Why no Luminosity Masking in PL7?

Having watched this video by Robin Whalley
DxOs Powerful Luminosity Masking Feature - YouTube

I can see how useful the Luminosity Masking could be to those that don’t own FP7.

Not everyone wishes to emulate the film emulsions but this feature is missing from PL7 and to me is a glaring hole in the offer of PL7’s functionality. No doubt it would be added in PL8…but why not now in PL7?

TIA :smiley:

Don’t forget to vote too.

Not sure that this feature is integrated into PL, it’s because of these functions that we buy FP.


You do get the feature in PL7 (fully integrated) if you also activate a FP7 license. It isn’t just the standalone FP7 application that has luminosity masking.

PL7 and FP7 were released simultaneously. It seems to me that DxO very deliberately tied the luminosity mask feature to FilmPack 7 in order to sell more FP licenses. Consider also that something as basic as flipping the image has finally come to PhotoLab but requires a ViewPoint 4 license!

I would love for DxO to organize their software features more logically, having both of these be available in PhotoLab without extra licenses. But I also think that PhotoLab is incomplete without the full ViewPoint and FilmPack functionality. So I will always have licenses for all three. I’m not ready to upgrade, so am using PL6/FP6/VP4 happily.


… and also the Fine contrast

1 Like

Carthago delenda est (c) popular Roman muttum

And also creative vignetting, filters, blur, frames, textures, grain, the time machine and other features. And, over 100 color and black and white film emulations and digital effects.

Many users are willing to pay for the Nik Collection but won’t consider FilmPack which is integrated into PhotoLab and works directly on your raw files. I don’t understand why. I also own the Nik Collection but rarely use it. I do everything I need to do in PhotoLab as a result of having FilmPack and Viewpoint integrated into it.

As far as I’m concerned they are both an integral part of PhotoLab, .



There is clearly a difference between film presets that were created from real film scans, light leaks etc, that are features which one would expect from a package names film pack, and features like contrast sliders, vignetting and masks, which are not related to analog film at all. Film pack should be film pack, and everything else Photolab.

Or otherwise said, everything that you could do in a darkroom should be part of Photolab, the virtual darkroom. And everything that can only be done in a film camera, like the choice of film, light leaks due to untight camera bodies, double exposure, can be part of film pack. Any other separation is hard to justify in my eyes.


I have supported DXO since they introduced Photolab and have purchased every version even though I mainly use Capture One, so please read my comments on that basis.

The separation of basic raw image editing controls into different programs is simply a marketing decision to encourage sales of products that can’t stand on their own merits. DXO can do what they want but in 2023 I think they should recognise that the negativity this generates in forums etc, now outweigh the potential gains. It is really handing the competition and their supporters an open goal when PL+FP+VP makes Capture One look like a bargain.

The market is very competitive at the moment and DXO should consider adding what are basic controls in other software, such as Luma masks, Fine Contrast sliders, vignetting etc into V7. That would give V7 a significant bump in performance/competitiveness for no development cost.


I agree totally with IanS and maderafunk… Furthermore, I imagine the virtual darkroom controls that FP brings are already present in PL, but they are just not enabled until an FP activation code is applied.

For me, the main differential between PL and it’s competition has always been the perception of a perpetual license and the main standout feature - denoising.

However, the denoising gap has shrunk considerably (I find Neo’s “Noiseless AI” very good) and DxO licensing is not competitive with much else if you factor in the need to purchase PL+FP+VP.

1 Like

This discusion is started around the launch of dxoplv2 i think.
Same as the dicount for the early buyers and too early/too late buyers of the replaced version.

Unless the markteting of DxO explains the real why of there decisions in the tool spread of DxOPL VP and FP we can only ques about there reasoning.

That said.
I am with @IanS his statement that all this negative posting about the why is this or that not in the main PL? Damaging the name of DxOPL.

Point is DxO want’s to have some “plugins” to sell for people who are bount at adobes ecosystem.
Thats’ why PureRaw is developed. Selling there strongpoints for less but slightly striped so the door to full toolset at denoising is openened => buy dxopl elite.
Viewpoint was originally an automated pinchusion and shooting angle distortion correction.
Which was mostly interesting for people who shot architecture alot.
Before i bought DxOPL i used Silkypix. In there all the same features where there as manual sliders. I tested it against each other. Can’t remember what manual angle adjustment was integrated in DxOPLv1.2 elite without VP.

