Why do I need FP for luminosity mask? Explain it to me

DxO PhotoLab
1

Why does a photo editor require a film simulation add on for an essential tool like a luminosity mask? Filmpack is for simulation of film emulsions. What does luminosity have to do with the craft of film simulations? Explain it to me.

The only explanation I can come up with is greed.

I have FP6 and am happy with the simulation settings. None of the newer versions add any value to my workflow. Yet I am forced to upgrade at full price to get luminosity mask, which should be part of an ELITE photo editor like Photolab in the first place. Is this a joke?

3 Likes
2

DxO has divided tools to whatever end and all we can do is to vote with our wallets. Possibilities ate

  1. Buy DxO and make PhotoLab freeware
  2. Buy a license for PL and use it
  3. Buy a license for non-DxO software
  4. Donate your money
2 Likes
3

I understand your frustration. PhotoLab is very expensive software that was originally broken into three pieces in part to make purchasing of the main piece of software, PhotoLab Elite, more cost effective. However, FilmPack and Viewpoint are integrated pieces of PhotoLab that are currently licensed separately. Unfortunately, if you want the entire PhotoLab experience you need licenses for all three pieces.

I have long advocated for a single version of PhotoLab with the built in features from Viewpoint and FilmPack unhidden, and without the stand-alone versions, at some reasonable and acceptable higher cost than the current price of PhotoLab Elite by itself. Most of us who use PhotoLab as our primary raw editor/processor have no need for the stand-alone versions of FilmPack and Viewpoint.

Mark

2 Likes
4

It’s fine to make FP separate but it should solely focus on film simulations and not ‘capture’ features that doesn’t belong there, but belong as a staple into a general photo editor. They already have the ‘elite’ price differentiation. How much more than elite does it need to be to have this basic feature included?

I’m calling out greed.

5

While I agree that luminosity masks should be in PL and not FP, I think the forum is getting a bit full of repetitive complaints about it:

6 Likes
6

It’s all about the customers’ money, so any trick is fair game.

1 Like
7

You can call it what you like and I doubt few people will argue with you, but no matter what you or anybody else thinks it is DxO that makes the choices. Yet despite the fact this gripe comes up regularly on this forum (thank you @Egregius) DxO have yet to show any inclination to change things. Nor can I see them ever changing things until the vast majority of their customers vote with their wallet and spend their money on non-DxO software.

This is just how capitalism works.

2 Likes
8

… but … it’s not a subscription :wink:
only 3x the one-time price compared to 1 year of the competitor’s subscription … and every year 2.5x the annual subscription price of that competitor if you want to stay current …