, including reading the release notes with understanding (no major changes, so should be âsafeâ), banking operations, download, installation (which included settings and DB migration). The Loupe tool made my day (faster workflow) and XD2s did its job fine (with Loupe, it was 10x times faster to learn than DP). After a month, I didnât have yet to revert to PL7.
The new ToneCurve, while having some impact on my editing technique, wasnât that âexcitingâ for me, since itâs one of those basic RGB things that DxO had to improve to look serious. It looks like, they will add a âTrue Lookâ preview button only in PL9. Hopefully, DxO will have something more substantial in next updates/upgrades, although I think XD2s was a really major new thing in PL8.
While I still take PL8 as a âminor upgrateâ, I think DxO is moving in the direction which suits me, hence itâs worth financing. This might trigger question of how to find good ways to support software development. After all, many spend far less than 10% on software than on lensesâŚ
Merging 4 or 5 pics with different expsure to one ( HDR = High Dynamic Range )
Iâm still trying out DXO 8 and do now think itâs better and worth the upgrade, hopefully will be on special offer on Black Friday
Especially when the light isnât as good as I would like which does happen with nature photography the raw conversion,DeepPrime XD in the new version is improved
Am going to redo some band images from a couple of years ago that I took at maximum ISO on my R5 , was happy with the results that I got then but looking forward to seeing the results with DXO 8 
It would have been nice not to need Filmpack but as I have seen it Fine Contrast is an absolute must have and of some completely unlogical reason it is not accessible without Filmpack.
I could not think of living my Photolab life without Veiwpoint 5 either. I have always taken a lot of architecture pictures often with wide angle lenses and it would have been impossible to get them right without all of the fantastic tools of Viewpoint 5. I haven 't sen anything like it in any other software I have seen.
⌠and despite the Retouch-tool is not brandnew I have to say it is a joy to use.
This is soo interesting. In another photo site there was a subject discussed on the following topic:
âNow she will soon be turning 40, and we are thinking of giving her a gift related to her interest in photography again. One thing she has mentioned that doesnât work so well with her current camera is shooting indoors in poor light. We are wondering if it is smarter to buy a new camera for her or maybe a new lens? She probably wonât want to use an external flash. The budget is about the same as last time, so kind of enough for the entry-level models or equivalent other equipment.â
⌠and it is currently 52 posted contributions and besides me suggesting to give her Photolab 8 or at least PureRaw, the rest of 50 were as usual the ever repeated suggestions of upgrading to more expensive cameras and lenses.
Not one suggested a software based solution besides me and Iâ m so astonished. My post was almost totally ignored since it was obvoius that this audience just was not interested at all to look at software solutions.
For me it has a long time been obvious that cameras of today are optimized for speed and not for low light picture quality. My camera with a pretty good FF sensor has to put up with having to noise reduce in a fraction of a second and the results in low light on high ISO are often far from Impressive right from the camera. For Deep Prime XD2s with my pretty new computer and a pretty good it takes about 7 seconds to do the job properly - a time impossible for a camera to use. I just donât understand why not more people suggests software solutions to a higher degree since it is often a far more cost effective solution. The results are often spectacular and mostly they speak for themselves.
Yes, this is true. I have argued this point many times on the Micro Four Thirds forum at DPR.
I still use my 2015 Olympus EM5 MkII camera and the biggest upgrade for it was moving from Lightroom to DXO PL.
However, while Lightroom has since had many major improvements, it seems like PL is rapidly falling behind. This view, I believe, needs to be addressed by DXO.
The reason seems simple, since for those who already had a filmpack and so already had fine contrasts adjustments, DxO added in the last FP version luminance mask but did not add it in photolab for which this was requested âŚ
So if complete photolab suite has to be bought to get basic demosaicer functions, only one version should sold (the complete one) and everything would be clear.
I absolutely agree with this. Anything less is an incomplete compromise. I have often advocated for a single version of PhotoLab including all the embedded features of Viewpoint and FilmPack without the need for separate licenses or the inclusion of the stand-alone versions of FP and VP . The stand-alone versions could purchased separately for those who want them. I would expect the price of PhotoLab Elite to increase somewhat as a result of including all the embedded features, but it should be less than the current price of all three programs including the stand-alone versions of FP and VP.
A single complete version of PhotoLab would eliminate all the current confusion and frustration, although at a (reasonably??) higher initial cost then the current version of PhotoLab Elite. It would also introduce the value of Viewpoint and FilmPackâs embedded features which many users donât feel they need. I did not think I would take much advantage of them either when I first purchased Viewpoint 3 and FilmPack 5 to use with PhotoLab 1 in 2017, but quickly discovered how useful they were.
Mark
What is the difference between the Micro Contrast I have in PL and the Fine Contrast of the Film Pack?
Micro Contrast tends to be coarser and more âaggressiveâ. It can create noise in smooth areas. It also affects all tones. Whereas Fine Contrast can be applied to different tonalities to minimise affecting other tones. The Shadows slider is excellent for revealing dĂŠtail without creating a grey mush
I think âinterferenceâ between different functions and tools is one of the most important side effects of quite a few tools in modern complex softwares. We have got more and more tools over the years through âstructural growthâ that partly overlap and in some cases even creates confusion.
Sometimes I have felt why not get rid of that âclutterâ but then I open files taken even with some old AF-lenses lacking Photolab-profiles or old JPEG-master files when RAW-files never were created of different reasons and then I find some use of old basic noise-algoritms or old âU1nsharp Maskâ when âLens Correctionâ is inactivated.
⌠and when it comes to my old repro photographed or scanned color slides that Photolab canât really handle because tools like the above mentioned are totally indifferent to them. The reason is that it can´t handle the special structure these pictures have invoked mainly by the film grains structure. Strangely enough the Microcontrast is the great saver together with the film emulation features of Filmpack where fine grain emulations might make wonders.
Pulling Microcontrast as far left as possible (max minus) is magical because it can instantly make a hopelessly unclean sky absolutely cleared which saves a lot of time if I also meet up with some Fine Contrast. Which other software have three differens flavours off contrast?
Good point about the overlap and interaction with these newer tools.
My âwishâ would be that software vendors, such as DxO, and or the internet gurus were more transparent about how these tools affect these multiple parameters and their interactions.
now a rantâŚ
In the âgood-oldâ PS3 days the tools only affected one basic parameter at a time, brightness, contrast, or color. For example, there was unsharp mask and some techniques for frequency separation for fine-tuning this edge contrast (sharpness/acutance). Tedious for sure, and required an understanding of what changes were being applied, but could be applied with less cross interaction on other parameters of the image.
These new âsmartâ tools are making changes to multiple parameters at once without individual control of each parameter. In many cases these tools appear to be little more than a complex âpresetâ with a single tunable âopacityâ parameter. All very slick, but a devil to sort out and apply reasonably.
As was pointed out, the common âSelective Toneâ tools change both sharpness as well as brightness/luminance. This âsimpleâ tool is popular since it affects two parameters together in a way that usually works. This tool occurs in both PL and the other products too, but each vendor has their own take on how to balance the brightness and sharpness to the point where they almost act like different tools. Even when working within one software vendor, applying multiple tools can have compounding or conflicting effects. Smart Lighting and Clearview+ are even more complex brightness and contrast adjustment tools that apply these changes across different parts of the image differently based on some undefined assessment of the overall image. They do a good job in many cases, but a horrible job in other cases. Many folks here caution about this.
Kudos to the several posters who try to clarify how these tools work, but lets please push the software vendors and their internet evangelists to be more transparent about how these tools actually work. Iâm tired of the same old blather.
E.g. the Auto mask still doesnât adapt visually to the edges when drawn - and for good reasons - only high contrast edges are precisely detected. But that we donât know until an adjustment is added. For one local adjustment we have to buy an addon to PL. Such a policy is insulting when we still have to pay 109 Euro for an upgrade - which only takes care of a few of the long lasting issues. But âWait for 9 - then everything will be better.â
No, it will not. But in stead we can have everything for free with Darktable.
I only upgrade to PL8 to still be able to evalute wheather DxO finally made my free raw-manager and editor obsolete. No, it didnât, and that will not happen for years to come - if ever. The only thing PL does better than Darktable is noise reduction, and for that I use PureRAW 4 up front. The output DNG is nicely managed by Darktable.
Only when PL9 is produced will we know if it meets your requirements. If it does not then you appear happy enough with DarkTable so why even bother buying PL upgrades! For me PL8 works well and I am happy with it. Sure there are things I would like added but that is the case with just about every piece of software I own or have owned. I would not give DarkTable house room but that is my opinion. I wonât bother popping across to the DarkTable forum to tell them though - really cannot see the point.
Masking features are the most obvious things in Photolab that have been aging a lot compared to the main competitors Lightroom and Capture One, that said even taking in account the new âHue Maskâ-control point. That is really just more of the same we already have had with the Color Wheels, so that feature is just adding to the confusion overlapping features usually always are invoking.
is a selector/picker (no DxO Control Point)
That is really just more of the same we already have had with the Color Wheels, so that feature is just adding to the confusion overlapping features usually always are invoking.
Well yes ⌠as long you only see & compare the Hue Mask with the global HSL tool
(= the Color Wheel with the picker).
However, Hue Mask is a local tool. - Completely different from the global HSL tool, you can (also) edit the selection by using the brush to enlarge/expand or the eraser to shrink/restrict the âmaskâ. Of course, this is independent of the color/tint you choose.
please check https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V522HVPsnOA (by Photo Joseph)
â Hue Mask starts at 2:16 and the mask correction at 3:40
Perhaps the expression âFor the passionate photographerâ now takes on a new meaning.