I bought those day’s Filmpack mostly for the contrast advanged sliders.
Those contrast sliders are a big part of the effectiveness of the selectivetone sliders.
Filmemulations? Fun to see what it does but i almost never use them.
NIC silver effecs free has a nice monochrome and B&W filter which i use for those occations because there much easier to find. (it’s better to have 5 carefully chosen chiselsizes then a toolbox full of random one’s.)

Imho Film emulations are noting more then produced presets.
So if DxO set up a webshop for selling produced presets which you can buy selectively to your liking then the hole concept of FP is outdated as plugin for DxOPL.
(They can still sell the standalone FP as it is now.)

You can buy presets build by people in DxOPL made by photographers/edit specialists from non dxo related compagnies so that market is alleady open.
(google “presets DxOphotolab” and you find them.)

Personally i hope that DxO marketing is notishing this shift in customers opinion.
And rebuild there lineup.
Standalone plugins? Keep FP and VP as they are. Sell it with PureRaw as creative package for non DxOPL users.
Make essential DxOPL as it is but with deeprime as denoising.
Create a full loaded package of all the tools and name this DxOPL elite.
Unload the buckload of tastes/presets/Filmemulations and let only some most used versions in there.
Set up that preset store so we can buy (reasonalpriced) what we want more selectively. You like old films? Filmpack package. You like the monochrome related presets? Thats an other one.
HDR? HDR package.
Make those presets DxOPL version sustainable.

Then every one is happy.

Edit: I forgot LUT’s and DCP profiles made for camera’s who are not in the default rendering list.
There is that much choice that no one can have enough oversightto choose the right (partial)preset/taste/LUT/cameraprofilerendering/emulation.
There is a need to send in The Gardener and cut the weed, “groom” the plants in order to see the garden again in it’s glory.
Only then you have space to plant new.


In your dreams :laughing: :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Most off us then?

Man can dream, sometimes it is all we have…

1 Like

I hope I was a better accountant than I am a photographer, so to me the real question would be this. How much would it cost to have an Adobe subscription that gives us access to all the features of PL7 + VP4 (the ones I am prepared to pay for) + FPn vs whatever we pay for the DxO Labs software we pay for?
This question wasn’t relevant to me when I got back into RAW, because I didn’t use any Windows software. Nowadays, with the demise of Bibble (well, it’s sell into the Babylon of Corel), I have no option but to choose a Windows based solution. An adverse experience some years ago with Adobe’s license recovery process has tipped me into the DxO camp.
For sure I would like DxO to offer me more bells and whistles. Especially if this freed me from the need to pay Topaz Labs et al for the features they insert. But that’s secondary to keeping up with the latest camera/lens combos (hint: especially the Sony ones), and, above all, Making it all work.
Just my €0.02

Been there (and with their pre-subscription-model software).

That said, the issue is that there are additional features in PL that are gated on having additional products activated - and many of us are uninterested in what those additional products do, other than activate disabled PL capabilities. I get it, DxO had to find a price for ‘Elite’ that customers would pay.

Why not introduce a PL ‘Ultra’ (everything in Elite, plus the otherwise-deactivated features)? If it was the price of Elite, plus half of VP and FP, I’d buy it. Should be straightforward on the development side (it could be a do-nothing app that PL also uses to enable features) - the issue is whether the sales department is willing to sell that way - and what price they think ‘Ultra’ should go for. This could be a win for DxO - additional revenue from users who have no plans to buy VP or FP.


You mean all the prices we get at black friday sale right ? :crazy_face:

Pretty much. But year-round.

1 Like

I downloaded FP7 to give it a spin and IMO it does not offer me anything I would other than extremely rarely…but for the Luminosity Masking for my own images. But @ £79 just to get that (core) feature I will not be buying FP7

I can but hope that the DxO PL powers that be will see some customer focused value in ‘turning on that feature’ in a minor update to PL7 in the very near future :smiley:

I am ever the optimist :laughing:

PS now showing as £83 :frowning:

I recalled that LM had been asked about in the launch video, approx 39mins in

DxO PhotoLab 7 & DxO FilmPack 7 Launch Conference - YouTube

The question was asked by Sylvain Duford and the presenter did not see it as a question more a statement. But the presenter did say ‘we could consider’ and then said something else (that due to the variable soundtrack quality, not helped by the intrusive background music) was unintelligible.

Therefore are they going to consider it or not?
@Cecile-C are you please able to comment on this question ?

PS it would great to get some official insight before the current Black Friday event finishes this evening :smiley: